Anna Stubblefield: Victim and Perpetrator

An article in  yesterday's New York Times told a remarkable story about Anna Stubblefield, former chair of the philosophy department at Rutgers University, who was convicted on two counts of aggravated sexual assault for having sex with a 31 year old man who the jury concluded was so severely disabled he could not consent to a sexual relationship.

The story hinges on "facilitated communication," a scientifically discredited practice that claims to achieve access to the hidden thoughts of persons with autism and other conditions that have hitherto precluded communication. In the technique, the "facilitator" claims to reach the "communication partner" by assisting the partner to type responses to questions.

I'd somehow never heard the fascinating history of facilitated communication until I read the NYT article. Imagine how moving it is to parents when they are told that their supposedly disabled offspring tells them that he is now overjoyed to be able to communicate and that he loves them very much. And imagine how horrified families are when the facilitated message accuses them of incest and other forms of violence.

I encourage readers who want to learn more about the scientific debunking of facilitated communication to follow the link above and to do a Google search for more. The phenomenon is reminiscent of the "Ouija Board," an occult practice that claimed to communicate with the dead. I remember my parents talking about Ouija Boards when I was a child. I believe they were joking about them, but many believed then that the board allowed spirits to speak to us, and it's still possible to purchase a board even now.

 But in this post I want to discuss the Anna Stubblefield case in connection to my many (21) posts on "doctor-patient sex." Here are my speculations, based solely on the New York Times article and the links it provided:

1. I read excerpts from Professor Stubblefield's writings. They reflected intelligence, thoughtfulness, and passionate commitment to social justice.
2. Reaching the hitherto unreachable is a noble aspiration, shared by physicians, educators and other  professionals.
3. Facilitated communication involves intimate connection - including physical contact - between what I will here call "doctor" and "patient."
4. As a result, it's a living Rorschach that allows the "facilitator" to project beliefs (as about the prevalence of abuse) and desires (as about sex) onto the "communication partner"/"patient".
5. Professor Stubblefield and her supporters believe that her "communication partner"/"patient" was competent to consent to a mutually agreed upon sexual relationship.
6. The family, the prosecutor, and the jury concluded that the "communication partner"/"patient" was not able to consent, and that the relationship was criminally exploitative.
7. However, even on Professor Stubblefield's hypothesis that her "communication partner"/"patient" had the capacity for competent consent for a sexual relationship, in her role as "facilitator"/"educator"/"therapist," it was unethical for her to enter into the relationship.
8. My guess is that Professor Stubblefield's treating the family as if they were harming their son & brother by opposing her relationship with him was especially provocative to them. They had been caring for their family member for 31 years and were now being told they were undermining his well being.

Professor Stubblefield will be sentenced next month, and could receive as much as 40 years in prison! Physicians who have sex with their patients may be sued for malpractice and may lose their licenses, but they are not subject to lengthy prison terms. My guess is that gender (female clinician/male patient) and race (white clinician/black patient) are major factors explaining why Professor Stubblefield could be punished so much more severely than male physicians who have sex with female patients. "Boys will be boys" is a deeply held societal perspective!

In 1992, Dr. Margaret Bean-Bayog, who I had the privilege of supervising when she did her residency in psychiatry, was the subject of sensationalistic press coverage and two books when she was accused of having had sex with a male patient who subsequently killed himself. She argued that the intense attention she received derived from public fascination with the concept of a rapacious female sexual predator. 

I believe Dr. Bean-Bayog was correct, and that similar forces are in the background of the public attention to Professor Stubblefield.  I agree with Professor Stubblefield's attorney that "...this has been a very unusual case. She fell in love. She has no prior history of sexual misconduct whatsoever. She has no criminal record." Professor Stubblefield acted unethically, but she should not be facing the possibility of a prolonged incarceration.