Bronze-level article

Facilitated communication

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Putting the psycho in
Parapsychology
Icon psychic.svg
Men who stare at goats
By the powers of tinfoil

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a debunked[1] technique whereby a paraprofessional called a "facilitator" tries to help a nonspeaking person communicate by pointing or typing. The best known uses of FC are in cases of autism, intellectual disability, and cerebral palsy. This technique has given great hope to many and grief to some, with no validated results.

The movement in favor of FC seems to have peaked in the 1990s and was severely impacted by a scathing Frontline report on PBS.[2]

Syracuse University used to maintain an institute, the Institute on Communication and Inclusion,[3] (originally called the Facilitated Communication Institute until 2006[4]) for the teaching and study of FC. Despite the fact that FC is used primarily for disabilities of the mind, the institute is not hosted by the psychology department, which should not be surprising given that the American Psychological Association takes an official stand against FC.[5] Syracuse University has since shut down this institute.

Debunker's toolkit[edit]

There are a few ways to check authorship:

  • Say or show something to the disabled person with the facilitator in a different room. Have the facilitator come back. Can the disabled person say what happened, even though the facilitator doesn't know? This is the most reliable way to check. Studies consistently find that the non-verbal person cannot communicate any information unless that information is known to the facilitator.
  • See if the person is looking at what they're typing.
  • Notice if their "voice" (word choice and tone) is consistent even with different facilitators.

Study of FC[edit]

Since the facilitator is used to communicate, it's easy to fall into circular logic (FC works because the facilitator told us that FC works). The best way to study the validity of FC is to show or say something to the disabled person when the facilitator is not in the room, and then see if the disabled person can use the facilitator to say what they saw or heard.

Evidence against FC[edit]

The facilitator believes that they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, the facilitator's natural twitches and movements can direct the disabled person's hand, similar to the use of dowsing and ouija boards.

Publication of controlled studies peaked in the 1990s, with the near universal failure to validate the technique. The only positive studies were either testimonials, or very small poorly controlled experiments, making their validity dubious.[6][7][8][9]

Facilitated communication is opposed by many medical organizations, including the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC).[10] ISAAC summary on FC noted that:[10]

  • Support for FC is primarily anecdotal.
  • Systematic reviews showed that FC authorship was attributable to the facilitators, not the persons with the disability.
  • Several allegations of sexual abuse were associated with FC.
  • The use of FC may be in violation of several articles of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Risks[edit]

The risks of misusing FC are serious:[11]

  • Falsely leading people to believe their loved one is talking to them
  • Diverting funds and time from legitimate techniques
  • Taking away any real capacity that a disabled person may have to communicate (e.g. signs, pointing a pictures)
  • Making decisions (clinical, legal, or personal) based on FC communication, without clear proof of authorship
  • Dozens of false allegation of abuse have been made through FC

False allegations made using FC[edit]

There have been cases where allegations of abuse have stemmed from reports obtained by FC, only for it to be discovered that the facilitator was making the allegations.[12]

One in particular is the case of "Carla", who was removed from the care of her family several times because of reports of abuse made via FC. In her case and several others, the communication was tested and found to be invalid, showing essentially that the facilitator, rather than the subject, made the allegations, leading to pain for the family and subject, and expense for the state.[13][14] The court system has taken a dim view of FC.[15]

Other harms done by misuse of FC[edit]

Another case involved a woman sexually abusing a disabled man, claiming that he had given consent through FC. However, he was only "able" to communicate when she was the facilitator (not when other family members did so), and a court case found that he had never in fact expressed love for her or consent to sex.[16]

Facilitated communication was misused in the horrifying case of Jude Mirra, a young autistic boy. Jude's mother would move his hand while the boy wasn't even looking at the screen on which he was supposedly typing. Through facilitated communication, Jude supposedly claimed to have been physically abused in bizarre ways by his father. (Police found no corroborating evidence, and Jude had no injuries.) Yet the mother insisted that her son really had been abused, and this was one of the factors that led her to murder him in order to "protect" him from further abuse.[17] She claimed they "said goodbye to each other," and that Jude asked to be killed, yet it wasn't Jude talking.[18][19] This flagrant abuse of FC by a delusional woman shows the necessity of clear proof of authorship.

Similar unproven communication methods[edit]

The following alleged communication methods for non-verbal people are also scientifically unproven (and are allegedly just rebrandings of facilitated communication[20]):

  • Rapid Prompting (aka "Soma Rapid Prompt Method")
  • Supported Typing (this was the subject of a Frontline documentary, which exposed it for the fraud it was)

Alternatives[edit]

There are a number of legitimate augmented and alternative communication methods that can increase a non-verbal person's capacity to communication.

References[edit]

  1. Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review by R. W. Schlosser et al. (2014) Augment. Altern. Commun. 30(4):359-68. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971490.
  2. Prisoners of Silence, directed by Jon Palfreman (October 19, 1993) Frontline (archived from February 5, 2009).
  3. Who We Are Institute on Communication and Inclusion, Syracuse University (archived from July 10, 2019).
  4. Facilitated Communication Institute Syracuse University (archived from February 3, 2016).
  5. http://www.apa.org/about/division/cpmscientific.html#4
  6. Mostert, M P. Facilitated communication since 1995: a review of published studies.Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders. 31(3):287-313, 2001 Jun.
  7. Wheeler DL, Jacobson JW, Paglieri RA, Schwartz AA.An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 1993 Feb;31(1):49-59.
  8. Michael Eberlin, Gene McConnachie, Stuart Ibel,and Lisa Volpe. Facilitated communication: A failure to replicate the phenomenon. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.Volume 23, Number 3 September, 1993.
  9. Elliott W. Simon, Donna M. Toll and Patricia M. Whitehair. A naturalistic approach to the validation of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Volume 24, Number 5 October, 1994
  10. 10.0 10.1 ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication Augmentative and Alternative Communication 30(4):357-358. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971492.
  11. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-05-25.html
  12. Not Just the Wendrows: Sex Abuse Cases Dismissed After Facilitated Communication
  13. Gorman B.J. Facilitated communication: rejected in science, accepted in court-a case study and analysis of the use of FC evidence under Frye and Daubert.Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 17(4):517-41, 1999.
  14. SHARON L. HOSTLER, JANET H. ALLAIRE and RICHARD A. CHRISTOPH.Childhood Sexual Abuse Reported by Facilitated Communication. Pediatrics. 1993;91;1190-1192.
  15. Department of Social Services ex. rel. Jenny S. V. Mark S., 593 N.Y.S.2d 142 (N.Y. Family Court, 1993) Although his case does not relate directly to employment, it does relate to the testifying of persons with communication difficulties in court in general under the ADA. In 1993 this New York family court held that a child or children with autism, who allegedly had been sexually abused, would not be permitted to testify in court through the use of facilitated communication because:
    • (a) facilitated communication is not a form of communication that is generally accepted within the scientific community;
    • (b) the use of facilitated communication is not required by the ADA.
    (REF: 1993 MPDLR 17(4), p. 385)
  16. The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield
  17. Mother Kills Autistic Son to Spare Him from Fictional Abuse
  18. New York businesswoman guilty of manslaughter in son's death - CNN
  19. Gigi Jordan Describes Last Moments With Her Son - Wall Street Journal
  20. The Pseudoscientific Phenom — Facilitated Communication — Makes a Comeback