The Role of Compassion and Ethics in Decision Making Regarding Access to Applied Behavior Analysis Services During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Response to Cox, Plavnick, and Brodhead
Ethical ABA during crises means balancing safety with compassionate, family-centered care instead of blanket shutdowns.
01Research in Context
What this study did
LeBlanc et al. (2020) wrote a position paper. They answered a call to stop all in-person ABA during COVID-19.
The authors said blanket shutdowns hurt families. They urged teams to weigh safety, compassion, and family needs instead.
What they found
The paper finds no single rule fits every home. Ethical choice means balancing health risk, client progress, and caregiver stress.
They warn that sudden withdrawal of therapy can cause lasting skill loss. Remote or hybrid options should stay on the table.
How this fits with other research
Rosenberg et al. (2019) set the stage. Their step-by-step ethics model tells analysts to look past the rule book and use guided decision making. LeBlanc et al. apply that same logic to the pandemic.
Sutton et al. (2022) and Vassos et al. (2023) supply real-world proof. Both studies show adaptive behavior and mental health worsened when services stopped, backing the paper’s warning.
Lugo-Marín et al. (2021) seems to disagree. They found some youth had fewer behavior problems during lockdown. The gap is explained by focus: Jorge tracked short-term comfort, while LeBlanc worries about long-term skill loss and family burden.
Why it matters
You can copy the paper’s stance today. When safety, weather, or staffing threatens sessions, hold an ethics huddle. Ask: Can we keep teaching outdoors, on screen, or in shorter bursts? Check caregiver stress and client progress, then write a plan everyone can live with.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Schedule a 15-minute team huddle to list at least two alternate service modes you could offer if in-person sessions halt tomorrow.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Cox, Plavnick, and Brodhead (2020, “A Proposed Process for Risk Mitigation During the COVID-19 Pandemic”) published a position statement in the emergency section of Behavior Analysis in Practice in response to the COVID-19 crisis. They argued against a blanket interpretation that in-person applied behavior analysis services for all patients should continue during the pandemic. They strongly argued that the risks of continued services are almost always prohibitive and that only in rare cases would the continuation of in-person services be warranted. Colombo, Wallace, and Taylor (2020, “An Essential Service Decisions Model for Applied Behavior Analytic Providers During Crisis”) soon thereafter published a response to the article pointing out the potential dangers associated with the position of the article by Cox et al. They included a detailed decision model to assist providers in making nuanced and informed data-based decisions that provide the opportunity to honor the ethical responsibility for not abandoning patients. We echo the importance of the Colombo et al. response and add points of response centered on balanced ethical decision making informed by compassionate family-centered care.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40617-020-00446-7