Sir, - There has been considerable coverage in the media of an article about recovered memories of child sexual abuse published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The subject of recovered memory is a controversial one, and one which intrigues and fascinates people.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists set up a working party to enquire into recovered memory and to provide guidance for British psychiatrists on how to proceed in relation to this in their practice. The report of this working party was not accepted by the college. The article recently published is a private paper, and does not carry the imprimatur of the college. Articles in the newspapers, including one by Dr Patricia Casey in The Irish Times (April 2nd), suggesting that this is "a long awaited document by the Royal College of Psychiatrists", are misleading.
The report is based on a review of research rather than on original research, and on interviews with "retractors" and accused parents. There seem to have been no interviews with those who recovered memories and did not retract them.
This seeming bias in methodology is underlined in the early section of the report, which quotes extensively from research carried out into the experiences of members of the British False Memory Society. The article makes a major judgment when it refers to the allegations of sexual abuse as "disputed and probably false". This research is the basis of the figures which have been highlighted in the media and which are taken to cast doubt on recovered memory.
The article provides what it itself calls "a stereotypical example" of a therapist who insists to the client that because they have certain symptoms they must have been sexually abused. The example given is an extreme of very bad practice, and would not conform to the methods of most psychotherapists, who would tread very carefully around memory, whether recalled, semi-repressed or fully repressed. Therapists are aware that the client is often vulnerable and suggestible, and would feel that to be responsible for suggestions which might intrude on the person's memories would be a betrayal of the client. The example provided in the article feeds public fear and fantasy, and would be rejected by the vast majority of therapists.
The debate on recovered memory is ongoing and the recent guidelines for practice and training published by the Royal College of Psychiatry are sensible and to be welcomed. There is room for discussion of this issue in a well argued and well researched manner, but sweeping statements about therapeutic approaches and the effects of child sexual abuse which ignore much meticulous research are not a useful contribution to that debate. The Royal College of Psychiatrists itself has said that it has been misrepresented in the media. - Yours, etc.
Leonie O'Dowd
South Hill, Dartry, Dublin 6.