Facilitated Communication – Recommended Readings and Resources
Despite the overwhelming evidence against its effectiveness, facilitated communication continues to be used and marketed as a legitimate treatment for autism.
This page is meant to function as a growing list of resources to help inform parents, instructors, students, and practicioners about the dangers of facilitated communication.
Statement on Facilitated Communication by the American Psychological Association
Statement on Facilitated Communication by the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association
Statement on Facilitated Communication by the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Compilation of Position Statements courtesy of the Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan
The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield – NY Times article by Daniel Engber
Apple’s Autism Ad of Magical Thinking – Article by Jules Montague
Why Communication from a ‘Locked-in’ Child is a Miracle We Must Question – Article by Christopher French and Michael Marshall
Why a Controversial Method for Autism Communication Hasn’t Disappeared – Article by James Elliott
Daughter of Wolsingham Man Kept in Secure Unit for 6 Months Following False Abuse Allegations – Article published in the Northern Echo
Stolen Voices: Facilitated Communication is an Abuse of Human Rights – Article by Jeff Chan and Karen Nankervis
Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice – Article by Jason Travers, Matt Tincani, and Russ Lang
Journalism Gone Awry
Unfortunately, many journalists have not done their due-diligence to understand facilitated communication and the lack of research supporting it. Instead, journalists have sensationalized facilitated communication and passed it off as a miracle cure. Or, journalists pass facilitated communication off as “controversial” and present both sides, as if there are two sides to present. The following articles serve as examples of how uninformed journalism can spread false information about facilitated communication.
Judicial Oversight Gone Awry
Court May Consider Facilitated Communication – An Indiana court ruled to allow an individual to use facilitated communication as testimony, despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is the facilitator, not the individual, who is communicating.