False Memory Syndrome Foundation - Vol 04 No 07 - 1995 julyaug

Magazine Overview

Title: FMS Foundation Newsletter
Issue: Vol 4 No. 7
Date: July-August, 1995

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter delves deeply into the controversial topic of recovered memories, particularly in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA) and satanic ritual abuse (SRA). It critically examines the practices and findings of professional organizations, legal challenges, and the scientific validity of repressed memory claims.

First the Bad News: BPS Survey and Report

The newsletter begins by presenting "bad news" regarding a survey conducted by the British Psychological Society (BPS) among its clinical members. The survey, distributed in February 1994, received 1083 returns from 4005 members who indicated they had clients claiming CSA. Key findings from the survey included:

• Question #14: 3% believed recovered memories of CSA from total amnesia were never essentially accurate, 53% sometimes, 38% usually, and 6% always.
• Question #17: 3% believed reports of satanistic ritual abuse from total amnesia were never essentially accurate, 54% sometimes, 38% usually, and 5% always.

The newsletter highlights that the BPS Working Party's January 1995 report, "Recovered Memories: Report of the Working Party of the BPS," remarkably concluded regarding Question #14 that "There are high levels of belief in the essential accuracy of recovered memories of child sexual abuse among qualified psychologists." However, the report made no mention of the survey results for Question #17 concerning satanic ritual abuse, nor did it mention the existence of the survey question itself.

Further "bad news" is presented from other survey results (page 211):

• Question #5: 10% of respondents use hypnotic regression to uncover traumatic memories.
• Question #9: 23% of clients reporting CSA history had experienced remembering CSA from total amnesia, meaning no conscious knowledge of the event while in therapy.

The newsletter points out that these results were not reported in the BPS Executive Summary, which instead stated, "There is no reliable evidence at present that this is a widespread phenomenon in the UK."

The members of the BPS Working Party are listed as: Bernice Andrews, John Morton, Debra A. Bekerian, Chris R. Brewin, Graham M. Davies, and Phil Mollon.

Commentary on the BPS Report

Larry Weiskrantz, writing in The Times on April 11, 1995, expressed pride in his profession's ability to gather empirical evidence but despaired when it issued "dogmatic assertions, barren of evidence, with an undeserved air of authority, all too easily judged to be self-serving."

Good News: APA on Past Life Regression

In contrast, the newsletter presents "Good News" from Mel Sabshin, MD, Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association, in a June 21, 1995, Chicago Tribune article. Dr. Sabshin stated that the APA believes "past life regression therapy is pure quackery" and that there is "no accepted scientific evidence to support the existence of past lives let alone the validity of past life regression therapy."

The newsletter emphasizes the importance of this statement, noting that it was sent to families whose children had cut off contact due to beliefs about past life sexual abuse. It suggests that these families might not have pursued past life therapy if they had known the APA's stance.

The article connects this to the critiques made by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), which has sought evidence for the validity of regression therapies and found none. It cites the "humiliating absurdity" of such practices, referencing a visual from the Frontline program "Divided Memories" depicting a woman reenacting being in a fallopian tube.

The section concludes by stating, "The public deserves access to therapy that is safe and effective. We expect nothing less from other branches of medicine... The public should accept nothing less from therapy."

FMS Foundation Office Activity

The FMS Foundation office has been busy, with an average of 25-30 first-time telephone calls per week from people falsely accused, and 20-50 calls per week from professionals seeking information. Lawyers, researchers, families, and former patients concerned with legal ramifications of repressed memories account for approximately 60 staff hours per week.

The foundation has completed its annual external audit, with financial information to be included in the September newsletter. A Speakers Bureau has been established, and programs for continuing education are being developed. FMSF staff have contributed to articles, book chapters, briefs, and presentations.

Media coverage indicates a shift towards a legal focus in the recovered memory controversy, attributed to the inability or unwillingness of some professional organizations to accept responsibility and address the needs of families and clients affected by recovered memory therapy.

Legislative News

Russ Newman, Ph.D., J.D., discusses legislative initiatives in his column "Therapy critic hears practice concerns" (APA Monitor, July 1995). He met with Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., to discuss model legislation proposed by the National Association for Consumer Protection in Mental Health Practice. Bills were introduced in New Hampshire, Illinois, and Missouri, focusing on courtroom testimony by mental health experts, informed-consent procedures, and identification of safe treatment interventions. While the APA was concerned about requirements for audio/video recording of informed consent sessions, this was not included in the bills. Newman suggests room for negotiation between the APA and Barden.

Newman also addressed a concern that the APA's allocation of $750,000 for 1996 had been confused with $18,000 allocated to monitor FMS advocates. The $750,000 is intended to inform consumers about psychological services.

An editor's comment suggests that given the widespread beliefs and practices regarding repressed memories and increasing lawsuits, the APA should allocate funds to educate its members and then the public.

International Conference on Child Protectors and Clients

This conference, held in the Netherlands from June 28-30, 1995, brought together professionals and families from various countries to discuss custody rights, child removal without proper investigation, and false memory syndrome. Approximately 80 participants attended, including judges, lawyers, therapists, and researchers.

Key speakers included Richard Ofshe (discussing abdication of responsibility by healthcare professionals), Jeffrey Victor (on breaking closed-system thinking), and Hollida Wakefield (on interviewing children and suggestibility).

The conference highlighted the global nature of these problems, with issues traced to professional training conferences where new ideas and techniques were introduced without adequate research into their consequences. Examples cited include the spread of satanic ritual abuse beliefs and multiple personality disorder (MPD) in the US and UK, and the use of 'anatomically correct dolls' in Scandinavian countries.

Horror stories of children held hostage by child protective workers were shared, including a case from Norway where a four-year-old was interviewed for hours with only dolls, and begged to sleep.

"Dark Tunnels of McMartin" Article

A review of John Earl's article "The dark truth about the 'Dark Tunnels of McMartin'" in Issues in Child Abuse Accusations (Vol 7, No 2) is presented. The article examines Roland Summit's theory about the McMartin tunnels, which Summit claims is supported by "hard-won documentation of physical evidence" from Gary Stickel. Earl's article critically examines Stickel and his claims, ultimately discrediting both Stickel and the tunnel theory.

Spectral Evidence

Margaret Jervis's article "Spectral Evidence - fear and ignorance in the Court" (The Therapist, Spring 1995) draws a parallel between the "spectral evidence" used in the 1693 Salem witch trials and the modern concept of recovered repressed memories of sexual abuse. Jervis argues that spectral evidence, which involved dreams and visions, was declared inadmissible, leading to the end of the witch hunt. She suggests that recovered memories, like spectral evidence, are often therapeutically excavated, vivid, emotive, and can create a powerful mental image that may lead to secondary trauma in the listener.

How to Spot a Witch

Adam Goodheart's article "How to Spot a Witch" (Civilization, March/April, 1995) discusses the "Malleus Maleficarum" (Hammer of Witches), a 1486 guide to identifying witches. The article notes that the existence of such a guide does not mean the 'thing' it identifies actually exists, likening it to asking "How long have you been a witch?" as a way to guarantee finding one.

Resolved: Multiple Personality Disorder

This section presents a debate format article from the J. Am Acad. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (July 1995) on whether Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) is an individually and socially created artifact. Paul R. McHugh, M.D., argues it is an artifact, while Frank W. Putnam, M.D., cites literature supporting its validity. Critiques by Merskey, Piper, and Simpson are also referenced.

Letter to Nature Medicine

A letter from David Spiegel, M.D., to Nature Medicine (June 1995) clarifies the changes in the DSM-IV regarding MPD. Spiegel explains that the new term is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) and that while fragmentation of identity can occur without therapeutic coercion, there is no evidence it accounts for the majority of cases. He states that DID is understood as a long-term sequela of childhood abuse, a psychological defense against victimization.

The newsletter notes that the changes in name and description of MPD are not helpful for those grappling with claims of patients with thousands of alters.

Editorial: Repression and MPD

Harold Merskey's editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry (1995) critically examines the concept of repression. He notes that psychological literature is unable to provide scientific evidence for repression as a mental mechanism. Merskey argues that while repression might be useful for acute or chronic conflict, it is not tenable as an explanation for sustained memory loss and is probably no longer useful for dealing with past experience. He suggests that the conflict-repression model of neurosis is no longer credible and that a new theory is needed, warning that the continued focus on childhood conflict and repression leads to therapists seeing every symptom as evidence of childhood incest and hammering out memories to sustain their therapeutic illusion.

The Naive Therapist Syndrome

Thomas P. Millar, MD, in the BC Medical Journal (September 1994), discusses psychoanalytic therapy's reliance on the concept of repression. He questions whether repression actually exists, suggesting that if it doesn't, the entire basis of psychoanalytic therapy is flawed.

Client/Therapist Narrative—Not Narrative Truth

Allen Feld, an assistant professor of Social Work, argues that therapy involves a "Client/Therapist Narrative." He suggests that while clients and therapists may believe this narrative, its truth is rarely verifiable in the clinician's office. Feld emphasizes that when dealing with "recovered memories" of incest, which are verifiable acts, therapists must test these narratives for reality. He states that therapists who claim to help clients by ignoring the need to test for reality have the burden of proof to publish research demonstrating this.

Legal Corner: Reflections on Recent Decisions

This section analyzes three court decisions that challenge repressed memory claims:

1. Reliability of Repressed Memories under Frye and Daubert: The newsletter discusses how courts are applying the Frye test (general acceptance in the scientific community) and the Daubert analysis (scientific validity and reliability) to repressed memory testimony. Two trial courts (Maryland and New Hampshire) dismissed repressed memory lawsuits after evidentiary hearings, finding the testimony unreliable and not generally accepted in psychology.
2. Decision 1: State of New Hampshire v. Hungerford, Morahan: The New Hampshire Superior Court dismissed repressed memory claims, stating that the phenomenon of memory repression and the therapy used to recover memories have not gained general acceptance in psychology and are not scientifically reliable. The court found that the state failed to meet its burden of proof under Frye and that the reliability of repressed memory has not been established under Daubert.
3. Decision 2: "Doe and Roe v. Maskell, Circuit Court, Baltimore Maryland: The Baltimore Circuit Court dismissed a $40 million suit based on the statute of limitations, not on the merits of the repressed memory claims.
4. Decision 3: Michigan Supreme Court Overturns Lemmerman v Fealk and Williford v. Bieskes: The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the state's "discovery rule" does not apply to repressed memory claims related to childhood sexual abuse. The court found that in such cases, where the plaintiff's word is the primary evidence, it is difficult for factfinders to resolve questions reliably due to the lack of objective verification.

The section also mentions a case where the plaintiff's testimony was admitted, but the court noted the danger of jurors lending too much credence to expert opinions on credibility. The court also considered the defense's argument that the psychiatrist's testimony usurped the jury's function.

Legal News from Australia

An article from The Weekend Australian reports on three men released from Australian prisons after their "repressed memory" sexual abuse convictions were overturned. The juries in these cases were reportedly not asked to confront the possibility that the memories were fabricated fantasies. The controversy about the validity of repressed memories was not aired in court.

Summary of Opinions

Summaries of court opinions are provided, including the Michigan Supreme Court's decision on the discovery rule and the First Circuit Court's affirmation of a $500,000 jury verdict in a repressed memory case (Hoult v. Hoult), noting that the judge's assessment of reliability did not need to be "explicit" and "on the record."

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the controversy surrounding recovered memories, the alleged iatrogenesis of false memories through therapy, and the increasing legal scrutiny of repressed memory claims. The FMS Foundation Newsletter adopts a critical stance towards recovered memory therapy, highlighting its potential for harm, lack of scientific validation, and the legal challenges it faces. The newsletter advocates for evidence-based, safe, and effective therapeutic practices and emphasizes the importance of objective verification in legal and clinical contexts. There is a clear concern about the impact of recovered memory claims on individuals, families, and the legal system.

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter, dated July-August 1995, covers a range of topics related to False Memory Syndrome (FMS), repressed memory therapy, and its legal and personal ramifications. The newsletter features articles, personal accounts, and updates on FMSF activities.

Key Articles and Features

Malpractice Suits and Legal Cases

The lead article discusses the legal landscape surrounding repressed memories, noting that while laws may be tightening in criminal courts, the risk of jury conviction remains high. It references changes in Australian court standards influenced by a report warning about the unreliability of memory recovery techniques without independent corroboration. The article also reviews a civil case in Victoria where an alleged victim, Sharon Arnold, received $10,500 in compensation based on uncorroborated repressed memories. The author questions the basis for such compensation when a disturbed family history is involved.

A significant portion of the newsletter is dedicated to the malpractice suits against Dr. Diane Humenansky, a St. Paul psychiatrist accused by her patients of planting false memories of sexual abuse. The article details claims of false diagnosis, misuse of psychotropic drugs and hypnosis, and coercion into believing they were abused. Humenansky invoked her right against self-incrimination multiple times and her medical license is under review. The article also notes that Gary M. Jackson, Esq., has represented individuals in civil and criminal actions involving repressed memories, with many cases being dropped or dismissed.

The FMSF Legal Survey tracks numerous suits, primarily civil actions, brought by accusers claiming childhood abuse discovered through 'recovered memories.' Preliminary results suggest an increase in cases being dropped or dismissed, highlighting the immense financial and emotional costs involved.

Personal Accounts and Family Stories

Several personal narratives illustrate the impact of FMS and related therapies on families. One account, titled "Holding Children Hostage," describes how accusers have used children as leverage to force confessions or entry into therapy, causing profound personal loss for grandparents.

Another section features a letter from a grandmother whose grandchildren were taken for testing and made allegations after her daughter's dream was interpreted as evidence of past sexual abuse. This case, involving Ray and Shirley Souza, is highlighted as an example of the 'family panic' that can result from dream interpretation.

A "Frustrated Mother" shares her experience of being estranged from her daughter and grandchildren for four years due to accusations of sexual abuse, noting the difficulty in getting help and the daughter's insistence on her 'truth.'

A "Widowed Mother" recounts her daughter's accusations against her deceased father and herself, emphasizing the importance of maintaining faith and charity despite false accusations.

Another personal story details a daughter's journey through 'hypno-therapy' with an unlicensed practitioner, leading to severe mental illness and suicidal tendencies, contradicting the supposed healing power of the therapy.

A father shares his experience of meeting his daughter's therapist, describing the session as manipulative and confrontational, with the therapist avoiding direct discussion of the accusations.

FMSF Initiatives and Resources

Speakers Bureau and Continuing Education: The FMS Foundation announces the establishment of a Speakers Bureau, comprising professionals who can provide programs on topics such as False Memory Syndrome, hypnosis, and malpractice. Information is available via phone.

Building Bridges Newsletter: This newsletter is for 'retractors' – individuals who have recanted or questioned their recovered memories. It aims to provide a forum for dialogue, support, and increased public awareness. It is sponsored by donations and is available by request.

FMSF Membership and Subscriptions: Information is provided on yearly membership fees and subscription rates for the FMSF Newsletter, along with contact details for the Foundation in Philadelphia.

False Memory Syndrome Video: A video produced by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is available for purchase, offering an overview of FMS through images, voices, and interviews.

Of Professional Interest: A section lists upcoming conferences and talks on memory, sexual trauma, and the law, featuring speakers like Elizabeth Loftus and Colin Ross.

State Meetings: A comprehensive list of FMSF meetings across the US and Canada is provided, with contact information for organizers.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently advocates for a critical examination of repressed memory claims and therapies, highlighting potential for iatrogenic harm and false accusations. The editorial stance appears to be one of skepticism towards the uncorroborated recovery of traumatic memories, particularly when linked to therapeutic interventions. There is a strong emphasis on the need for independent corroboration and the potential for 'false memories' to cause significant damage to individuals and families. The FMS Foundation positions itself as a resource for those affected by these issues, aiming to educate the public and professionals, and to support those who retract their accusations.