Pseudoscience by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

It is important to note that practices and treatments based on pseudoscience can be highly damaging and potentially detrimental to human health and wellbeing. Understanding the key principles of ethical conduct and practice codes is of paramount criticality in order to ensure the safety and effectiveness of care delivered to patients. The given assessment will comprehensively analyze pseudoscience, facilitated communicator, and rapid prompting method with respect to the Scope of Practice and Code of Ethics as set forth by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

Any collection of practices and beliefs, which are not based on the scientific method, can be regarded as pseudoscience. In order to properly investigate such treatment modalities, it is relevant to present ASHA’s official position of them. For Facilitated Communication (FC), it is stated that “FC is a discredited technique that should not be used. There is no scientific evidence of the validity of FC, and there is extensive scientific evidence” (ASHA, 2022, para. 1). In the case of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), “RPM is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity … should not be assumed to be the communication” (ASHA, 2018, para. 3). In other words, both methods are not considered scientific, reliable, valid, or effective, which means that they should not be used by people seeking to address their issues with these means. It is stated that “FC was widely dismissed by the professional communities and became a history lesson on the dangers of credulity, pseudoscience, and the importance of evidence-based treatment” (CITE, para. 3). Therefore, both FC and RPM belong to a pseudoscientific domain of discredited practices with potential harm and risk.

It should be noted that the dangers of FC practice cannot be overstated. One FC almost ruined a family, where a father was accused of sexually assaulting his autistic daughter because a facilitator typed it (Berman & Balthaser, 2012). If the facilitator were an SLP, the type of professional misconduct the SLP would have been guilty of in this scenario is the Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I. The Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I states that “individuals who hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence shall evaluate the effectiveness of services provided, technology employed, and products dispensed” (ASHA, 2016, para. 42). In addition, it mandates that SLPs “shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected” (ASHA, 2016, para. 42). In other words, competent professionals can avoid employing treatment methods that are potentially harmful to a client or family by ensuring that there is a scientifically evidenced basis. For prevention, SLPs should consult or refer to ASHA for guidance on whether or not a specific treatment has approval or science behind it.

In conclusion, pseudoscience is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on the scientific method, and both FC and RPM are pseudoscientific practices. SLPs should always be mindful of novel treatment modalities or practices which lack a scientific basis. If confused or unsure, it is critical for competent professionals to use ASHA’s Code of Ethics and its statements in order to ensure adherence to proper standards, practices, treatments, and patient safety mandates. The dangers and harms of pseudoscientific practices are significant, and the use of FC or RPM violates The Rules of Ethics K of the Principle of Ethics I.