Stolen voices: Facilitated communication is an abuse of human rights

Abstract

Despite the overwhelming research evidence discrediting the validity of Facilitated Communication (FC), Lilienfeld, Marshall, Todd and Shane (2015) have demonstrated that the use of FC is still prevalent in disability service and educational settings. They have comprehensively examined the persistence of FC, provided reasons for its persistence, and formulated key recommendations to address the insidious spread of FC. We concur with Lilienfeld et al. as depressing as it may be, particularly regarding the continued use of FC by clinicians, educators and researchers. Drawing upon our experience as practitioners in the field of intellectual and developmental disability, we offer the view that it is important to argue against FC from a human rights perspective using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006). Put simply, FC is an abuse of human rights.

Keywords:

• Facilitated communication
• Human rights
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• Autism
• Developmental disabilities
• Intellectual disability
• Fads
• Disability abuse.

Declaration of Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest.