| Abstract: | A 31-year-old man, a New Zealander with severe developmental disability, engaged in life-threatening operant vomiting. His therapists and two consultant behavior analysts recommended applying for a Court order to evaluate treatment that included the short-term use of contingent shock. In Court, others gave expert testimony that positive procedures alone would be sufficient and effective. Following the Court's decision against contingent shock, professionals who were responsible for ensuring compliance with the decision did not identify a nonaversive intervention. Consequently, the client was subjected to an intrusive medical procedure (chronic nasogastric intubation) and a severely restricted environment. This intervention was continued for 1 year. Problems that resulted from conflicting expert testimony on treatment alternatives are discussed. |
