Home      Login

Abstract: 

A disabled adolescent’s ability to communicate love and feelings is questioned in a lawsuit brought by the boy’s family against a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University. The professor, who worked with the boy for several years using a technique called facilitated communication, became romantically and sexually involved with her client and claimed the two had fallen in love. The family contends that facilitated communication is junk science, that the professor took advantage of a severely disabled boy in order to further her career and satisfy her sexual desires. Anna Stubblefield’s claim that she was able to get to know the real D.J., once she helped him communicate through the controversial process raises both scientific and ethical questions.

Keywords: cognitive capacity; facilitated communication; ethical boundaries; ideomotor effect; ability to consent

Affiliations:  1: editor of VED.