Comments on: Facilitated Communication Persists Despite Scientific Criticism

By: arthurgolden

arthurgolden — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:07:19 +0000

You write: “An excellent documentation of the nature of self-deception involved in FC comes from a recently published commentary by a former FC user… Janyce Boynton” and and later write: “In Boynton’s case the deception of FC led to tragedy when her client started to “communicate” that she was the victim of sexual abuse by her parents and brother. Such cases, unfortunately, continue to occur.”

You are correct that this commentary was recently published – in 2012 – but you do not state that the sexual abuse charges were made 20 years ago in 1992. The Wendrow case took place in November 2007 and a case in Wales recently came to light which took place in October 2010. My own extensive inquiry shows that such cases are very rare and it is misleading for you to write that “Such cases, unfortunately, continue to occur.” As a retired lawyer, I have found about the same number of cases of sexual abuse charges through Facilitated Communication that have been substantiated than those that have not. What is a much greater tragedy is the so numerous cases of all types of abuse of nonverbal persons who are denied any means of communication, even though such communication may not be perfectly reliable and such cases have to be carefully investigated, just as verbal communication by competent adults about abuse is about as likely to be false as true.

Arthur Golden

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:42:37 +0000

@Steven Novella

Exactly the point I tried to make over at TPGA. I included a link to one such device, as an example. Here’s hoping that helps make my point to some of the commenters there.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:15:38 +0000

Eye tracking systems for communication already exist. If eye tracking were a reliable indicator for these subjects, they could just use existing eye-tracking devices to communicate. The whole point of FC is that an intelligent agent needs to be in the loop to be the actual source of the communication.

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:54:23 +0000

Feel a bit frustrated and depressed about the whole thing…

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:53:50 +0000

I’ve been posting some comments over at TPGA, questioning the validity of FC and trying to be as respectful as I can, but I’ve been having a bit of blowback from folks. I looked at some of the “studies supporting FC” from that ICI and a thought occurred to me after seeing the studies validating FC by using eye tracking: why not use eye tracking assistive technology instead of typing with the aid of a person? There are so many ways to go about helping people communicate who are non-verbal, it just seems…I don’t know…wrong (can’t find the best word to describe my feelings here) to stick with something that has so much evidence against it and so much potential for harm, whether that is false accusations, time taken away from learning other skills, or time taken away from learning to actually communicate independently.

By: Bronze Dog

Bronze Dog — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:07:02 +0000

One thing that sticks out to me when FC comes up is the wishful thinking and Just World Hypothesis. A lot of people want to believe that every disadvantaged child has some amazing hidden talent to balance out their disabilities to make life fair. FC is seductive because it reinforces the idealistic fantasy. Kids who’ve lost their language ability suddenly turn out to be poets, making their parents proud when it’s actually the adult facilitator doing the work.

It leaves me wondering how many disadvantaged children might be unhappy as a result of being treated like a puppet and have their genuine desires covered up by the FC.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:58:01 +0000

DC – I agree. If using FC mainly allowed people that were thought to be non-communicative due to severe developmental disorder to communicate some basic needs and feelings, that would be somewhat plausible (based on the individual, of course). It defies all logic, evidence, and common sense, however, to argue that a person that appears to be severely cognitively impaired is actually well above average in intelligence and maturity, and somehow learned to read and write without being specifically taught how to do so.

By: DevoutCatalyst

DevoutCatalyst — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:21:36 +0000

Were it real, I would expect FC to produce independent communication initiated by the communicator as quickly and as easily as other augmentative communication strategies such as PECS. I worked with an adult loved one with severe cognitive impairment and in under 3 hours of training he could communicate a basic want — I want a taco — without further assistance in using his new communication book. He quickly generalized to where he would ask for favorite activities, foods, people — still does. That was ten years ago and these days he does not write sonnets nor file affidavits, but will go to the swimming pool this afternoon based on his own volition and use of a communication strategy that is at his command. FC is a massive failure right before your very eyes, and gets in the way of the disabled person’s development.

By: superdave

superdave — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:06:15 +0000

I meant isn’t, not is in that last sentence

By: superdave

superdave — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:05:21 +0000

Having read this post I am now convinced that FC probably can never work. But if such a patient existed, someone with language skills and enough motor control to be detected by another human being reliably, then it seems likely to me that this person could benefit much more from a technological solution than a human facilitator.

One of my personal heroes is the guitar player Jason Becker, who has lost almost all of his motor control due to ALS. He is able to communicate using a coded language and the use of small ability he has to roll his eyes. Watching a video of this communication happening in real time is hundreds of times more convincing than anything I have ever seen with FC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DL_ZMWru1lU#!

(even this communication is 100% convincing, but much better than any FC I have seen)