FDA Panel Calls For Ban on Behavioral Modifying Shock Devices

An FDA advisory panel is calling for the federal regulatory agency to ban “behavioral modification devices,” which are used to deliver agonizing shocks to autistic and mentally retarded children.  

On April 24, the Neurological Devices Panel, a group of outside advisors for the FDA, voted to recommend a ban on the use of “electrical stimulation devices” (ESDs), which are meant to prevent children with behavioral problems from harming themselves or others. The technique, known as aversion therapy is extremely controversial, with many calling it outright torture.

Only one facility in the United States is known to manufacture and use behavioral electrical shock devices; the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in Canton, Massachusetts, according to background material (PDF) released by the FDA before last Thursday’s meeting.

Did You Know?

AT&T Data Breach Impacts Millions of Customers

More than 73 million customers of AT&T may have had their names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers and other information released on the dark web due to a massive AT&T data breach. Lawsuits are being pursued to obtain financial compensation.

Learn More

Amid the controversy over aversion shock therapy, the facility has stood by its use of the devices, maintaining that they are used with parental consent or approval of a probate judge, delivering what it describes as a shock that feels like a sharp pinch. The center claims the devices prevent the need for powerful psychotropic drugs, life-long institutionalization and other negative outcomes of uncontrolled and violent behavior.

Human rights advocates, advocates for the mentally challenged, and even some former students disagree, calling it inhumane, dehumanizing and torturous. Numerous groups have petitioned the FDA to put a halt to JRC’s practices. They point out that, since 1976 when the FDA first approved ESD use, the power of the devices has crept up to three times that of the originally approved units.

Individuals who previously had the aversion therapy have allegedly suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the use of the devices, and some have claimed that they feel much more painful than JRC administrators let on, describing it as feeling like a thousand bee stings all at once. They also claim that the devices are used liberally to enforce staff directives, and not just to prevent self-injurious or aggressive behavior.

The last time JRC received FDA clearance for one of the devices was 1994. Even then, the FDA said they should only be used when alternate forms of therapy have failed.

The FDA staff review listed risks of the devices as including:

  • Anxiety
  • Fear and aversion/avoidance behavior
  • Substitution of other negative behaviors
  • Burns and tissue damage
  • Depression and crying
  • Pain and discomfort
  • Neurological Damage
  • Other negative emotional reactions and behaviors

FDA reviewers found at least six instances of PTSD, two instances of depression and suicidal behavior, and at least one death associated with the devices, though the reviewers cautioned there was no direct causal link between ESDs and the death and suicide cases.

The vote of the advisory panel is not binding for the FDA and is only a recommendation. However, the advisory panel decisions often factor heavily in the agency’s final decisions.

1 Comments

  • StanMay 5, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    At the April 24 hearing, it came out that, while earlier "GED" shock devices were approved by the FDA, the Judge Rotenberg Center had changed over to a completely different type of device which was never FDA approved. The devices presently in use ("GED-3A" and "GED-4") are intended to deliver significantly more amperage than the approved devices. Further discussion involved "misfires" in which e[Show More]At the April 24 hearing, it came out that, while earlier "GED" shock devices were approved by the FDA, the Judge Rotenberg Center had changed over to a completely different type of device which was never FDA approved. The devices presently in use ("GED-3A" and "GED-4") are intended to deliver significantly more amperage than the approved devices. Further discussion involved "misfires" in which either the wrong shock device (on a different patient) was activated or the shock device self-activated. JRC witnesses claimed that these misfires represented only a small percentage of shocks applied. When questioned by a Panel member about whether the misfires were reported to the FDA, the witness claimed that they were reported. The Panelist said she reviewed the material and did not see any reports. After hearing explanations by the witness, the Panelist said, "I don't believe you."

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

More Top Stories

BioZorb Lawsuit Alleges Breast Tissue Marker Failed, Requiring Surgical Removal
BioZorb Lawsuit Alleges Breast Tissue Marker Failed, Requiring Surgical Removal (Posted yesterday)

A BioZorb lawsuit has been filed by several breast cancer survivors after the BioZorb implants moved out of place and failed to dissolve int he body, requiring surgical removal.

Fairness Hearing For Philips CPAP Recall Medical Monitoring Settlement Set for October
Fairness Hearing For Philips CPAP Recall Medical Monitoring Settlement Set for October (Posted yesterday)

A U.S. District Court judge has scheduled a fairness hearing for October in order to determine whether final approval should be granted to a $25 million Philips CPAP recall settlement agreement, which would pay former users $25 million to pay for future medical monitoring needs.

Abbott Laboratories Faces Jury Trial Over Claims Similac Caused NEC For Premature Infant
Abbott Laboratories Faces Jury Trial Over Claims Similac Caused NEC For Premature Infant (Posted 2 days ago)

Following a $60 million verdict in a similar lawsuit earlier this year, trial is underway involving claims brought by an Illinois mother, whose premature daughter developed NEC from Similac, alleging that Abbott failed to warn parents and medical staff of the devastating risks associated with the cow's milk-based formula.