Banner
    Abuse, Restraints, And An Uphill Battle
    By Kim Wombles | December 30th 2011 10:44 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Kim

    Instructor of English and psychology and mother to three on the autism spectrum.

    Writer of the site countering.us (where most of these

    ...

    View Kim's Profile


    Many in the autism community have already heard of the horrifying story of the young autistic boy being confined in a bag (the mother calls it a gym bag in this video). Lydia Brown, of Autistic Hoya, immediately acted, setting up a petition on Change.org that has nearly 150,000 signatures, a facebook page, and speaking to the media about this case. We send our children to school in the hopes that they will be well-cared for, respected, and not abused, but too many of our children are abused, are bullied, are mistreated.

    And  yet, in covering previous restraint issues like a Florida school using a full-body restraint system on children, what's amazing are the people, including parents, who support the use of such things. You would think outrage over this would be universal (at the very least from the parental perspective), but the reality is that such abuse occurs because there are parents and professionals (and people in general) who wholeheartedly approve the use of restraints. The Judge Rotenberg Center continues to exist because parents went to bat before the state legislature praising the use of shocks on their children. Parents even use the shock systems when they take their children home for visits.

    How could anyone do this? Part of it is the dehumanization of individuals with disabilities--the tendency to place anyone different in our outgroup. It is the removal of empathy. No one feeling empathy towards an individual could place a nine-year-old boy in a bag and tie it up and sit calmly by the bag. No one feeling empathy could place a child in a full-body restraint face-down and think that act is acceptable. Yet, it happens all too often.

    Restraints, chemical and otherwise, are unlikely to go away any time soon. They are prevalent in institutions and prisons and are (supposed to be) used against individuals who are violent and out of control (when no other method will work). Regulations and oversight exist to try to avoid abuse of restraints, but that oversight is inadequate, and the people who are employed to care for these populations are often poorly trained, poorly paid, overworked and understaffed. The environments are ripe for abuse to occur. Add in dehumanization, lack of empathy, and the frustrations that come from being poorly trained, paid, and overworked, and it's inevitable.

    The use of restraints are easier and faster than teaching an individual an appropriate way to respond to a person who is behaving disruptively or dangerously. In a culture in which spanking and smacking kids is still seen as an appropriate response, why is anyone surprised that restraint and abuse occur? After all, when nearly 1800 children in 2009 are believed to have been killed due to maltreatment and neglect in the US, and CPS reports in 2009 show nearly 700,000 unique children with substantiated abuse or neglect, why are we surprised when a teacher or a caregiver engages in abusive behavior? What should be really scary is that this is the tip of the iceberg--think how many cases of abuse and neglect are never reported.

    In order to eliminate the abuse and mistreatment of our most vulnerable populations, we as a society must first change how we view violence in general and the use of physical force as a disciplinary tool. It is an uphill battle, especially given how the internet has allowed us to be anonymous and spew hatred without consequence. However, we are not without hope. Nearly 150,000 people cared enough to sign the petition at Change.org. Now, we need to act. As Lydia points out, ordinary people can make a difference. Stand up and speak out. Contact your legislatures and demand that legislation be passed calling for the equal rights of the disabled and disadvantaged to a safe environment where physical restraints are not allowed and that educators or caregivers who abuse and detain or restrain individuals are legally liable for their actions. If the act would be considered assault against a non-disabled individual, then it is for a disabled, as well, and all the more heinous an act because of the vulnerability of the individual.

    It may be an uphill battle, but it is not a losing battle.

    Comments

    rholley
    Happy New Year, Kim.

    Click the link for some pictures.
    Robert H. Olley Quondam Physics Department University of Reading England
    kwombles
    Gorgeous photos! Happy New Year, to you as well.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --MLK, Jr.
    kwombles
    http://flowersarejoy.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/318/   :-) Taken today!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --MLK, Jr.
    Gerhard Adam
    In order to eliminate the abuse and mistreatment of our most vulnerable populations, we as a society must first change how we view violence in general and the use of physical force as a disciplinary tool.
    We will not "eliminate" abuse or mistreatment from society, although I certainly agree that institutional forms of it must be eliminated and tightly controlled for those instances where it is needed.

    I often hear that our views of violence must change, but I'm not clear on what that is supposed to mean?  I am far more concerned about too much state intervention in parental responsibilities and then when a teen is out of control, the state is more than willing to incarcerate them.

    I'm certainly not arguing in favor of abuse or any type of excessive violence (including verbal).   Similarly, I'm not arguing that violence should ever be a "short-cut" method of parenting.  However, it would be irrational to presume that some limited violence can never have any role.   It is precisely a restrained, controlled type of violence that is often the best teacher, especially when the idea of consequences must be demonstrated. 


    kwombles
    As an example of one way our views on violence should change, the violence in movies, tv, and books in which characters are repeatedly subjected to violence and yet never suffer long-term effects from being attacked does a tremendous disservice to victims of violence. 
    It would be pollyanna-ish to believe we can eliminate violence, but that's no reason to not work actively to prevent domestic violence, for example, or for an end to abuse and neglect in institutional settings. 


    Violence is glorified in our culture, which is unfortunate, and with the continued denigration of those who are disabled, foreign, or in some other way different than our desired cultural norm, we've got a very real problem. 

    The girls and I were watching The Human Face hosted by John Cleese this morning, and he noted that while we have road rage, we don't have pedestrian rage--when we are forced to actually deal in person with one another without technology separating us, our behavior tends to be better. In a similar fashion, as long as the culture supports restraint and abuse of the disabled or the institutionalized (prison and otherwise), there will be little incentive in institutional settings to actively eliminate it.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --MLK, Jr.