It would. However, the fact that FC detractors often use words like “fraud”, “sham”, or “fad” suggest that they are indeed trying to create the impression that it is impossible for FC to work and thus there is no need to listen to anyone who uses it or RPM (which is lumped in with FC although there are fewer studies on it, and the only critique I have seen of it says that prompt dependency is the likely outcome. Here’s the thing. Prompt dependency is not the same thing as not writing your own words. It can mean simply that the user relies on prompts to tell when they should type the next letter; this does not necessarily tell them what letter or word they should type. Heck, conversational rhythm is, in a sense, a kind of prompt dependency; you wait for the “prompt” of a lull in someone’s speech before speaking, but that does not mean someone put words in your mouth.

If FC detractors are honest, they should refer to FC as an “extremely high-risk method”, which it is, rather than a sham, because words like sham, and their synonyms, imply impossibility, which is easily disproven by a single counterexample. I believe you are one of the honest ones, but many aren’t, and that’s the point. That is why the original poster stated those arguments that way. I believe you saw the actual studies, as opposed to articles with clickbait titles like “Facilitated Communication: The Fad That Won’t Die” that strongly indicate an impression of impossibility, which is implied, or, as I said before, is even outright stated by use of words associated with quackery.

(And this comment isn’t meant to imply anything about FC, by the way — regardless of whether FC “works” in some cases, or in any cases, the fact still remains that all people who aren’t dead or totally unconscious have thoughts and inner lives.)

And another thing: in reading through this thread, it occurred to me that (again, regardless of whether or not FC ever “works”) some people have been able to escape institutionalization, and just generally live lives in which they’re treated with more respect, as a result of having been introduced to FC.

Now, I’m not saying that the “ends justify the means” or anything like that — I am not in any way, shape, or form suggesting that it doesn’t matter if people are having words falsely attributed to them via FC techniques (and I am also not saying that this is always necessarily the case — I’m just saying it would be wrong if that were the case) so long as they get better lives as a result.

What I am suggesting is that there’s something fishy about the “some people naturally belong in institutions because they can’t take care of themselves, are self-injurious, have toileting difficulties, etc.” argument when you consider that some people have been de-institutionalized just because someone else has decided that they’ve “proven” their personhood enough through their communications. People don’t magically get new adaptive or motor skills as a result of having FC, so all I can guess is that keeping people in institutions has very little to do with how “difficult to care for” they supposedly are, and a lot to do with dehumanizing attitudes.

Rachel –

As I expressed in the comments you were referring to, there are instances in which people who are diagnosed with mental retardation are simply “trapped” by communication impairments that lead to a mistaken impression. I’m saying that FC proponents tend to drastically overstate how frequently this occurs because the explanation for why FC works in autistics and others.

For lack of a better term, FC lore tends to drastically underestimate the prevalence of MR in the population. It is not uncommon for FC advocates to argue that mental retardation in autism barely exists or does not exist at all. I would point out that I think this is quite incorrect and certain is in opposition to contemporary understanding of autism.

The comparison to the Ouija board is common for two reasons. First, in at least most cases, FC seems to operate via the ideomotor effect just as Ouija board does. Second, most people understand that Ouija boards do not involve communication from spirits and this should help them just get a gasp on what is being said about FC.

One thing Sharisa wrote once was:

I have already jumped through countless fiery hoops to get to where I am today. I am honestly sick and tired of being treated as a human guinea pig or lab rat … it is a clear violation of my human rights and one that MUST stop NOW!!!! What exactly will I be asked to prove next – that I am actually HUMAN????!!!! YEESH!!!!

After awhile it becomes an invasion.

I’ve found even the process of going over my “symptoms” (as “symptoms” in the DSM-IV and so forth) with non-hostile people, to be somewhat degrading and invasive, even if I initiated the conversation.

And to go through that process knowing that a lot of your future is riding on it, is even worse.

And that’s just, proving what sort of person you are.

Imagine when it’s, proving that you have thoughts. Proving that you’re not an empty shell. Proving that you can want anything or feel anything or think anything.

Then it’s far worse.

I do know what it’s like to have professionals believed over what you say.

And what people with the advantages of not having to do this don’t realize… they say that a test, or a question, or something is “simple”.

It’s never “simple” when that much rides on it, and it’s never “simple” when you’re a “non-person” sort of person to begin with, whether it’s testing-for-category or testing-for-personhood. I have refused to answer questions from people before that amount to proving my humanity or my ability to know anything.

And… yeah. Not everyone is going to want to go through such testing, and a lot of people are going to find it incredibly invasive and degrading.

I think one of the ablist overtones to this discussion has been the assumption on the part of some readers of the studies Jason mentioned that if someone is shown to be not communicating (i.e., the output from FC is coming from their facilitator), then they are not only unable to communicate but have nothing to say. Thus, arguments against FC get equated with the position that people who use it are empty shells. Far more disturbing to me is the idea that (some) people who are using FC are not communicating, because the information is all coming from the facilitator, but they have many things that they would really like to be communicating (such as for starters, “No, that’s not right, that wasn’t what I wanted to say!”).

You’re right though, that assuming FC isn’t working isn’t a viable solution. That would cause some people who may be benefitting from it to be rendered nonpersons when they may not have. Seems to me like some kind of rational, balanced approach where it’s tried, and tested every now and then to see if it’s working (maybe using some of the methods that have been used in the empirical studies, such as having each party look at a different picture) makes the most sense.

And an online friend of mine had an unused one lying around for some reason, asked for Cal’s address, and presumably sent it to her.