Is it difficult for your child or family member to communicate their thoughts and feelings? Are you worried about someone who has severe autism or another speech impediment? If so, you may have heard of a method called "facilitated communication " that is said to help these people. It is also called "supported typing." So today, let's talk about what this method really is, and whether it is beneficial or harmful.
What is "Facilitated Communication" (FC)?
Simply put, Facilitated Communication (FC) is the process of helping someone who cannot speak, with the physical and mental support of another person (an assistant), to express themselves using a device. This device can be a computer keyboard, a smartphone, or a printed board.
This method was first developed in Australia and Denmark in the 1970s. At that time, it was introduced to help people with cerebral palsy. Later, in Australia, this method was also used for people with autism.
The "facilitator" is very important in this method. He is the one who gives the person mental encouragement and a little physical support. When providing this support, the facilitator is said to be attentive to things like the person's posture and eye contact. Usually, the facilitator only provides very little support, such as a little push on the hand. However, in some cases, if more support is needed, the facilitator will hold the person's hand or elbow and help them type on the keyboard.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
At first glance, this method may seem to have several advantages. In particular, those who support this method point out that the main advantage is that it gives a person who cannot speak a chance to express themselves. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding this method. When compared with scientific evidence, the disadvantages and risks of this method are much more serious than the alleged advantages.
Let's look at this table to understand these things clearly.
| Stated Advantages | Major Disadvantages & Real Risks |
|---|---|
| Those who cannot speak get a chance to express their opinions. | No scientific evidence: There is no credible evidence to prove that the ability to communicate independently improves with this method. |
| Able to write complete, meaningful sentences. | The influence of the assistant: Many studies have shown that the typed message comes not from the patient, but from the assistant . The assistant can also type what is on his mind without realizing it. |
| You will be able to answer questions about your needs. | Loss of independence: Even if a person can gradually develop their own communication skills, this method can make them inactive and dependent on others. |
| It helps develop fine motor skills of the hands. | Infringement of privacy: The patient's will, privacy, and self-expression can be compromised by this method, as someone else's opinions are being expressed in their name. |
| You can communicate with others. | Wrong conclusion: When the assistant unknowingly types complex sentences, they may mistakenly assume that the patient's abilities have improved and refer them to educational methods that are not suitable for them. |
Scientific fact: Does this really work?
The short answer to this question is "no." Facilitated Communication is considered an invalid method that has been almost completely rejected by the scientific community .
Many of the world's leading health organizations, educational institutions, and autism advocacy groups do not endorse this method. For example, recognized organizations such as the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) have explicitly recommended against using this method.
In controlled studies conducted by experts, it has been observed that some people using the FC method do not even look at the keyboard when they say they are typing. This further increases the suspicion that the assistant is controlling the message.
Imagine if the person holding your child's hand, without the child even knowing, typed something that was on their mind? It wouldn't be the child's feelings . This is the biggest and most dangerous problem with this system.
Are there any other alternatives?
Yes, there are. There are many scientifically proven and successful alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) methods to help people with autism and other speech disorders. These include methods like the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), specialized apps, and technological devices. Facilitated Communication is not one of these proven methods. Therefore, do not confuse the two methods.
So what should we do?
If your loved one is having communication difficulties, the best thing you can do is to seek advice from a qualified doctor or speech-language therapist, rather than resorting to such controversial, unproven methods.
They will accurately assess your child or family member's condition and suggest the most suitable, scientifically accepted, and safe communication method for them.
Sometimes, you hear stories like "This made our child talk." However, it is very important to look into the scientific truth behind all those stories. Because the wrong decision we make due to ignorance can cause great harm to the lives of our loved ones.
Take-Home Message
- Facilitated Communication (FC) is a scientifically invalid, rejected method. Most major health organizations in the world do not recommend it.
- There is strong evidence that the messages typed in this method often come from the assistant, not the patient. This can happen without the assistant even realizing it.
- The FC system can harm a person's independence, privacy, and right to express their true opinions.
- If your child or family member has communication difficulties , always seek advice from your doctor or a qualified speech therapist. They will suggest scientifically proven, safe methods.
💬 අදහස් (0)
තවමත් කිසිදු අදහසක් පළ කර නොමැත. ඔබේ අදහස පළමු වරට මෙහි එක් කරන්න.
ඔබේ අදහස එක් කරන්න