Balancing right to treatment with intrusiveness: The psychotherapist judgment rule
✍ Scribed by Don R. Thomas; Patricia S. McGuire
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1988
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 672 KB
- Volume
- 3
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 1072-0847
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
For several years, professionals who provide services to persons with mental retardation have been divided about the use of aversive treatment procedures. Some professionals argue that aversive procedures should never be used on the grounds that they are intrusive and dehumanizing. Others have taken a position that any procedures that predictably alter the behavior of clients have the potential to be viewed as intrusive and to violate the constitutional rights of clients. This article reviews the controversy and proposes that the court system has provided some of the elements that are necessary to guide the behavior of members of the professional community. Those elements are presented as the "Psychotherapist Judgment Rule."
During the thirteenth annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis in Nashville, Tennessee a committee appointed by the association presented a progress report (Van Houten, *Portions of an earlier draft of this manuscript were read during a symposium entitled Use of Aversives: Walking the Tightrope Between Abuse and Neglect at the 13th annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Nashville, TN, May 1987. Requests for reprints should be sent to Don Thomas,