http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0204/845842443OP04WATERS.html
The Irish Times
February 4, 2002
When reason gives way to psychobabble
by John Waters
It will have come as a surprise to many people that one
of the supposed "sanctions" imposed by the Medical Council on Dr
Moira Woods, following its Fitness to Practise Committee's decision to find her
guilty of professional misconduct, was that she should in future engage in
child protection work only as part of an expert multi-disciplinary team
Most people would imagine this should have been happening in the first place.
It is utterly incomprehensible to the layperson that investigations into
allegations as serious as child sex abuse can be carried out by a single
individual whose word becomes holy writ. In the Ireland of the 1980s, Dr Woods,
alone and unscrutinised, was vested with the powers of God, and given licence
to accuse, usually on the basis of the most cursory investigations in which
virtually no objective standards of proof were required.
In even minor criminal matters, it is incumbent upon the authorities to show
that they have gone to every length to show fairness to the accused. They must judge
whether the accuser is credible; whether the story is consistent and
believable; whether the accuser has an ulterior motive such as revenge or
reward; whether previous unsubstantiated allegations have been made; whether
there is physical evidence of the alleged misdeeds, i.e., conduct a thorough
and impartial investigation in which all possible knowledge of the alleged
wrongdoing is obtained and considered.
The standards laid down by the medical profession in cases of alleged sexual
abuse are even more rigorous. Practitioners are required to be impartial, to be
aware both of their own prejudices and the possibility that other investigators
may have agendas and/or identify strongly with the accuser. Doctors are
reminded that they must never, even where forensic proof appears to exist, make
judgments concerning matters which fall outside their expertise.
When forensic proof is lacking, as it frequently is, investigators are required
to be even more cautious. Conclusions should only be reached after a thorough
examination of the available facts and a sustained trawl for corroborative
material, if possible from disinterested sources. Final opinions must be
couched in terms of relative probability rather than certainty, and cautions
issued in respect of the weaknesses in the assessment process.
It now transpires that in many of the investigations carried out by Dr Woods in
her time with the sexual assault trauma unit in the Rotunda Hospital in the
1980s, such standards were flouted as a matter of course. It has been
established that she failed to apply acceptable standards of clinical judgment
and competence, and consequently advised the relevant authorities that certain
named children had been sexually abused when she knew or should have known that
there was insufficient basis for such advice; and that she showed what was, to
say the least of it, an alarming propensity to finger the fathers of children
as sexual abusers without affording them any opportunity to defend themselves.
These circumstances are not unique to this case. Similar methodology to that
employed by Dr Woods is in everyday use throughout the Irish family law system.
THE secrecy afforded this system by the in camera rule has created a veritable
industry in psychobabble and mumbo jumbo, in which so-called techniques
involving "psychological assessment", dream therapy, guided imagery,
figure drawing and the use of anatomically correct dolls are employed to
"prove" some of the most serious allegations that can be made against
a parent, and to inform some of the most far-reaching decisions concerning the
lives of human beings.
Although it is acknowledged by medical authorities that such tests should be
regarded as no more than aids in assessing allegations for which there is
substantial pre-existing circumstantial and other corroborative evidence, and
that such techniques on their own are far too unreliable to be the basis for
professional opinions about real events, they are increasingly becoming the
primary tool in the weaponry of the expert witness. Worse, those with the final
authority to decide on the plausibility of accusations appear either too lazy,
too ignorant or too cowardly to do other than put their rubber stamps to
risible nonsense, thereby consigning decent people to lifetimes of horror and
despair.
Too many judges, considering themselves inexpert in matters of child welfare,
are willing to accept even the most preposterous constructions by so-called
experts rather than take personal judicial responsibility for deciding matters
of child welfare on the basis of common sense. The absence of public scrutiny
means reason has no jurisdiction where voodoo rules.
Most citizens discover too late, on finding themselves at the mercy of this
system, that they are in the power of utterly unaccountable, arbitrary and
often, it seems, irrational forces; that there are no objective standards which
can be called upon; that logic and fairness have no currency; and that they are
in the hands of people with the power and freedom to destroy their lives and
those of their children on the basis of prejudice, ideology, expediency or
whim. They discover, too, that the normal requirements of evidence are
suspended in favour of procedures in which a so-called expert witness, acting
alone and unaccountably, can mix and match the facts in accordance with some
unseen and unstated purpose, while those in authority look beyond the facts to
the letters of qualification attached to the alleged expert's name. This has
contributed much to turning the term "family law" into the most
laughable oxymoron in the land