Friday
Nov012013

FSCD Appeal Panel finds in favour of funding GFCF diet, June, 2010

The following excerpts are direct quotations from the FSCD Appeal Panel Decision Document in Alberta, Canada.

Decision of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Appeal Committee, 28 June, 2010

Decision appealed: The Director's decision to deny support for the Gluten Free Casein Free Diet for [Children's Names].

Decision: The decision of the Director is rescinded.

Findings of Fact:

The FSCD Appeal Panel finds that, based on testimony and documentation submitted by Kierstin Hatt, Appellant, the GFCF diet is an accepted and non-experimental nutritional regime that is effective in assisting to manage ASD in some children including [Children's Names].

Reasons for Decision:

The Director's decision was based on the argument that the GFCF diet does not meet the requirement of being accepted and non-experimental.

The FSCD Appeal Panel finds that it would not be in the best interst of the children to withdraw support for one component of this array of supports when it is working well. The FSCD Appeal Panel also considers this to be evidence that the GFCF diet is non-experimental with these children.

Based on the documents submitted, the FSCD Appeal Panel finds that the GFCF diet is widely prescribed, used and supported. It is also extensively researched. The FSCD Appeal Panel finds that there is sufficient evidence to deem the GFCF diet accepted and non-experimental.

The FSCD legislation recognizes and values the right, the responsibility and the ability of parents to make choices regarding therapies for their children. The FSCD Appeal Panel is satisfied that Kierstin Hatt, Appellant, has researched the GFCF diet, understands it and is providing it for her children under supervision and monitoring by a doctor and a dietician. The FSCD Appeal Panel finds that Kierstin Hatt, Appellant, has the right and responsibility to work with the service providers and professionals involved with her children to determine the most appropriate approaches to use for management of her sons' disability.

The FSCD Appeal Panel rescinds the Director's decision with the direction that the GFCF diet be funded effective February 1, 2010.

 

Friday
Nov012013

FSCD Appeal Panel finds in favour of funding GFCF diet, March, 2009

The following excerpts are direct quotations from the FSCD Appeal Panel Decision Document in Alberta, Canada.

Decision of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Appeal Committee, 3 March, 2009

Decision appealed: The Director's refusal to continue to fund a gluten free, casein free diet for [Children's Names].

Decision: The decision of the Director is rescinded.

Findings of Fact:

The FSCD Panel finds that a GFCF diet is both accepted and non-experimental, as envisioned by teh Alberta Legislature in the FSCD Act.

The FSCD Panel finds that a GFCF diet is effective in assisting to manage [Children's Names]'s condition.

Reasons for Decision:

A GFCF diet is both accepted and non-experimental, as envisioned by the Alberta Legislature in the FSCD Act.

The FSCD Panel recognizes that there is not universal acceptance of the GFCF diet for the management of symptoms associated with Autism. That is not to say that acceptance does not exist and the FSCD Panel finds that the GFCF diet is adequately accepted to meet the requirements of section 4(1)(j)(v) of the FSCD Regulation.

The FSCD Panel also finds that there are sufficient studies regarding the GFCF diet to conclude that it is non-experimental. The FSCD Panel was provided with an extensive array of information regarding GFCF diets and Autism.

The FSCD Panel concludes from its review of the information provided that, while there may be no "gold standard" study supporting the use of a GFCF diet, there is evidence that the intervention works to improve some aspects of Autism Spectrum Disorder in a significant number of cases.

The FSCD Panel finds that a GFCF diet is accepted and non-experimental. The decision of the Director is rescinded with the direction that the diet be funded effective October 1, 2008.

Friday
Nov012013

FSCD Appeal Panel finds in favour of funding Relationship Development Intervention (RDI tm), June, 2007 

The following excerpts are direct quotations from the FSCD Appeal Panel Decision Document in Alberta, Canada.

Decision of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Appeal Committee, June 4 and 5, 2007

Decision appealed: The Director's refusal to fund Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) for [child's name].

Decision: The decision of the Director is rescinded.

Findings of Fact:

The FSCD Panel finds that it is a fact that RDI is based on established rehabilitative practices, strategies and approaches that are reasonable, least intrusive and demonstrated to be effective.

The FSCD Panel finds that there is professional support for RDI.

Reasons for Decision:

The FSCD Panel understands that a non-exhaustive list of practices which RDI is based on would include naturalistic teaching, remediation, parent-child interaction, guided participation, scaffolding and spotlighting. These are time-honoured practices, strategies and approaches and common sense tells us that they are reasonable, least intrusive and demonstrated to be effective.

The Director presented no evidence that RDI is ineffective. The refusal to fund RDI was based solely on concerns that there is insufficient science based evidence supporting RDI.

 

Friday
Nov012013

FSCD Appeal Panel finds in favour of funding Relationship Development Intervention (RDI tm), May, 2007

The following excerpts are direct quotations from the FSCD Appeal Panel Decision Document in Alberta, Canada.

Decision of the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Appeal Committee, May 29 and 30, 2007

Decision appealed: The Director's refusal to fund Relationship Development Intervention for [Children's Names].

Decision: The decision of the Director is rescinded.

Findings of Fact:

The FSCD Panel finds it to be a fact that the rehabilitative practices, strategies and approaches upon which Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) is based are established, reasonable, least intrusive and demonstrated to be effective.

The FSCD Panel finds that RDI is based on parent/child interaction and naturalistic teaching. These are the oldest methods of teaching known to man. To suggest that they are not established, reasonable, least intrusive and demonstrated to be effective would defy both logic and common sense.