AbstractThe use of Facilitated Communication techniques recently introduced and now widely used with persons with autism poses a number of ethical dilemmas for psychologists. These dilemmas stem from the lack of empirical support for the validity of messages communicated with facilitation. Using the CPA Code of Ethics for Psychologists (1991) as a guide, this paper will highlight a number of ethical issues pertinent to psychologists working with clients who use Facilitated Communication techniques.In the past few years, the use of Facilitated Communication techniques (F/C) with autistic individuals has become a topic of considerable controversy (Cummins & Prior, 1992; Prior & Cummins, 1992; Rimland, 1990). Facilitated Communication (F/C) involves the physical support of a person's arm, wrist or hand by a facilitator to enable them to use equipment such as electronic typewriters, computer keyboards, or alphabet and picture boards for purposes of communication. Much of the controversy stems from the fact that the validity of messages communicated when using a facilitator remains to be established empirically. Guided by the ethical principles outlined by the Canadian Psychological Association (1991), this paper will discuss the ethical dilemmas faced by psychologists working with clients and their families or caregivers who use this mode of communication.Since the introduction of F/C in Australia in 1988 by Rosemary Crossley, and then in the United States in 1990 by Douglas Biklen, there have been many reports of autistic individuals who were either mute or echolalic suddenly demonstrating literacy and numeracy skills with the use of facilitated communication (Rimland, 1990). F/C has challenged previous notions regarding the nature of autism, and as a result, has sparked new hope and enthusiasm for parents, caregivers and teachers of individuals with autism. However, the claims made by proponents of F/C also have prompted considerable controversy. Although, calls for controlled evaluations (Cummins & Prior, 1992; Minnes, 1992) have been resisted by proponents of the technique, increasing numbers of cases of alleged abuse communicated through F/C (Rimland, 1992) have resulted in a growing number of research studies.Three major paradigms outlined by Schwartz and Jacobson (1993) have been used. In the first, questions are posed but facilitators do not have access to information presented to the person being facilitated. Auditory information may be altered through the use of earphones (Hudson, Melita & Arnold, 1993; Perry, Bryson & Bebko, 1993) or visual screening may be used to prevent facilitators from viewing stimulus materials or possible responses (Perry et al., 1993; Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri & Schwartz, 1993). In the vast majority of studies using such approaches, results uniformly indicate that correct responses to questions or correct naming of pictures or objects are rarely possible when the information is not available to the facilitator. Indeed, when subjects and facilitator are presented with different information, the typed responses most frequently are appropriate for the information presented to the facilitator.A second approach which has been seen to be less confrontational involves message passing (Perry, Bryson, & Bebko, 1994). In this case, questions are asked about events or activities which have occurred or information presented in the absence of the facilitator, or the subject is merely asked to tell the facilitator about what happened while they were out of the room. The results of studies using this approach indicate that appropriate communications have occurred only in cases where the subject was able to type independently (Schwartz & Jacobson, 1993).In a third approach known as a training model, gains in cognitive and language skills are measured as clients and facilitators are trained. While increasing skill in F/C has been documented in these studies, comparable gains in the ability to name objects or letters or to recognize words have not been found (Schwartz & Jacobson, 1993). …