Vincent Milletich Project

Interverbal:

"Moreover, Skinner is right. It is not torture. The word "torture" means something specific. What certain parties did in terms of using physical aversives in the past, or still do now, might be disagreeable and I would certainly argue against it on ethical lines, but it is Not Torture" (my emphasis).

This is a project I am putting together to recreate the circumstances of Vincent Milletich's death. Various state governments have a 30 year unsuccessful track record of shutting down The Judge Rotenberg Center. I intend to use the final video along with written evidence of why I believe international pressure is necessary to shut down JRC. Final film copy along with documented abuses will be submitted to Amnesty International for it's consideration to take on JRC.

I have begun to order materials and props to recreate Vincent's death. The project will be well documented using press accounts and court records showing the last minutes of Vincent's life. If you have any information that you feel is pertinent to this project please contact me. My email is listed in the about section.

Update:

I thought I would post young master Matt Brodhead's defense of the Judge Rotenberg Center. You can find it here. Also, JRC's destroying of probable incriminating evidence in a law enforcement investigation found here.

According to his profile, Matt is a 1st year graduate student studying Behavior Analysis at Western Michigan University.

You may ask why I would link to a blog post that I might find offensive by its very nature (supporting extreme physical aversives against children). I post it because I think Matt's view of JRC is exactly what Matthew Israel's extensive propaganda machine conveys to the public and contradictory information about the ethics and honesty of clinicians working at JRC, which there is ample evidence of here, and here, is not persuasive for a 1st year grad student in Behavior Analysis. Matt's post could easily be confused for a PR release for JRC. I don't think Matt is alone in his views nor necessarily in the minority of behavior analysts.

Interesting discussion over on Michelle Dawson's TMob website. This was recently posted about Matthew Israel.

I mainly read here and seldom write.

My name is Sharon and I'm from Israel.

We had a visit here of Dr Matthew Israel last week. Apparently it was a private visit but the local ABA community here could not resist it and invited Dr Israel to lecture about JRC's methodology. The lecture took place at the Zisnman College for Physical Education & Sports within the Wingate Institute and it was organized by the Center for Behavior Analysis in the college together with the Israeli association for ABA.

The invitation/brochure to the lecture presents JRC as using "full implementation of ABA science" with "direct" and "exact" teaching to "help people in high risk".
About Dr Israel it is said that he has "deep knowledge of the ethical, clinical and legal aspects of the issue in North America".

The lecture and the way Dr Israel was presented in front of educators etc. here in Israel are now the subject of letters exchange and criticism here.

Prior to this, the secretary of the local behaviorists association here in Israel, Mr. Michael Ben-Zvi, has been scheduled to take part in the first conference to be held here in Israel by the Israeli autistic selp-advocacy group.
Because Dr. Israel's lecture has been coordinated by the local behaviorists association and after Mr. Ben-Zvi did not express any rejection of JRC's methods and after a letter from Dr Eitan Eldar (head of the ABA program in the Zisman College) failed to do the same thing the Israeli selp-advocacy organization ACI informed Mr. Ben-Zvi that his participation is ACI's (Autistic Community of Israel) symposium (to be held at July the 23rd in Raanana ) is canceled.

Prior to Dr. Israel's lecture (in the Zisman College) the Israeli web site "Special Place" which advertised the lecture in its on-line board decided to take it off after it received information regarding JRC's methodologies.

The Israeli national autism society, Alut, still has not responded to a letter concerning the publication of Dr. Israel's lecture by its family support center (Bet-Loren).

Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it.

Comments

[Ed]

This project sounds like a good idea CS.

Such abuse is too conveniently ignored. A dramatization should open some eyes.

[Matt Brodhead]

Have you ever been to, seen pictures of, or met the staff of JRC?

[CS]

Matt, no I have not met staff in person nor been to the facility. Why do you ask?

[Matt Brodhead]

CS,

Because I really think that you should before you pass judgment on such a remarkable system.

Go ahead and take a look at this pamphlet: http://www.judgerc.org/slideshow.pdf

Obviously there is a bias, and it's been designed to sell their product. The mission and attention to detail of the organization is astonishing.

[Matt Brodhead]

Also, I'm not familiar with the Vincent Milletich story. Explain?

[CS]

Matt,

JRC has a long and documented record of committing perjury in Mass. Probate courts.

http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking_in_metaphors/2008/05/judge-rotenberg.html

Read this report from the New York State Board of Regents:

http://www.isaccorp.org/documents/judgerotenbergreport.pdf

Vincent Milletich is one of 6 students known to have been killed at JRC through the use of aversives.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D03E3D91038F93AA25752C1A963948260

For a very detailed report recently published about the school :

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock.html

The journalist of the above investigative report recently received an award, though I don't remember what it was.

[Matt Brodhead]

That's interesting stuff. The report I find most interesting, although the Mother Jones article is just journalism, whereas most journalists are naive critics of anything, let alone a science, or science in general (just as naive as you and I :-) ).

It's a good start, but I'd like to see 3-4 more investigations that have similar findings to those of the New York State Board of Regents before I'm convinced.

[CS]

Before you are convinced of what?

[Club 166]

CS,

This is a great idea, and one that has the potential to actually accomplish something.

Good luck with this!

Joe

[Matt Brodhead]

Convinced with the findings. It's just one group's perspective on an issue, and doesn't necessarily represent the issue accurately. Multiple reports with similar findings would be a bit more convincing to me (I'm operating on a certain level of skepticism here, and again I admit I have obvious biases).

If multiple groups find what the Board has found, I'll be right behind you on this one. Until then...

Keep us updated on your progress :-)

[CS]

Matt,

If our lives are seen as having value and worth, then I'm unsure why anyone would need convincing.

[Matt Brodhead]

I guess time will tell us the answer to that one. In the mean time I will honestly be looking forward to your finished project (and I'll continue to lay down my 2 cents along the way:-) )

[Patrick]

Wow, sure sounds like a concern troll to me. Are you sure you're not part of the public relations effort for JRC Matt?

[Ed]

Matt, if you have been hired to pedal their "good" reputation, you must not be very good at your job to choose this blog as where to place your efforts.

That brochure was the silliest excuse for a selling point as any I've seen. The only claim you've really made about the JRC having any positive attributes is by trying to claim that CS is as naive as you are.

If you are claiming that journalist are so naive, what does that make bloggers? If two cents is all you've got I would stop investing it the decisions of boards and start listening to people who really care about the welfare of the "patient's" at JRC.

[Justthisguy]

See what I mean about bloggers like you as an alternative to the Mainstream Media?
I'm with you on this question, Christschool, but against you on the gun question. Both of us are equally empowered to argue our cases on the Internet, without editors or other "gatekeepers."

Oh, to make my position clear on the JRC:

I hate bullies, and believe that mean people suck.

That's why I armed myself.

[Matt Brodhead]

I think bloggers are probably more naive (yes, you and I). But that's not the issue. Forgive myself for being a "concern troll" (since when is it not appropriate to respectfully disagree?), however I'll omit myself to make you happy. I'll take the discussion elsewhere.

[LEA]

I have not been to the JRC either, I doubt from reading some of Israel’s papers that they are ethicals and human rights in place, but I would like to highlight that the usual way to deal with challenging behaviour is with excessive use of medication and this is much more widespread and equally unethical than use of aversive. I would also like to say that to pick on a tutor/student is not how the issue can be resolved. This is not about individuals, other than Israel himself, it’s about a system that allows torture to be propagated.

[Ed]

Matt,
If I understand your position you are saying that while you disagree how JRC is being judged here, those with official titles are the ones who have the savvy to accurately judge a case involving abuse at the JRC.

What I hear you saying is that jounalist that you assume are naive and bloggers you assume are more naive should pass judgment on these matters only in ways that defend this "remarkable system" as you call it.

I am personally very aware that many of these officials are more strongly motivated to remain naive about the truth of abuse cases and /or ignore the truth and the public speaking out(which includes dedicated and caring bloggers like CS) may be the only chance some of these victims have at being protected.

I would hope that more of the public would accept their obligation to ensure the safety of abuse victims and future would be victims. At this point public participation is very lacking on such matters and this passivity and allowance, can and does, turn into what encourages these acts of abuse.

[Matt Brodhead]

Well I hope everyone understands that my analysis over JRC was brief, using just general Web site facts/stuff to give a description. However, if you want to start a series of posts/counter posts about the subject (getting into more detail, more science, etc), I'd be more than happy to.

And yes, we're all naive. I'll defend that one all day :-)

[Matt Brodhead]

In the end, the naive discussion is one we should save for another day. Let's focus on the real issue. I'll be preparing a well written, counterpoint argument, and I'm sure CS (since he's so appropriately pinpointed me here) will make not of it. Thank you all for your time, and your inspiration.

Stay tuned...

[Ed]

Matt,
What science? I haven't heard you offer any science. If you did there are people who could and would post/counter post on that.

Naive describes a specific degree of something. Who are you claiming that "we" are more naive than?

I claim to be less naive about why bullshit science is wrong than those pipe smoking,sweater vest wearing professors who discuss and debate this "science" and its application within the protection and comfort of scholarly walls without the acknowledgment that such science is being used arbitrarily and abusively against my physical person and others like me.

My motivation for being honest about such matters also makes me less naive than those who investigate this. I am not allowed to question them about what motivates them to look the other way and/or cover up what they know. If more people like me were allowed to influence their decisions, their investigations would have very different outcomes.

[Patrick]

Sorry if the observation was amiss Matt, I merely stated that it looked that way. I apologize for my misconstruction.

[Keith Hersh]

CS, I don't think you quite understand the relationship between ABA and the JRC.

Matt Isreal is not a behavior analyst.
Allowing him to present at a conference does not mean in any way that behavior analysts are adopting his methods or that, "Matthew Israel really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, he's right there in the thick of it."

At FABA, we had a presentation by the Big Cat Rescue Society, in which they talked about how they train thier cats to cooperate with medical care. Does this mean that behavior analysts are going to adopt their methods? By your argument, the "Big Cat Rescue Society really isn't out of the mainstream of ABA, They are right there in the thick of it."

For those of you who are confused how Matt could possibly defend what the JRC is doing, you need take into account that formal education in ABA does not teach about the JRC. Responses to Matt somehow allude he knows exactly what is going on at the JRC. Their website and advertising materials indicate that they are following the process that behavior analysts adhere to. Only use punishment, if everything else failed and the behavior is really severe. Then get rid of the punishment ASAP. If this is what the JRC was doing, then possibly, a behavior analyst would methodologically agree with the use of shock. This does not mean that ethically, they would agree, or would ever administer it.

Stop drawing imaginary lines between ABA and the JRC. They don't exist.

[Interverbal]

Wow, mine field.

Welcome to our gameshow Matt! I have disagreements all around.
I will just pick on everyone then :)

Matt,

Yes, we can never get rid of all aversives. However, maybe we could (should) make a less punishing culture. It is not a scientific point, it is an ethical one.

Patrick,

How many times have Autism Diva, Kev, CS, myself and the rest of the crew been accused of being evil pharma shills, when we debunk bad autism = vaccines science? How is your comment any different really?

Ed,

"If more people like me were allowed to influence their decisions, their investigations would have very different outcomes."

Would it? But isn't that assuming what you should be proving?

[Ed]

Ed.... Hey that's me!

Hello Interverbal,

You said :"But isn't that assuming what you should be proving?"

Gee, if this thread indicates anything I might be assuming too much that I would be even be acknowledged as being there to offer my view.

It would not be an assumption that investigators of a mental health facility that is funded by a U.S. state and/or the federal government know as I do that abuse is occurring before the investigation began.

Who did what to whom, how severe the abuse was, would be all that is left to be answered by anyone. How well they they are able to prevent the public from knowing about it is a part of their job security. My motivation would be based on how my lack of security has been abused by these so-called regulation committee's in the past and what my unwillingness to tell the truth would do to the safety of the current residents.

[Interverbal]

Hey again Ed,

"Gee, if this thread indicates anything I might be assuming too much that I would be even be acknowledged as being there to offer my view."

Well, I can't speak for the "thread", but I ackowledge that you have a view. I acknowledge that you have a right to a view. What I am curious about, is the validity of that view.

"It would not be an assumption that investigators of a mental health facility that is funded by a U.S. state and/or the federal government know as I do that abuse is occurring before the investigation began."

What abuses? past abuses? Current abuses? All of the above?

"My motivation would be based on how my lack of security has been abused by these so-called regulation committee's in the past and what my unwillingness to tell the truth would do to the safety of the current residents."

You may have lost me here.... Are you arguing that based on past experience at_______ you are able to extrapolate and inform us on exactly what is going on here?

Not trying to shut you down or shut you up. Just curious.

[Ed]

Interverbal,

"What I am curious about, is the validity of that view."

You are not showing any interest in the acceptance of the validity of my view at all. Quite the opposite.

My statement was that the investigators continue to document clearly that their motivation is contrary to that of what is best for those within the facility. These facilities have never been set up for those who are in them so their care is not what anyone believes is priority. I've never heard anyone deny that.

I'm happy to educate you but you have to provide me with some indication that it is not your desire to be ignorant.

This is what I said: "My motivation would be based on how my lack of security has been abused by these so-called regulation committee's in the past and what my unwillingness to tell the truth would do to the safety of the current residents."

And this was your response.

This:You may have lost me here.... Are you arguing that based on past experience at_______ you are able to extrapolate and inform us on exactly what is going on here? has nothing to do with the statement of mine. You are not lost,you are intentionally ignoring what you see.

What is

[Matt Brodhead]

Interverbal, I'm interested in the point you raised about building a less punishing culture. Perhaps you'd be interested in that debate?

[Interverbal]

Hey again Ed,

"You are not showing any interest in the acceptance of the validity of my view at all. Quite the opposite."

Nonesense, I am happy to hear and consider what you say. If I think it is lousy I will let you know. If I think you raise a good point I will let you know. Either way, I will let you know. If feedback scares or intimidates you though, best not to engage with me.

"I'm happy to educate you but you have to provide me with some indication that it is not your desire to be ignorant."

I belive my word and reputation should be enough. However, if you don't believe I am worth your time, then I would suggest ignoring me totally.

"You are not lost,you are intentionally ignoring what you see."

Pychogenenic fallacy Ed, you really have no idea if I am "intentionally ignoring" what I see. As to your statement:

1) You have been personally abused by regulation committees in the past.

2)If you fail to share your view, current residents will be harmed.

You argue that the above serves as your motivation. Do I have this right?

[Interverbal]

Hi Matt,

Yes, that would be interesting.

[Ed]

You have not provided me with feedback. You are not in any position to let me know what you think about what I say. I have nothing to learn from you other than what not to do.

You have no rights. You have twisted my words and offered nothing. This is a subject that you don't have any understanding of and you offer nothing.

I said I was willing to teach you, not satisfy your whims at my own and others expense. That is what I'm here to defend.

[CS]

Interverbal,

"Nonesense, I am happy to hear and consider what you say. If I think it is lousy I will let you know. If I think you raise a good point I will let you know. Either way, I will let you know. If feedback scares or intimidates you though, best not to engage with me. "

Jonathan, I will not allow you to bully an autistic person on this board and I consider your comments bullying.

"Pychogenenic fallacy Ed, you really have no idea if I am "intentionally ignoring" what I see."

Jonathan, have you no decency? Stop condescending. You don't know what your talking about. You don't know Ed's history, I do. You could learn a lot from Ed, but unfortunately, when people bully autistics, they lose the opportunity to learn, and that is at your own detriment, not Ed's.

[CS]

My response to Keith is here: http://autisticnation.typepad.com/thinking_in_metaphors/2008/07/keith-hersh-bcb.html

[Interverbal]

CS,

"Jonathan, I will not allow you to bully an autistic person on this board and I consider your comments bullying."

I don't think I have ever been considered a bully in my life. Ever...

Bullying, is using physical force, language, or one's personality to bowl another person over person (my definition). But that is not the same thing as criticism.

I don't agree with bullying anyone autistic or otherwise. But I do believe in criticism if merited.

If someone says something I think is unscientific, or unethical, or unprecise, I will say something, no matter who they are. Failing to do so, is an ethical problem all by itself.

I strongly and completely reject your criticism that I behaved as a bully. This is by far the worst argument I have ever seen from you.

You can expect my behavior on this site will be consistent with what I described above. That being the case, shall I find the door?

[Interverbal]

Hi Ed,

I am not even slightly interested in twisting your words or wasting your time.I was simply explaining the paradigm I operate from in my last post.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about the psychogenic fallacy however and about the "you have no rights" bit. I assure I do have rights, as do you.

If you have something you want to teach me, I am willing to listen, if not, my loss I suppose. Either way, I wish you the best.

[alyric]

CS, Jonathon has never ever bullied anyone in his entire life. And he's been part of our mery band for years. But this is totally unimportant. What is enormously important and you gave a very big clue (I think) when you mentioned Ed's history. I thought Ed was going to say somethig about how the regulatory mechanisms not only do'nt work but can asl work to deliberately put autistics in harms way. I think:)

Trouble is Ed, I have no exact idea what it was you wanted to say originally and it looks like you are one of a small number who can really tell us what the reality is here. So, if you're up to it - might take a new post, could you have another go please.

[alyric]

CS, Jonathon has never ever bullied anyone in his entire life. And he's been part of our mery band for years. But this is totally unimportant. What is enormously important and you gave a very big clue (I think) when you mentioned Ed's history. I thought Ed was going to say somethig about how the regulatory mechanisms not only do'nt work but can asl work to deliberately put autistics in harms way. I think:)

Trouble is Ed, I have no exact idea what it was you wanted to say originally and it looks like you are one of a small number who can really tell us what the reality is here. So, if you're up to it - might take a new post, could you have another go please.

[CS]

Alyric,

I consider the below statement bullying, if you don't we clearly disagree on this. Many people have been voiceless for years, not through choice but by intimidation.

"If feedback scares or intimidates you though, best not to engage with me. ""

[Interverbal]

CS,

No, the comment is precise and correct. It is not a threat; it is not an order to be quiet. It is simply a suggestion that if one is intolerant of dissent, then it will only be an exercise in frustration to engage with me (or someone like me) because I am very vocal with any dissent I might have.

Go look through my posts on my blog and elsewhere. You should be able to find examples where I say something very similar to the comment that offends you, to a wide variety of people with different backgrounds or beliefs about autism. I am not here to give anyone a bad time, and criticism can be very aversive. Not everyone can handle it.

CS, if you are threatened because I think some of your most recent arguments are incorrect; or if I offend you because I am quite willing to criticize an instance of poor logic of someone who happens to be autistic, then you can ask to me leave and I will honor your wish.

However, I am not going to change my behavior pattern, and I reject your rebuke as extremely poor and inappropriate in this case.

[Ed]

Alyric,

I'll try. The thing is that CS knows my history because he has chosen to patiently listen and ask questions about what I've seen and dealt with. He KNOWS what I'm saying. He keeps having to pull me out of the fire because I personally don't feel that I have an opportunity to express anything.

He has been helping me to express this for a while. It's not light or easy nor can it be explained quickly.

I too thought that I had been a small part of our merry band for a little while anyway and I'm being completely mischaracterised.

I was not hinting anything. I am very qualified to speak about this (and you are right Alyric, I'm one of the few that can). Can anyone imagine why more people don't?!

However, to ask me to qualify my view and it's validity by publicly stating where I been abused and how.... to qualify my place among professionals is outrageous.

[Ed]

Intolerent of dissent????!!!! ABUSE IS NOT TALKED ABOUT!!!!

[Ed]

and people who don't respond to critisism that is administered aversively are often doing so because of something that has nothing to do with not being "able" to handle it.

Rather aversives can discourage people from responding because in that person's experience (the one being criticized) something has shown them that aversives are the method of an insecure arrogant person who uses this defense (which is offensive) so that they don't have to listen to anything but their own voice and never be wrong.... and never hear the truth.... and responding to the critic hurts everyone involved. It perpetuates an abusive environment. Some people don't like aversives and abuse.

This is a major contributer to too many peoples silence about abuse.

I'll post in more detail as soon as I can about regulatory investigations and abuse.

[Ed]

Actually, CS is allowing me to write a full regular post(not a comment post) about this here on his blog. I'll do that in a few days when I have it written and it doesn't interfere with a post he has made.

Obviously Alyric I got away from speaking directly to you a while back. Thanks for encouraging me to post again on this.

[Interverbal]

Ed,

I have read your most recent posts. Some of what you wrote made a sense to me. Up to now, I suspect I have misunderstood some of your points.

Looking back at what we wrote, I have begun to wonder, is it possible that our disagreements are simply a series of misunderstanding? One brought on by our differences in communication styles and points of view?

Please understand Ed, that I do not demand you tell us anything about yourself. Not even the smallest detail.

Please understand that I believe in your right to voice your view. I would still have this opinion even if you had not a shred of relevant experience.

Please understand that I think autistic people should be a part of ethics review boards, even if they say something I don't like.

Please understand that if I have ever offered a criticism that offended you it was not intended to be aversive. However, I believe for ethical reasons that scouring for merit and sometimes criticism is required even if it is accidently aversive.

Please understand this has nothing to do with me being insecure or arrogant.

Please understand, that you can ask me to not interact with you any further and I will honor your request. And I would request, that if you choose this route, you grant me the same courtesy and not offer further comments about what I write or my character.

[Ed]

Thank you Interverbal,

Are you now not wanting to interact with me or hear my view?

I mean this kind understanding of others and their views takes time (though this is a good start) and claiming that everyone has equal privileges is part of what prevents any semblance of those same equal privileges (rights are a myth) and this acknowlegement is what leads to a lot of the best and real communication that then leads to the accuracy you seek.

[CS]

"CS, if you are threatened because I think some of your most recent arguments are incorrect; or if I offend you because I am quite willing to criticize an instance of poor logic of someone who happens to be autistic, then you can ask to me leave and I will honor your wish."

Interverbal, I rather you comment than not, I'm only concerned when I feel a friend is being treated unfairly. I don't ban people from my blog unless they don't allow others to comment on theirs (Harold Daughtery). I don't mind an argument as long as its respectful and doesn't denigrate a group of people or a particular person's experience.

[Interverbal]

Hi Ed,

I am willing to interact with you and I am willing to hear your view.

[Interverbal]

CS,

"Interverbal, I rather you comment than not, I'm only concerned when I feel a friend is being treated unfairly."

I respect your concern for fair play. I hope you see that I too believe deeply in this value.

[Ed]

Thanks CS

I went over the line with my remarks. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings Jonathan. I believe in you and that you really do care.:)