This scenario highlights a critical ethical dilemma at the intersection of experimental design and client welfare Experimental Control The data clearly demonstrate experimental control The reduction in SIB when the intervention was applied AB phase and its subsequent increase back to baseline levels when the intervention was withdrawn BA phase strongly suggests that the intervention was responsible for the behavior change This is a hallmark of a wellexecuted ABA withdrawal design in terms of demonstrating a functional relationship Therefore the statement that experimental control was demonstrated is accurate Ethical Considerations However the ethical appropriateness of using a withdrawal design for severe and potentially dangerous behaviors like selfinjurious behavior is highly questionable The BACB Ethical Code for Behavior Analysts specifically Section 101 Beneficence and 102 Doing No Harm emphasizes the primary responsibility of behavior analysts to promote the wellbeing and protect the safety of their clients Withdrawing an intervention that has proven effective in reducing a dangerous behavior even temporarily for the sole purpose of demonstrating experimental control places the client at significant risk of harm While demonstrating experimental control is a crucial scientific principle in ABA it should never supersede the ethical obligation to protect the client from harm Alternative designs such as multiple baseline designs or reversal designs that only partially withdraw components of an intervention might be more ethically appropriate when dealing with dangerous behaviors as they allow for the demonstration of control without necessarily returning the behavior to its full harmful baseline levels Thus while experimental control was achieved the ethical implications of this design choice are problematic