Augmentative and Alternative Communication
What is AAC?
AAC or Augmentative and Alternative Communication is any method of communication used to add to or replace verbal speech. Like verbal speech, AAC utterances should come from the communicator. Just like no one touches or manipulates the mouth or lungs of the verbal speaker no one should be touching the body or the communication system of the AAC user. AAC can included writing, spelling, pointing to pictures, using literacy based or pictorial language systems in book form or on an electronic device. It can include facial expressions, eye pointing, gestures, sign language, vocalizations, and other systems. These systems can be accessed by direct selection such as pointing with a finger, eye gaze or any other body part, or indirect selection by using one or more switches to scan options and make selections.
Autonomous Communication
The focus of AAC should always be on autonomous communication, meaning the user of AAC is able to say what they want, to whom they want, whenever they want and where ever they want. The methodology of communication used is to be chosen by the user of AAC at any given time, but should always without the possibility of anyone influencing what the AAC user says.
It is absolutely vital that that the user of AAC not be physically or emotionally manipulated. The AAC system should also be held by the AAC user (not the communication partner), placed on a surface or mounted for easy access. The AAC user should not be physically touched as they are communicating. Methodologies that call for physical prompts should be avoided for a variety of reasons including allowing physical autonomy, preventing influencing the AAC user’s message, lowering the chance of learned helplessness and decreasing the potential impact of non-consented touch.
Facilitated Communication
Research has shown, repeatedly, that Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method and similar methods, impacts the supposed utterances of the person who is supposedly communicating. This essentially removes agency from the very person that AAC should be giving agency. Furthermore, use of FC had lead to many instances of unfounded abuse allegations and at least two publicly known incidences of people with disabilities being said to have given consent through FC which could not be verified. Research has also shown Rapid Prompting and similar methods lead to prompt dependency.
Abuse Risk
Additionally, individuals with disabilities are at a much higher risk of being abused - physically, emotionally, financially, sexually. Using instructional methods that insist that a person with a disability allow someone to touch them, especially without consent, is in essence “grooming” them to be abused. Just using these methodologies that are so well known as fraudulent puts these individuals in a position where they may not be believed if they were to try and report abuse. Using instructional methods that avoids hands on/physical manipulation, that teaches cooperation instead of compliance and focuses on learning how and when to consent to touch can help decrease the possibility of abuse. The implementation of autonomous communication with a robust language system can help reduce some of the risk of abuse facing AAC users by enabling to say, “no” and to report instances of abuse.
Autonomous Communication
The focus of AAC should always be on autonomous communication, meaning the user of AAC is able to say what they want, to whom they want, whenever they want and where ever they want. The methodology of communication used is to be chosen by the user of AAC at any given time, but should always without the possibility of anyone influencing what the AAC user says.
It is absolutely vital that that the user of AAC not be physically or emotionally manipulated. The AAC system should also be held by the AAC user (not the communication partner), placed on a surface or mounted for easy access. The AAC user should not be physically touched as they are communicating. Methodologies that call for physical prompts should be avoided for a variety of reasons including allowing physical autonomy, preventing influencing the AAC user’s message, lowering the chance of learned helplessness and decreasing the potential impact of non-consented touch.
Facilitated Communication
Research has shown, repeatedly, that Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method and similar methods, impacts the supposed utterances of the person who is supposedly communicating. This essentially removes agency from the very person that AAC should be giving agency. Furthermore, use of FC had lead to many instances of unfounded abuse allegations and at least two publicly known incidences of people with disabilities being said to have given consent through FC which could not be verified. Research has also shown Rapid Prompting and similar methods lead to prompt dependency.
Abuse Risk
Additionally, individuals with disabilities are at a much higher risk of being abused - physically, emotionally, financially, sexually. Using instructional methods that insist that a person with a disability allow someone to touch them, especially without consent, is in essence “grooming” them to be abused. Just using these methodologies that are so well known as fraudulent puts these individuals in a position where they may not be believed if they were to try and report abuse. Using instructional methods that avoids hands on/physical manipulation, that teaches cooperation instead of compliance and focuses on learning how and when to consent to touch can help decrease the possibility of abuse. The implementation of autonomous communication with a robust language system can help reduce some of the risk of abuse facing AAC users by enabling to say, “no” and to report instances of abuse.