-Caveat Lector- Hi ! The article below details "FMS" and possible misrepresentations. Sincerely, Neil Brick Excerpts from http://members.aol.com/conch8/antiTRMP1.html Originally published in Moving Forward, Volume 3, No. 3, pp 1, 12-21, 1995. THE HIGHLY MISLEADING TRUTH AND RESPONSIBILITY IN MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICES ACT: The "False Memory" Movement's Remedy for a Nonexistent Problem by Judith M. Simon "...The problem with this definition is that it has no true clinical meaning. A "deeply ingrained" memory that "orients the individual's entire personality and lifestyle . . ." is not a diagnostic criterion but a conclusion about the veracity of contested memories that is based on unspecified criteria. More importantly, sufferers of "FMS" are virtually indistinguishable from clients with posttraumatic stress disorder (Table 1)�a condition prevalent among victims of childhood sexual abuse. Although FMS proponents may argue that therapy itself causes posttraumatic stress disorder, there is no evidence to support such a claim. There are no tests to measure FMS, and there is no way to determine if someone has it. Because it cannot be identified, it cannot be scientifically investigated, which is why no studies or case reports of it have been published in the peer-reviewed professional literature.[21] FMS purportedly arises from "recovered memory therapy," a theoretical practice said to be capable of creating memories of childhood sexual abuse in psychotherapy patients. The "diagnosis" of FMS was introduced in 1992 by Pamela Freyd, Ph.D. (an educator) and her husband Peter Freyd, Ph.D. (a mathematician). The Freyds conceived the idea of FMS not after years of dedicated study and research in psychology, but, rather, soon after their daughter (Jennifer Freyd, Ph.D.) privately confronted them with memories of incest perpetrated by her father. (Ironically, Jennifer is a respected research psychologist specializing in memory and perception.) In 1993, the Freyds, who are co-founders of the FMSF, filed a complaint against Jennifer's former therapist, but the Oregon State Board of Psychologist Examiners dismissed the case "in its entirety." FMS is not recognized by experts in sexual abuse trauma. It does not appear in the American Psychiatric Association's official compendium of mental disorders and is not being considered for inclusion in that manual." "Recovered memory therapy" (RMT) is another scientific-sounding term that originated alongside FMS and has been given the following definition: "Recovered memory therapy" is a term covering a wide variety of therapeutic techniques which assume that the patient's current symptoms are caused by traumatic events which have been lost to conscious recollection; these therapies further assume that restoration of conscious recollection (or at least acknowledgment that the trauma occurred) is essential to the successful treatment of the patient's symptoms. [22] This definition also does not appear anywhere in the scientific literature and does not refer to any process recognized by the mental health professions. Again, it originates with John Kihlstrom, who goes on to say that RMT is a kind of continuum of therapies which are concerned with the patient's memories (however they are recovered). . . . Outside the continuum entirely are . . . therapies that don't make reference to memory, or use memory, in any formal way, and which don't make assumptions about the historical causes of present symptoms. [23] According to FMS theory, then, therapy clients have been subjected to RMT if they remember or talk about anything from their past � an activity that is "hazardous" because it can result in "false memory syndrome." In a 1984 report on refreshing recollection through hypnosis, the AMA reaffirmed its longstanding recognition of hypnosis as a valid therapeutic modality: As a therapeutic technique hypnosis may be helpful in dealing with the emotional consequences of a traumatic event; that is, a recollection may have emotional validity even if it may not be historically accurate. Thus, it is not important for the therapist to concern himself with the veracity of what is remembered under hypnosis, but rather to help the patient integrate this material in an ego syntonic way to deal with the traumatic events that are presumed to have occurred. [26] FMS proponents argue that some people are so suggestible that they can be influenced into believing they were sexually abused in childhood when actually they were not. This assertion, however, has little scientific basis. According to a recent review of the scientific literature on this subject sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health: The case for the suggestibility of real-life emotional memory to intrusions from postevent information is weak. Studies of actual victims and witnesses to crimes show no evidence of suggestibility, and diary studies rarely reveal overt errors or confabulations. [31] FMS proponents also frequently claim that many therapy clients are looking for someone else to blame for their problems when they view their upbringing as a source of current difficulty in life. However, an exhaustive review of the literature on this subject found quite the opposite: These data also help to rebut suggestions that depressed individuals report more adverse childhood experiences for motivational reasons, for example, because they wish to justify their current symptoms or to comply with the wishes of their therapist . . . or because they have internalized common ideas about links between parenting and psychopathology, which lead them to "rewrite" their autobiographies to fit in with societal expectations . . . . In any case, it would be inconsistent for depressed persons, who in general tend to blame internal causal factors for their misfortunes . . . to blame external factors such as their upbringing unless there were good reasons for them to do so. [32] While FMS proponents claim the existence of phenomena (i.e., FMS and RMT) that are unknown to science, they correspondingly ignore the wealth of clinical and experimental data supporting traumatic amnesia. There is indisputable evidence that traumatic childhood events can be accurately recalled after a period of apparent amnesia, yet they deny this ability by asserting that there is no proof for the existence of repression � the burying of intact memories that are too painful for conscious awareness. This assertion is based on a single literature review that lacks direct relevance to the recovered memory controversy and has been cited out of context.[33] Further, it erroneously assumes that there is but one theoretical mechanism by which traumatic amnesia can occur. Trauma experts generally agree that dissociation � the fragmenting of awareness into elements of behavior, emotional feeling, sensation, and knowledge[34] � explains the broad range of clinical phenomena that are consistently observed in trauma survivors, regardless of whether the trauma is associated with combat in war, a natural disaster, sexual violation, or other types of personal assault. Terror appears to shatter the unity of awareness into pieces that are actually constantly remembered as intrusive or avoidant symptoms until the experience can be integrated into "a fully developed life narrative."[35] Most mental health professionals who specialize in treating trauma survivors understand the complex way in which humans respond to emotionally overwhelming events, and they are skilled in recognizing what others are likely to misinterpret or not notice. For example, many of the major features of posttraumatic stress disorder (e.g., restricted range of affect, inability to recall important aspects of the trauma) are actually dissociative symptoms.[36] Most mental health professionals who specialize in treating trauma survivors understand the complex way in which humans respond to emotionally overwhelming events, and they are skilled in recognizing what others are likely to misinterpret or not notice. For example, many of the major features of posttraumatic stress disorder (e.g., restricted range of affect, inability to recall important aspects of the trauma) are actually dissociative symptoms.[36] Sexual child abuse is still a highly underreported crime[37] and there are no reliable statistics on its true incidence. We do know the number of documented cases, though�152,400 in 1993 alone (these represent 15% of all substantiated cases of child maltreatment in the United States for that year).[38] Assuming that the incidence of sexual child abuse has remained fairly constant over the past 45 years,[39] we can estimate the current population of adult survivors between 25 and 45 (the age range of adults most likely to seek therapy for abuse-related problems) by regarding this figure as an annual rate of incidence and multiplying it by 20 years. Conservatively, the population numbers 3,048,000. In contrast, the FMSF claims to have been notified of 17,000 "complaints," [40] which, even if valid, represent only 0.6% of the estimated population of adult survivors. The FMSF has implied that the number of inquiries it has received since its inception (17,000) is the same as its dues-paying membership (3,070 as of March 15, 1995), fostering an exaggerated public perception of it's size.[41] If the FMSF's actual membership is used in the above computation, the "epidemic" of allegedly false child abuse accusations dwindles to 0.1% of the conservatively estimated population of adult survivors. Naturally, this figure assumes that each FMSF member represents a memory of abuse that is demonstrably false. The FMSF relies on two main sources of "proof" for its contention that consumers have received bad therapy: (1) simple denial of guilt by those who have been accused of sex crimes, and (2) the dramatic accounts of people who have recanted their disclosures of abuse.[42] Denial in sex offenders is a particularly well-documented phenomenon[43] and has been studied in terms of its degree,[44] underlying motivation,[45] accompanying pathology,[46] and other variables. Researchers in Great Britain have actually been able to identify five distinct patterns of denial in sex offenders.[47] One of these patterns features "externalizers," which are offenders who are most likely to blame the victim or third parties: Group 2, the 'externalizers', was composed predominantly of offenders against young females. They tended to blame the victim for the offence, and also blamed other, third parties such as their spouses. Interestingly, in spite of this, a large minority in the group were recidivists and many also admitted to other paraphilias. This group was most likely to harbour a sense of injustice against the way people like themselves are dealt with by the legal system, and their projective style of attribution often took on a persecutory tone when turned on the police or the courts. [48] Offenders may be subject to other types of perceptual distortion that free them of guilt.[49] Indeed, some not only deny harming their victims but actually claim to have helped them in a way.[50] Psychologist Daniel McIvor, Ph.D., observed a group of offenders who viewed themselves as "good family men": They experienced no guilt, lied by omission, and effortlessly utilized compartmentalization and rationalization . . . When they started with one lie by omission, it soon spread to hundreds of lies. But they did not feel they were "lying." They did not feel they were doing anything against the law . . . [51] Persistent denial on the part of perpetrators can actually be a factor in the recanting of abuse disclosures, as some survivors capitulate when they lack adequate emotional support to cope with the reality of their traumas. Experts who treat victims of sexual abuse recognize that recantation is also a psychological defense and can be part of the gradual and uneven process of coming to terms with overwhelming trauma.[52] The American Psychiatric Association acknowledged this clinical reality in their official statement on memories of sexual abuse: . . . hesitancy in making a report, and recanting following the report can occur in victims of documented abuse. Therefore, these seemingly contradictory findings do not exclude the possibility that the report is based on a true event. [53] In contrast, FMS proponents accept denials and recantations at face value. Typically, they ascribe the long and troubled clinical histories of recanters to benign causes � that is, if they acknowledge recanters' histories at all. Often, FMS proponents portray the family lives of recanters as idyllic prior to therapy and "destroyed" or "shattered" afterward, identifying mental health services rather than sexual child abuse as a threat to a "sacred American institution." The FMSF's efforts to substantiate member claims of "false" memory "implantation" by therapists took the form of a survey in 1993. Of 487 questionnaires sent to accused parents, 284 were returned. The results were given the following interpretation: What, then, can be known about the "epidemic" from 284 self reports of individuals accused of sex crimes? Only that the FMSF has yet to provide data of scientific value. In a recent article, psychiatrist Michael Good, M.D., made an important observation: "Apart from anecdotal material, I . . . have been unable to locate published analytic case reports in which a patient's plausible memory of early trauma turned out to be essentially and verifiably false."[56] According to psychiatrist Judith Herman, M.D., of Harvard Medical School, "The very name FMS is prejudicial and misleading . . . we have no evidence that the reported memories are false. We only know that they are disputed."[57] With no scientific evidence for "false memory syndrome," FMS proponents have resorted to arguing their claims on the basis of activity in the courts. They often assert that people alleging abuse can win "recovered memory" cases on the strength of their memories alone. However, due process requires a high standard of evidence, and substantial corroboration of the recalled abuse must be presented for a lawsuit to be successful. FMS proponents typically discount or ignore this corroborating evidence or else misrepresent the facts of a case altogether. For example, in her article, "Remembering Dangerously,"[58] FMSF advisory board member Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., warns readers to "beware that . . . case 'proofs' may leave out critical information," yet her own description of Hoult v. Hoult ("The Case of Jennifer H.") fails to mention the critical testimony of several witnesses, including the defendant's admission of having sexually abused another child. Loftus implies that there was no independent corroboration of the abuse DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
