[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Ed Feuer
Date: 04 Oct 2012
Time: 11:07:22 -0500
Remote Name: 207.161.157.111
So why don't the professional associations try to come down like a ton of bricks on the more egregious frauds via legal remedies? In my view, it's because these associations fear that if push ever came to shove — in court — the bad guy's lawyer would say to them: "Show us the evidence that what you do has greater long-term effectiveness than what my client does." That is why I maintain that as consumers, we have to demand independent third-party assessment of efficacy of treatments of (randomly chosen) past stuttering clients over time such as one-year, three-year and five year intervals. That independent third-party appraisal of outcomes would include not only assessment of these individuals, but after obtaining privacy waivers, talking to family members, friends and workplace associates in order to give the determination scientific validity. As for frauds, meanwhile, a skilled practitioner can get someone "fluent" in the low communicative stress environment — including clinic rooms — where the total focus is on speech mechanics rather than message. But that amounts to a parlour trick. The real test, of course, is long-term transference. — Ed Feuer edfeuer@mts.net