Premium
Balancing right to treatment with intrusiveness: The psychotherapist judgment rule
Author(s) -
Thomas Don R.,
McGuire Patricia S.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
behavioral interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.605
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1099-078X
pISSN - 1072-0847
DOI - 10.1002/bin.2360030305
Subject(s) - intrusiveness , psychology , dehumanization , social psychology , psychotherapist , law , political science
Abstract For several years, professionals who provide services to persons with mental retardation have been divided about the use of aversive treatment procedures. Some professionals argue that aversive procedures should never be used on the grounds that they are intrusive and dehumanizing. Others have taken a position that any procedures that predictably alter the behavior of clients have the potential to be viewed as intrusive and to violate the constitutional rights of clients. This article reviews the controversy and proposes that the court system has provided some of the elements that are necessary to guide the behavior of members of the professional community. Those elements are presented as the “Psychotherapist Judgment Rule.”