|
The
Listener
October 25, 2003
(published October 18, 2003)
Child abuse and the experts
Letters to the Editor by
Fred Seymour
John Read
Nancy Gillespie
Fred Seymour
Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology,
University of Auckland
Michael Corballis
("Memory & the law", September 13) presents clinical psychology
in a negative light, but fails to report facts that run contrary to his
opinion.
He is correct in stating that the American Psychological Association
committee of experimental and clinical psychologists appointed to report on
adults' recovered memory failed to reach consensus. However, one suspects
that this reflects the politics of US psychology rather than the state of
knowledge since similarly constituted committees in the UK, Australia and New
Zealand did reach consensus. The New Zealand guidelines were prepared by one
clinical psychologist and two experimental psychologists. Corballis's failure
to mention this fact is surprising, given that he was one of the authors. The
NZ Psychological Society has also produced guidelines for the interviewing of
allegedly sexually abused children. Both sets of guidelines provide a
scientifically based standard of practice to follow when conducting
interviews and interpreting interview data.
Clinical psychologists receive extensive training in research methods (as
Corballis would desire). Ongoing training related to sexual abuse, memory and
recall has regularly been provided to practitioners. These trainings are
delivered by experts from here and overseas, and include experimental
psychologists, contrary to Corballis's assertion. Furthermore, in the case of
court testimony, to be accepted as an expert witness, psychologists are required
to satisfy the court that they are competent in the particular area in which
they are to give evidence.
The New Zealand public has good reason to be confident of the standard of
practice of their clinical psychologists. What seems to lie behind Corballis's
criticisms is that sexual abuse is given such attention by this group. His
bias is evident in his dismissive use of the word "hysteria" to
denigrate responsible and legitimate concern and (Letters, October 11) his recommendation of a review article about
the impact of sexual abuse. This is the only review article that I am aware
of that presents the impact of sexual abuse as negligible. He omits to
mention that in the same journal the claims of these authors were later
effectively refuted. The interests of objectivity and accuracy that he
espouses surely require him to mention this - or to cite any of the dozen
recent review articles that show sexual abuse indeed occurs frequently, and
has significant impact on the lives of many.
Dr John Read
Director, Clinical Psychology, Department of
Psychology, University of Auckland
Lynley Hood (Letters, October 11) claims I
"misrepresented" her views about the relevance of Christchurch
being flat to the Ellis case, Her claim, like many of the claims in her book,
rests on citing, out of context, one small piece of reality (in this case her
Edwards at Large interview, TVl,
August 16) while ignoring anything that doesn't fit her claim, Here is the
rest of what happened in that interview:
Brian Edwards (quoting from Hood's
book): "The flatness of the city makes it easy for anyone with a bright
idea to gather together enough like-minded people to turn the theory, be it
dazzlingly enlightened or downright flaky, into action." What on earth
can the flatness of the city have to do with Peter Ellis's guilt or
innocence?
Hood: I'm just saying that it
allows movements to get into motion and it always has.
Edwards: I don't understand that.
What, because you can drive a car more easily from one side of Christchurch
to another? Is that what you are saying?
Hood: Yes. Yes. You can have a
committee meeting much easier. There are all these national bodies, you know,
starting with the suffragettes, can get organised much easier in Christchurch
because it's flat than you can in a hilly place. That's all I'm saying.
Edwards: Look, you're smiling.
Don't you see an element of absurdity in what you're telling me here?
Hood: No.
(Presumably Hood's strange logic makes sense, as Professor Corballis says
that she has "a scientific background".)
Hood even acknowledged that she had gone to Christchurch because she had been
told that there was a case of "mass hysteria" going on there. As
Edwards pointed out, this meant she had prejudged the entire issue before she
got there.
Nancy Gillespie
(Bishopdale, Christchurch)
During the High
Court trial of Peter Ellis I listened with astonishment as child psychiatrist
Karen Zelas was asked if the behaviour of a particular child was consistent
or inconsistent with that of a sexually abused child. During the interview by
the Specialist Services woman, the boy had been "distracting" - ie,
running around the room. Nobody suggested the obvious, that the behaviour was
because he was fed up with being interviewed and had simply run out of ideas
for answers, having done his best. Anyone who has raised children would
recognise this type of behaviour -you did not need to be an expert.
The persistent nature of many of the interviews in the Civic Creche
investigation was completely unacceptable. One girl, obviously uncomfortable
during an interview, asked how many more questions there were and was told
three. The interview ended 18 pages of transcript later. (Depositions 1992)
To assist children to remember, the interviewers presented them with a list
of 10 words. It was noticeable that most words were negative, with a few more
positive put in the middle of the list.
|
