Cargando…
Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?
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 Associatio...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322794/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37425982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3 |
_version_ | 1785068837071224832 |
---|---|
author | Blenkush, Nathan O’Neill, Dawn A. O’Neill, John |
author_facet | Blenkush, Nathan O’Neill, Dawn A. O’Neill, John |
author_sort | Blenkush, Nathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10322794 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103227942023-07-07 Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? Blenkush, Nathan O’Neill, Dawn A. O’Neill, John Perspect Behav Sci Commentary 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. Springer International Publishing 2023-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10322794/ /pubmed/37425982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Commentary Blenkush, Nathan O’Neill, Dawn A. O’Neill, John Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title | Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title_full | Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title_fullStr | Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title_full_unstemmed | Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title_short | Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue? |
title_sort | contingent electric skin shock: an empirical or ideological issue? |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10322794/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37425982 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00380-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blenkushnathan contingentelectricskinshockanempiricalorideologicalissue AT oneilldawna contingentelectricskinshockanempiricalorideologicalissue AT oneilljohn contingentelectricskinshockanempiricalorideologicalissue |