Facilitated Communication
Facilitated communication is one of the popular, controversial treatments for people with autism. Facilitated communication entails the use of an additional medium to convey the message from one person to another. It could entail the use of a translator who understands the gestures made by a person with physical impairment and then relays the message to other people. It could also entail the use communication boards that display pictures, words, and symbols that the intended messages (Stock, 2011).
Alternatively, facilitated communication could be done using pressure switches that when pressed, trigger phrases and words that are pre-recorded. When used in this way, facilitated communication is thought to offer not only physical support but also the emotional support for a person who has a speech impairment. Ideally, the physical support in communicating using the various media should be reduced with increasing mastery. In the 1990s, facilitated communication gained fame as a reprieve, especially for people with autism (Stock, 2011).
This is after the other therapeutic interventions proved inept in helping the diagnosed people gain social skills. However, the facilitated communication has also raised a lot of concern, more so regarding its validity. The controversy was fueled by evidence of sexual abuse by the facilitators. Other factors that characterized the controversy included the validity of the method, especially when the facilitator and the subject were given different questions (Stock, 2011).
The efficacy of the method was also challenged by many scholars dubbing facilitated communication as a pseudoscience (Foxx & Mulick, 2015). The method has also been discredited by many professional bodies such as the Association for Behavior Analysis International and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association among others (Stock, 2011).
Facilitated communication has various disadvantages that contributed to the controversy surrounding it. One disadvantage is that it is difficult or the facilitator to maintain neutrality. Maintaining neutrality entails not only communicating the content of the message but also the spirit of the message. The facilitator is also required to use language that the receivers of the message can understand with ease, making discrete corrections of the errors made expeditiously so that the communication is uninterrupted (Stock, 2011). The challenge here is that personal predispositions might creep into the message. Additionally, the accuracy of the message might be lost in translation. An advantage of facilitated communication is that it helps people with speech impairments communicate with the people around them. It helps them express their emotions, connect with other people and be part of social groupings (Stock, 2011).
People with autism or parents of children with autism will almost do anything to have the condition of their loved one healed. As such it is easy for them to fall prey to therapeutic interventions or treatment regimens that might not be effective. It is necessary that diagnosis and treatment options be given by a certified professional. Facilitated communication as a concept promises hope for the children who are speech impaired. It enables their inclusion in society. However, there is the concern that the facilitator might interpret the message in their way, thereby losing the meaning of the message in translation. It is also questionable whether the facilitators would be willing to communicate raw emotions that some people might find offensive. The recommendation is to abide by the BABC ethical code, particularly the reliance on scientific knowledge and evidence by behavioral analysts (Behavioral Analysts Certification Board, 2016).
References
Behavioral Analysts Certification Board. (2016). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved from http://bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/160321- compliance-code-english.pdf
Foxx, R. and Mulick, G. (2015). Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice. London. Routledge
Stock, B. (2011). Mixed Messages: Validity and Ethics of Facilitated Communication. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(4):
