False Memory Syndrome Foundation - Vol 05 No 10 - 1996 nov

Magazine Overview

Title: FMS Foundation Newsletter
Issue Date: November 1, 1996
Volume: 5
Issue: No. 10

This issue of the FMS Foundation Newsletter delves into the complexities of the "false memory crisis," advocating for a clear distinction between genuine and fabricated memories and critiquing therapeutic practices that may contribute to the latter. The newsletter emphasizes the need for scientific evidence and external corroboration in assessing memory claims, particularly concerning childhood sexual abuse.

The "Middle Ground" Debate

The editorial "Isn't there a middle ground in this debate?" directly addresses the question of whether a compromise position is possible in the false memory controversy. The FMS Foundation asserts that there is "common ground" but not a "middle ground." Common ground is defined as finding points of agreement and working towards a common goal, which does not require compromise. The key points of agreement identified are: 1) false memories can occur spontaneously or under an authority figure's influence; 2) most people remember their abuse; and 3) independent external corroboration is the only way to distinguish true memories from pseudomemories. The newsletter argues that seeking a "balanced" view by accepting statements like "both genuine recovered memories and fabricated memories exist" is misleading and does not support the existence of a "repressive mechanism."

Focus on Science: The Repression Hypothesis

The "Focus on Science" section critically examines the scientific evidence for "repression" or "traumatic amnesia" as a mechanism for completely and involuntarily pushing memories of traumatic events into unconsciousness. The article highlights that after a century of study, scientists have not definitively answered whether the human mind possesses this ability. The authors argue that retrospective studies, which rely on patients' reports of forgotten events, do not meet scientific standards for proving repression. A properly designed study would involve identifying individuals who experienced documented trauma, interviewing them years later, and excluding cases of early childhood amnesia, neurological causes, ordinary forgetfulness, or deliberate non-disclosure. The article concludes that, to its knowledge, no study has met these standards and shown evidence of repression. It also notes that while repression might occur in "special situations," such as repeated sexual assaults, prospective studies have also failed to provide methodologically sound evidence.

Critiques of Professionals and Organizations

The newsletter criticizes certain professionals and organizations for their role in the false memory debate. Bessel van der Kolk, M.D., is criticized for comparing FMSF families to those who deny committing atrocities in Bosnia. Kenneth S. Pope is also criticized for an edited address in the American Psychologist that allegedly "assigns blame" to those injured and focuses on picketing therapists, which the FMSF denies engaging in or encouraging.

Legal and Policy Developments

The newsletter reports on several legal and policy developments related to repressed memory claims:

• Illinois Appellate Court Decision: The court refused to apply the discovery rule to repressed memory cases, holding that traumatic assaults inherently put individuals on notice of their injury, and that a repressed memory implies prior awareness of the event.
• Ontario, Canada Case: Criminal charges against a retired minister were withdrawn, resulting in a full acquittal, after the court emphasized the lack of evidence for repressed memory.
• Rhode Island Case: The state decided to retry John Quattrochi III after the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about cases hinging on recovered memories and ordered a new trial.
• Washington State Hearing: A public hearing was scheduled to consider administrative rule changes affecting mental-health therapy for crime victims, including measures for credibility and verifiability of criminal acts.
• Legal Corner: This section discusses the legal challenges of repressed memory claims, including the application of statutes of limitations and the "discovery rule," and notes the growing criticism from the scientific community regarding the reliability of repressed memories.

Therapy and Consumer Expectations

The "What do Consumers Expect?" section outlines five key public expectations of mental health providers, including appropriate diagnosis, treatment, understanding limitations of techniques, not extending therapy unnecessarily, and obtaining informed consent. It references a case against D. Humenansky, M.D., for failing to act responsibly in these areas. The article "Tainted therapy and mistaken memory" by Rex A. Frank provides guidelines for therapists to avoid malpractice and preserve evidence, emphasizing the need for caution with possible adult victims of childhood sexual abuse and tightening standards of care.

Support Groups and "Crazy Therapies"

August Piper, Jr., M.D., discusses concerns about support groups for survivors of sexual abuse, noting that some groups can fuel the false memory syndrome. He advises caution and suggests that individuals seeking help should ask professionals to explain their practices and trust their intuition. A book review of "Crazy Therapies: What are they? Do they work?" by Margaret Thaler Singer and Jana Lalich is presented. The book helps consumers navigate the unregulated field of psychotherapy, focusing on therapies lacking scientific validation and providing historical information and accounts of harm caused by them.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue include the scientific and legal challenges posed by the "false memory syndrome," the critique of therapeutic practices that may generate or validate false memories, and the importance of distinguishing between scientific evidence and speculation. The FMS Foundation's stance is consistently one of advocating for rigorous scientific standards, caution in therapeutic interventions, and a clear-eyed approach to memory claims, particularly in legal contexts. The newsletter aims to educate professionals and the public about these issues and to support families affected by the false memory crisis.

The FMS Foundation Newsletter, November/December 1996 issue, page 11, focuses on legal interpretations of repressed memory claims and personal experiences with False Memory Syndrome (FMS).

Legal Rulings on Repressed Memory Claims

The newsletter details four key positions taken by courts regarding repressed memory claims and the statute of limitations:

1. Discovery Rule Not Applicable: Several state supreme courts, including Michigan and Maine, have held that the discovery rule does not extend the limitations period for tort actions based on repressed memory. Courts cited the lack of objective verification and the difficulty in reliably resolving such claims as reasons for their decisions. The Maryland highest court expressed skepticism about repression as a phenomenon separate from normal forgetting, while an Illinois Appellate Court found that individuals claiming repressed memories knew of the alleged event at the time it occurred. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations barred a claim, as the action accrued at the time of the alleged events, noting the potential for fraud in such cases.
2. No Per Se Extension of Statute of Limitations: The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that alleged repressed memories do not qualify as a disability to extend the statute of limitations, citing a lack of scientific consensus on the theory. Similarly, the Michigan Supreme Court found that placing a plaintiff in a discretionary position to allege the onset of the limitations period would compromise judicial integrity.
3. Independent Corroboration Required: The Texas Supreme Court mandated that for the discovery rule to apply, the wrongful event must be "objectively verifiable." Expert testimony alone was deemed insufficient. The court noted that corroborative evidence is often critical, especially given the split in the scientific community regarding the reliability of recovered memories.
4. Reliability Determination Prior to Extension: The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the scientific reliability and validity of repressed memory theory must be determined before extending the statute of limitations. If the theory is found valid, the court would then assess the specific claim's reliability. A Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a conviction because the trial court failed to hold a preliminary hearing to determine the reliability of the accuser's "flashbacks."

Several lower court decisions are also cited, with some courts excluding repressed memory testimony based on the lack of general acceptance in the scientific community, referencing standards like Frye and Daubert.

Reader Contributions and Personal Experiences

From Our Readers

• The Accuser's Life: A reader named Trish shares a deeply personal account of her experience as an accuser, describing it as being like a "cult" led by her therapist. She details the emotional and psychological toll, the loss of family and friends, and the pressure to believe in recovered memories. She eventually recanted her accusations after reconnecting with her family, emphasizing the importance of parental love and support.
• Make a Difference: This section highlights community efforts. Members in Colorado decided to make a "Make a Difference" Day and donate to the Foundation. In Iowa, a member chose to donate in honor of her daughter's birthday. Minnesota FMS families met with the Attorney General to discuss consumer fraud related to FMS.
• Accused Parents Who Are Also Therapists: An invitation is extended for therapists who are also accused parents to connect and share experiences, with a planned meeting in Baltimore in March 1997.
• Pennsylvania Book List: A reader provides a list of books found to be informative regarding psychotherapy, memory, and abuse allegations, intending to share them with local libraries.

Specific Accounts

• Our Daughter is a Pawn: Parents describe their daughter being used as a pawn by her therapist in a lawsuit against the therapist, with the daughter demanding they drop the suit for a relationship.
• A Commendation: Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D., is commended for speaking out against smear tactics used against her.
• The Test Call: A former spouse of an FMS victim describes the "test call" phenomenon, where therapists encourage patients to call their parents, often with the expectation of confrontation, as a way to reaffirm the abusive past.
• Why Did This Have to Be?: A mother shares her complex feelings of relief and regret after her daughter, the accuser, died suddenly. She reflects on the lost potential of their relationship and the commandment to honor one's parents.
• Before Therapy: A letter from "C" expresses deep gratitude to her parents for their unwavering support through difficult times.
• After Therapy: A letter from "C" to her parents details her experience of regression and the accusation that her father repeatedly raped her, stating she no longer needs their forgiveness and is not a victim.

Other Sections

• Paying for Mental Health Care: An economist discusses the financial incentives within the mental health system that encourage talk therapy, particularly for less severe issues, and how this subsidization can be financially attractive for providers.
• What's the Cost of Repressed Memories?: A brief note from "A Mom and Dad" touches on the financial costs associated with false memories, including therapy and increased medical expenses.
• My Daughter's Birthday: A short, poignant poem from a mother to her daughter questioning the validity of her "repressed memories."
• Dear Editor: A letter from an author clarifies that their book, "Victim's of Memory," has been thoroughly revised and expanded in its second edition, including new research and insights.
• +Coast to Coast+: A listing of FMS support group meetings across the US and internationally for November 1996.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The newsletter consistently highlights the legal challenges faced by individuals accused of abuse due to repressed memory claims. There is a strong emphasis on the lack of scientific consensus regarding repressed memory theory and its implications for legal proceedings. The editorial stance appears to be critical of the widespread acceptance and application of repressed memory theory in legal and therapeutic contexts, advocating for objective evidence and scientific validity. The personal stories shared by readers underscore the devastating impact of FMS on families and individuals, often portraying therapists as manipulative figures who encourage or create false memories. The newsletter also promotes awareness and support for those affected by FMS, encouraging community involvement and information sharing.