Page Content (OCR)
ubiquitous to all psychological interven- tions, even among the most basic behavioral methods. If the attribution, however imaginary, of the apparent underlying cause of a symptom has personal meaning to the client, would we not predict the therapeutic usefulness of this attribution, accurate or not? Nash’s case demonstrates the inherent problem with interpreting such claims as accurate historical reports, even if clinically relevant: The one may be independent of the other. In another case involving the treat- ment of dyssomnia, the client reported the recall of bizarre, traumatic incestuous abuse throughout his childhood. (Again, it is often the drama of the client’s story which is so compelling to us, not necessar- ily its inherent plausibility.) After several treatments, his presenting symptoms began to abate. However, there was no way to verify the reality of the traumatic events he described. Perhaps they were largely, if not entirely, the product of his imagination. Or perhaps they were largely, even entirely, true. We cannot know. example is described by Wright, who recounted the dramatic story of two adolescent daughters claiming to be the victims of satanic ritual abuse. Despite the lack of any evidence that a crime had actually occurred, their father was subsequently convicted and imprisoned for abuse. One of the challenges of a just society is the maintenance of the balance between both prosecuting and defending the criminally accused. A crucial element in that balance is the proper understanding of the fallibility of memory. As counselors whose work affects the lives of our clients and their families, we have a responsibili- ty to remain aware of these issues. We cannot afford the intuitively appealing but scientifically groundless beliefs many of us have held for so long about the nature of memory. Wright’s account is eloquent testimony to the grave consequences of these beliefs for individuals and families. Moreover, Ofshe’s instructive description of this same case suggests that the failure on the part of clinicians to appreciate the defendant’s unusually high suggestibility was a contributing factor in the elaborate, yet apparently wholly fictitious creation of this man as a perpetrator of ritual abuse. We all know the seemingly limitless human capacity for harming one another. There is ample evidence of the grotesque abuse that is done, usually by men, to women and to children. But the fact that physical and sexual abuse of children is a significant social problem does _ not indicate that every report of abuse is a valid one. Our regard for women and children and our recognition of abuse need not blunt our awareness of the unreliability of memory. Our misguided reliance on the archaic videotape recorder model of memory and our uninformed belief in hypnosis as a method for discovering the truth create a further permutation of the problem of abuse. A credulous acceptance of any and all claims of abuse has serious and_ harmful Or were Fortunately, in this case, it was not necessary to know. The ultimate resolu- tion of the symptoms was sufficiently satisfying. This case occurred in the late 1970s. In the current litigious climate, however, such a client might well seek legal recourse against the apparent perpetrator of these childhood traumas. And what defense could be offered, after so many years? The ensuing conflict becomes simply an issue of the client’s word against the accused—powerfully enhanced by the credibility of a counsel- or’s testimony of the reliability of the client’s claim. as not As a consequence of society’s current emphasis on believing victims’ claims of abuse and punishing the perpetrators of abuse, there is a growing vulnerability to creating victims of the falsely accused as well as the resulting development of a backlash against victims. A poignant 63