Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: the rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap.
Let clients refuse; embed choice everywhere even if teaching takes longer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cooper et al. (1990) wrote a position paper. They asked: How do we honor both habilitation goals and personal freedom?
The authors focused on adults with developmental disabilities. They used real-life examples like eating extra doughnuts or taking a nap.
The paper is theoretical. It gives no new data. It gives a roadmap for daily ethical choices.
What they found
The team found no conflict between rights and learning. Clients can keep the right to say "no" even if it slows progress.
Slowing down is acceptable. Preserving dignity and choice is the higher goal.
How this fits with other research
Peterson (2023) updates the debate. Peterson adds the twist of consent when clients have few or no words. Both papers agree: balance autonomy with care.
Matson et al. (2013) reviewed decades of studies. The review shows choice improves motivation and well-being. This evidence supports the 1990 call to build choice into programs.
McGeown et al. (2013) sounds a warning. Pure "choice" talk can exclude people who need more support. Their critique extends the 1990 view by urging broader safeguards.
Armas Junco et al. (2025) tested the idea. Adults who moved to community homes gained self-determination only when staff gave daily choice opportunities. The data back up the 1990 stance with numbers.
Why it matters
You can stop battles over compliance. Offer real choices first: snack type, task order, or where to sit. Accept no as an answer when safety is not at risk. This builds trust and keeps your program ethically clean.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two choice points to the first hour of the day: let the client pick the work material and the break activity.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In the pursuit of efficient habilitation, many service providers exercise a great deal of control over the lives of clients with developmental disabilities. For example, service providers often choose the client's habilitative goals, determine the daily schedule, and regulate access to preferred activities. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of allowing clients to exercise personal liberties, such as the right to choose and refuse daily activities. On one hand, poor choices on the part of the client could hinder habilitation. On the other hand, moral and legal issues arise when the client's right to choice is abridged. Recommendations are offered to protect both the right to habilitation and the freedom to choose.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79