So why is it that hard-core Neurodiversity (ND) advocates embrace the thoroughly-debunked and often abusive practice of Facilitated Communication (FC)?
Here’s one more example of facilitation via held-up alphabet board.
I’ve been gearing up for a promised post examining the various messages generated by Facilitated Communication, but in the meantime a few other FC examples have crossed my path.
Time for my promised close, critical look at specific instances of facilitated communication—FC for short.
But first, a preliminary note. In being critical in what is an extremely sensitive area, I don’t want to reveal names of kids and parents. I’ll provide links to material that’s been made publicly available–stuff posted on the Internet, mostly by or in collaboration with family members. But in what I write here, I’ll be avoiding names or abbreviating them.
It’s now time, in this series on autism, neurodiversity, and language learning, to return to two key criteria for autism in the most recent DSM (the DSM V), each of them tapping into deficits in what’s called Joint Attention:
- Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
- Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
(I, too, am making a comeback, after suddenly becoming intensely busy with a small NSF grant–more on that later).
This post continues a series I’ve promised would take us to “highly contagious and dangerously inaccurate meme about what autism is.”