Why ABA Should Be a Human Rights Violation (And Why It Still Exists)
Bridgette Hamstead
Applied Behavior Analysis, or ABA, is often marketed as the “gold standard” of autism therapy, particularly for children. It is endorsed by major medical organizations, funded by insurance companies, and widely recommended by professionals. Parents are told that ABA is evidence-based, that it will help their autistic children develop skills, reduce problem behaviors, and lead more independent lives. But what is rarely acknowledged is the deeply harmful, unethical nature of ABA, its roots in behaviorism, and the way it violates the fundamental rights of autistic people. While some claim ABA has changed over the years, its core principles remain rooted in control, compliance, and the erasure of autistic traits. The continued existence and widespread use of ABA should be considered a human rights violation, yet it remains the dominant approach to autism intervention due to a combination of financial interests, misinformation, and systemic ableism.
The foundation of ABA lies in behaviorism, a psychological framework developed in the early twentieth century that assumes all behaviors can be shaped through rewards and punishments. One of the key figures in the development of ABA was Dr. Ivar Lovaas, whose work on autism was deeply abusive and dehumanizing. Lovaas believed that autistic children were "not yet people" and that they needed to be molded into something more socially acceptable through rigorous behavioral training. His methods included electric shocks, physical punishment, and other forms of aversive conditioning to eliminate autistic behaviors such as hand-flapping, echolalia, and avoiding eye contact. Although modern ABA has largely moved away from these extreme punishments, its underlying premise remains the same: autistic people must be trained to behave in ways that make them more palatable to the neurotypical world, regardless of their own comfort, autonomy, or well-being.
One of the primary criticisms of ABA is its heavy reliance on compliance training. Many ABA programs focus on teaching autistic children to obey commands without question, discouraging them from expressing distress, setting boundaries, or advocating for their own needs. This is not just harmful; it is dangerous. Teaching children that their discomfort does not matter, that saying no is unacceptable, and that their autonomy is secondary to pleasing authority figures creates lasting psychological damage. Many autistic adults who underwent ABA as children describe intense trauma, PTSD, and a deep disconnection from their authentic selves. They often struggle with self-advocacy, experience extreme anxiety in social situations, and suffer from the long-term effects of being forced to suppress their natural ways of communicating and interacting with the world.
Another major issue with ABA is its focus on eliminating so-called "problem behaviors," which are often just natural autistic traits. Stimming, for example, is a common autistic behavior that helps regulate emotions, process sensory input, and provide comfort. Yet ABA frequently targets stimming for reduction or elimination, teaching children that their self-soothing behaviors are wrong. This can lead to long-term sensory distress, increased anxiety, and difficulty managing emotions in adulthood. Similarly, ABA often prioritizes eye contact, verbal communication, and sitting still over more individualized and accessible ways of engaging with the world. The underlying message is clear: autistic people must conform to neurotypical expectations, even at great personal cost.
Despite the clear ethical concerns surrounding ABA, it remains the most widely used and heavily funded autism therapy in many countries. This is largely due to financial incentives and systemic biases that prioritize behavioral compliance over genuine support. Insurance companies favor ABA because it is structured, measurable, and fits neatly into existing medical billing codes. ABA providers, many of whom profit enormously from the industry, have a vested interest in maintaining its dominance, often dismissing criticisms from autistic self-advocates as anecdotal or uninformed. Additionally, many parents of autistic children are not given alternatives to ABA, leading them to believe that it is the only effective option. The cycle continues as ABA practitioners, trained in behaviorist methods, go on to reinforce the same harmful practices without questioning their impact.
Another reason ABA continues to exist is the broader cultural and societal ableism that underlies attitudes toward autism. Many parents, educators, and medical professionals still view autism as a set of deficits to be corrected rather than a valid neurological difference. The idea that autistic children must be trained to behave like their neurotypical peers is deeply ingrained in the way autism is discussed and treated. This leads to a system where autistic voices are dismissed, alternative approaches such as occupational therapy, speech therapy, and self-directed learning are underfunded, and the voices of autistic adults who speak out against ABA are ignored in favor of professionals who have built their careers on behaviorist principles.
The harms of ABA are not just theoretical or confined to a few isolated cases. Research has shown that autistic individuals who underwent ABA are at a higher risk of developing PTSD. A 2018 study found that nearly half of autistic adults who experienced ABA met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, a rate far higher than those who had never been subjected to it. This aligns with the firsthand accounts of countless autistic adults who describe their experiences in ABA as deeply distressing, humiliating, and traumatic. The long-term psychological effects, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, are alarmingly common among those who were subjected to years of compliance training, forced eye contact, and punishment for natural behaviors.
A human rights-based approach to autism support would center the needs, autonomy, and well-being of autistic individuals rather than focusing on behavior modification. Instead of forcing autistic children to suppress their natural instincts, therapy should focus on helping them navigate the world in ways that work for them. This includes providing sensory-friendly environments, supporting alternative communication methods such as AAC devices, respecting bodily autonomy, and helping autistic individuals develop self-advocacy skills. Education systems should embrace neurodiversity rather than forcing conformity, and workplaces should adapt to accommodate autistic employees rather than expecting them to adapt at great personal cost.
The continued use of ABA represents a failure to listen to autistic people, a refusal to prioritize their well-being over the financial interests of a deeply entrenched industry. It is not enough to soften the language of behaviorist therapy or claim that ABA has evolved. The core of ABA remains rooted in control, compliance, and the erasure of autistic identity. Until the world acknowledges the harm that ABA has caused—and continues to cause—it will remain a human rights violation masquerading as therapy. The voices of autistic people must be heard, respected, and prioritized in discussions about autism interventions. Anything less is a continuation of the same ableist systems that have harmed autistic individuals for generations.