ABA "cured" their child's autism, like one parent who "claims that ABA had saved her children's lives, likening it to chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer." Views of Autistic community The value of eliminating autistic behaviors is disputed by proponents of neurodiversity, who claim that it forces autistic people to mask their true personalities on behalf of a narrow conception of normality. Masking is associated with suicidality and poor long-term mental health. Autism advocates contend that it is cruel to try to make autistic people "normal" without consideration for how this may affect their well-being. Instead, these critics advocate for increased social acceptance of harmless autistic traits and therapies focused on improving quality of life. A 2020 study examined perspectives of autistic adults that received ABA as children and found that the overwhelming majority reported that "behaviorist methods create painful lived experiences", that ABA led to the "erosion of the true actualizing self", and that they felt they had a "lack of self-agency within interpersonal experiences." Use of aversives Some embodiments of applied behavior analysis as devised by Ole Ivar Lovaas used aversives such as electric shocks to modify undesirable behavior in their initial use in the 1970s, as well as slapping and shouting in a 1987 study. Over time the use of aversives lessened and in 2012 their use was described as being inconsistent with contemporary practice. However, aversives have continued to be used in some ABA programs. In comments made in 2014 to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a clinician who previously worked at the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center claimed that "all textbooks used for thorough training of applied behavior analysts include an overview of the principles of punishment, including the use of electrical stimulation." In 2010, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Torture described the Judge Rotenberg Center's use of electrical shocks on children as torture. In 2020, the FDA banned the use of electrical stimulation devices used for self-injurious or aggressive behavior and asserted that "Evidence indicates a number of significant psychological and physical risks are associated with the use of these devices, including worsening of underlying symptoms, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, pain, burns and tissue damage." In the same year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the ban, ruling that the FDA "has no authority to choose what medical devices a practitioner should prescribe or administer or for which