|
|
Child sex abuse
hysteria and the Ellis case |
|
September 26 2005 Antony McFelin, President of the
NZ Association of Counsellors, gave an almost euphoric justification of
sexual abuse counselling (Oct 1) but his claim that treatment for sexual
abuse trauma is “evidence-based” is incorrect. ACC’s “Therapy Guidelines”
make it clear that counselling is “abuse-focused” not “evidence-based”. It is elementary that allegations
of abuse are not proof of abuse. Before mental or physical injury can be
ascribed to sexual abuse, it must first be proven that abuse actually
occurred. In many of the 100,000 or so cases recently dealt with by
counsellors and ACC, credible evidence of sexual abuse is absent. Claimants
are not required to provide such evidence, identify the alleged perpetrator,
complain to the police, or secure a conviction. Counsellors uncritically
believe the client¹s untested, uncorroborated narrative. Counsellors lack knowledge of
cause and association. No scientific evidence exists to prove that sexual
abuse causes specific psychiatric, psychological or behavioural problems,
although some might be associated with it. It is wrong to assume that “symptoms”
can indicate abuse, but the Therapy Guidelines give 18 supposed “symptoms” or
“effects”. None are valid. The possible causes of mental
problems are myriad. A simple test is to try listing the causes of
depression, anxiety, eating disorders, personality disorders, sexual
difficulties, or memory impairment - all claimed to be clear indicators of
sexual abuse. The ACC Scheme relies on
assessment of “permanent impairment”, but counsellors claim to “heal” abused
clients. Some clients have counselling for years. The process is costly,
inefficient, unscientific, unethical and unsafe. |
