The Shocks Never Stopped
Updated: Sep 9
The FDA called the risk unreasonable and substantial. A court overturned the federal ban without finding the devices safe. Congress repaired the legal authority. In 2026, the Judge Rotenberg Center said 54 residents were still receiving shock treatment.
Andre McCollins
In 2002, Andre McCollins was restrained and shocked thirty-one times over roughly seven hours at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Massachusetts.
The incident is historical. Saying the year immediately matters because an old video cannot, by itself, prove current practice.
It also cannot be dismissed as irrelevant history when the institution continues using contingent electric skin shock.
What the device is
The Judge Rotenberg Center uses Graduated Electronic Decelerator devices as part of behavior-modification treatment plans for some residents. The shock is contingent: another person activates it in response to targeted behavior.
This is not electroconvulsive therapy. It is not TMS, VNS, DBS, tDCS, or therapeutic electrical stimulation used for a medical condition. Collapsing those technologies creates confusion and gives defenders an easy factual escape.
JRC describes the treatment as a last resort for people with severe self-injurious or aggressive behavior after other approaches have failed. Its records describe guardian involvement, clinical review, data collection, video documentation, state review, and individual probate-court authorization.
Some families and guardians say the treatment prevented catastrophic self-injury and made community life possible. That testimony belongs in the record.
So do the limits. Court authorization, guardian consent, program certification, and claimed benefit are separate from the FDA’s device-safety and effectiveness analysis.
What the FDA found
The FDA’s 2020 final rule concluded that electrical stimulation devices used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior presented an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury and that the available evidence did not establish a reliable benefit sufficient to outweigh those risks.
JRC challenged the rule. In 2021, the D.C. Circuit vacated the ban because the court concluded that the statute did not then allow FDA to ban a device for one use while leaving other uses available. The court did not find the devices safe. It decided a question about FDA’s legal authority.
Congress later amended federal law to permit use-specific device bans. FDA issued a new proposed ban in 2024.
The current record is therefore not “FDA banned it and the court proved FDA wrong.” It is a regulatory fight in which Congress changed the law after the court identified the authority problem.
What continues
As of June 1, 2026, JRC told STAT that 54 of its 347 residents were receiving some shock treatment. The statement does not identify the device model, frequency, target behavior, duration, or individual outcome for those residents.
FDA’s 2024 estimate of roughly fifty affected people was not a fresh 2024 recipient census. It relied on older JRC and ABAI figures and assumed no material change. The later JRC statement is a separate provider-attributed data point.
Massachusetts court oversight also has deep historical roots. A consent decree and later litigation shape the state’s ability to regulate JRC, while individual treatment plans still require court authorization. The 2018 state ruling preserved the decree after a changed-circumstances hearing. It did not grant one blanket authorization for every resident or resolve FDA’s federal safety test.
Public funding and placement systems add another layer. Federal HCBS financing restrictions have limited federal participation for settings using Level III aversives, while states have sometimes used state-only funding or transition arrangements. Stopping one funding stream did not necessarily stop the placement.
The evidence problem
JRC’s own materials say GED applications are documented through video and written records, with application data entering a database and quarterly court reports. The 2023 Massachusetts high court opinion discussed admitted footage showing eleven application instances.
That does not mean eleven separate files, eleven people, or eleven proven violations. It means a larger evidence trail exists than the public can currently examine.
Historical records also include a reported 1995 Boston Globe account that a female student received as many as 350 shocks in one day, reportedly confirmed by the school. The original article and underlying facility or court records have not been recovered. That claim must remain historical and attributed, not transformed into a current statistic.
What is verified
JRC continues to report current use of contingent electric shock. FDA has repeatedly identified serious risks and insufficient evidence of durable favorable benefit-risk. JRC and supporting families present contrary benefit claims and a layered authorization structure.
The current evidence does not prove every application is unlawful, every guardian is coerced, every resident receives the same device or dose, or every claimed benefit is false.
The question behind this investigation
Why does intentionally inflicted pain become legally acceptable when the recipient is disabled and another person names it treatment?
What I think
I do not accept court approval, parental desperation, clinical language, or institutional longevity as moral disinfectant.
A system can build committees, forms, cameras, databases, and quarterly reports around an act without answering the central question: why is another person permitted to press the button?
“Last resort” should trigger the highest burden of proof in the system, not the lowest tolerance for scrutiny. If pain is the intervention, every application, target behavior, alternative tried, injury, benefit claim, and authorization should be available for independent examination. Anything less asks the public to trust the people holding the device.
What remains unresolved
The final federal rule, current recipient and device-model records, application frequency, injuries, individual outcomes, court orders, public payments, placement sources, complete video index, and the outcome of older federal civil-rights investigations remain unresolved.
Primary sources
FDA 2020 final ban rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/06/2020-04328/banned-devices-electrical-stimulation-devices-for-self-injurious-or-aggressive-behavior
D.C. Circuit 2021 JRC decision: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/20-1087/20-1087-2021-07-06.html
FDA 2024 proposed ban: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/26/2024-06037/banned-devices-proposal-to-ban-electrical-stimulation-devices-for-self-injurious-or-aggressive
Massachusetts 2023 JRC decision: https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/492/492mass772.html
JRC safeguards policy: https://judgerc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/JRC-Safeguards-for-the-Use-of-Aversives-at-JRC-8-7-24117127905.pdf
STAT 2026 current-use report: https://www.statnews.com/2026/06/01/fda-misses-deadline-electric-shock-ban-disability-advocates-speak-out/
Disability Rights International report: https://www.driadvocacy.org/reports/torture-not-treatment
Wonder Haven disclaimer
Wonder Haven Autism Advocacy provides educational information and practical support. We are not medical doctors, licensed mental health professionals, therapists, or diagnosticians. This material is not medical advice, mental health treatment, therapy, diagnosis, or a substitute for individualized care from a qualified professional.
This article discusses behavioral treatment, disability rights, medical devices, court records, and public policy. It is not medical, legal, or treatment advice.
Comments