Aromatic ammonia is the type of aversion procedure aimed at preventing the individual from performing destructive behavior by associating unpleasant feelings with drastic actions. Since its active chemical has a noxious scent, which, if used excessively, could cause skin and nasal burns, psychiatric patients are afraid to misbehave (Salerno, 2019). The technique is based on the olfactory effects of ammonia and has been the subject of elevated scientific interest in the past century. This essay aims to consider the positive and negative aspects of aromatic ammonia usage as an aversion procedure and evaluate the feasibility according to ethical compliance codes.
Benefits of Aromatic Ammonia
There are some advantages of using aromatic ammonia for the purpose of aversion. In the context of psychiatric hospitals, the named technique cannot become the criteria for discrimination of the hospital staff according to the possession of the object of aversion (Salerno, 2019). Unlike electric shock instruments, ammonia ampules could be carried by most of the team, which significantly raises the obedience levels. Moreover, the evident benefit of technology is the opportunity of its use in the immediate environment of destructive behavior without carrying the subject away (Moline et al., 2020). Finally, the technique helps avoid the patient’s unnecessary actions, which proves its efficacy for use. These factors approve the implementation of aromatic ammonia as a method of aversion.
Disadvantages of Aromatic Ammonia
Together with the benefits, this technique has side effects both for a patient and not cautious professionals which can be detrimental for health. The most obvious danger of the the active chemical in this substance is the risk of burning skin, airways of the respiratory system, and the covering of the gastrointestinal tract (Salerno, 2019). The physical manifestations of the adverse impact on health can make patients with mental diseases like schizophrenia more uncontrollable even in a hospital setting. Considering the psychiatry clinics’ circumstances, other patients can become annoyed and cause more problems for the medical team (Salerno, 2019). Moreover, the named substance is not recommended for use to patients with a weak cardiovascular system, the disorders of which are frequent in those patients. As a result, the aromatic ammonia’s limitations restrict its usage in the setting where it is of the most use, making it meaningless.
Ethical Code Elements Evaluation
Aversion with aromatic ammonia can be evaluated according to ethical compliance codes. First, the technique is mainly practiced for changing the performance of the subject through unpleasant associations with the actions, which are to be eliminated (Moline et al., 2020). Hence, behavior analysts need to acknowledge the aims, modes, and conditions of the practice. Second, the consent for implementing the aromatic ammonia should be reached after the agreed planning with the client. Since the procedure is linked to some risks and changes in behavior, it may not occur without proper coherence (Salerno, 2019). Third, this aversion method can be used in the immediate environment of the client, and consequently has no obstacles and necessities in other professionals (Salerno, 2019). Finally, in view of the possible side effects and risk factors, the patients’ health conditions need to be assessed to avoid the harmful experience. The allergies and some chronic diseases in the remission stage could become evident significantly after the technique implementation. In such a case, the aromatic ammonia treatment needs to be stopped immediately to prevent the escalation of the situation, and checking by the relevant professionals is compulsory (Salerno, 2019). As a result, the aversion with aromatic ammonia has the regulations to be followed as any other restrictive procedures.
Moline, R., Hou, S., Chevrier, J., & Thomassin, K. (2020). A systematic review of the effectiveness of behavioural treatments for pica in youths. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 1-17.
Salerno, J. (2019). Efficacy, risks, and ethics of aversive or positive therapy in identical twins (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN). Web.