Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator

@article{Boynton2012FacilitatedCH,
  title={Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator},
  author={Janyce Boynton},
  journal={Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention},
  year={2012},
  volume={6},
  pages={13 - 3}
}
  • Janyce Boynton
  • Published 1 March 2012
  • Psychology
  • Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
This article is a response to the most recent media coverage of sexual abuse allegations against parents obtained through Facilitated Communication (FC). Some parents, caregivers, educators, and researchers continue to use FC, despite overwhelming evidence within the scientific community that messages obtained through FC are facilitator-authored. In 1992, I was the facilitator in the Wheaton case and, through the guise of FC, brought sexual abuse allegations against the family of the autistic… 
The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator”
Janyce Boynton (2012) does a great service by explaining how she came to author false accusations of sexual abuse against an innocent family using “facilitated communication” (FC). FC involves a
Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator—Comments on Boynton, 2012
The discussion about facilitated communication is mainly about the origin of the messages produced—that is, whether they originated in the disabled person or the facilitator. The article by Boynton
Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator—Comments on Boynton, 2012
The discussion about facilitated communication is mainly about the origin of the messages produced—that is, whether they originated in the disabled person or the facilitator. The article by Boynton
“Attention: Myth Follows!” Facilitated Communication, Parent and Professional Attitudes towards Evidence-based Practice, and the Power of Misinformation
Abstract Facilitated Communication (FC) is a non-evidence-based intervention with documented dangers that continues to be used with some children with autism spectrum disorders. In this response to
EBP Speakers Corner: A revised imperative for curbing the lie of facilitated communication
Abstract Lilienfield, Marshall, Todd, and Shane present a useful portrait of the continued promulgation of facilitated communication (FC) as an effective intervention for persons with severe autism
Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice
Facilitated Communication (FC) has been rebranded as “supported typing” and repackaged as rapid prompting method, but remains a disproven intervention for people with disabilities. Despite the
Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication
TLDR
The history and damage caused by facilitated communication is reviewed and the parallels between FC and the Rapid Prompting Method are highlighted to ensure the safety of people with disabilities that are involved with RPM.
An Activist Approach to Debunking FC
Facilitated Communication (FC), a controversial educational intervention touted for persons with autism and other non-communicative conditions, has reemerged as a viable educational option despite a
The persistence of fad interventions in the face of negative scientific evidence: Facilitated communication for autism as a case example
Abstract Communication disorder and mental health professionals may assume that once novel clinical techniques have been refuted by research, they will be promptly abandoned. Using facilitated
Facilitated Communication and Authorship: A Systematic Review
TLDR
A synthesis of the extant peer-reviewed literature on the question of authorship in Facilitated Communication indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities.
...
...