11/6/97 FC NET Message
 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:20:14 +0200
From: Yechiel Menachem Sitzmandvar@netvision.net.il
To: pedwards@ashland.edu

Subject: Solving the FC controversy

 The reports from Geralyn and others in similar positions are very sad.
Far sadder is the realization that there are so many thousands of
people locked in prisons of silence who could be helped by the use
of FC but this help is being denied to them and to people like
Geralyn and Lizzie because of those who oppose FC. We know that
FC works and is real because it is part of our daily life. The problem
arises because "they" also "know" that FC is a fake because the
explanations which are given for various aspects of FC go
against the conclusions of many studies in various fields and because
so many scientific tests have failed to validate FC.
 The problem exists because the true explanations of the phenomena
associated with FC lie outside the boundaries which contemporary science
has arbitrarily set for itself.

 There is much evidence that the real explanation for some aspects of FC
is along the lines of what Haskew and Donnellan wrote
("Psychological Lessons of Facilitated Communication", p.9): "It may
be that a sixth sense is present in all of us at birth, but as speech and
locomotion develop the need for it fades. Still, many people seem to
retain vestigial psychic abilities, especially at times of accident or
trauma, and there is much anecdotal and scientific literature describing
these. For people with impaired communication capacities the sixth
sense may remain active and utilized. The speaking world is simply
rediscovering it."

It appears that Ann Donnellan was right in writing ("Facilitated Communication: Beyond the Quandary to the Questions", in "Topics in Language Disorders", Aug. 92) that one would eventually discover that FC "is not an autism or even a disability issue. Rather -- that it is a human issue and that the world of the mind is indeed one world."
 I have begun writing a paper to suggest an approach which could well succeed in presenting an effective response to the critics of FC. I am appealing to all of you to help me in this by responding with reports of any instances of ESP (or other extraordinary phenomena) you have observed in communications you have received using FC. All reports I receive will be kept confidential unless you give specific permission to publicize them.
Though the explanations which I and my colleagues have developed answer most of the objections to FC, there are still many areas which can use further clarification and verification, and I am hopeful that your reports will help in this area.
 We have found that the practice of minimizing physical support to clients as facilitators have been advised to do for the sake of fostering independent communication tends also to diminish deeper (i.e. emotional and spiritual) content in their communications.

I have written to Rosemary Crossley concerning this problem and received from her the following reply:
"Certainly while people are working on reducing support and their output is reduced in quantity or quality I recommend that they continue to use their previous level of facilitation most of the time to avoid frustration, but practice using reduced support for 15-30 minutes a day, every day."

Giving the client full support apparently enables him to communicate from deeper recesses of his personality and encourages messages with deeper (i.e. more spiritual) content. In view of Rosemary's reply above, I think none of you will object to my request to facilitate at times with full support so as to provide your clients with the opportunity to communicate from these levels as well.

In closing, I would like to suggest a simple experiment which I am convinced can be used to refute the position taken by those who reject FC and which will probably demonstrate the inadequacy of the explanation of cueing advanced by the supporters of FC to explain facilitator influence.
One could try facilitating with a normal person in a language of which the facilitated subject has no knowledge (or concerning a topic of which he is ignorant) but which the facilitator knows well. If they are less successful than those who are considered to be mentally handicapped in receiving the purported cues from the facilitator, this would lend support to the theory of Haskew and Donnellan cited above.

I look forward to receiving your comments and hopefully support in these matters.
Yechiel Menachem Sitzman dvar@netvision.net.il