12-02-2004, 12:12 AM
After concluding that taking the JRC on single handed was an impossible task, I decided to ask one of my philosophy professors for advice (he is an expert in medical ethics, and has a legal background).
He suggested two possible methods of attack:
Firstly we challenge Dr Israel and co, on the the methodology of the research used to justify aversive techniques. My professor noted that a lot of the studies cited in the literature on http://www.effectivetreatment.org was on the whole rather ancient. If no up-to-date or follow-up studies have been done on the effectiveness of aversive "treatment" programs, a major question is to ask why. Also my professor said that, from an ethical standpoint, it might be possible for JRC (and similar groups) to justify the "discomfort" suffered by people during the course of the program *if* they could prove conclusively that the benfits of having such treatment outweighed the pain caused to achieve them. This being the case we would need to look at what control group the JRC are comparing their students with to obtain the "sucess" rates they are claiming on their site. In short they have no legal or moral ground if their data is invalid.
Secondly there is the issue of informed consent. This is required before any kind of medical treatment (or psychological study) takes place in either the UK or the US. Since a lot of the students at JRC are children under the age of 16, we need to find out how JRC obtain consent from the parents of such children. I suppose the big issue is how you define "informed consent". Is it for example necessary to understand (with total accuracy) every detail of the program (and its promised results) *before* the child is enrolled? If so how do JRC ensure that the parents have been adequately informed before treatment commences (and can know afterwards if there has been a "success")? It would seem that JRC don't place much importance on the student's views (unless it can be re-modelled into a method of behaviour modification), so that might also be something to look into: the rights these children have (if any) to refuse treatment.
In short there is ALOT of work to be done, we need to contact JRC and find answers to these questions. We need to know in detail how their program operates, I'm sure they'd have a legal obligation to be open about such things to comply with ethical legislation (as long as they didn't breach patient confidentiality in the process, although they don't seem too hot on that either).
I am trying to arrange a meeting with a researcher in the psychology department at uni to take these questions further, I will post the outcome here when I am able.
It was suggested that apa.org (American Psychological Association) and other webpages related to ethics and bio-psychology in the US, might give us some leads as to the ethical situation regarding the use of adversives. I think in short we need some professional legal advice, because legal jargon makes my head spin, but at least we know in what direction to start looking for some answers. The JRC's victory in the Massachusetts court might be worth looking into aswell.
Anyhow people, suggestions please!
He suggested two possible methods of attack:
Firstly we challenge Dr Israel and co, on the the methodology of the research used to justify aversive techniques. My professor noted that a lot of the studies cited in the literature on http://www.effectivetreatment.org was on the whole rather ancient. If no up-to-date or follow-up studies have been done on the effectiveness of aversive "treatment" programs, a major question is to ask why. Also my professor said that, from an ethical standpoint, it might be possible for JRC (and similar groups) to justify the "discomfort" suffered by people during the course of the program *if* they could prove conclusively that the benfits of having such treatment outweighed the pain caused to achieve them. This being the case we would need to look at what control group the JRC are comparing their students with to obtain the "sucess" rates they are claiming on their site. In short they have no legal or moral ground if their data is invalid.
Secondly there is the issue of informed consent. This is required before any kind of medical treatment (or psychological study) takes place in either the UK or the US. Since a lot of the students at JRC are children under the age of 16, we need to find out how JRC obtain consent from the parents of such children. I suppose the big issue is how you define "informed consent". Is it for example necessary to understand (with total accuracy) every detail of the program (and its promised results) *before* the child is enrolled? If so how do JRC ensure that the parents have been adequately informed before treatment commences (and can know afterwards if there has been a "success")? It would seem that JRC don't place much importance on the student's views (unless it can be re-modelled into a method of behaviour modification), so that might also be something to look into: the rights these children have (if any) to refuse treatment.
In short there is ALOT of work to be done, we need to contact JRC and find answers to these questions. We need to know in detail how their program operates, I'm sure they'd have a legal obligation to be open about such things to comply with ethical legislation (as long as they didn't breach patient confidentiality in the process, although they don't seem too hot on that either).
I am trying to arrange a meeting with a researcher in the psychology department at uni to take these questions further, I will post the outcome here when I am able.
It was suggested that apa.org (American Psychological Association) and other webpages related to ethics and bio-psychology in the US, might give us some leads as to the ethical situation regarding the use of adversives. I think in short we need some professional legal advice, because legal jargon makes my head spin, but at least we know in what direction to start looking for some answers. The JRC's victory in the Massachusetts court might be worth looking into aswell.
Anyhow people, suggestions please!
