According to Hastings & Noone (2005), functional communication training is among the most ways of correcting severe behavior issues among individuals. This mode of communication is simply a differential reinforcement procedure that tends to teach individual alternative response that often leads to reinforcement identified as sustaining problem behavior patterns. On the hand, ethical provisions for behavior stipulate that functional assessment ought to be exercised prior to the implementation of treatment strategies. Precisely, a treatment plan that is established on the results of a functional assessment has the likelihood of turning out to be more effective, less likelihood of being regarded as limited, and most likely to be depicted as socially binding. Accompanying the stated positive substantiation, ethical problems exist with the rationality of some assessment methods, their potential absence of transparency, and the exhaustive resources necessary for a functional assessment. Appropriate socially binding and constructional mediations for self-injury can as well be developed by preventative mediations. The most important thing in crafting treatment for self-injurious behavior is bringing all ethical aspects into equilibrium. The right to effective treatment, and the application of least restrictive
The contrast that ensues between functional assessment and behavior modification based treatments imposes a question on whether or not suppositions of their causes clench ethical implications in treating self-injury to victims of developmental infirmities. Based on relative effectiveness as opposed to behavior modification, it is quite predictable that treatments conveyed via behavior modification have a less likelihood of persisting; simply because, there wouldn’t be a steady selection of a suitable marginal response and therefore, the occurrence of behavior from a similar response class to realize the unchanged function would be quite volatile. Secondly, with no clearly established marginal response that is operational in quite a number of environments, a client would be more likely to relapse to self-injury, once the existing behavioral program terminates or it begins to decline. This implies that, the extent to which a procedure is accurately incorporated is a case in which we might reflect the efficacy of treatments for self-injury.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second ethical principle and a guiding tool for behavioral assessment is that the minimum restrictive treatment ought to be used. In this case, the administration of punishment is not completely discounted, though buttressing procedures are encouraged where need arises. Nonetheless, there may be a dispute as to the reason of incorporation of restrictive behavior modification approaches in the case where self-injury is critical. Therefore, administration of punishment can be operative in quick lessening of self-injury. This case may trigger one to dispute that the first aim of treatment is to lessen the occurrence of self-injury. Hence, it is ethically fit to use restrictive technique.
The other ethical principle of essence to administering treatment to self-injury is selecting treatments that end up to socially respected upshots through socially respected techniques. The provisions of BACB are however not certain on this, it refers to situations when behavior analysts ought to live to respect and uphold the dignity of their clients. Additionally, there are also quite a good number of ethical issues which relate to time and personnel, which means that the entire assessment calls for specialists and time in order to come out effectively (Bailey & Burch, 2016).
In a nutshell, administering treatment of self-injury with regard to results of initial functional assessment is quite just compared to using behavior modification technique. This is simply because, in an overall outlook, treatments sandwiched on functional analysis are much more operative. There is also a huge probability of loyalty and reliability on behavior analysts and staffs as compared to those that use behavior modification technique.
Reference
Hastings, R. P., & Noone, S. J. (2005). Self-injurious behavior and functional analysis: Ethics and evidence. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities , 40 , 335-342.
Bailey, J., & Burch, M (2016). Ethics for Behavior analysts (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
