Advertisement

The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 103–115 | Cite as

Applying the Least Restrictive Alternative Principle to Treatment Decisions: A Legal and Behavioral Analysis

  • J. M. Johnston
  • Robert A. Sherman
Article

Abstract

The least restrictive alternative concept is widely used in mental health law. This paper addresses how the concept has been applied to treatment decisions. The paper offers both a legal and a behavioral analysis to some problems that have emerged in recent years concerning the selection of behavioral procedures used to change client behavior. The paper also offers ways of improving the application of the concept, which involve developing a more behaviorally functional perspective toward restrictiveness.

Key words

least restrictive alternative treatment decisions legal issues behavioral programming 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Accreditation Council for Services for Mentally Retarded and Other Developmentally Disabled Persons. (1980). Standards for services for developmentally disabled individuals. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Behavioral programming. (1989). Tallahassee, FL: Developmental Services Program Office, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.Google Scholar
  3. Catania, A. C. (1984). Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Churchill Bd. of Ed. v. LeFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1972).Google Scholar
  5. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).Google Scholar
  6. Finesmith, B. K. (1970). An historical and systematic overview of Wisconsin’s behavior management guidelines. The Behavior Therapist, 2, 3–6.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, P. R. (1975). Legal regulation of applied behavior analysis in mental institutions and prisons. Arizona Law Review, 17(1), 39–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gary W. v. State of Louisiana, 437 F. Supp. 1209, 1216 (E.D. La. 1976).Google Scholar
  9. Guidelines on behavior management. (1975). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Division of Retardation.Google Scholar
  10. In re Borgogna, 121 Cal. App. 3d 932 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. Johnston, J. M., & Shook, G. L. (1987). Developing behavior analysis at the state level. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 199–233.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act, Calif. Welf. & Inst. Code, 4502. Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972).Google Scholar
  13. May, J. G., Risley, T. R., Twardosz, S., Friedman, P., Bijou, S. W., & Wexler, D. (1976). Guidelines for the use of behavioral procedures in state programs for retarded persons. Arlington, TX: National Association of Retarded Citizens Press.Google Scholar
  14. McGrath, L., & Keilitz, R. J. (1984). The least restrictive alternative in Los Angeles County civil commitments. Whittier Law Review, 6, 35–38.Google Scholar
  15. Myers, J. E. B., Jenson, W. R., & McMahon, W. M. (Eds.). (1986). Legal and educational issues affecting autistic children. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  16. Parry, L. (1985). Least restrictive alternative: An overview of the concept. Mental and Physical Disabilities Law Reporter, 9, 963–972.Google Scholar
  17. Reese, R. M. (1984). Ensuring the right to minimally adequate habilitation: A proposed role for human rights committees. Mental Retardation, 22(3), 142–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Repp, A., & Deitz, D. (1978). Ethical issues in reducing responding of institutionalized mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 16, 45–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Romeo V. Youngberg, 644 F.2d 147 (3d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  20. Schifani, J. W., Anderson, H. M., & Odle, S. J. (Eds.). (1980). Implementing learning in the least restrictive environment: Handicapped children in the mainstream. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960).Google Scholar
  22. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).Google Scholar
  23. Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors’ Cooperative.Google Scholar
  24. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1976).Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, S.J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 41–53.Google Scholar
  27. Turnbull, H. R. (Ed.). (1981). The least restrictive alternative: Principles and practices. Washington, DC: American Association for Mental Deficiency.Google Scholar
  28. Wuori v. Zitnay, No. 85–80 SD (D. Maine, July, 1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Johnston
    • 1
  • Robert A. Sherman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Graffin & Krattenmaker, P. C.BostonUSA

Personalised recommendations