A Risk-Benefit Analysis of Antipsychotic Medication and Contingent Skin Shock for the Treatment of Destructive Behaviors

Blenkush, Nathan A.

doi:10.15344/2455-3867/2017/121

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some agencies and clinicians refuse to implement any punishment-based procedures while other agencies still implement non-invasive punishment-based procedures (e.g., saying “No, not that is not it, try again” following an incorrect response, removal of preferred items, time-out; Leaf et al, 2019 ). Yet, even today, some agencies still implement more invasive punishment-based procedures (e.g., electric shock; Blenkush, 2017 ). Even Positive Behavior Support guidelines included the use of strong aversives under some circumstances (Brown et al, 2008 ), and Electric Convulsive Therapy (ECT) is often the recommended intervention with severe depression (The UK ECT Review Group, 2003 ).…”

Section: Punishment- and Extinction-based Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations

Leaf

Cihon

Leaf

et al. 2021

J Autism Dev Disord

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over 50 years, intervention methods informed by the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) have been empirically researched and clinically implemented for autistics/individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the plethora of evidence for the effectiveness of ABA-based interventions, some autism rights and neurodiversity activists have expressed concerns with ABA-based interventions. Concerns have included discontent with historical events and possible harm from the procedures and goals targeted. The purpose of this manuscript is to examine some expressed concerns about ABA-based intervention and suggest productive ways of moving forward to provide the best outcomes for autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD. The authors represent stakeholders from multiple sectors including board certified behavior analysts, licensed psychologists, parents, and autistics/individuals diagnosed with ASD.

show abstract

Section: Punishment- and Extinction-based Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concerns About ABA-Based Intervention: An Evaluation and Recommendations

Leaf

Cihon

Leaf

et al. 2021

J Autism Dev Disord

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The promotion of absolute position statements in opposition to CESS moves treatment refractory clients towards a lifetime of psychopharmacology and restraint. These treatments have more risks and fewer benefits for treatment refractory behaviors when compared to CESS (Blenkush, 2017 ). There are innumerable alternative treatments for severe behaviors.…”

Section: Limitations To the Standard Of Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?

Blenkush¹,

O'Neill²,

O'Neill³

2023

Perspect Behav Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intractable self-injury, aggressive, and other destructive behaviors are real human conditions. Contingent electric skin shock (CESS) is a technology, based on behavior-analytic principles, used to ameliorate such behaviors. However, CESS has always been extraordinarily controversial. The Association for Behavior Analysis (ABAI), commissioned an independent Task Force to examine the issue. After a comprehensive review, the Task Force suggested the treatment should be available for use in select cases through a largely accurate report. Yet, ABAI adopted a position indicating CESS is never appropriate. On the issue of CESS, we are extremely concerned behavior analysis departed from the fundamental epistemology of positivism and is misleading nascent behavior analysts and consumers of behavioral technology. Destructive behaviors are extremely difficult to treat. In our commentary, we outline clarifications regarding aspects of the Task Force Report, proliferation of falsehoods by leaders in our field, and limitations to the standard of care in behavior analysis. We recommend using science to answer important questions instead of propagating false information at the expense of current and future clients with treatment refractory behaviors.

show abstract

“…In various formats, punishment procedures have been used to treat a range of problem behaviors, typically when there was a risk of serious physical harm, identification and control of maintaining variables could not be achieved, and when treatments derived from functional behavioral assessments had not resulted in clinically significant behavior change. The initial effects of CSS procedures are often superior to the effects of other behavioral procedures (for reviews, see [5,6]) and are often associated with beneficial side effects such as decreases in non-treated problem behavior, increases in appropriate behavior, and improvements in skill acquisition [7][8][9]. The use of CSS to treat severe problem behaviors has a substantial evidence base.…”

Section: Contingent Skin-shock Treatment and The Reversal Of Effects On Severe Problem Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%