The Ethical Duty to Know: The Tragic Case of Facilitated Communication for Autism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2016
- Follow @HMSbioethics on Twitter and join the conversation using #neuroethx
Be notified of the next event: bit.ly/1IswvA9
ABOUT THE SEMINAR
Our speakers reviewed and discussed the history of a technique called Facilitated Communication, purportedly used to communicate with individuals with severe autism, developmental delay, or brain injuries. The technique has since been comprehensively debunked--come and learn how providers can go wrong by failing to adhere to standards of evidence.
Speakers
- Introduction -
Thomas I. Cochrane, MD, MBA
Associate Neurologist and Senior Ethics Consultant, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Assistant Professor of Neurology and Director of Neuroethics, Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School
- Panel -
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D.
Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor
Department of Psychology
Emory University
Howard Shane, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Communication Enhancement,
Boston Children’s Hospital
Associate Professor of Otology and Laryngology,
Harvard Medical School
The speaker sure is right about FC still being used. Just within the last year I found out about two people who are using FC and are falling for it as far as anyone could fall for something.
I have seen FC in person for myself with multiple people and, it. IS the facilitator typing.... and that is easily proven time and time again with these tests on it.... plus, notice how, your average Tom dick or Harry comes in and attempts to "facilitate ". Notice the client suddenly can’t type, or it’s jibberish..... and with every so called facilitator.... the clients literacy level and personality changes..... but with all the evevdence and years of testing this, it has been debunked multiple times, and yet it is still regularly touted..... why not use AAC devices with adaptive access, like button switches...or track ball mouse....D pads, eye gaze. Ect. .....
Thank you for sharing this.
Facilitated Communication is being taught at the University of Toronto. Are there any professionals willing to contact the admin to voice their concerns? Specifically, an article by Biklen et al. was on the syllabus in my literacy class and was the basis for a group project. The article paints Biklen and his FC friends as heroes akin to Sojourner Truth and Anne Sulivan, while insulting those who develope reputable technologies for communication. It was deeply concerning.
W h a t ? Damn
Here's a few more to really hit home the point:
Boynton, J. (2012). Facilitated Communication-what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6(1), 3-13.
Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., Banajee, M., & Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014-2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3, 239694151882157-.
Howitt, D. (2021). The Case of Tito and Soma Mukhopadhyay: Factitious Heroism by Proxy, Factitious Heroism, and Revealing the Deception Thereof for the Future of Autism Treatment. Future Human Image, 16(16), 12-30.
Travers, J. C., Tincani, M. J., & Lang, R. (2014). Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 195-202.
“Attention: Myth Follows!” Facilitated Communication, Parent and Professional Attitudes towards Evidence-based Practice, and the Power of Misinformation
Vyse, S., Hemsley, B., Lang, R., Lilienfeld, S. O., Mostert, M. P., Schlinger, H. D., Shane, H. C., Sherry, M., & Todd, J. T. (2019). Whose words are these? Statements derived from Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method undermine the credibility of Jaswal & Akhtar’s social motivation hypotheses. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42.
If these people truly believed in always presume competence, then they would not promote snake oil, and they would be more focused on teaching people FULLY AUTONOMOUS independent methods of communication that of which there is no question if that is the clients actual words or not
@Whizper2me first off, i am an AAC device user, i have a learning /processing disability, and yes aac can beset up for folks with all kinds of motor and movement issues, and all the proof to valid communication points to aac devices, all the evidence of the ''facilitator '' based stuff shows its not a valid or sound method, hell, its been debunked a number of times. and i have seen it myself when i spent more time in the disabled communities, so do not assume im not disabled or im not a aac user i been a signer and aac user formany years, as im a visual kenesthetic thinker / learner, the singing and the device gives me visual and auditory feed back that helps me process and organize and express my thoughts, but no one is prompting or guiding me, it is 100 percent my mind , and part of being a ''sel;f advocate' is being heard and valid and entitled to my opinion and my experiences
If any person is interested in evil and horrors, just research the history of psychiatry. You'd think that doctors would have a history of ethics, and in some cases they do... but at the same time, some of the greatest and most disgustingly evil atrocities and human Rights violations have been committed in the name of psychology/medicine... and I think the worst of the worst have been in psychology specifically.
Maybe in some cases it is real and some it is not. Is that possible?🤔
I have a client I work with who uses FC. I was always uncomfortable with this, very VERY skeptical. But I decided to go to the training w an open mind... the whole training was a FC who's been doing this a few decades. She addressed the controversy, step by step seemingly debunking the "FC debunking tests". She was really open to asking questions, was present at the Syracuse study. After that and trying it, my mind was actually changed. I definitely wasnt doing any typing myself. I have to mention that this woman doesn't make a dollar on FC, 100% volunteer. This client is pretty far on the autism spectrum. Idk, now I'm just confused about this again. You really gotta dig for info supporting it. The very last thing I intend on is harming anyone, and I especially don't want to harm him by attempting this. HELP?! Any advice??
Contact me at golden.arthur@gmail.com
I think you are fine. This man is biased and is disregarding anyone who is successful with excuses. Do research and you will find multiple adults who have made amazing progress and will credit their ability to communicate independently or nearly independently with beginning with much more help with FC. Anything that can help can also hurt. People are fallible. That does not mean that the opportunity to communicate should be taken away from all non verbal or minimally verbal people.
scw73 There has not been one double blind study that has established F.C is real. Quite the contrary; all empirical research has debunked this for the farce that it is.
Elizabeth H Unfortunately, facilitators do not even know they are doing the typing themselves. It is a phenomenon that is explained by the power of one’s subconscious. Most facilitators mean no harm, but yes, they are typing it all themselves without even realizing it.
Read the literature. FC has been proven to be fake many times. It’s been studied by neutral researchers who had no stake in the findings going one way or another. The data is very clear that this is fake.
You must stop this. It is not real. Not real at all.
@@katvtay First of all, "double blind" study only applies to the physical sciences and is improperly used in connection with the social sciences. It is false information that "all" empirical research has debunked Facilitated Communication, no matter how often this false information has been repeated for over 40 years. For accurate information about FC, contact me at golden.arthur@gmail.com