From Abracadabra to Zombies

• a
• b
• c
• d
• e
• f
• g
• h
• i
• j
• k
• l
• m
• n
• o
• p
• q
• r
• s
• t
• u
• v
• w
• x
• y
• z

reader comments: facilitated communication

21 Feb 2004
Perhaps a slight inaccuracy - Crossley was a computer programmer not a nurse, least is, that's what she told me in a mad taxi ride across Melbourne about 20 years ago. I also met Anne McDonald and she seemed quite bright, although I question her ability to have achieved academic credits through FC, and the whole FC movement.

However, my point is that FC should not be confused with communication facilitators who strictly, more or less, translate for their client. I have met several good examples. PH, a friend of my wife, is deaf/blind (as is my wife- but only partly both ways). PH has been able to achieve two degrees from the University of Queensland, and I can assure you that her work was her own and good. BB was a man born profoundly deaf and blind who, when I met him, was in the third year of a sociology degree. BB could read Braille and used a PC with a Braille touch strip. Both used various communication facilitators who use hand-to-hand communication. In my travels I have met other examples. My great regret is that I missed meeting Christy Brown by a whisker. He and I were born about the same time but on opposite side of the earth. We did write as we had the communality of both being born with cerebral palsy, although mine was somewhat less in degree in that I did learn to walk, or more stagger rather. He, however, was the genius. Although I have written several books, my writing does no reach the elysian heights of a Christy Brown book. My forte was in academia.

Rex Newsome, B.SC, PHD., FAPS.

Love your home page. . . the Skeptic's Dictionary. . .SavvySearch.

I am a psychologist in NY. Graduate of SUNY Buffalo. I've become more skeptical over the years. I always used to enjoy Mark Crystal, James Randi and others debunking persons with claimed psi powers in the next lab.

I co-ordinate psychologists who work with the mentally retarded. I am in a battle trying bring some sanity to the apostles of Facilitated Communication, and other crazy fads....I often don't feel I am articulate or persuasive enough. At the same time, I keep trying to come up with treatments that can be empirically validated, primarily behavioral.

Interestingly, the psychologists I work with are the most skeptical and resourceful clinicians working at the agency.

The power of these people is scary.

Keep up the good work. . .

2 Oct 1996

You said of Facilitated Communication: "When facilitators have been tested under controlled conditions they fail miserably."

See Michael J. Salomon Weiss, Sheldon H. Wagner, and Margaret L. Bauman, "A Validated Case Study of Facilitated Communication," Mental Retardation Vol. 34, No. 4, 220-230, August 1996.

Extract: "The experimenter in the protocol (the first author) had been a consultant for Kenny's school program for approximately one year prior to Kenny's introduction to facilitated communication. It is noteworthy that the experimenter was originally quite skeptical about facilitated communication, as can be seen from the following newspaper account: Michael Weiss, a clinical psychologist who has worked with developmentally disabled children in New Bedford, is also concerned [about facilitated communication]. "There's a rich tradition in how we judge whether something is true.... It gets reviewed by peers and has to pass a certain standard," he said. "What I'm unnerved about with the facilitated communication people is that there's almost a refusal to adhere to this standard." Asked why he thinks Dr. Biklen and company won't do such studies, Dr. Weiss replied, "What rings true in my ears is that the thing is a bloody hoax. (Experimental technique, 1992)" Weiss then went on to test it, did a study, and got positive results.

" Abstract: The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated communication was described. In three independent trials, short stories were presented to him, followed by validation test procedures with an uninformed facilitator providing physical support to the subject's arm. In Trials 1 and 3, several specific answers were provided that clearly indicated that the young man, not the uninformed facilitator, was the source of the information. Moreover, some responses seemed to imply that the subject was employing simple inferential and abstract reasoning. This case study adds to the small, but growing number of demonstrations that facilitated communication can sometimes be a valid method for at least some individuals with developmental disabilities."

There's also a larger study in the same issue of Mental Retardation, also recording positive findings.

Well; does that count as an instance of a facilitator tested under controlled conditions (*where others beside the defenders of FC have set up the experiments*) who did not fail miserably? If not, what would? If so, does that open a crack to make the arguments?

The basic point I'm trying to get across is that yes, if you put forward a proposition that goes against the accepted laws of physics then you're probably wrong. However, if you put forward a proposition that goes against the accepted laws of psychology you'd have to write them first.

Remember, we are talking about people who refer to FC as "...an inappropriate challenge to professional belief systems.." (Howard Shane). And those professional belief systems are pretty rigid. If you're not a member of one of those professions, FC doesn't sound particularly out of line.

Here's one basic starter, from Australia.

"A Rationale for the Use of Facilitated Communication Training

1. Many people with severe communication impairment (SCI) know more words than they are able to say.

2 People with SCI who know more words than they are able to say may be able to expand their expressive communication by using alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) strategies.

3. Many people with SCI have hand function impairments which affect their ability to write or use manual sign or make selections from communication displays.

4. Some people with SCI and impaired hand function can use AAC equipment which does not require hand skills to expand their expressive communication. Some people with SCI and impaired hand function cannot use such equipment, either for practical reasons (because they walk, for example, and need less bulky devices) or because of the nature of their neuromotor impairments (because, for example, they have impulsivity).

5. People with SCI and hand function impairments who cannot use other AAC strategies may be able to use their hands to access communication aids if their hand function impairments are remedied either temporarily or permanently.

6 For some people with SCI, facilitation can provide a temporary remedy for hand function impairments affecting communication aid use, and when used as part of a structured teaching program may result in a permanent improvement in hand function."

Not exactly witchcraft.

Chris Borthwick

reply: No, not witchcraft. I don't deny that many people are helped by facilitators. I mentioned above that I have had students who use facilitators. I also noted that it is well-known that there is no necessary connection between a physical handicap and mental ability. It is not my intention to suggest a priori that no research in this area will prove fruitful. I think, however, that this is an area where self-deception and wishful thinking can be especially invasive. What parent would not want their child to be "normal?" I believe it is imperative that those doing research in this area propose a testable theory of FC. Someone needs to address the issue of how FC occurs, especially since it seems that physical communication between patient and facilitator cannot be happening in many "documented" cases of FC. It is not enough for science to provide a few case histories, or even a grand study indicating statistical improbability of chance explaining away one's therapeutic successes. An explanatory mechanism is needed. Until then, FC studies may not be witchcraft, but they cannot be considered much more scientific than, say, testimonials regarding golf aids or weight reducing programs.

facilitated communication