Facilitated communication ( FC ), supported typing or handed hands , is a discredited technique used by some caregivers and educators in an effort to help people with severe education and communication disabilities. This technique involves providing alphabetical boards, or keyboards. The facilitator holds or gently touches the arm or hand of a disabled person during this process and tries to help them move their hands and strengthen their movements. In addition to providing the physical support required for typing or pointing, the facilitator provides verbal encouragement and moral support. In addition to human touch assistance, the facilitator's confidence in their communication partner's ability to communicate seems to be a key component of this technique.
There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and various disability advocacy organizations that facilitators, not persons with communication disabilities, are the source of all or most of the messages obtained through FC, by guiding the patient's arm to the answers they expect to see or that form the language understood. Alternatively, the facilitator can hold the alphabet board and move it to the finger of the disabled person. A study that asks things that the facilitator can not identify (eg showing the patient but not the object facilitator) has confirmed this, indicating that a facilitator generally can not 'help' patients to sign an answer to a question they do not know what the answer should be. In addition, many cases have been reported by investigators in which people with disabilities are assumed by the facilitator to sign a coherent message when their eyes are closed, or they look away from or do not show any special interest on the letter board.
Some technical promoters have argued that FC can not be clearly proven by testing, since the testing environment may feel confrontational and alienate the subject. Because the scientific consensus is that FC is a pseudoscience that causes great risk and emotional distress for people with communication disabilities, their families, and their caregivers, this technique is now rejected outside some of the fringe groups and organizations, including Syracuse University in the United States.. In 2015 Sweden prohibits the use of FC in special needs schools.
Video Facilitated communication
Overview
Facilitated communication is promoted as a means to assist people with severe communication disabilities in pointing letters on alphabet boards, keyboards or other devices so that they can communicate independently. It also appears in the literature as "supported typing", "progressive kinesthetic feedback", and "improved written output communication". This is somewhat related to the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), also known as "informative pointing", which has no evidence of efficacy.
People with disabilities, who often can not rely on speech to communicate, are referred to as communication partners . Caregivers, educators, or other providers who offer physical support to PwDs are referred to as facilitators . The facilitator holds or gently touches the elbow, wrist, arm, or other body part of the communication partner, while the communication partner points to the letters of the alphabet printed on a piece of paper or laminated carton, letters on the alphabet board, laptop, keyboard or mobile communication device such as iPad.
Canon Communicator, a small, portable, and lightweight device that prints tape when activated, popular among early FC users. However, two companies, Crestwood Co. of Glendale, Wisconsin and Abovo Co. from Chicopee, Massachusetts, will then be prosecuted by the Federal Trade Commission for making "false and unproved claims" that such devices may allow people with autism and other defects to communicate using FC. Companies settle down and stop mentioning FCs in their advertising campaigns.
FC proponents claim that motor problems (eg, neurological conditions of apraxia) prevent people with autism communicating effectively. Although these claims are not proven (many people with autism have no difficulty pointing or retrieving objects independently, but exhibiting severe communication difficulties that are characteristic of disorder), supporters argue that physical support and touch are the components needed to communicate via FC. FC candidates, perhaps, "lack confidence in their abilities" and physical support, purportedly, helped them overcome these obstacles to communication.
The role of facilitator is described by supporters as an integral part to help the handicapped person point to the letter (by holding his finger or hand), reducing or eliminating uncontrolled arm movements (shaking or flapping), avoiding typing errors, controlling movement initiation, and saying words - said aloud. As well as physical support in typing, the facilitator provides verbal encouragement and moral support. Along with the human touch, the facilitator's confidence in their communication partner's ability to communicate is seen as a key component of the technique. "Complete trust and confidence " according to the speech pathologist who taught FC at an autism meeting in Ohio, "with the intention that you can jointly show others ".
Former facilitator Janyce Boynton, who came to reject the technique after taking part in a double-blind trial, later reported that she received training from Syracuse University which considers that the process was successful, and the complexity of facilitation made it difficult to realize that the message came from her wish and not from his patient: "When you facilitate, you are so distracted by other things.You have a conversation, you ask and answer the question, you try to see that person to see if they're looking at the keyboard... Your brain is so active that you lose sight of what's happening with your hands... that's what makes it feel like working because the more you practice it, the more the movement feels very fluid. "
Maps Facilitated communication
History
The FC movement can be traced back to the 1960s in Denmark where it failed to hold due to lack of scientific evidence. FC experienced a period of rapid growth and popularity in Australia in the 1970s-1980s, largely due to the efforts of special educator Rosemary Crossley. Arthur Schawlow, a Nobel laureate whose son was autistic, and Douglas Biklen, then a professor of special education from Syracuse University who studied Crossley's work in Australia, was credited with popularizing FC in the United States in the late 1980s, early 1990s. FC is also gaining attention in many other parts of the world: Canada, Germany, Austria, Finland, France, Italy, Britain and Asia.
Initial users of this technique praised FC for its simplicity. FC is promoted as a "teaching strategy" and not an experimental or even risky technique that requires objective or rigorous evaluation. In early 1991, however, more than 40 empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals involving more than 400 people with autism not only failed to demonstrate FC efficacy, but indicated that the success reported by the proponents of the technique was due to the influence of the facilitator. Many researchers link the influence of the facilitator, in large part, to unconscious movements. It is estimated that the facilitator is completely unaware that they, not their clients or family members, are in control of communication.
In 1994, the American Psychological Association (APA), followed by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), and the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) warns practitioners against using FC, citing the lack of scientific evidence. APA also recommends that information obtained through FC should not be used to confirm or deny alleged harassment or make diagnostic or treatment decisions. In recognition of the ongoing scientific evidence of this technique, other organizations join, submitting their own resolution advising their membership to avoid such techniques. A British government report concluded in 1998 that "the phenomenon of failing to materialize after the effects of the facilitator has been controlled.It will be difficult to justify further research on this".
In 2001 Mark P. Mostert of the School of Education of the Bupati University in Virginia Beach, Virginia, reported in a comprehensive second review of the peer-reviewed literature investigating FC that "Facilitated Communication (FC) has largely been empirically discredited as an effective intervention for people who were previously un communicative with disabilities, especially those with autism and related disorders.The key empirical findings consistently show that the facilitator and not the client who initiated the communication. "
Many people believe that FC has passed its peak, regard it as a fad and characterize it as pseudo-scientific. However, despite these findings, FC supporters continue their compliance with the technique, rejecting empirical investigations as irrelevant, defective or unnecessary, characterizing FC as "effective and legitimate interventions" in pro-FC literature, and refusing to change their minds or acknowledge error. The FC Movement maintains popularity in parts of the United States, Australia, and Germany, and continues to be used in many countries by 2014. Mostert writes:
All of the newer pro-FC studies operate from the premise that FC works and is a legitimate practice to be used in investigating a number of other phenomena related to people with autism and other weight-related communication issues. Such assumptions further transform FC into valid interventions among readers who are unaware of the empirical dismissal of the intervention and who may be unskilled in distinguishing the solid from the suspect's research. In this case, it is likely that FC will continue to strengthen the assumptions of efficacy among parents and practitioners. This perception will continue to be reinforced by professional organizations such as the Communication Institute facilitated at Syracuse University, a considerable acceptance of international FC, and the vacuum created by some if there is a strong future empirical study that tends to hinder the faithful.
RPM
Facilitated communication is closely related to Rapid Prompting (RPM) methods, although RPM supporters deny similarities to FCs because the assistant or facilitator in RPM holds the letter board but "does not touch the typing person" and that the instructions are "not specific." However, RPM criticism shows that subtle cuing occurs during an RPM that makes it "very susceptible to the influence of the facilitator."
Other similarities between RPM and FC include: reluctance or refusal to test facilitator/client pairs in controlled settings (allegedly due to a process of undermining trust between spouses), suspected competence, reliance on anecdotal accounts as evidence of efficacy, maintenance practices, techniques and claims inconsistent with known bodies around individual communication behaviors and skills with developmental disabilities or proven remediation techniques, exceptional literacy claims or intellectual breakthroughs, unconscious verbal or physical cuing by facilitators to obtain expected, inadequate responses or protocols there is to diminish a supported or facilitated encouragement.
Organizations that oppose facilitated communication
- American Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Academy (AACAP)
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- The American Association on Intellectual Disability and Development (AAIDD), formerly called the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR)
- Representative Council of the American Psychiatric Association (APACR)
- The American Psychological Association (APA)
- The American Hearing Association (ASHA)
- Association for International Behavioral Analysis (ABAI)
- Association of Science in Autism Treatment
- The Michigan Association of Behavioral Analysis (BAAM)
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- HeilpÃÆ'¤dagogische Forschung
- The Institute on Disability (IOD) at the University of New Hampshire
- The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC)
- New York State Department of Health
- New Zealand Ministry of Health and Education
- The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
- Socialstyrelsen (National Board of Health and Welfare, Sweden)
- The Australian Speech Pathology
- The Swedish Autism and Asperger Association
- The Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals and Disabilities Inc. (VALID)
One of the main questions about facilitated communication is who actually communicates. The main purpose of using such a technique, as suggested by Stephen Von Tetzchner, professor of psychology at the University of Oslo, is the original communication , in which messages obtained through FC come from that person. with disabilities and is not influenced by the facilitator. However, as von Tetzchner points out, there are two other potential outcomes of FC:
- automatic communication , where messages are generated by the facilitator without the awareness of the communication partner (similar to automated writing); and
- false communication , in which the message is consciously produced by the facilitator to advance his own goals.
Supporters
Facilitators using this technique report unexpected reading skills to people who are considered nonverbal, illiterate and unable to learn more than just basic life skills. They proposed that FC open the minds and feelings of individuals who are suffering severe disturbances that are not accessible in traditional ways. Of course, parents report their excitement and joy when they see their child, with his facilitator, typing "I love you" for the first time. Educators and caregivers claim students who are not directly instructed in reading, writing or math, through FC, are able to express complex thinking through the writing and completion of multiplication and the problem of long division. They feel that persons with disabilities, themselves, are able to write books and poetry, to advocate for better care for people with disabilities, to express their desire to go to college or to leave their care facilities, to marry, to have sex, to decide what is important. medical problems, and, in some cases, reported alleged abuses in their homes, although physically supported in typing by the facilitator. FC seems to bring with it the hope of "destroying old beliefs and methods of working with autism... and opening the door to new beliefs and methods that no one can imagine."
FC workshops, training materials, newsletters and newspaper accounts use an emotionally appealing story - a breakthrough allegation using FC - and, often, support the sentiment that FC can empower people with disabilities to "talk" to themselves for the first time. These materials, written by "authoritative, sincere, authoritative individuals" -the university professors, psychologists, speech-language pathologists-helped shape the ideological mindset that led many well-intentioned facilitators into full cognitive traps with confirmatory bias and deceiving oneself with one of the main statements is "assuming competence on the part of a communication partner without testing that assumption."
The guides for facilitators also include instructions to prevent mistakes during facilitation (by retracting the hands of communication partners), expecting the emergence of hidden skills and sensitive personal information, using anecdotal data to validate authorship, avoid objective checks, and emphasize "facilitated" over oral communication. Under the guise of public opinion and qualitative study, rather than systematic empirical data collection through quantitative studies, the facilitator is not only sure of FC success, but is ready to cancel more than 40 years of autism research.
Despite claims from FC promoters that autism is a motor and emotional control (ie belief) problem that can be overcome with physical support, autism is largely accepted in the academic and clinical arenas as a neurological problem often accompanied by intellectual disabilities. The core feature of autism is a severe communication problem that can not be overcome simply by holding one's hands.
Proponents claim that some individuals using FC have developed the ability to type independently or with minimal support (eg a slight touch on the shoulder or back of the neck). The facilitator connects messages obtained through FC to his communication partners having shared books, articles and games. This, it seems, is aimed at the amazing and liberating nature of FC, and it is said to give people a glimpse of the inner world of people with autism: Annie's Coming Out (1980), The Secret World of Arthur Wold (1993), Out of Silence (1994), In Dark Hours I Find My Way (1995), Miracles (1997), The Mind Tree (2003), and I am Intelligent (2012), to name a few.
With their facilitators attending classes, helping them in typing class notes, completing homework and taking tests, some people with autism rely on FC and even graduate from high school or college. However, these independent typing claims, to date, are anecdotal and have not been proven in an objective way.
Criticism
People who were more critical of the technique noticed that, while the facilitators were meant to watch the mailboard, their communication partners were often distracted, staring into space, rolling on the floor while facilitating, asleep, or not paying attention. Sometimes communication partners say words that are contrary to typed words. The structure of the language and vocabulary used by children who are being facilitated often exceeds what is usually considered appropriate for their age and experience. Highly competent people should give wrong answers to simple questions or information that should be known (eg, the name of the family dog, the name of a family member, the spelling of their own name). Still others question why people with autism who exhibit excellent fine motor skills are required to have the physical support of the facilitator to point to a keyboard while many people with autism type independently.
Bernard Rimland, a research psychologist who founded the Autism Research Institute of San Diego and the Autism Society of America, asked, "How could an autistic child be able to take the last little crumbs of potato chips on a plate but not enough motor coordination to type the letter E "Howard Shane, director of the Center for Communication Improvement at Children's Hospital in Boston and a professor at Harvard Medical School, feels that" curious that those who are facilitated can only make this insightful comment "when assisted by an assistant. Why, when technology allows people with severe disabilities, the opportunity to access independent communication with the slightest movement (for example, eyebrows, eyebrow movements, gusts of air to straw), would a facilitator need to hold their hands?
Researchers familiar with ideomotor, Clever Hans, or the Ouija effect, pay attention to the small movements made by the facilitator; movements that are often not realized by the facilitator. All this raises concerns about authorship, the role of facilitator in communicating through FC, and facilitating time taking from the pursuit of scientifically proven communication techniques. Psychologist Adrienne Perry warns: "Adults or autistic children are made 'screens' for hostility of a facilitator, hopes, beliefs or suspicions" and that "concentrating on this method can deprive people of opportunities to learn other skills that will be more useful to them."
While proponents insist that FC "should not involve guiding a person when he tries to point or type," the facilitator can and does influence the facilitated movement without realizing it. Gina Green, research director for New England Autism Center in Massachusetts, E.K. Shriver Center for Mental Retardation, and Northeastern University, states: "A very subtle influence can affect people's behavior, it does not even have to be touched, it can be the slightest sound, the slightest visual gesture." And, in terms of the videotape where it appears the person with autism is typing independently, "You can edit the video footage and show whatever you want.They will show a close-up of a finger moving across the keyboard... but you do not get what again that's going on. "
Researchers James Mulick, John Jacobson and Frank Kobe stated that the medical community can offer "confusing... and contradictory" information to "parents who hear that their child has significant disability... sadness". "Miracle cures from Australia" such as FC can use this pressure and sadness to promote confidence in FC. The only evidence of success is "transcript of clear conversation content". These families used "... (to) caress their hopes with empty promises, regardless of their sincerity, while reaping personal or political rewards and working hard to prevent systematic verification of their claims". The researchers went on to say that "people with disabilities can be valued members of their family and community without using an appeal for a miracle cure". Scientific and sincere assistance is available, "advances in care and understanding come at a strict training price, dedication to accuracy and scientific standards, and objective verification of all treatment claims".
Pat Mirenda, professor in the Department of Education and Counseling of Special Education and Psychology at the University of British Columbia and co-author David R. Beukelman, Professor of Barkley Communication Disorder at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, decides not to include FC in the revised version of their textbook Communications Augmentative and Alternative: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. Early versions of textbooks are cited in pro-FC literature. By 2015, Mirenda stated, "I began to realize (painfully, honestly) that my advocacy attitude made me bias to interpret what I saw on videotapes as typing even though other explanations made more sense (for example, subtle encouragement, generating ideomotor effects ), and that, even if independent typing does occur after FC exposure, only correlation - but certainly not causal - evidence exists with respect to its relationship with FC.In short, I do not support FC as communication or instructional techniques, and I do not support its use.
Stephen N. Calculator from the University of New Hampshire, an early supporter of FC who also distanced himself from the movement because he was unable to replicate the claims of independent communication in his own research, summed up the importance of determining the extent of the facilitator's influence: "The consequences of wrong messaging to communicators , rather than facilitators, continue to have significant financial, social and moral consequences.Facilitators must take extraordinary precautions to ensure that they do not significantly influence the message and thereby violate the freedom of speech communicators.The rights of individuals to express their thoughts and ideas should not be avoided by facilitators communicating to them, unwilling or not. "
Testifying in the court case Anna Stubblefield, psychology professor James Todd stated in the trial (FC) "This becomes the single most scientifically discredited intervention in all developmental disabilities." Any "methodologically sound" study of FC has indicated it is invalid. Writing about the case in the journal Disability and Society, Mark Sherry voiced similar concerns about FC's lack of scientific validity, calling it "fake", "hoax" and "fraud". Sherry's is the first article published in the journal Disability Studies that really criticizes Stubblefield's actions - an important contribution because Stubblefield has also followed the Disability Study and has previously published about FC in the Disability Studies Quarterly . Sherry suggests that some Stubblefield (and FC broader) advocates are his personal friends or working in institutions that receive substantial income from providing FC.
The editorial for the Syracuse University newspaper called it "unforgivable" and "embarrassing" that the University continues to support FC after more than 25 years of research has discredited it.
Leaders in the FC movement, such as Crossley from Australia and Biklen in the United States, insist that communications with FC occur independently of the facilitator, who acts as a passive message recipient, and rely on anecdotal data and observations (eg, the existence of a unique spelling or skill or revelation unexpected made during the communication session) to support their claim. Individuals - parents and researchers - who question the establishment and support of FC evaluations with objective methods accused of being "oppressors of the disabled," say they are narrow-minded, outdated, evil, jealous, they are not the ones who find FC, and, in some cases , was accused of hate speech for advocating a more learned approach.
Mostert wrote in 2001, "FC supporters should be encouraged to subdue their claims for further scientific verification, anecdotal evidence claims.If any small part of the FC has ever been found to be effective or even plausible, it is very clear that only with careful use- the heart of this controlled experimental method will be established. "However, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, researchers and parents maintain that controlled testing, in which the facilitator does not yet know the answer to the question and, therefore, can not inadvertently or by deliberately directing their communication partners to get the desired answer, is the only way to determine whether communication is really independent or not. They caution that even though the facilitator may feel like he or she does not move the other's hands and that the message is from a communication partner, the facilitator may, indeed, give a gesture that leads to certain letters on the keyboard.
Kathleen M. Dillon, professor of psychology at Western New England College in Springfield, Massachusetts, said, "This is a difficult reality to understand." As Julie Riggot writes in an article for the Mental Health Practice Review , "Sometimes, the influence of the facilitator is less clear, because the facilitator may not hold the person's hand, but support the arm or shoulder touch - or even just observe typing. "Because the cues are often subtle and it is impossible to observe the influence of the facilitator in all cases where it is possible, naked eye observations, informal observations and facilitator reports have proved unreliable in determining authorship. Many facilitators deny that they influence the movement of its communication partners, even when facing conflicting evidence.
In 2006, Rom Houben was initially praised by Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys for his ability to type thoughts on the keypad, through the help of his facilitator Linda Wouters. However, "when anxiety is raised about the correctness of his message, an independent test is performed: Houben is shown various objects and asked to mention it.When Houben can not name any of the objects shown to him when Wouters is not in the room, Laureys accepts that Houben is not responsible for any one message, and admits that FC - in all false promises and false hopes - is responsible for Houben's convincing power. "
Media
Despite warnings from the likes of Eric Schopler, then director of the autism education program at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and the editor of the Journal of Autism, that promoting facilitated communication without empirical evidence is "reckless", acknowledged success stories of FC reported (and continue to be reported) in magazines such as Reader's Digest , in movies and dramas, and on television shows like ABC <20/20> Prime Time Live with Diane Sawing. Thousands of people - teachers, parents, speech pathologists, psychologists - struggle to find ways to communicate with individuals who, if not, show little ability to use spoken words to communicate their wants and needs - adopt FC with "blinding speed" with little oversight or public debate.
From the rapid increase of FC in popularity, especially in the United States, doctors John W. Jacobson, James A. Mulick, and Allen A. Schwartz wrote:
Public acceptance of FC by the public and professional community segments has questioned the resilience of educational and therapeutic interventions evaluated in publicly funded programs and the ability of many professionals to critically assess the procedures they use. Thus, FC serves as a case study in how the public and, worriedly, some professionals, fail to recognize the role of science in distinguishing truth from falsehood and its application to assess the value of treatment modalities.
James Randi, a magician familiar with the ideomotor effect commonly associated with dowsing and then associated with FC, made it more succinct when he called communication facilitated "a pot of more harm than good by arousing false hopes among the families of autistic children" after he was called to investigate engineering at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1992. The James Randi Education Foundation has offered a one million dollar reward "for a valid demonstration of facilitated communication." In 2009, Randi responded in an interview to the Rom Houben case, where it was shown that a message from a Belgian man believed to be in a coma for 23 years was generated by the facilitator, "Our reward is still there."
Validation
The problem of message testing obtained through this FC has, historically, been a problem for those in the FC community who support its use. Proponents claim that testing degrades the disabled, that the test environment creates performance anxiety, or that those who are facilitated can deliberately produce bullshit, refusing to respond or giving wrong answers to counter the negative attitudes of those skeptical of the technique. Observations by researchers who attended FC classes in 1993 were that "clients" did not always look at the keyboard, and that physical strength was used to "prevent the movement of learners' hands away from the keyboard" ultimately, they learned "patients" through FC "will be grateful to do so" and only open questions are requested, there is never a factual question. They are told that "one must receive what is produced". In 1992, when the FC was fairly new in the United States, Douglas Biklen was quoted in The Washington Post saying that he "received scientific research", but reporter, Amanda Spake, went on to explain:
he does not want to do it. He is an educator, not a psychiatrist, and like other educators who have written about facilitated communication, he is comfortable with the fact that there is often a lag time between the adoption of new methods and his scientific validation.
However, in refuting the suggestion that FC may be difficult or impossible to test objectively, James T. Todd, a psychologist at Eastern Michigan University, writes:
the determination of authorship in FC involves the direct application of the basic experimental methods described comprehensively by Mill (1843) over a century and a half ago, but understood for thousands of years. We are not talking about techniques that are unclear or controversial. We talked about author validation by selectively presenting different information to two people then observing what was produced.
Double-blind test
Despite the reluctance of the FC community to participate in the testing, researchers outside the community conducted double-blind tests in an attempt to identify in a controlled way that was communicating. Some tests were conducted in direct response to a growing number of cases involving allegations of sexual harassment that have infected FC users, including Crossley, conducted through the use of facilitated communication with parents, teachers and caregivers of persons with disabilities. However, a number of FC controlled evaluations are performed by doctors, researchers, and program administrators who consider the use of FC, but want an empirical, empirical basis for deciding what role, if any, FCs will be in their program.
The O.D. The Heck Center in Schenectady, New York is one of the first in the United States to announce their findings, that their clients generate meaningful responses through facilitated communication only when their facilitators have access to the correct response. The report continues to rule out issues of trust or skepticism on the part of the evaluators. All twelve participants (disabled persons) were selected for evaluation because their facilitators believed in their ability to communicate via FC. This study shows that communication partners are "systematically and unconsciously" influenced by their facilitators. The researchers wrote:
In fact, the nature of the findings allows us to state that their output in facilitated communication is not only influenced, but is controlled and determined by the facilitator. For all appearances, these participants have generated wise communication, and some have consistently engaged in interactive conversations using facilitated communication. Many people who serve these people believe that this output reflects the valid expression of the participants.
Results from O.D. Heck's research seems so surprising, especially given the positive response FC received in the mass media that the Frontline featured the 1993 story "Prisoners of Silence". In 1993, Genae A. Hall, research director for the Center for Behavior Analysis for Autism, writes:
The fact that the facilitator often controls and directs typing is called the "influence of the facilitator," which seems to be wrong. The "Influence of Facilitator" shows that the disabled exudes verbal behavior, and the facilitator uses partial control (or "influence") for that behavior. Although partial control can certainly occur when the fading asks in a structured teaching program, such controls have not been demonstrated in many cases of FC. Instead of influencing the typed message, the facilitator seems to be the only author of the messages. Thus, the focus of analysis shifts from the behavior of the disabled to the facilitator's behavior.
The O.D. Heter research is not the only study of double blind research to accept such results. In fact, some research has been done to determine authorship before or about the same time as OD. Heck learned. Whenever conditions are adequately controlled to prevent facilitators from knowing the answers to questions posed to disabled communication partners, the results show the effect of the facilitator, if not direct authorship.
In 1994, the Thistledown Regional Center in Ontario, Canada conducted an internal study of 20 people with autism and stopped using FC when the results indicated the effect of the facilitator was "contaminating the resulting message." In 1995, these results have been replicated by researchers worldwide in at least 24 studies in research journals that can be trusted, peer-reviewed using "various methods to see what happens when the facilitator does not know or can not guess the expected message or not see the look of the letter. "
In 1997, reflecting the trajectory that FC has taken in several countries, including Denmark, USA and Australia, von Tetzchner writes:
In the struggle to keep up to date with the increasing number of published papers, both researchers and practitioners tend to forget history. To avoid the same mistakes, the problems and processes underlying the rise and fall of facilitation techniques - as well as other intervention methods - in different countries should have a natural place in the research review. When an intervention that is claimed to have a remarkable effect disappears, the probable cause is the lack of a positive outcome.
In 2005, over 50 controlled studies and blind tests have been conducted, in addition to various controlled trials conducted in legal cases. Studies consistently show "without a doubt" that messages obtained through facilitated communication are controlled by the facilitator and not their communications partners.
Skepticism
Facilitated communication concepts and techniques are one that has been increasingly debated over the last few decades with most evidence showing that it is not scientifically valid. However, this information does not stop many individuals from using this technique in many circumstances and further, advocating for its effectiveness.
Much of the evidence from research conducted on the efficacy of this technique has revealed that a possible explanation for a "positive" outcome - that is, whatever shows that facilitated communication has succeeded - can be attributed to the facilitator itself. Whether it's a facilitator who links their own beliefs and views toward the individual, or creates a pseudo personality for a disabled individual based on their previous encounter with them, it is clear that the facilitator really does all the communication. A further examination into this technique has found examples where defective individuals using facilitated communication can answer simple questions appropriately only when the facilitator is in the room to hear questions. This includes asking the facilitator to go and then proceeding to show individuals who have disability images of animals. Next, the facilitator will return to the room and be asked to help the individual answer the question: "what animal have I just shown you?" In all these cases, the question was answered wrongly. However, when asked when the facilitator is in the room, the correct answer will be made. Surprisingly, this technique has also led to a series of cases of fake sexual harassment where the facilitator will show that the disabled individual revealed that they have been sexually abused. Not surprisingly, these cases were later dismissed on the discovery that these false allegations were actually the result of the facilitators who compiled these stories.
Finally, even further defining communications facilitated as pseudosain, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a statement demonstrating that facilitated communication studies have repeatedly shown that it is not a scientifically valid technique and that it is a controversial and unproven communicative procedure without a scientific show of support for its efficacy.
Sexual harassment and facilitator offense
There are instances where a person, through facilitated communication, seems to be revealing experiences of sexual or physical abuse. Often, the alleged harassment is sexual and contains "extensive, explicit, pornographic detail". While the facilitator was taught to expect their communication partners to disclose sensitive personal issues, it is not known whether FC generated more abuse allegations than other suggestive techniques.
The investigators suspect that the facilitators involved in such cases may mistakenly believe there is a connection between early abuse and autism or, for other reasons, suspect family harassment. As Green wrote in the 1995 article:
advice on sexual harassment through culture. Just watch Oprah or Phil [Donahue] almost any time or scan the pop psychology section of your local bookstore. Couple it with compulsory abuse reporting law, mix a bit of the spirit of war to "save" people with disabilities from persecution, and you have a powerful set of predecessors for the facilitator to generate conjecture.
In 1993, Prisoners of Silence featured the story of Gerry Gherardi of North Carolina accused, through messages produced by FC, about sexual harassment of his son. Despite the protests of innocence, Gherardi was forced to stay away from his home for six months. The charge was dropped when the court ordered a double-blind test to show that Gherardi's son could not write. That same year, Rimland reported in a New York Times article he knew about 25 cases in which families were accused of facilitated communication over sexual abuse of their children.
In 1995, there were five dozen known cases, with countless numbers of others settling without achieving public visibility. Since then, the number of cases has steadily increased. In addition to allegations of sexual harassment, facilitators, reportedly, have fallen in love with their communications partners and, relying on FC for approval, initiating sexual relationships, physically with people being treated, raising serious ethical and legal issues for facilitators, institutional protection services, law, court officials, educators, and family members.
The case "Carla"
Around the same time FC became popular in the United States in the early 1990s, the Board of Trustees and Administration in Melbourne, Australia, is reviewing an important case involving alleged sexual harassment and facilitated communication. The 1990 case involved a 28-year-old woman (a pseudonym "Carla") with a severe handicap that was removed, twice, from her home by state authorities because of messages obtained through FC that she was sexually harassed at home.
Nine facilitators, including Crossley, one of Australia's leaders in the FC movement, for nine months, received messages through FC who, allegedly involved incest, rape, and other sexual harassment. Crossley had assessed Carla in August 1998, which showed that her ability to spell very well and expressed admiration at Carla's vocabulary and perception level during the evaluation. Officials removed Carla from the house when one of the facilitators, through another facilitated session, indicated that Carla threatened suicide if she was not expelled from her home.
The battle of 15 months of detention took place, in which Carla was subjected to more than 100 hours of psychological and other testing. In the end, the Board of Trustees concluded that Carla was highly intellectual disfigured, unable to distinguish between letters of the alphabet, and could not write a message. The double-blind test, conducted by psychologist Tony Cantanese, shows that the only meaningful response obtained through FC is when the facilitator knows the questions asked to Carla. The court ruled that Carla and her family were "victims" and admonished the facilitators: "one step will prevent the case - verification earlier that the woman can communicate with facilitated communication - has not been done." All charges were dropped and custody was given to the Carla family.
Casing Storch
In 1991, Mark Storch of Shokan, New York, was accused of abusing his daughter after the Social Services Department received reports that his daughter, Jenny, a 14-year-old boy with autism, had, through facilitated communication, expressed repeated sexual violence, including 200 vaginal rape and anal. Storch's wife, Laura, was accused of negligence. Although there is no physical evidence of harassment, inconsistencies in facilitated testimony, and questions about personal history that disrupt facilitators, officials reduce costs, leading to an expensive 10-month legal battle. The case was canceled because FC lacked adequate testing and acceptance in the scientific community.
Bennett Leventhal, head of pediatric psychology at the University of Chicago, testified in Storch's defense, saying:
Obligations of investigators â € <â €
Wheaton case
In 1992, Betsy Wheaton's parents, a 16-year-old with autism, were, through facilitated communication, accused of mistakenly torturing their daughters sexually. The facilitator, Janyce Boynton, trained at FC at the University of Maine, interprets Betsy who struck and scratched during a session facilitated as a homicide abuser. Boynton reported this incident to the Department of Human Services, and Betsy and his brother were removed from home. The brother was also involved. Parent lawyers hired Howard Shane from Boston Children's Hospital to conduct authorship testing. It was determined by a double blind test that Boynton, not Betsy, wrote messages obtained through facilitation. Boynton, unlike many other facilitators who have undergone testing, received results, stopped using FC, and persuaded the school system to stop using FC as well.
Looking back at his training, Boynton can see that it is not enough. He does not work with anyone who is nonverbal, and he is pronounced "good to go" after just two days of most lectures. He knows that people with disabilities suffer from a relatively high degree of abuse, are taught that there is a strong closeness between the patient and the facilitator, so he has stated, "You get this understanding in your head that you are the only person you trust. And then you become overly protective and you have that thought in your head that may have been abused. "He described the facilitation process as" "everything happens at once.... you're so annoyed by other things. "Until he's tested, he fully believes that he's protecting Betsy.Head Shane declares:" You are supposed to believe (the person has been abused) and then, bam, the accusation happened. "
From the Wheaton case, Todd writes:
The real responsibility for the Wheaton tragedy lies with Rosemary Crossley, Douglas Biklen, and his aide. In spite of all their advanced degrees, professional credentials, and university promises, they fail in their professional and ethical responsibilities to show that FC is safe and effective before forcing it in the world. Having put on their skills and positioning themselves as an authority, they issued what John Erskine called "the moral duty to be intelligent." Long before they even thought about putting pens on paper and writing their remarkable story of a remarkable resurrection, they should not only pay attention to the technical lessons of Clever Hans, but the invention of more than a century of scientific and practical investigation of automated writing, experimental bias, mental telepathy, unconscious influence, subjective validation, stimulus leaks, hope effects, deception and self-delusion. Should they execute scientific diligence, FC developers will quickly realize that they are not doing anything better than turning a flexible arm into Ouija's planchettes and rediscovering the spirits.
Casing Cracchiolo
In 1993, Gregory Cracchiolo, a student teacher with severe developmental disability in Whittier, California, was accused of sexually assaulting four of his students, with facilitated communication being the only source of evidence. Students who make these allegations can not communicate through speech to verify this claim. Cracchiolo lost his job and faced 11 counts of forced sodomy crime and forced oral copulation. He faces a maximum sentence of 88 years in prison. While the authorship test was not conducted, the charge was dropped after a month, as FC had no scientific evidence to determine its efficacy. Prosecutors continue to believe that violations occur. Cracchiolo's career as an educator has been ruined.
Lehman Cases
In 1993, David and Jean Lehman of Newmarket, Ontario, were accused of sexually harassing their 20-year-old son, Derek, only on the basis of evidence obtained through facilitated communication. At birth, Derek was diagnosed with autism and severe mental retardation and, at the time of the allegations, stayed in a group house. He can not speak but can use two hand signals: "please" and "toilet". She can not recognize the numbers above three and is unaware of her own gender or anyone else.
During the authorship test, conducted by Mary Konstantareas, professor of psychology at the University of Guelph, Derek could not name an object he had seen but the facilitators did not. After a year-long court battle, the allegations proved unfounded and dropped. The ordeal left Lehman in debt, nearly losing business, and pushing David Lehman to nearly commit suicide. The Lehmans filed a $ 8.5 million civil suit and received a settlement for an undisclosed amount. They are also given custody of their son.
The New York case
In 1997, a New York couple, who lost custody of their daughter, earned $ 750,000 by a federal jury when the jury concluded that officials in the case "knew or should have known that the abuse allegations facilitated by the girl were fake."
English Case
In 1999, a 50-year-old businessman from southern England was accused, through FC, of ​​abusing his 17-year-old son. His son, reportedly, suffered from severe autism and epileptic seizures and was unable to speak. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the High Court's Family Division, decided on the first case of his kind in the UK, saying FC was "dangerous" and should not be used by British courts to "endorse or disprove alleged harassment." He also stated that the court "is fully satisfied with the charge is unfounded", as there is no evidence that the father or anyone else is the perpetrator, or that the abuse ever happened.
Wendrow Case
In 2007, Julian Wendrow of West Bloomfield, Michigan, was accused of sexually abusing his daughter, Aislinn, and was jailed for 80 days. His wife, Tali, was accused of mentally and emotionally abusing his children and being forced into electronic moorings. Their 13-year-old son is also called an actor. The two children were placed in an orphanage.
The accusation resulted from messages obtained through FC at school while an aide helped guide the girl's hand. The case was a "virtual rerun" from the 1992 Betsy Wheaton case. When the lawyer questioned the girl without the presence of the facilitator, she could not answer the question, including "What is the color of your sweater?" and "Are you male or female?" The case was a mess due to a lack of physical evidence of harassment and facilitated testimony containing information that was inconsistent with family, lifestyle and family arrangement of Wendrow: a non-existent relative, Christian theology associated with devout Jewish parents, rooms and photos that did not exist.
Aislinn testified, through FC, that he was afraid of his father because of the gun. Police did not find any weapons at home. As a result, the indictment was dropped and the children returned to their parents. The prosecutor continued to believe the girl was afraid of her father. A wrong arrest suit is settled for $ 1.8 million, which, according to the lawyer representing the Police Department, is a business decision made by an insurance company and is not an acknowledgment of errors or obligations.
Jordan Tooth Cases
On February 3, 2010, Gigi Jordan New York was discovered by police at the New York Peninsula hotel. He is incoherent from drug overdose. Jude Mirra, her 8-year-old son, was also found, dying of a mixture of painkillers and anti-inflammation that was forcibly condemned by Jordan. Jordan, at the time, was under the impression Mirra wanted to die of allegations of sexual abuse typed during a session involving FC. Despite testifying that he was "by Jude's side at all hours of the day", Jordan believes his biological father, his ex-husband, has abused the boy for years and that the diagnosis of autism Mirra is actually a catatonic psychosis brought on by alleged abuse. For Jordan, the murder was an "altruistic proof"; murder of mercy.
Mirra, who was diagnosed with autism, could not speak. Jordan indicated that Mirra, through FC, had told her, "I need a lot of medicine to die in peace" and "I hope you do it immediately." Although Jordan and Mirra communicate by typing together on the Blackberry, no witness has ever observed Mirra's own kind. In reviewing the typed messages provided by Jordan about the disclosure of his son, court officials question whether Mirra has the capacity to understand or spell words such as "aggressive" and "sadistic".
Jordan also believes his second ex-husband, a pharmaceutical executive, stole millions of dollars from him and wanted him killed. Both denied the allegations. No evidence of crimes committed in connection with the case was found against one of two persons. In November, 2014, the jury accepted Jordan's claim of extreme emotional distress and found him guilty of first-degree murder in his son's death.
Case of Wales
In 2012, the parents of a young woman with severe intellectual disabilities, autism and deep communication problems reunited with their daughter after the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales concluded they had been wrongly arrested on suspicion of a serious sexual assault obtained through FC. The family has been separated for six months. No allegations were made against the parents. Rowan Wilson, a psychiatrist, has, on November 8, 2010, assessed the mental capacity of women using FC, although he, admittedly, lacks the knowledge or experience of the system. He also failed to consider the difference between female fluency with and without FC. The Medical Practitioner's Tribunal Service stated that Wilson was still fit to practice because "he has shown remorse and insight about errors he can not possibly repeat." Wilson participated in further autism training.
Anna Stubblefield Case
In 2015, Anna Stubblefield, a professor of Rutgers University-Newark philosophy, was found guilty of a sexually aggravated assault on a man with severe mental disability. Stubblefield states that both have mutually agreeable relationships established through facilitated communication. When the investigation began in 2011, Stubblefield was chairman of the Rutgers-Newark philosophy department, whose professional work centered on ethics, race and disability rights. She is married and has family.
Stubblefield was indicted in January 2013. The victim was identified as a DJ, a 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disability, who met Stubblefield in 2008 through his DJ brother, his pupil and one of the legal guardian DJs. D.J. unable to speak, has cerebral palsy and can not stand independently or accurate direct movement of his body. Based on evidence of mental disability, his mother and brother are appointed as legal guardians. Stubblefield, a facilitated communication supporter, used the technique with D.J., and declared that he had successfully communicated with him, determining he was normal intelligence. He then took her to a conference where she "held her as a success story". Speaking with Stubblefield's help using facilitated communication, D.J. quoted, by Stubblefield, in the chapter "Living a Good Life... in Adults-Sized Diapers" in Disability and Good Human Life :
The right to communicate is the right to hope.... I jump for joy knowing I can speak, but do not minimize how embarrassing it can be to find people jumping to my mental disability conclusions. If people understand the punishment to understand others as inhuman, then things will get better.
The Stubblefield website says that he is "certified as a Communications Coach facilitated by the FC Institute (now Institute of Communication and Inclusion) at the School of Education, Syracuse University." He provides support for motor planning for communication and literacy for adults and children.
On the Day of Commemoration of 2011, Stubblefield reveals to his mother and brother D.J. that he has had sexual intercourse with D.J. and that they love each other. He connects approval to messages received while facilitating. Testing D.J. by family members failing to establish the ability to communicate, Stubblefield thanked, but denied further access to D.J. However, he kept trying to maintain contact with D.J. and began challenging legal guardian control D.J. to him. In August 2011, the family went to Rutgers police, who contacted Essex County prosecutors.
Despite 20 years of psychological testing, which concluded that D.J. Severe mental disability, Stubblefield is considered D.J. able to mentally, have the capacity to understand questions, communicate using facilitated communication, and give consent to sex. Prosecutors argue that FC has been scientifically discredited and that D.J. do not have the ability to give consent to or refuse sexual intercourse. Stubblefield pleaded not guilty to the charge, but was given unpaid administrative leave and was removed as chair of the department of philosophy. D.J. are not permitted to testify using facilitated communication as unreliable under New Jersey law. Experts evaluate D.J. testified he did not have the intellectual ability to approve sexual activity. After three weeks of trial, the jury found Stubblefield guilty of two alleged first-degree sexual assault charges. After confidence, the judge revoked a guarantee that said he was a flight risk. The punishment, with possible penalties of between ten and twenty years in prison on every count, is scheduled for January 15, 2016. Stubblefield filed a motion for the jury's verdict to be set aside on the grounds that there was "insufficient evidence" to prove that he knew or should have known the DJ was not able to give approval. On January 15, 2016, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. She will be asked to register as a sex offender. In a press release, Assistant Prosecutor Eric Plant said: "Knowing how the desperate family of the disabled for some hope, he misleads the victim's family to believe that he is making progress in helping their son to communicate while all the time he just satisfy his wish itself is tacky ".
On April 3, 2017, Jeff McMahan, a former philosophy professor at Rutgers and a professor of moral philosophy at Oxford University, and Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University and a professor at the University of Melbourne, published in the New York Times about this case. They expressed dismay by putting aside evidence in the trial that might support Stubblefield's opinion that D.J. are and are cognitively able to communicate using facilitated communication and consent for sexual activity,
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments