As a speech-language pathologist (SLP) who has worked with severely communicatively impaired individuals for the past 20 years, I have found myself at workshops, conferences, and in front of parent groups, saying, "All individuals have the right to communicate, and to be able to easily access appropriate communication systems." I feel that how an individual is able to realize his or her "right to communicate" ideally is accomplished through appropriate assess- ment, training, and programming, provided by an interdisciplinary team -- the SLP, other therapists, teachers and/or staff and parents working together.

I am concerned about the "Right To Communicate" statement as printed in the Facilitated Communication Digest, if it is going to be adopted by the Institute and other organizations. My basic concerns center around the potential misuse of this statement to the detriment of communicatively impaired individuals and the vagueness of the statement with regard to the "who, what, where's" of quality assessment, communication program planning and monitoring. Questions arise such as "Who will provide the assessment? Who will recommend the equipment? Who will monitor and modify the programs?" There is a lack of mention of the important role SLPs and other disciplines can play in AAC and facilitated communication assessment and programming.

Terminology needs further explanation at times, especially the term "veto", as in "no person should have the right to veto another person's augmentative/ alternative communication system." As an SLP, I feel that I have a right -- an obligation --to "veto" systems that I feel are not in the best interests of my students or clients, if "veto" means to recommend against a certain system in favor of another system. I feel that individuals, especially school-age children, might not always choose the system that will eventually benefit them the most. Change is difficult and we have to help it along, sometimes.

Finally, the "Right To Communicate" statement uses many absolute terms such as "all," "must," "no person" and "any," making some statements untrue or difficult to accept.

Although I applaud the Facilitated Communication Digest for its advocacy for communicatively impaired individuals, I feel that some terminology and specific points of the statement need to be more finely tuned to make it a stronger affirmation of the basic right to communicate, one that can be universally adopted and accepted.

Floris Palmer
Speech-Language Pathologist
Nottingham High School
Syracuse, NY