PEDIATRICS Vol. 99 No. 2 February 1997, pp. 308 (doi:10.1542/peds.99.2.308)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Biklen, D.
Right arrow Articles by Schneiderman, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Biklen, D.
Right arrow Articles by Schneiderman, H.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 99 No. 2 February 1997, pp. 308-309

Facilitated Communication

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

To the Editor.

Hostler's commentary1 on facilitated communication (FC) constructs a one-sided report of a very complex communication method for people with severe disabilities. We will limit our comments to the major points of Hostler's commentary.

First, while it is correct that FC was developed in Australia by educator Rosemary Crossley,2,3 it was independently discovered in Denmark, Sweden, Canada, England, Germany, Japan, and the United States.4-8

Second, FC became embroiled in controversy when some previously nonspeaking children and adults purportedly used facilitation to make allegations of sexual abuse against family members, care givers, and others. A legal authority in Australia has researched the issues related to use of . . . [Full Text of this Article]