|
NZ
Listener
September 27-October 3 2003
Vol 190 No 3307
(Published September 20, 2003)
Letters to the Editor
Child abuse and the experts
Dr
John Read
Director, Clinical Psychology,
Department of Psychology, University of Auckland
Professor Michael Corballis is an esteemed member of the psychology
department in which I am director of clinical psychology. In his area of
expertise, cognitive neuroscience, he is an international leader. His
occasional media forays into the field of child abuse, however, demonstrate
the perils of venturing beyond one's knowledge-base.
His response to an attack on psychologists in the New Zealand Law Journal
("Memory & the Law'', September 13) is that the legal profession
should rely on scientists rather than clinicians. But can science answer all
our questions? In the context of young children, Corballis suggests that
"scientific inquiry" can help establish "precisely what
constitutes harmful sexual activity and what does not". What does this
mean?
Furthermore, can psychologists be so easily categorised? Laboratory research
and the application of psychological principles beyond the university are
complementary, mutually dependent branches of our discipline. To pit the
"clinical experience" of scientist-practitioners against
"objective science" is unhelpful to a legal system charged with
establishing the truth.
He worries that clinical psychology training programmes are interested in
students' "societal concern" and the personal attributes necessary
for relating to distressed people, "rather than scientific
aptitude". Again, we prefer a "both/and" approach to
Corballis's "either/or" one.
Uncharacteristically, he continues this dichotomous thinking when discussing
the Ellis case. Lynley Hood (who recently repeated on TV1 that the
prosecution occurred partly because Christchurch
is so flat) is portrayed as having a "scientific background".
Meanwhile researchers and clinicians whose views Corballis doesn't like are
"scaremongering", "radical feminists" and
"pseudo-experts", who are vulnerable to "outbreaks of
hysteria". This adversarial approach is not the dispassionate analysis
we should expect of a scientist called upon to inform public debate.
There is nothing wrong with having opinions. It is incumbent on academics,
however, to differentiate our opinions from scientific facts. Corballis's
article reminds us that this is no easy task.
by
Dora May Sutcliffe
(Te Atatu, Auckland)
I have of late
been having unaccustomed nightmares and wondered why. Since hearing a young
man – who also experiences nightmares – recently speaking to Linda Clark
(National Radio), I realise the cause. Of course, it's obvious – I must have
been abused by Peter Ellis.
The fact that I am an elderly grandmother living in Auckland shows that none of us is safe. If
Ellis could affect a child months before he began working at the crèche, then
he could certainly affect me at this distance.
Where will it all end?
In Ellis being cleared of all these ridiculous charges, I hope.
by
Ian
Hassall
(Epsom, Auckland)
With the Ellis
case, a reasoned judgment as to what happened and what should be done about
it relies on expertise in child behaviour, criminal justice, sexual abuse of
children and children as witnesses.
But experts disagree. To choose among them we have to rely on our assessment
of their experience, qualification, standing and objectivity.
Credentials have been brandished, attacked and sometimes quietly assumed.
Lynley Hood dismisses diverse experts with the label "sex abuse
industry".
The signatures of judges and QCs in the petition for a royal commission are
cited as evidence for its authority. Their credentials are examined no further.
Michael Corballis refers to Hood's distant scientific background, not her
established expertise as a writer. He criticises Dr Davies's role as
assistant to the Eichelbaum inquiry because of Davies's meagre record of
publication in research journals, but Corballis's own research publications
are not related to child abuse or children as witnesses.
In short, credentials are misrepresented and misused and obscure badly needed
answers to some fundamental questions.
How common is child sexual abuse, who does it and how can they be identified?
What harm does it do and how can this best be alleviated? How common are
false accusations and retractions and how can they be identified? Do children
have the independent right of access to the justice system? Is children's
evidence reliable and how can this be tested? How can children's access to New Zealand's
justice system be improved?
|
