Abstract
This commentary on the task force report addresses the complex issues involved in autonomy, beneficence, liberty, and consent, which are often in competition in this and many other treatment issues for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, especially those with limited vocal/verbal repertoires. The issues at hand are multifaceted, and behavior analysts should be aware there is much we do not know enough about. As good scientists, it is important to maintain an attitude of philosophic doubt and endeavor to deepen understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Notes
I use the phrase “so-called facts” only to suggest that some people view the preceding information as facts and others (including me) do not. I am not using this phrase in a judgmental or derogatory way. I ask the reader to refrain from reading into my usage of this phrase as anything other than my own way of suggesting there is not agreement that these are, indeed, facts.
I am using the example of IDD here because it is relevant to the context. This is not to say that only individuals with IDD experience periods of incompetency. In fact, any one of us may have time periods where we are incompetent, for example, one is in a coma and decisions may need to be made regarding medical treatment.
At worst, CESS might be considered unestablished/harmful, given that the procedure is painful.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Pres.
Katz, J. (1994). Informed consent-must it remain a fairy tale. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 10, 69–91.
National Autism Center. (2015). Findings and conclusions: National Standards Project, part 2 https://www.nationalautismcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NSP2.pdf.
Owen, G. S., David, A. S., Hayward, P., Richardson, G., Szmukler, G., & Hotopf, M. (2009). Retrospective views of psychiatric in-patients regaining mental capacity. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(5), 403–407.
Scholten, M., & Gather, J. (2018). Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities for persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104414
Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E., & Wendler, D. (2006). How should treatment decisions be made for incapacitated patients, and why? PLoS Medicine, 4(3), e35.
Thornburgh v. Am. (1986). College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S., 747, 781.
United Nations. (n.d.). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). Treaty Collection. https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-crpd
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest or competing interests relative to the work presented in this commentary. The author has no financial or professional relationship with an organization that uses contingent electric skin shock. The author is the director of the Autism Center of Excellence at Western Michigan University, which consists of multiple entities that provide therapeutic services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including behavioral support. In addition, the author holds a faculty appointment in the Behavior Analysis Program in the Department of Psychology at Western Michigan University and mentors graduate students in behavior analysis.
Funding
No funding or remuneration was received for the preparation of this commentary or for the work on the Contingent Electric Skin Shock Task Force, other than reimbursement for travel expenses to visit the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center as part of the task force’s work. These expenses were reimbursed by the Association for Behavior Analysis, International.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Peterson, S.M. The Tangle of Autonomy, Beneficence, Liberty, and Consent in the CESS Debate. Perspect Behav Sci 46, 321–328 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00378-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-023-00378-x