Social policy on the use of aversive interventions: Empirical, ethical, and legal considerations

Abstract

In an effort to address the controversy regarding the use of aversive interventions in the treatment of individuals with developmental disabilities, this paper presents a review of the literature on the efficacy of such interventions, along with brief reviews of the ethical and legal issues involved. In general, there appears to be empirical, ethical, and legal support for the continued availability of aversive interventions as treatment options, but only if sufficient safeguards are in place.

Handbook of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…As has been pointed out several times in this chapter, obtaining appropriate consent for the use of aversive stimulation is a major problem (Cook, Altman, & Haavik, 1978;Murphy, 1993). The ethical debate in this area continues (Elder, 1996;Gerhardt, Holmes, Alessandri, & Goodman, 1991;Stolz, 1977). Various organizations with major interests in this area have proposed guidelines for the use of aversive stimulation that have been discussed by other authors Sajwaj, 1977;Schroeder & Schroeder, 1989;Stolz, 1977).…”

Consultant's guide for the use of time-out in the preschool and elementary classroom

“…Time-out is a behavior change technique used to decrease the frequency of a target behavior (Barton et al, 1987;Gerhardt, Holmes, Alessandri, & Goodman, 1991;Mace & Heller, 1990). Timeout is most effective for behaviors that are maintained either by attention or tangible reinforcers and if there is high discriminability between the time-out environment and the reinforcing classroom environment (often referred to as time-in).…”

Management of children with learning disabilities and behavioural disorders: ethics and law

“…Stimuli can be aversive under some conditions and reinforcing under others, or work for some patients and not for others. Positive outcome of such methods is by no means guaranteed and treatment gains may be shortlived and difficult to generalize to other settings (Gerhardt et al 1991). Carr (1991) in his response to the paper by Gerhardt et al, convincingly argued that 'properly applied quality non-aversive interventions' need to be considered first.…”