http://samedifference1.com/2010/03/02/rom-houbens-care-home-bans-facilitated-communication/
Rom Houben’s Care Home Bans Facilitated Communication
2010 March 2
by samedifference1

“…a simple scientific test. Three paralysed patients were shown objects or told words while their facilitator was out of the room, and then asked to describe them with the help of their carer. This was repeated 15 times. Mr Houben did not give any correct responses.”

But was this “a simple scientific test” of Facilitated Communication? Or was it a test of his brain injury described by his sister as:

“We know that sometimes people with brain injuries sometimes lose the communication between words and images, or words and function. We also know that Rom has a big problem with his memory…”

It should be noted that one of the three paralyzed patients did pass this test and validated his Facilited Communication.

Nearly 16 years ago my own son Ben, then age 22 and with severe autism living in his birthplace of Boston, was given this same “simple scientific test” by its apparent developer speech pathologist Howard Shane PhD of Boston’s Children’s Medical Center and this test was claimed to invalidate his use of Facilitated Communication. Although completely nonverbal, Ben had some independent means of communication, which was not tested as a possible control.

I now wonder if this simple scientific test was really testing my son’s brain dysfunction caused by his severe autism. I am thinking of trying to validate this “simple scientific test” with my own son, using his independent means of communication. I am not so “scientific” so I plan to consult with leading scientists involved with Facilitated Communication. By the way, Ben lives at home with us his parents in Jerusalem Israel and continues to use Facilitated Communication for his very sophisticated communication. He uses his independent means of communication for more mundane matters. It is such a shame that Rom’s Care Home has banned the use of Facilitated Communication, as did almost all such facilities in the U.S. in the early 1990s based on this simple scientific test, apparently developed as part of adversarial court proceedings of sexual abuse, and not as part of pure scientific research seeking the truth.

Arthur Golden

Unfortunately for some people, I am not big enough of a man not to rub this into a few select snouts.

As for interpreting EEGs with VS patients, the statistical pool of 13 is too small and the few statistically significant questions asked could be chance alone along with wishful thinking.

Recently, reviewed the EEG monitors on a traumatic injury patient with PVS. Some healthcare professional assumed there were brain responses to their auditory stimuli. But the EEG monitor varied naturally regardless of their presence. Its the human factor of compassion which keeps us being fooled near death.

In practice, such a case, if it even exists, is likely extremely rare. We have developed numerous methods to help people communicate, even with minimal muscle activity. So anyone who could theoretically communicate with a facilitator could communicate with one of theses devices – eliminating the middle man, as it were.

If the arm just needs a little support – then that can be provided mechanically without the need for an active facilitator.

In practice, the only unique role of the facilitator is to take over the actual communication.

But there may be cases in which FC proponents use something like FC to help a person who could probably communicate on their own with the proper device – just to “authenticate” FC itself. But these cases are trumped up, and say nothing about how FC is applied to populations who cannot communicate using devices.

This is why I love working with children, they are not so easily duped and if they are and you show them how the trick works, they don’t become defensive and attack the persons.

Let our curiosity live out and seek answers until our dying days.