Summary of Case
Electric shock has been used as a method for treatment of some mental disorders for many decades. Despite its acknowledged usage, it continues to draw controversy when it comes to students as it is seen as intrusive and a form torment. In a study conducted in 2001, Iwata and Thompson wanted to investigate the effect of electric shock in modifying behavior. The study involved 12 subjects. Results showed that only 3 of the 12 subjects maintained problem behavior after electric shock therapy. This shows that electric shock therapy could be an effective of way of modifying problem behavior in students. Nonetheless, Thompson and Iwata state that the results of descriptive analysis should be taken with caution and discuss the importance of identifying whether correlated events have a functional association.
Ethical Concerns with the Experiment
The first ethical concern is that electric shock may lead to loss of memory in a subject. There may be a possible loss of memories in relation to time before and immediately after the execution of treatment. Secondly, the use of electric shock for behavioral modification is not empirically proven. Electric shock therapy has not been empirically proven that it works in correcting problematic behavior in children. Another concern regarding the use of electric shock therapy is that teachers at school are not licensed to conduct shock therapy and it is unclear whether institutions have the budget to employ behavior technicians. Further, a classroom setting is not appropriate for this kind of therapy since executing it in such a setting may lead the student to have a negative association with the classroom.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Application of APA Code of Ethics
The first principle that was violated was that of beneficence and non-maleficence. The code states that psychologists should protect the welfare of their subjects (Franeta, 2019). Iwata’s and Thompson’s experiment does not respect code as it puts the health of the subjects at risk. The second violation pertained to responsibility and fidelity. This principle articulates that psychologists should take part in activities that enhance ethical compliance of their colleagues (Young, 2017). In this case, Iwata and Thompson supported each other in doing something wrong, rather than discouraging each other from conducting the experiment.
Integrity was another ethical code that was violated. The principle states that psychologists should never try to misrepresent or deceive (Kroll & Pouncey, 2016). In their experiment, Iwata and Thompson assert that shock therapy could be effective since it enabled three subjects to modify their behavior. This is a poor assertion considering that the study had 12 subjects in total. The fourth violation entailed justice. This involves being fair and impartial (Young, 2017). In this experiment, the subjects were not justly treated since the study involved intrusive methods. The last code violated is that of people’s rights and dignity. Electric shock is a form of torture; therefore, using it as a form of therapy is inhumane and unwarranted.
Final Opinion
The study by Iwata and Thompson should be rejected. Whereas electric shock therapy for behavior control may change problematic behavior, the results are not certain as the method has not been empirically proven. To that end, the risks of the intervention outweigh the benefits. An examination of the risks reveals that that the procedure poses a high-level of risk to the safety of students. Therefore, it is highly likely that shock therapy will not be effective for behavior control. Although the benefits of shock therapy are promising, they should be taken with caution since the method is not empirically proven . It is advisable that the school does not use this method until it is universally approved.
References
Franeta, D. (2019). Taking Ethics Seriously. European Psychologist .
Kroll, J., & Pouncey, C. (2016). The ethics of APA’s Goldwater rule. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law , 44 (2), 226-235.
Young, G. (2017). Comparing the APA and CPA Ethics Codes. In Revising the APA Ethics Code (pp. 37-62). Springer, Cham.
