Anyone who recognizes the acronym “ABA” knows the stigma that comes along with it. ABA is “behavior modification therapy, which aims at shaping behaviors through a system of rewards and consequences” (Lacour). The therapy was developed as a way to eliminate undesirable behaviors in autistic children, originally through negative reinforcement. It is a controversial topic amongst the neurotypical and the neurodiverse for its reputation as restrictive and destructive. Because the success rate objectively is high, its notoriety defines the point of contention over ABA as not a matter of effectivity, but rather ethics.

​

       Many people are in support of ABA therapy for its success in modifying, or making more manageable, undesirable behaviors in autistic people. The therapy is praised for its effectiveness given time and effort. Many therapists, parents, and caregivers cite beginning ABA as the best decision they have ever made. “‘There is a lot of good clinical evidence that is effective in helping little kids learn new skills and can appropriately intervene with behaviors or characteristics that may intervene with progress,’  says Levy. There are also other types of ABA that might be more appropriate for older children who need less support, she says” (Devita-Raeburn). Devita-Raeburn would be considered moderate in the ABA debate. She is neither wholly one side or the other and recognizes that the positive effects of ABA only continue to a certain extent.

​

       “ABA is based on the premise of manipulating environmental variables to bring about behavior change … so we aren’t trying to change the person, we aren’t trying to change how they think, we aren’t trying to change how they feel” (Ehmke). Ehmke supplies here a different argument for ABA. They argue that the perceived goals are not what therapists are actually pursuing, but rather that modern ABA has evolved to acknowledge the individuality of the client. “Since ABA affects Autistic people’s lives first and foremost, their voices are the most important part of this discussion, and it’s essential that you listen to what they’re saying” ("Why I Left ABA"). The author recognizes the importance of autistic input in the debate. Autistic people should be the deciders of whether or not ABA is good; however, parents and caregivers also provide insight from another perspective. The voices of autistic people versus the voices of neurotypicals is what creates the controversy.

​

       It is mostly autistic people who oppose ABA, claiming that it sets unrealistic standards for how an autistic person should behave. The expectation of many parents and caregivers is that autistic people will emerge from ABA as neurotypical. This goal is not attainable without reprogramming the person’s entire method of function. “We were doing that because it was the only thing that worked at the time … The techniques of teaching autistic kids hadn’t evolved enough to branch out yet … Five seconds. That was one skill we were trying to establish, as if that was a pivotal skill … The last time I looked someone in the eye for five consecutive seconds, I proposed” (Devita-Raeburn). The interviewee recognizes that the skills being taught in ABA are not often applicable outside of ABA. The methods and goals of ABA have not yet evolved to match what we now know about autism and how our society perceives it. “The emphasis on things like eye contact or sitting still or not stimming … is oriented around trying to create the trappings of the typical child … without acknowledging the realist that different children have different needs. It can be actively harmful when we teach people from a very early age that the way they act, the way they move is fundamentally wrong” (Ehmke). Stimming, or self-stimulatory behavior, is often discouraged because of its “distractive” qualities and identification of a person as not-neurotypical. This is not only uncomfortable for an autistic person, it is damaging their identity, self-worth, and ability to function. “Autistic children are not allowed to be themselves, being forced instead, to learn how to pretend, never learning self-determination, never allowed to have an independent thought” (Sequenzia). Sequenzia expresses an extreme side of the ABA debate. They argue that ABA strips autistic people of their identity and encourages conformity. The main concern is that autistic people are being forced to behave as neurotypical instead of being taught life skills. Ethics is a major part of the ABA debate that requires the voice of autistics to be properly examined.

​

       Science’s understanding of autism has improved over the years, and now how it is managed needs to change too. The original method of treatment, i.e. talk therapy, was deemed ineffective and thus the scientific community pursued something different. When the understanding of what is being dealt with changed, the way it was dealt with changed too. “Before the 1960s, when autism was still poorly understood, some children with the condition were treated with traditional talk therapy. Those who had severe symptoms or also had intellectual disability were mostly relegated to institutions and a grim future” (Devita-Raeburn). Now science provides the ability to help people with severe disabilities who otherwise would be cast aside. People can be taught the life skills they need to function in society and live fulfilling lives. “What are the students learning to do? What are they supposed to do instead of tantruming, or instead of trying to escape the building during the day?’’ (Ehmke) ABA needs a specific, achievable goal motivated not by “fixing” autistic people but rather helping them to gain the skills necessary to function. Behaviors like stimming that are not a hindrance should be accepted and embraced as a part of who that person is and how their body works. “Compliance training sends a very damaging message to autistic kids by never allowing them to say ‘no.’ It tells them that their feelings are invalid, and at its worst, that there is something deeply wrong with them if they are hurt of unnerved by things that don’t hurt or unnerve us” ("Why I Left ABA"). Compliance training is indeed a dark part of ABA’s history. Teaching autistic people to comply with certain standards such as hand washing or asking before borrowing something is important; however, there is a point where what is being asked is not necessary and a person’s individual will is negated. While ABA is a good step in the development of therapies for autism, more work is needed to ensure that we are still moving forward in the future.

​

       ABA therapy is both supported and condemned by many people and thus has been proven to be a major point of ethical contention. The debate over ABA is not a matter of the effectivity of the therapy but rather ethics of applying it. In such a debate, there is no winner. ABA is effective and, with time and effort, we can make it healthy, safe, and ethical.