Comments on the "cattle-prod controversy".

Abstract

Occasionally local media will feature a story regarding some irate parent or outraged communiry member who has learned of use of shock-sticks in a mental health treatment facility. Indignation is furcher arouzed by analogization (or actual reference to) instrument as a cattle-prod, argument of inhumane treaunent thereby being made more graphic. Published opinion on this issue ranges from view that it is unethical not apply such techniques (5) condemnation for reducing autistic children to level of Pavlovian dogs (3, p. 410). The efficacy of such procedures, especially in comprehensive and systematic behavioral treatment programs has been well documented (4, 7, 8, 9). Lazarus (6, p. 205) has argued that, just as a surgeon will assault and tear open one's flesh save lives and alleviate suffering, an operant conditioner may use electric shock prevent head banging of autistic children who are bashing their heads point of damaging their brains, or biting their own fingels. Bandura (2, p. 552) has noted that the brief discomfort occasioned by a program of aversion therapy is minor compared repeated incarceration, social ostracism, serious disruption of family life, and self-condemnation resulting from uncontrollable injurious Ball (1) has called attention irony of furor over dehumanizing techniques by illustrating how well-meaning alternatives, e.g., tender love and care, unwittingly may condition self-destructive behavior. No one denies that administration and supervision of aversive stimulation must be rigorously systematized and that high levels of humanism must parallel high levels of behavioral technology ( 1 ). Public references cattle-prods tend blur ultimately humanistic aim of a therapeutic procedure and arouse public condemnation of operant techniques spuriously.