• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

'I felt like I was being punished for being born'

AGXStarseed

Well-Known Member
'I felt like I was being punished for being born': Autistic woman sues Judge Rotenberg Center after being tied down and given electric shock therapy.

A former student at a controversial special needs school is suing the center after she was given painful electrical shocks in a bid to alter her behaviour.

Jennifer Msumba, who has autism, attended the Judge Rotenberg Center, in Canton, Massachusetts, for seven years, during which time she said she would be tied up and shocked as part of her treatment.

The centre has said it uses the Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED) shock treatment as an 'aversion therapy', in a bid to stop students from displaying aggressive or self-harming behaviour.

1407315281786_wps_7_Jennifer_msumba.jpg

Jennifer Msumba, who has autism, attended the Judge Rotenberg Center, in Canton, Massachusetts, for seven years, during which time she said she received numerous shocks

1407315291009_wps_8_Jennifer_msumba.jpg

Students selected to receive the shocks wear backpacks with a device inside which can be activated by members of staff carrying a remote control

As part of her treatment, staff members would create a list of behaviors which would result in a shock, such as banging her head or making certain hand movements.

Ms Msumba however, who left the centre in 2009, has said she felt like she received the painful shocks as punishment for being disabled.

She told CBS News correspondent Anna Werner: 'It's not humane, you don't even feel like a person, you have wires all over your body. I would get five or ten shocks for just doing one thing.'

Students selected to receive the shocks wear backpacks with a device inside which can be activated by members of staff carrying a remote control.

The school faced a storm of controversy two years ago when a shocking video showing a disabled teenage boy being tied up and given 31 electric shocks over seven hours was shown to a court.

The video below shows student Andre McCollins strapped face down and shocked because he would not remove his coat.



1407315353372_wps_9_This_shocking_new_video_s.jpg

The school faced a storm of controversy two years ago when a shocking video showing a disabled teenage boy being tied up and given 31 electric shocks over seven hours was shown to a court

Mr McCollins, who has learning difficulties, sued the centre in April 2012 for the treatment he had received ten years earlier.

According to MyFoxBoston.com, the case was settled before a verdict was given by the jury.

During the hearing his mother Cheryl told the court: 'I never signed up for him to be tortured, terrorised, and abused. I had no idea—no idea—that they tortured the children in the school.

'I couldn't turn Andre's head to the left or to the right. He was just staring straight. I took my hands and went like this (waves hand in front of her face), he didn't blink.'

1407315362310_wps_10_This_shocking_new_video_s.jpg

The video shows student Andre McCollins strapped face down and shocked because he would not remove his coat

The centre has now said it no longer uses a restraint board when administering shocks.

Earlier this year, Ms Msumba gave testimony to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration Panel, which had met to discuss the 'safety and effectiveness' of using shocks as a form of treatment.

Four years ago the UN said the technique used at the school amounted to 'torture', and urged Obama's government to put a stop to it.

In a statement to CBS News, JRC said Msumba 'did very well on the GED; she was receiving treatment for self-abusive behavior such as severe head banging.'

The center goes on to say all other treatment had not worked and she also sent positive emails to the school after leaving five years ago.

Established in 1971 to help 'fix' children who are disruptive and intent on self-harm, the school is known for their use of such tactics which they believe induces positive changes in behaviour.

At the time of the McCollins case two years ago, MailOnline reported how according to literature provided by the school, children do not feel the electric shocks are anything for students or parents to be concerned about.

'This treatment, which feels like a hard pinch, has been extensively validated in the scientific literature... is extremely effective, and has no significant adverse side effects,' the paperwork said.
(Appears that the JRC are telling a pack of lies to parents and new students alike).

 
Ah, the torture centre in Massachusetts. I always wondered why they thought it would help to "replace" autism with PTSD.

Body count: 6
 
The good news is that there's an ongoing investigation by the FDA which is likely to get the Judge Rotenberg Center's electroshock practices banned.
 
The good news is that there's an ongoing investigation by the FDA which is likely to get the Judge Rotenberg Center's electroshock practices banned.

That's the good news. The thing I'm concerned about is if the practices are banned, what will happen then?
Will the JRC be shut down or remain open and use 'other methods'. I read one survivors account that said that they were been starved. Article here: Autistic Hoya: Judge Rotenberg Center Survivor's Letter
 
I'll be crucified for asking I am sure, but, is there any compelling evidence that the GED/shock treatments prevent violent behavior or self harm?

I am not and advocate for extreme treatments by any means, but there are extreme situations. I would rather a child suffer shocks that feel like hard pinches than see them bang their heads against walls and end up hurting themselves more than the shocks would have.

Ultimately, I am in favor of most anything that stops people from hurting themselves, and I could care less about the stigmas associated with treatments that get favorable results like preventing children from self-harm.

Now, please feel free to scream at me for asking this question. I am wincing.
 
I am not an advocate for extreme treatments by any means

I would rather a child suffer shocks that feel like hard pinches than see them bang their heads against walls and end up hurting themselves more than the shocks would have.

These two statements cannot both be true.

Also, a body count doesn't sound too much like responsible handling.
 
These two statements cannot both be true.

Also, a body count doesn't sound too much like responsible handling.

It was not my intention to give offense or incite anger, but I did expect a strong response to my question. Your response, however, seems to presuppose I have taken a position, though I haven't. I don't possess sufficient data to offer an opinion, hence the question (which you ignored).

You are also incorrect, however, that the two statements following my question are irreconcilable. One does not have to advocate for an extreme treatment in order to allow that extreme treatments might conceivably work in extreme situations such as preventing serious self-harm. I am not saying that this "treatment" is appropriate or morally justifiable, only wondering whether there is any empirical proof that it prevents violent behaviors and/or self harm? The story sounds awful, I suppose, but I don't really take positions based on emotion. I have to have information.

As I have neither advocated for nor against this treatment, please do not be angry with me. Also, you referenced a "body count," but you offered no context - was this specifically pertaining to this specific treatment? Was it pertaining to the facility without regard to a specific treatment (that was my impression from your post)? How did those patients die? What was the cause?

I literally have never heard of any of this before reading the OP, just so you know that I am not "feigning" ignorance. People often accuse me of this when I ask the simplest questions about sensitive stuff in the news. Maybe you think I already knew the answer? I don't really watch the news and only read it online, so I often miss "headlines" unless I get an alert on my mobile.
 
No, I have not seen any such evidence.

JRC has electroshocked six people to death.

You may stop making assumptions about my feelings now.
 
No, I have not seen any such evidence.

JRC has electroshocked six people to death.

You may stop making assumptions about my feelings now.

Thanks for answer and details. Do you (or anyone else) happen to know whether the fatal electrocutions were caused specifically by GED?

Also, I made no assumptions concerning your feelings. I explained MY intention not to cause anger/offense, as a prophylactic measure. This is something I do because I never know for certain what other people are feeling unless I ask. However, I have learned to note cause and effect and spot patterns in people's choice of words. It is my experience that, given the posts preceding mine, asking questions often offends people for some reason. There are exceptions to every general rule, though.

I still don't really know your emotional state, and the truth is that I don't particularly care how you feel, Ylva. (I also don't intend that statement to offend you, just for the record.) I have difficulty in caring about the emotional states of strangers. I don't like the vast majority of people I meet. I just find it easier to pretend that I do care most of the time, with most people. In the future, with you, I'll know not to bother ;)
 
I should note that I went to school with a girl who banged her head so hard against a concrete wall that she busted her skull open and bled profusely all over the linoleum and nearly killed herself. Logically, most anything that broke her of that particular habit/behavior and quickly would have been better than the status quo. As an aside, she never returned to our school after that event.

On the other hand, if the head banging is not actually causing injury, then it is not really "self-harm" and could simply be stimming, as discussed in another thread. I don't believe extreme treatments are appropriate for mere stimming. Also, I wouldn't advocate an extreme treatment that isn't proven to bring about the desired results (unless maybe in the context of clinical trials and similar scenarios). If it can be empirically proven that GED doesn't actually work, then it is just torture for torture's sake.
 
Likewise. Constant disclaimers do indeed make it look like you care.

Ex-patients at that institution tell of how the electroshock administrators ("teachers") would often abuse the method to punish them, how they'd get shocked for things like not sitting down immediately or having the audacity to be nervous about being shocked for no reason, and how those things would malfunction and shock randomly or shock the wrong person.

There could conceivably be ways for it to work, if done responsibly (and with functioning equipment). My mother tells of a friend of hers who got electroshock treatment for depression, but that was set periods in a room, not walking around with a device strapped to his leg. He was not autistic.

Situations like that girl sounds like it might be more productive to address how she handles frustration and/or the underlying cause that's possible sensory overload or somesuch. I had a period where I would cut myself to distract me from sensory overload, but at least I didn't get a concussion trying to get the sensations out of my head.
 
I'm an attorney. Disclaimers are second nature.

Also, it is a coping mechanism. I used get into trouble constantly just because I: (a) didn't get what others were feeling; and (b) said something that was misunderstood or misconstrued. People constantly felt like I was trying to offend them on purpose when I wasn't. I tend to be very analytical, and I have been told that is inappropriate at certain times and places (e.g., in response to someone making a claim during con law that studies on black-on-black violence were inherently racist, I responded by asking if anyone had the statistics - apparently that wasn't an appropriate time to actually discuss the issue logically). Disclaimers usually (not always) make it easier to avoid arguments I never intended to have.

Yeah, I don't believe it is "right" to shock kids into good behavior. They're not dogs, and so we should not put "bark collars" on them inducing shocks every time they make an unpleasant sound. However, when making my initial post, I was thinking of that incident with Marty (might have misspelled the name), the girl who nearly head-banged herself into the next life. Of course, I am not sure exactly what her diagnosis was. Fortunately, my mother thought to tell me it would be inappropriate to ask. Whatever the cause of her issues, though, she needed something. I am not sure what became of her. She might've died, actually. I never thought to ask about it until I read the OP. Can you bleed out from a head wound?
 
Evidently to me, I believe the electrical shocks should be stopped especially since both patients and parents are saying the practice is negative. It reminds me of an electric cattle prod or those electric collars for dogs which I do think are inhumane to animals so why treat people any different? I also think that the patients anxiety level would be off the charts just wondering and waiting for the next shock to occur - that can't possibly be a benefit and probably would contribute more to stemming behaviors.

I do remember seeing some information on TV about how electric shock therapy does help with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, but those treatments are more controlled now and pain medicine is also given.
 
Not as much as you can get brain damage from it and die from that.

"Appropriate" is a really vague word. I wish there could be more specificity. Nowadays I half expect to get shot down whenever I comment or don't comment on something. I get that it's hard for them, too, that they usually don't know why something's inappropriate, they just know that it is. I would for instance not have guessed that it was inappropriate to ask that girl what her deal was. I would have reasoned that she wouldn't be doing it in front of everyone (which is how I imagined the situation you described) if she didn't want to talk about it.

(And then I would have been scolded by someone who was just as ignorant about it as I was, along the lines of "oh my god, you can't just ask people why they're splitting their skull open!" Been there.)

Back on topic, it does seem counter-intuitive to punish hypersensitive people in ways that are painful even to normally sensitive people.
 
Last edited:
Can you bleed out from a head wound?

Something does have to be done about hitting ones head (possibly a muscular injection of Ativan) or "timeout" in a specified area because if you hit your head hard enough you can cause intercranial hemorrhage and it can kill you.
 
Evidently to me, I believe the electrical shocks should be stopped especially since both patients and parents are saying the practice is negative. It reminds me of an electric cattle prod or those electric collars for dogs which I do think are inhumane to animals so why treat people any different? I also think that the patients anxiety level would be off the charts just wondering and waiting for the next shock to occur - that can't possibly be a benefit and probably would contribute more to stemming behaviors.

I do remember seeing some information on TV about how electric shock therapy does help with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, but those treatments are more controlled now and pain medicine is also given.

Nurse, for the record, I've become somewhat fond of you/your posts.

That said, I don't really think what patients and parents may say is a good indicator as to the efficacy of a treatment, especially a controversial one. It's not that their opinions don't matter, but they are subjective and biased.

To me the question is, whether the GED treatment works according to objective data and, if so, then whether to benefits outweight the costs? Granted, I don't believe this is a treatment that should be used for stimming or other minor problems, but if it could save a life by preventing self harm or harm to others, then surely we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand? By contrast, if there is no evidence that it works, then this "treatment" is not really treating anything and, therefore, is more akin to battery.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom