Just as Mahler presents us with observations about flaws in her professional environment, I keep having to deal with fervent support for quack therapies.
There are people who escalate over their defense of the “pasta fling” method of choosing AAC devices.
There are those who lash out when they are told that facilitated communication cannot work with people who cannot independently and autonomously verify their messages.
And so on.
Over time, my own approach has become increasingly insistent as my concerns continue to be ignored. I have referred to it as using my “danger” voice. Letting that level of intensity become an unconsidered reflex has been my mistake.⇲ I have tried to be more moderate here.
In this judicious context, please listen:
Do not perpetuate quackery on the people for whom you care.
Thank you for your time.
By the way, the “frog in the pot of hot water” example is yet another bad illustration, because they absolutely do react to the discomfort that comes from raising the temperature, even by just a couple of degrees. They do not just sit there obliviously as you work your way up to boiling them. I do not know this from personal experience, which I would find to be abhorrent; instead, I can aim you at some research, during which no frogs were harmed.