All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 10, 2022 - Skeptoid
18:06
Skeptoid #831: Facilitated Communication Isn't

This discredited technique deceives loved ones into believing non-communicative people are able to communicate just fine by hiring one of these facilitators. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Facilitated Communication Myth 00:09:03
Facilitated communication promises to be a method by which a person who lacks the ability to communicate can, with the help of a specially trained facilitator, actually use a computer keyboard or other device to finally make their thoughts known.
It sounds like a medical miracle.
The only problem?
It is pure, unadulterated bunk.
Facilitated communication is up next on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Facilitated Communication Isn't It is truly unfortunate that there are people out there who have intelligence but are without the ability to communicate.
Perhaps they have severe cerebral palsy, autism, or some other communication disability.
It's hard on them and just as hard on their families and loved ones, who aren't even able to know something as basic as that the person is cold, hungry, has an itch, wants to change the channel on the TV, or maybe just wants to say, I love you.
And so we see the same thing that happens every time there is a difficult and painful problem for which we don't have a good solution.
Charlatans step forward to fill the void.
In this case, it's called facilitated communication.
A facilitator sits with the disabled person, holds or guides their hand, and, quote, assists them to type on a computer keyboard or tablet, or tap some icon.
The idea is that the disabled person just needed that little extra bit of support or assistance.
Suddenly, their whole world is opened up to full, speedy, fluent communication, so long as the facilitator is there to help.
The only problem with it is that it's completely fake.
It's not just fake, it's astoundingly fake.
Many formal tests have been done, and all have found that any communication is coming from the facilitator and not from the disabled person.
The way we test facilitated communication to see who the communication is really coming from is quite simple.
We ask the disabled person a question that they would know the answer to and that the facilitator would not.
Suddenly, the technique no longer works.
And this has been the case without exception every time it's been formally tried.
You'd think this would be a slam dunk that would put a stop to the practice once and for all.
But as regular Skeptoid listeners probably already suspect, the facilitators have an answer for this as well.
They move the goalposts.
This is explained quite well in a 1993 episode of the TV show Frontline, which confronted Douglas Bicklin of the Facilitated Communication Institute with this fact.
He answered, I think that test has severe problems.
I mean, one, you're putting people in what might be described as a confrontational situation.
That is, they're being asked to prove themselves.
As I pointed out, confidence appears to be a critical element in the method.
If people are anxious, they may, in fact, freeze up in their ability to respond.
They may lose confidence.
They may feel inadequate.
It's the tired old excuse, your science is not powerful enough to test our claim.
While its proponents may be comfortable adopting this position, they're up against some pretty tall opposition.
Practically every major organization in the world involved in communication disabilities has published a position paper discrediting facilitated communication.
Here's one from the American Speech Language Hearing Association, a credentialing association for audiologists, speech pathologists, and speech-language pathology scientists and students, an org dedicated to the improvement of communication for people with communication disabilities.
Facilitated communication is a discredited technique that should not be used.
There is no scientific evidence of the validity of facilitated communication, and there is extensive scientific evidence produced over several decades and across several countries that messages are authored by the facilitator rather than the person with a disability.
Furthermore, there is extensive evidence of harms related to the use of facilitated communication.
Information obtained through the use of facilitated communication should not be considered as the communication of the person with a disability.
From the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Based on the current scientific evidence, the board does not support the use of facilitated communication or the rapid prompting method as modes of communication for people with disabilities.
In the case of facilitated communication, there is no scientific evidence supporting its validity, and there is considerable evidence that the messages are authored by the facilitator rather than by the individual with a disability.
The American Psychological Association has this to add.
APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.
Here's one from the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, or ISAC.
ISAC does not support facilitated communication as a valid form of augmentative and alternative communication, a valid means for people to access it, or a valid means to communicate important life decisions.
The weight of evidence does not support facilitated communication and therefore it cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice.
That's enough of these for now, but we could literally go on all day if we wanted.
The ISAC statement concludes with, this position statement is consistent with the position statements of the following reputable organizations.
And it then lists 15 such international bodies.
Incidentally, they also point out that facilitated communication is in violation of Articles 12, 16, 17, and 21 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Hey, everyone, I want to remind you about a truly unique and once-in-a-lifetime adventure.
Join me and Mediterranean archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble for a skeptoid sailing adventure through the Mediterranean Sea aboard the SV Royal Clipper, the world's largest full-rigged sailing ship.
This is also the only opportunity you'll have to hear Flint and I talk about our experiences when we both went on Joe Rogan to represent the causes of science and reality against whatever it is that you get when you're thrown into that lion pit.
We set sail from Malaga, Spain on April 18th, 2026 and finished the adventure in Nice, France on April 25th.
You'll enjoy a fascinating, skeptical mini-conference at sea.
You'll visit amazing ports along the Spanish and French coasts, and Flint will be our exclusive onboard expert sharing the real archaeology and history about every stop.
We've got special side quests and extra skeptical content planned at each port.
This is a true sailing ship.
You can climb the rat lines to the crow's nest, handle the sails.
You can even take the helm and steer.
This is a real bucket list adventure you don't want to miss.
But cabins are selling fast, and this ship does always sell out.
Act now or you'll miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Get the full details and book your cabin at skeptoid.com slash adventures.
Hope to see you on board.
That's skeptoid.com slash adventures.
False Abuse Allegations Exposed 00:06:32
Aside from moving the goalposts to escape the proof that it doesn't work, advocates for facilitated communication have another tool at their disposal.
They come up with new names for the same basic technique.
A common one is supported typing.
Others include informative pointing, assisted typing, letterboarding, intuitive pointing, speaking with eyes, and more.
Sometimes they subtly change the way the technique is performed to deceive people into thinking it's some new innovation.
One of these is Rapid Prompting Method, which has other nicknames of its own.
Informative pointing, spelling to communicate, alphabet therapy, and so on.
Painfully, during Autism Awareness Month in 2016, Apple produced a video showing a non-communicative teen using an iPad to touch icons, which then produce synthesized speech, with a facilitator holding the iPad in such a way that she was actually moving it to touch his finger, rather than the other way around, which is how rapid prompting method works.
It was exactly the kind of feel-good marketing that keeps facilitated communication in the foreground.
The average person doesn't know that it's fake, and seeing such validation as that gives it a positive spin.
The majority of facilitators and advocates probably don't think it's fake either.
Most of them believe that the disabled person's communication is real, and that they are providing a valuable service.
Of course, they know that they are themselves moving the person's hand.
That's their whole job.
And the subtleties of reading signals and small movements from the disabled person provide enough feedback to persuade the facilitator that what they're doing is real.
A reporter for SLATE interviewed some of them in 2015 and found them all to be heavily invested in the reality of their belief system.
One former facilitator, Janice Boynton, has gotten a lot of press for having changed her mind and now speaks out against the practice.
For her, the depth of her invested belief was disastrous.
In 1992, Boynton believed she was honestly communicating the thoughts of a 16-year-old autistic girl when she accused the girl's father of having sexually abused her.
She and her brother were removed from the home for their own protection.
Both parents were criminally charged, and the father spent 80 days in jail.
Fortunately, the case fell apart when authorities put Boynton to the test, in which she wholeheartedly participated, eager to know the truth herself.
The director for the Center of Communication Enhancement and the Autism Language Program at Boston Children's Hospital designed and administered a double-blinded test.
They showed pictures of familiar objects individually to both Boynton and the child and asked the child to type the name of the object, with Boynton facilitating.
Only, sometimes, they were not both shown the same picture.
And, without exception, every time the pictures differed, it was the object shown to Boynton and not to the child that was typed.
After this and some similar tests were completed, Boynton had scored a 100% failure rate.
Not only did it clear the parents of potentially life-destroying sexual assault charges, it convinced Boynton herself that facilitated communication was completely fake.
The episode also offered more insight into how facilitators can come to be duped into believing in their own non-existent ability.
In this particular case, the child had become violent for several days before the surfacing of the assault.
Boynton was a properly trained speech therapist, and she and others knew that changes in behavior, particularly acting out violence, often signals problems at home.
Boynton had conflated her actual knowledge with the facilitated communication successes she seemed to be having with the girl, and from that perspective, it was only prudent to probe for the cause of the violence.
The non-existent sexual assault was the result.
Today, Boynton believes the child's violence was her response to the facilitated communication process itself, and having untrue words put into her mouth.
Sadly, it was not the only time something like this has happened.
The pro-science website facilitatedcommunication.org details nearly 20 such cases, of the more than 60 known, where a facilitator made up false allegations of rape and abuse that caused someone to be charged with a crime, or almost charged.
And in some of these people did end up going to jail before the deception was uncovered.
There's a widely publicized video produced by the Associated Press in 2015 and available on YouTube, reporting on the case of Rom Hauben, a Belgian man who received a brain injury in a car accident and has been in a vegetative state ever since.
Unfortunately, the reporting is completely credulous and trumpets the success of his facilitated communication as a great medical miracle.
There are a lot of Roms in the sense that a mistake was made in the diagnosis of a vegetative state, says his doctor in the video.
Rome himself, according to the results of him with his facilitator typing on a tablet, added, quote, imagine you hear, see, and feel and think, but nobody takes any notice.
You undergo everything without participating in life.
He's shown typing this, his eyes closed or barely open at best, his head hanging unconsciously to the side, his arms limp and lifeless, while the facilitator takes his hand and rapidly types out the sentence on the tablet's on-screen keyboard.
Not only is the typing fast, it is error-free.
The claim being made is that this poor man, who's completely vegetative and unresponsive, is nevertheless giving physical cues to the facilitator for what he wants to type faster than you or I could even speak the letters, and all without being attentive to what's happening on the keyboard.
It's quite a sad video, as the deception is so blatant, but a bit mystifying that his doctors and the Associated Press reporter were taken in so thoroughly.
Skeptoid Premium Membership 00:02:27
But that's the power of hope.
We all want it to be true.
Sadly, we see yet again that there are no magically easy answers to difficult problems.
But we'll never run out of wishes.
We'll also never run out of our amazing premium members like McKena Seepeck.
I've cut it three times and it's still too short.
Jody McCook and Xanthi's Dad from Ferntree, Tasmania.
Your premium membership is what keeps us afloat.
If you love the show, then make this a two-way street.
For just $5 a month or more, tax-deductible for U.S. taxpayers, you can help ensure that this material is out there for those who need it for years to come.
Just come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
And be sure to catch In Fact, our YouTube video series based on selected Skeptoid episodes.
Find it at InfactVideo.com.
You're listening to Skeptoid, a listener-supported program.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double-doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection