Wow- what an interesting case. Thanks for posting. I spent a few hours reading and researching this afternoon in between my chores.
Shame on her!! :stormingmad: (and an ethics professor to boot!) I agree with the prosecutor: she is truly a disgusting individual who took advantage of both DJ and his family to facilitate and further her own career, IMO. Screwed up lady, for sure.
‘‘facilitated communication.’’ Pftttt! very controversial, IMO.
From the article you posted:
"In late 1993, ‘‘Frontline’’ aired a special that told Betsy Wheaton’s story, among others, and suggested that facilitated communication was an elaborate display of what psychologists call the ideomotor effect, in which an external suggestion or a person’s beliefs or expectations trigger unconscious movement: The facilitator was guiding the typing, even if she didn’t know it. In early 1994, ‘‘60 Minutes’’ ran a similar exposé called ‘‘Less Than a Miracle.’’.."
I remember watching those TV specials :
FRONTLINE: Prisoners of Silence [Full]
[video=youtube;CzCGux7qD1c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCGux7qD1c[/video]
(I couldn't find a YTube for the 60 Minutes one):
"...With cogent scientific evidence, “Less Than a Miracle” (1994) debunked the claim that so-called facilitated communication (FC) lets autists and other persons with severe communication-related disabilities express themselves through a typewriter or computer keyboard. The segment showed that the “facilitators” select, probably unknowingly, which keys the subject will push..."
http://acsh.org/2000/01/60-minutes-health-picks-pans/
From the article you posted:
"One problem was that no matter how much progress D.J. made with Anna, his typing never worked with his mother or brother. They spent many hours training in F.C., but neither had success. Anna typed with D.J.; Anna’s mother typed with D.J.; Sheronda Jones typed with D.J. But somehow, P. and Wesley always failed..."
Hmmmm... Wonder why??? 'cause it doesn't work!
Facilitated Communication: A Price Too High To Pay
"What are the prices we pay for following unsubstantiated treatments and bogus therapies? Sometimes, the costs are tragically high. Facilitated communication is unequivocally one of those bogus remedies that promises far more than it can deliver and can destroy lives in the process, lives like those of Julian and Thal Wendrow, whose 14-year-old daughter accused her father of molesting her for years and her mother of standing by while it happened. Except it turns out that this young woman, severely autistic and nonverbal did no such thing; the aide at her school who facilitated her was the one to apparently type out the accusation...
Facilitated communication, to quote Robert T. Carroll of the Skeptic’s Dictionary, is a “dangerous delusion.” It is a delusion we can ill afford and school districts who use it and its weaker cousin rapid prompting method must be held to higher standards, empirical standards. Our most vulnerable must not have their voices, their communication, co-opted by well-meaning but misguided facilitators and even worse, those charlatans who know what they do and do it intentionally in order to line their pockets and cast themselves to desperate parents as the heroic persons who set free the hidden person that autism had locked away...
After more than a quarter century, there remains not a single methodologically sound study showing that FC has worked for a single individual. Dozens of studies have shown it reliably fails to produce genuine communication. The output is the facilitator's. That is what the science has shown--over and over. That's the reality of FC ..."
http://www.science20.com/countering...itated_communication_price_too_high_pay-75597
Mixed Messages: Validity and Ethics of Facilitated Communication
"
Abstract
I identify several factors that influence how significant mediation is for an instance of communication: dependability, accuracy, neutrality, control of output, and access to feedback. Then, I use this conceptual framework to discuss Facilitated Communication, a controversial method for communicating with people with autism or other developmental disabilities. After reviewing the history of this method, I try to assess whether it is valid and whether it is ethical by setting up and evaluating arguments offered on either side of the debate.
My conclusion is that Facilitated Communication has not been shown to be valid, but that it may, under some conditions, be ethically acceptable...
Thus, I conclude that uncritical, long term use of FC is unethical, as it can violate the individual's right not to be manipulated or misrepresented. However, if all decision makers involved are aware of the empirical challenges and want to implement FC on a trial basis,
in the hope that it will serve as a stepping-stone to more independent communication, this may be ethically OK. There is nothing morally problematic about teaching people to communicate by typing, and hand-over-hand assistance, followed by the fading of such assistance, is a well-established teaching tool. Taken that way, FC is just another method of learning to use an AAC device, a keyboard. Where it becomes concerning is when facilitated output is presumed to be authentic even under physical support conditions that risk facilitator influence, and when facilitated output is privileged over other communicative attempts..."
http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1725/1773
"ethically acceptable" - but not in DJ's case, IMO, because DJ would never be able to take control of the keyboard himself, so FC would not be a "stepping stone" for him.
Put her away and let her stay there, IMO.... :jail:
A bit late in the day - but we had to watch a Formula One race - in Russia, that we missed while the Huz was in the home care center. My guy (Kimi) came in 5th, and the Huz's (Lewis) came in first!
