FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - November/December, 1994 - Vol. 3, No. 10, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

3401 Market Street suite 130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104,  (215-387-1865)

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000
    The FMSF Newsletter is published 10 times a year by the  False
    Memory  Syndrome  Foundation.  A hard-copy subscription is in-
    cluded in membership fees. Others may subscribe by  sending  a
    check  or  money  order, payable to FMS Foundation, to the ad-
    dress above. 1994  subscription  rates: USA: 1 year $30,  Stu-
    dent $10; Canada: $35 (in U.S. dollars); Foreign: $40; Foreign 
    student $20; Single issue price: $3. ISSN #1069-0484
        Australian Psychological Society
          Stan Abrams
            August Piper
              Maria Meyers
                Jaye Sharp
                  Daniel Goleman
                    Legal Corner
                      Conference Program

Dear Friends,
    "...the tide is already being turned...Above all, steady progress
  in public enlightenment has been forged, over the past two-and-a-
  half years, by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation..."  
                                                      Frederick Crews 
                              "The Revenge of the Repressed," Part II 
                       The New York Review of Books, December 1, 1994

  Extraordinary developments continue: scholarly articles,
retractions, legal decisions, professional guidelines, even a TV
series with the FMS issue raised (Sisters). They continue because of
the joint efforts of families, retractors and professionals to educate
the public and the profession about a terrible problem. The
developments continue because the issues we have raised about memory
and therapy techniques are important issues. Yes, some critics still
cling to their tactics: referring to "so-called false memory
syndrome"; insisting that the FMSF is protecting perpetrators;
equating our questions about therapy and memory processes to a denial
that sexual abuse of children exists; and -- most inappropriately --
personal attacks on the Director and Advisory Board members. But this
is finally beginning to be seen by many professionals as an
embarrassment to their field and nothing but an attempt to deflect
from self-examination of the issues raised. Whatever our critics may
think of particular people, whatever our critics may think
politically, the issues of memory and therapy processes must be
addressed on their own merits.
  Last year, the FMS Foundation records were examined to see if
funding came from known perpetrators, "organized Satanists," or the
mafia! This year critics seem to think that the Foundation is funding
or encouraging lawsuits against therapists. At one recent conference
in Washington, a lawyer noted publicly that her group expects to use
the RICO act to bring lawsuits against the Foundation.  Isn't that for
organized crime? We do hope that our critics will come to the "Memory
and Reality: Reconciliation" conference in Baltimore on December 9-11
to learn first-hand about the issues of concern to the Foundation and
to learn about memory from a collection of the most noted and
respected memory experts in the world.
  The discussion at the conference is sure to be lively. On October
25, in the New York Times Science Section, an article appeared with
the title, "New Kind of Memory Found to Preserve Moments of Emotion."
We have reprinted this article by Dan Goleman which reports on the
work of Cahill, Prins, Wever & McGaugh in a Letter to Nature, Vol 371,
No 6499, pp 702-704, October 10, 1994. Does this research suddenly
change what is known about memory? Does this research really justify
the conclusion that traumatic memories involve different processes?
Science can be more exciting than a mystery story. Which arguments and
which research will withstand scrutiny and what will it mean? The
answer to these questions must be in the hands of memory researchers
who specialize in neurobiology because the experiments deal with the
administration of drugs. Lay readers can note:
  (1) The type of research reported is "laboratory" research which
traumatists such as Lenore Terr, M.D. or Judith Herman, M.D. have said
is irrelevant. If traumatists do embrace this research, they must also
embrace other laboratory research and weigh scientific evidence with
the rest of us. Science is principled -- the rules of what is accepted
as evidence must be consistent.
  (2) The research does not deal with the problem of what is
"traumatic" to a person. (The subjects in this research found the
stimuli slides only moderately traumatic.)
  (3) The research notes particularly why traumatic memories are
remembered.  "Psychologists have said for decades that motivation is
important for learning," said Dr. McGaugh. "We'd say excitement is
important. In my judgment, it would do no harm to make learning more
exciting." At the same time, McGaugh believes the results suggest
that, "it might be possible to mute the formation of [traumatic]
symptoms by inactivating this system."
  (4) The research says nothing about the claims in the reports to the
Foundation of amnesia for decades and amnesia for hundreds of
different experiences.
  (5) This research says nothing about accuracy of memories. The best
available scientific evidence indicates that all memories, traumatic
or not, are subject to the same ordinary processes of misperceptions,
distortions, decay and change.  A constant in research with memory is
its extreme malleability.
  (6) Finally, this research says nothing about false memories, for
the simple reason that it was studying not false but true memories.
  It's not often in life that we get to examine the actual "doing of
science" at this level. For all the recent tragedy, for all the pain
and the loss, our misguided children gave us much love and happiness
as they grew, and they have now given us a first row seat on some of
the most exciting science developments in this century. While they may
have broken our hearts, our children's mistakes have surely expanded
and enriched our minds as we have tried to understand what happened to
/                                                                    \
|                      INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE                      |
|                  Memory and Reality: Reconciliation                |
|                           CoSponsored by                           |
|                The False Memory Syndrome Foundation                |
|                                 and                                |
|               The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions               |
|              Baltimore, MD    December 9, 10, 11  1994             |
|            Registration in order of application receipt.           |
|                                                                    |
|      Become part of the solution to the False Memory problem.      |

"In the end, everyone benefits from a policy which deters false
accusations and encourages true accusations."  
                                                       Alan Dershowitz
                                                         October, 1994

                       AN INTERESTING DECISION:
          State must establish validity of memory repression

  "Before testimony of the victim's memory of the alleged assault may
  be admitted, a hearing shall be held at which the burden shall be
  upon the State to establish that the phenomenon of memory repression
  and the process of recovery through therapy have gained general
  acceptance in the field of psychology. The State must establish the
  validity of the phenomenon and process by demonstrating that the
  reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically
  valid; and that it is capable of empirical testing and can properly
  be applied to the facts in issue. (See Daubert v. Merrill-Dow
  pharmaceutical, Inc. supra, at page 2796)"
        The State of New Hampshire Superior Court, Northern District
            September 13, 1994 No. 94-s-45 thru 47 and No. 93-s-1734

  The New Hampshire decision above is likely to be widely discussed in
coming months. Researchers, clinicians, families, lawyers -- all will
be wondering how it will affect the recovered memory discussion.
  [Footnote: In preparation for a possible appeal to the NH Supreme
Court, attorney Maggiotto is attempting to ascertain the successes or
failures of other litigants who have attempted to preclude testimony
based upon recall of allegedly repressed memories. If you have any
information concerning any case where court had either admitted or
denied testimony based on Daubert, please contact Paul Maggiotto
(1-800-427-1109) or Michael Iacopino (1-603-668-8300).]

  SCIENTIFIC REASONING: What is meant by scientific reasoning and
empirical testing in this context? It seems almost ironic that we
heard of the recent death of Sir Karl Popper at the same time that we
received the New Hampshire decision. Popper, philosopher of science,
had a profound influence on scientific thinking because of his
observation that while scientific "laws" cannot always be verified,
they can be shown to be false. A scientific proposition is one in
which it is possible to show that it could be false. This marks a
difference between belief in something and science.
  The argument of being able to be falsified is a stumbling block in
the discussions of recovered memory therapy. Accused parents have no
way to falsify the accusations. While researchers feel that the
ability to show that something can be false is a necessary condition
for it to be scientific, non-researchers often think that this aspect
of science is neither important nor necessary for the practice of
therapy. What will the court determine?

that appeared in the May 12 edition of The New York Review of Books,
Thomas Nagel argued that it is not the scientific method that is
relevant when it comes to believing in Freudian theory, but instead,
the theory's ability to provide explanations for the otherwise
mysterious. Of course, Nagel is entirely correct. The scientific
method is irrelevant not just when it comes to believing Freudian
theories but all sorts of theories. It is always their ability to
provide explanations that compels belief. To illustrate the breadth of
Nagel's observation, consider the two columns below. The first is his
original application. The second is another.


  For most of those who believe      For most of those who believe
  in the reality of repression and   in the reality of astrology and
  the unconscious, whether or not    the occult, whether or not   
  they have gone through             they have had a good
  psychoanalysis, the belief is      horoscope, the belief is
  based not on blind trust in the    based not on blind trust in the
  authority of analysts and          authority of astrologers and
  their clinical observations but    their clinical observations but
  on the evident usefulness of a     on the evident usefulness of a
  rudimentary Freudian outlook       rudimentary astrological outlook
  in understanding of ourselves and  in understanding of ourselves and
  other people, particularly erotic  other people, particularly love
  life, family dramas and what       life, financial affairs and what
  Freud called the                   Nancy Reagan called the 
  psychopathology of everyday        orderly running of the country's
  life. Things that would otherwise  life. Things that would otherwise
  surprise us do not; behavior or    surprise us do not; behavior or
  feelings that would otherwise      feelings that would otherwise
  seem simply irrational become      seem simply irrational become
  nevertheless comprehensible.       nevertheless comprehensible.
  You feel miserable all day, and    You feel miserable all day, and
  then discover that it is the       then discover that it is the
  forgotten anniversary of the       it is the day of the conjunction 
  death of someone who was           of the third house and the
  important to you; you find         fifth planet; you find
  yourself repeatedly becoming       yourself repeatedly becoming
  absurdly angry with certain        absurdly angry with certain
  women in your professional life,   women in your professional life,
  and come to realize that your      and come to realize that your
  anger is a throwbackto a           anger is a natural consequence
  childhood struggle with your       of the opposition of your
  mother. In the end, if we are to   signs. In the end, if we are to
  believe that Freud was getting     believe that astrology is getting 
  at the truth, we must be able in   at the truth, we must be able in
  some degree to make use of his     some degree to make use of this
  approach ourselves. Since          approach ourselves. Since
  controlled and reproducible        controlled and reproducible
  experiments are impracticable      experiments are impracticable
  here, the kind of internal         here, the kind of internal
  understanding characteristic of    understanding characteristic of
  psychoanalysis must rely on the    astrology must rely on the
  dispersed but cumulative           dispersed but cumulative
  confirmation in life that          confirmation in life that
  supports  more familiar            supports more familiar
  psychological judgments.           astrological judgments.

How is a belief in repression (the kind of repression theory that
allows for memories of space alien abduction, past lives and
intergenerational satanic conspiracies) different from a belief in
astrology? It will be different only if scientific reasoning and
empirical testing apply.

CORRECTION from the issue of January 1, 1995:

 The Australian Guidelines printed in the November/December FMSF
Newsletter (below) was not the official version approved by the Board of
Directors of The Australian Psychological Society. We apologize for the
mistake. At the same time, we are glad for a reason to reprint this
document. The issue of January 1 has the official version.  The section
on Clinical Issues is substantially revised.

             The Australian Psychological Society Limited
                           October 27, 1994

A  C O D E   O F   P R O F E S S I O N A L   C O N D U C T

  The Australian Psychological Society Code of Professional Conduct
sets forth principles of professional conduct designed to safeguard
  *  the welfare of consumers of psychological services
  *  the integrity of the profession

The General Principles of the Code are:


   Psychologists remain personally responsible for the professional
decisions they make

  *  Psychologists are expected to take cognizance of the foreseeable
consequences of their actions and to make every effort to ensure that
their services are used appropriately.
  *  In working with organizations, whether as employees or
consultants, psychologists shall have ultimate regard for the highest
standards of their profession.


  Psychologists shall bring to and maintain appropriate skills and
learning in their areas of professional practice.

  *  Psychologists must not misrepresent their competence,
qualifications, training or experience.
  *  Psychologists shall refrain from offering or undertaking work or
advice beyond their professional competence.


  The welfare of clients, students, research participants and the
public, and the integrity of the profession, shall take precedence
over a Psychologist's self-interest and over the interests of the
psychologist's employer and colleagues.

  *  Psychologists must respect the confidentiality of information
obtained from persons in the course of their work as psychologists.
They may reveal such information to others only with the consent of
the person or the person's legal representative, except in those
unusual circumstances in which not to do so would result in clear
danger to the person or to others. Psychologists must inform their
clients of the legal or other contractual limits of confidentiality.
  *  Psychologists shall refrain from any act which would tend to 
bring the profession into public disrepute.

B   G U I D E L I N E S   R E L A T I N G 
                          T O   R E C O V E R E D   M E M O R I E S

     These guidelines set forth conclusions and recommendations
designed to safeguard psychologists and clients who are dealing with
reports of recovered memories.


  Memory is a constructive and reconstructive process.  What is
remembered about an event is shaped by what is observed of that event,
by conditions prevailing during attempts to remember, and by events
occurring between the observation and the attempted remembering.
Memories can be altered, deleted, and created by events that occur
during and after the time of encoding, and during the period of
storage, and during any attempts at retrieval.

  Memory is integral to many approaches to therapy. Repression and
dissociation are processes central to some theories and approaches to
therapy. According to these theories and approaches, memories of
traumatic events may be blocked out unconsciously and this leads to a
person having no memory of the events.  However, memories of these
traumatic events may become accessible at some later time. Although
some clinical observations support the notion of repressed memories,
empirical research on memories generally does not. Moreover the
scientific evidence does not allow general statements to be made about
any relationship between trauma and memory.

  "Memories" that are reported either spontaneously or following the
use of special procedures in therapy may be accurate, inaccurate,
fabricated, or a mixture of these. The level of belief in memory or
the emotion associated with the memory does not necessarily relate
directly to the accuracy of the memory.  The available scientific and
clinical evidence does not allow accurate, inaccurate, and fabricated
memories to be distinguished in the absence of independent

  Psychologists should recognize that reports of abuse long after the
alleged events are difficult to prove or disprove in the majority of
cases. Independent corroboration of the statements of those who make
or deny such allegations is typically difficult, if not impossible.
Accordingly, psychologists should exercise special care in dealing
with clients, their family members, and the wider community when
allegations of past abuse are made.


  Psychologists should evaluate critically their assumptions or biases
about attempts to recover memories of trauma-related events. Equally,
psychologists should assist clients to understand any assumptions that
they have about repressed or recovered memories. Assumptions that
adult problems may or may not be associated with repressed memories
from childhood can not be sustained by available scientific evidence.

  Psychologists should be alert to the ways that they can shape the
memories reported by clients through the expectations they convey, the
comments they make, the questions they ask, and the responses they
give to clients.  Psychologists should be alert that clients are
susceptible to subtle suggestions and reinforcements, whether those
communications are intended or unintended.  Therefore, psychologists
should record intact memories at the beginning of therapy, and be
aware of any possible contagion effects (e.g., self-help groups,
popular books).

  Psychologists should be alert to the role that they may play in
creating or shaping false memories. Equally, psychologists should be
alert not to dismiss memories that may be based in fact. At all times,
psychologists should be empathic and supportive of the reports of
clients while also ensuring that clients do not jump to conclusions
about the truth or falsity of their recollections of the past. They
should also ensure that alternative causes of any problems that are
reported are explored. Psychologists should recognize that the context
of therapy is important as is the content.
  Psychologists should not avoid asking clients about the possibility
of sexual or other abusive occurrences in their past, if such a
question is relevant to the problem being treated. However,
psychologists should be cautious in interpreting the response that is
given. Psychologists should never assume that a report of no abuse is
necessarily indicative of either repressed or dissociated memory or
denial of known events. Nor should they assume that a report of abuse
indicates necessarily that the client was abused.

  Psychologists should understand clearly the difference between
narrative truth and historical truth, and the relevance of this
difference inside the therapy context and outside that context. Memory
reports as part of a personal narrative can be helpful in therapy
independent of the accuracy of those reports. However, to be accepted
as actual history, those reports should be shown to be accurate.
Psychologists should seek to meet the needs of clients who report
memories of abuse, and should do this quite apart from the truth or
falsity of those reports. Psychologists should recognize that the
needs and well-being of clients take precedence and should design
their therapeutic interventions accordingly.


  Psychologists treating clients who report recovered memories of
abuse are expected to observe the Principles set out in the Code of
Professional Conduct of the Australian Psychological Society, and in
the Code of Professional Conduct of the Psychologists' Registrations
Boards in States in which they are registered as
psychologists. Specifically, psychologists should obtain informed
consent at the beginning of therapy in relation to the details of the
therapeutic process and its possible consequences.

  Psychologists should inform any client who recovers a memory of
abuse that it may be an accurate memory of an actual event, may be an
altered or distorted memory of an actual event, or may be a false
memory of an event that did not happen. Psychologists should explore
with the client the meaning and implications of the memory for the
client, rather than focus solely on the content of the reported
memory. Psychologists should explore with the client ways of
determining the accuracy of the memory, if appropriate.

  Psychologists should be alert particularly to the need to maintain
appropriate skills and learning in this area, and should be aware of
the relevant scientific evidence and clinical standards of practice.
Psychologists should guard against accepting approaches to abuse and
therapy that are not based in scientific evidence and appropriate
clinical standards. Psychologists should be alert also to the personal
responsibility they hold for the foreseeable consequence of their


  Psychologists should be aware that some approaches and writings
concerning abuse and recovered memories urge clients to engage in
legal action against the alleged abuser and any others who may
question the accuracy of any recovered memories. Psychologists should
recognize that their responsibilities are to the therapeutic needs of
clients, and not to issues of legal action or revenge.  Given that the
accuracy of memories cannot be determined without corroboration,
psychologists should use caution in responding to questions from
clients about legal action.

  Psychologists should be aware that their knowledge, skills, and
practices may come under close scrutiny by various public and private
agencies if they are treating clients who recover memories of abuse.
Psychologists should ensure that comprehensive records are maintained
about their sessions with clients who recover memories of abuse.

  Psychologists should in no way tolerate, or be seen to tolerate,
childhood or adult sexual abuse, or abuse of any kind. They should
ensure that their psychological services are used appropriately in
this regard, and should be alert to problems of deciding whether
allegations of abuse are true or false.  They should be alert
especially to the different demands and processes of the therapeutic
and legal contexts in dealing with such allegations.

  Psychologists should be aware that research is needed to understand
more about trauma-related memory, techniques to enhance memory, and
techniques to deal effectively with childhood sexual abuse.
Psychologists should support and contribute to research on these, and
related, issues whenever possible.

                   Note -- These guidelines have been adapted from:
                         McConkey, K.M., & Sheehan, P.W. (in press)
          "Hypnosis, Memory, and Behaviour in the Forensic Setting"     
                                         New York: Guildford Press.

                        MONITORING ALSO NEEDED 

  Probably most FMSF families are relieved to see the publication of
guidelines about recovered memories. At the very least, such
guidelines afford our children the opportunity to compare their own
therapy experience with the standards of the profession. For this we
thank professionals.
  Will these guidelines also do the job of improving practice? While
such guidelines are obviously necessary, they are not sufficient.  In
addition to guidelines, there must be the establishment of effective
monitoring procedures.  We report examples where guidelines were not
  The first example of a monitoring problem comes from the October 3,
1994 issue of Alberta Report (Canada) where Celeste McGovern writes of
outrageous cases in which professionals were involved in court
cases. In one of these cases, the judge actually noted that "the
evidence of the witnesses...was scary and unprofessional." Their
therapy was "almost a brainwashing procedure." The accused people
(fathers with young children) in these cases did not have enough money
left after their defenses to bring lawsuits for false
accusations. They did, however, believe that the therapists should be
held accountable for their actions. These fathers filed complaints
with the Psychological Association of Alberta.
  According to the Alberta Report author, "The PAA inquest was
immediately closed to the public, unexpectedly brief, and refused to
hear damning evidence.  The psychologists were completely exonerated
by the three-member panel, whose reasons for the decision will not be
disclosed. For fathers falsely accused of sexual abuse by the...
psychologists, the decision was the final insult. For many
psychologists, including those absolved, it was a victory licensing
them to continue controversial sex abuse 'therapy.' But for critics
within the mental health industry, the...hearings demonstrate
something gravely awry. Psychology, they say, has become a grossly
unregulated business..."
  A second example typifies the problem faced by families in the
United States when they try to get a problem situation examined. Note
that the psychologists' Code of Ethics states that, "As practitioners,
psychologists know that they bear a heavy social responsibility
because their recommendation and professional actions may later alter
the lives of others. They are alert to personal, social,
organizational, financial, or political situations and pressures that
might lead to misuse of their influence." Psychologists have a fine
code, but doesn't the systematic refusal to hear complaints by
affected parents nullify this particular part of the code?
  Under the current monitoring restrictions in Oregon, for example,
there seems to be no way that a monitoring board can check up on a
psychologist after the license is given unless the psychologist agrees
to open his or her records. From reports that we have received, if the
Board of Psychology Examiners notes in the license exam that a
psychologist should improve skills in a particular area such as
differential diagnosis, there appears to be no way that the Board can
determine at a later date if this recommendation was followed. In
other words, while guidelines and ethics codes are improving and are
very welcome, it is still the case that the current monitoring of
mental health professionals is inadequate. To improve this aspect of
the mental health field is essential. To do less is to undermine the
efforts and credibility of all competent, ethical and caring mental
health professionals.
  Because monitoring is so ineffective, indeed, virtually non-
existent, people with complaints resort to lawsuits. In 1995, a line
of lawsuits involving satanic ritual abuse brought by former patients
are scheduled to be heard.

/                                                                    \
|   The AMA action is fine, but it has no teeth. It is now incumbent |
| on the state boards, in California and elsewhere, that license     |
| therapists to bring closer oversight to psychotherapy, which is    |
| largely unregulated. Too many families have been torn apart by     |
| apparently imagined memories for this to go on without             |
| intervention by the normally lax medical authorities.              |
|                  Therapy Watch, June 17, 1994, Los Angeles Times   |
|                                                                    |

                              NEWS CLIPS

              The Independent (London), October 17, 1994

  "After seven years in therapy, in and out of hospitals until
February 1992, Kathryn Schwiderski [who entered therapy for mild
depression] is divorced and has no contact with her husband, children,
grandchildren, sister or parents. She was subjected to criminal
investigation and interrogation and reported to the Child Protection
Services, she says, without any evidence. She became convinced she was
a member and victim of a satanic cult since her childhood and that she
sexually and physically abused her own children; now she believes the
memories were false, implanted by therapists through hypnotism and
drugs. She continues to experience extreme emotional problems."
  Dennis Schwiderski, Texas oil company executive, was "investigated
by a grand jury for allegedly abusing his son, but the case was not
pursued, he says, because there was no evidence against him." He is
trying to find one of his children, Kelly 23, who has disappeared and
believed to be hiding. She apparently still believes she was a member
and victim of a cult.
  The family contends that "therapists created false memories as part
of a scheme to collect millions of dollars in fees for treatment of
non-existent abuse at the hands of a satanic cult." The case will go
to trial next year. "The defendants include some of America's leading
exponents of recovered memory techniques. They are Judith Peterson, a
psychologist from Houston, who first treated the family; Roberta
Sachs, a psychologist from Illinois; and Bennett Braun, an Illinois
doctor who specializes in multiple personality disorder. The family
members are also suing the hospitals where they were treated. In
total, there are 25 defendants. Not all face every allegation, but all
are defending the action."
  "Over the years, Dennis was sent bills totaling $2 million -- health
insurance covered most of it."
  "All the defendants have filed a defense denying the allegations
without detailing their arguments, as is common in US courts. They
stand by the therapists' diagnosis that the Schwiderski family were
members of a satanic cult and therefore their treatment was
                            Daniel Goleman
                   New York Times, October 31, 1994

  "In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and police workers
throughout the country, conducted for the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect, researchers found more than 12,000 accusations of
group cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual, but not one that
investigators had been able to substantiate." Dr. Gail Goodman, a
psychologist at the University of California at Davis directed the

  "The survey found that there was not a single case where there was
clear corroborating evidence for the most common accusation, that
there was 'a well-organized intergenerational satanic cult, who
sexually molested and tortured children in their homes or schools for
years and committed a series of murders,' Dr Goodman said."

  "Many psychotherapists who have been vocal about a supposed epidemic
of sexual abuse by well-organized satanic rings have grown more
cautious of late. "There's clearly been a contagion, a contamination
of what people say in therapy because of what they see on TV or read
about satanic ritual abuse," said Dr. Bennet Braun, a psychiatrist who
heads the Dissociative Disorders Unit at Rush-North Shore Medical
Center in Chicago."  

                     to appear: "For the Defense"
                 Stan Abrams, Ph.D., Portland, Oregon

  Polygraph results of alleged sexual abusers when no repression was
involved (N=300) were compared with the results of alleged sexual
abusers when the victims assumedly repressed the memory (N=46). Both
groups of tests were defense-attorney referred. The only difference
was that in the group of alleged offenders in which the accuser
"repressed" the abuse, the act was supposed to have taken place twenty
or thirty years ago. Polygraphers would agree that when the act was
committed is inconsequential compared to the fact that any punishment
for the crime will be carried out in the present. Therefore, subjects
involved in crimes committed years ago could be expected to be equally
as fearful of detection as those accused of contemporary crimes.
  The results showed that in the group of alleged offenders in which
repressed memory was involved, 4% of the subjects were found to be
deceptive (N=2). In the group of alleged offenders in which memories
of the accusers were not repressed, 78% were classified deceptive
(N=234). The difference is striking and will surely spur more research
in this area. Contact author for information: 503-221-0632.

                      NEWS FROM DUBLIN, IRELAND

  We have been informed that a scandal seems to be developing in
Ireland. One aspect of the problem involves complaints from seven
fathers who all claim that they were falsely accused of sexually
abusing their children by one particular doctor. The controversy
includes the question of the number of reported cases of incest. On
the one hand, the official figures of the Garda Commissioner's reports
on Crime, from 1986 to 1991 show that there have only been 14
convictions for the crime of incest and 20 convictions for defilement
of children. On the other hand, the center at which the doctor in
question was employed received government funds to treat hundreds of
incest offenders during this time period.  An investigation is

                    USA Today, October 6, 1994, 3A

"A 22-year-old Cincinnati woman who says she has 10 personalities has
accused bus driver Joseph Howard, 47, of sexual assault. Two of the
personalities say she consented. Howard says he never touched her. His
lawyer wants to depose the personalities for trial."

                         NEWS FROM AUSTRALIA

  The Australian False Memory Association has now been formally
organized. The links between the AFMA and Australian professionals
seem strong and the fact that the Australian Psychological Society has
already established guidelines for recovered memory situations
indicates a positive and determined approach by professionals to deal
with the problem.
  A letter from Dr. Jerome Gelb, a psychiatrist in Australia, affirms
this optimism. He states, "I am writing to keep you up to date with
events in Australia regarding FMS and Recovered Memory Therapy.
Australian Psychiatrists are, apart from very few exceptions, fully
aware of the iatrogenesis of so-called repressed memories, MPD and
Satanic Abuse. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of
Psychiatrists has been helpful in publishing on the issue."
  Dr. Gelb mentioned the television and newspaper articles that have
recently appeared in Australia noting that they understand the
iatrogenic nature of some memories. Dr. Gelb said that he had
published a detailed letter to the Editor in the December 1994 RANZCP
Journal of Psychiatry and that the journal of Australasian Psychiatry,
Vol 2, No 4 , August 1994, pp 179-180 had published his article,
"Reality Revisited."
  Dr. Gelb went on to write that, "I feel that public opinion in
Australia is supportive and the media is also. Most importantly,
Australian Psychiatrists are almost universally wary of American
therapy fads and are highly critical of poorly trained therapists and
the inappropriate use of suggestion, persuasion and memory recovery
techniques of all kinds. Please let your membership know of these

                     ARTICLES OF SPECIAL ITEREST

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis XLII No 4
issue is $17.00. Sage Publications, Inc.; fax/order line: 805-499-0871
  Articles by: Mulhern; Spence; Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck;
Frankel; Kihlstrom; Nash; Garry & Loftus; Erdelyi; Ofshe & Singer;
Spiegel & Scheflin; Spanos, Burgess & Burgess.
  (***Especially note Frankel article reviewing research on
  "flashbacks" and Mulhern article with historical focus.)

FREDERICK CREWS. "The Revenge of the Repressed" Part I and Part II.
The New York Review of Books.  November 17, 1994 and Part II December
1, 1994.

RICHARD GARDNER, MD. "You're not a Paranoid Schizophrenic -- You only
have Multiple Personality Disorder." Academy Forum , Vol 38, No 3,
Fall 1994, pp 11-14.

RUSSELL POWELL & DOUGLAS BOER. "Did Freud mislead patients to
confabulate memories of abuse?" Psychological Reports, 1994, 74,

/                                                                    \
|                    A T T E N T I O N   A L L :                     |
|                                                                    |
| To be as cost-effective as possible, the FMSF newsletter is sent   |
| out by bulk rate mail. This class of mail will not be forwarded.   |
| If you move and do not give us a change of address, you will not   |
| receive your newsletter. Please notify us of any change of address |
| 2 weeks before the change takes place. The Foundation can not be   |
| responsible for issues that you have missed because you have       |
| failed to give us a change of address.                             |

                          August Piper, M.D.

  The False Memory Syndrome Foundation has recently begun to note that
recovered-memory therapy is an unvalidated form of psychotherapy,
implying that such therapy is experimental (see page one of the
October Newsletter). Though the concerns leading to these criticisms
are understandable, attempts to make such implications oversimplify a
complicated problem.
  In scientific terminology, if something is valid, it does what it is
supposed to do. Thus, a validated therapy effectively treats the
condition it is intended to treat. As correctly noted in the October
newsletter, investigators have measured the effectiveness of various
talk therapies. However, such measurement is extraordinarily
difficult, for several reasons.
  Psychotherapy is severely hobbled by a distressing lack of agreement
among its practitioners on the answers to several critical questions.
First is the question of what the goals of treatment are. Does the
therapist intend simple symptom relief, recovery and reliving of past
stressors, insight into the causes of the patient's problems, change
in maladaptive behaviors, a thorough remaking of the personality, or
what? Second, what criteria should be used to measure improvement?
Measuring psychotherapy-induced change is a minefield of
difficulty. Third, how much time should treatment require? Some
therapists seriously recommend compressing an entire treatment course
into a single session, whereas at the other extreme, treatment has
endured in some cases for years. I have even heard of one patient who
was in analysis for thirty (!) years.
  Another difficulty is that psychotherapy has failed to adopt a
uniformly-accepted method of classifying and designating the
conditions it is concerned with. Such a system of classifying and
arranging disorders is called a nosology. The Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, now in its fourth edition (DSM-IV), represents a
good start toward such a nosology. However, it is only a start; DSM
shows particular problems in classifying disorders that are treated by
psychotherapeutic methods (as opposed to pharmacological ones).
  In the absence of a good nosology, attempting to do psychotherapy
research becomes an arduous, frustrating undertaking. This is true
because the symptoms of psychological conditions overlap so much. For
example, depression is a very common symptom of all psychological
disorders. In some, depression is the legitimate focus of therapy: it
is the problem. In others, however, the very same symptom picture
results from any or all of a host of other conditions: drug or alcohol
use; marital, social, or economic problems; medical conditions; other
psychiatric disorders; childhood stressors; etc. Determining the
"real" cause of the depression can be nearly impossible -- witness the
acrimonious debate over those therapists who claim that childhood
sexual abuse is the real cause of many, if not all, adult psychiatric
problems, including depression. This overlap, in turn, means that
researchers can never be sure that their study groups differ only in
the variable under study.
  With so many problems and so much disagreement within the field, and
with no formal arrangements for those outside the discipline to
establish standards for psychotherapy, no one should be surprised that
poorly-validated treatments for psychological problems periodically,
like locusts, overrun psychotherapy.  Counting the protuberances of a
patient's head (phrenology); believing that runaway black slaves have
a disease (drapetomania); passing magnets over the body (mesmerism);
spraying patients with water, or putting them in wet packs or
rapidly-rotating chairs; believing that a woman can have excessive
envy of the penis, or develop a wandering uterus (hysteria);
surgically attacking the brain (lobotomies) -- all have had their days
in the sunlight.
  My purpose here is neither to make excuses for psychotherapy's
problems, nor to attack the discipline, but rather to point out how
difficult it is to validate therapies. The reader who recognizes this
will not think an unvalidated therapy is necessarily a bad therapy:
because it is so difficult to prove that a given psychological
treatment is effective, many commonly-used psychotherapies are
unvalidated. Nor will the reader fail to realize that saying a therapy
is valid does not go far enough: the question should be, "For which
conditions is it valid?"
  After all the above is said, however, the essential points made in
last month's newsletter article remain correct: many investigators
have carefully gathered evidence documenting that one or another
treatment, if performed properly, helps patients. In other words,
these psychotherapies have been validated. Also, instruction manuals
for several different types of psychotherapy are available to
practitioners. The manuals are intended to insure that the therapy is
performed properly.
  Many patients, who have disorders treatable by validated
psychotherapies, see recovered-memory practitioners instead. These
practitioners have recently come under increasing fire because of the
harm their treatments can do. Therefore, the question must indeed be
asked: with so many better choices available, why would anyone see
therapists who practice a form of treatment that can do such harm?
People considering psychotherapy are well advised to spend a few
minutes, either on the telephone or in person, to find out whether the
clinician utilizes a kind of therapy that has reasonable evidence for
efficacy. The list in last month's newsletter might be helpful.

August Piper Jr. M.D. is a psychiatrist in private practice in
Seattle, Washington. He is a member of the FMSF Scientific and
Professional Advisory Board.
/                                                                    \
|     The purest treasure mortal times afford                        |
|     Is spotless reputation: that away,                             |
|     Men are but gilded loam or painted clay.                       |
|     A jewel in a ten-times-barr'd-up chest                         |
|     Is a bold spirit in a loyal breast.                            |
|     Mine honor is my life; both grow in one;                       |
|     Take honor from me, and my life is done:                       |
|                                          Richard II Act I Scene 1  |

                           FROM OUR READERS

                          MAKE A DIFFERENCE

  This is a new column that will let you know what people are doing to
challenge the FMS madness. Remember that three years ago FMSF didn't
exist. A group of 50 or so people found each other and today we are
over 15,000. Together we have made a difference. How did this happen?
  * The Governor of Washington will be reviewing Paul Ingram's case on
December 1, 1994. Many are demanding a full pardon. (Larry Wright
wrote about Paul in Remembering Satan.)
  * In Washington, families go about the state picketing in a mobile
home and utility trailer. In Olympia at Evergreen Community College,
their utility trailer (parked on campus property) was destroyed by
arson. The contents, professionally made picket signs, etc. were all
lost. The college was shocked!  It seems that free speech appeals to
some people only when they agree with the message.
  * The Illinois FMS Society sponsored a booth at the Senior Fair held
at the College of du Page. Information was handed out to more than
5,000 people. This is an excellent way to inform and educate.
  * Many Wisconsin families wrote to University and State officials to
protest the fact that University of Wisconsin sponsored conference on
Child Sexual Abuse and Incest did not properly balance their
program. They invited an "adult survivor," as keynote speaker but did
not also include a "retractor" to warn of dangers. Last year this
conference eliminated all vendor booths rather than allow FMSF
material. Maybe next year a retractor will be invited.
  * Helen, Geraldine and Ben Barr were on Donahue to discuss
Geraldine's new book, "My Sister Roseanne." We all recognize how
difficult it is to make ourselves vulnerable in front of others, much
less a national TV audience. The audience consisted of 121 people, who
prior to the show were unaware of the topic of conversation or the
guests. This was a relatively unbiased studio audience. Following the
taping three people identified themselves to Helen as suffering the
heartbreak of a family member with FMS. This demonstrates again that
we are probably seeing only the tip of a "horrible and dangerous
  * Several people reminded us that families should inquire to see if
their employers have a matching gift program. This is a good way to
support the FMS Foundation. (Most United Way programs will arrange to
have donations sent to FMSF too.)
  * JANUARY IS FMS MONTH at a university library in Ontario. A special
display of all the new books that relate to recovered memory therapy
is in preparation. Why not ask your local library to display these
important new books?
  You can make a difference. Please send me any ideas that you have
had that were or might be successful so that we can tell others. Write
to Katie Spanuello c/o FMSF.

                           ZIP + 4  PLEASE

                       A Retractor's Question:
                          by "Maria Meyers"

  What ever happened to the mental health theme of working through the
problems of the present and focusing on the future? I believe many
people enter therapy because they are concerned about today and want
to think in a more positive manner. It appears to me that those basic
facts are totally ignored and perhaps even scoffed at by many
therapists practicing repressed memory therapy. With the aid of
hypnosis and medications, patients are suddenly finding themselves
focused for months or even years on past "memories," and they are
certainly not positive.
  The impending prognosis is not good. The retractors I have spoken to
say that their former therapists told them that they would have to get
worse before they could get better. I am also a retractor and was told
this many times. It didn't mean getting a little more confused or a
little more depressed. It meant nearly going insane. It meant
retrieving memories so horrid and terrifying I couldn't eat or drink
and ended up on IV's. Then I was told that it is normal to have this
reaction when recalling "repressed memories."
  This belief is tragic. People are losing families, friends, jobs,
and their homes. They are filing for bankruptcy after spending months
in hospitals. The depression deepens, the present is unbearable, the
future looks hopeless and any former beliefs of a happy childhood have
been stripped away. In working so hard with their doctors to "get
worse in order to get better" some people give up.  They cannot endure
one more day with the pain, the constant sadness and the fear from
torture they see in their mind. Some people commit suicide.
  I was deeply moved during the past two weeks when I talked about
this subject with four other retractors. These four retractors knew a
total of seven people in this kind of therapy who had committed
suicide. Is this unusual? What does it mean?
  Following is a poem I wrote for a person I met while we were
hospitalized for similar mental conditions. I wrote the poem when I
was still in the hospital.  She committed suicide by taking an
overdose at a time when I still believed all my horrible memories were
true. She was a college student, very bright and intelligent with many
goals for her life. She believed her parents were active members of
the occult and that she had also been a cult member as a child and
that now she was in danger because she was talking about it. She had
been diagnosed with dissociative and multiple personality disorders.
Perhaps for her all this was true, but in light of what happened to me
and what has happened to others, I have to wonder if it was true. I
will probably never know. What we must consider is, even if she did
have a childhood of satanic ritual abuse, even if her parents were
still involved, and even if her life was in jeopardy, is this type of
therapy effective or is it dangerous? I'm not going to say these
activities do not occur in this world. I'm not saying people should
not be responsible for themselves. What I am saying is repressed
memory therapy appears to make people worse. What I'm saying is that
some therapists justify the worsening condition of their patients by
telling them, "You have to get worse before you can get better."


  Why my friend did you have to die,
  Why did you give in to that deceitful lie?
  Why did you listen to those voices from the past,
  Why didn't you see all the pain wouldn't last?
  Why did you think only of the hurtful things,
  Why couldn't you see the happy times life brings?
  Why didn't you fight one more time,
  Why did you think your life should be different than mine?

  Didn't you think about how afraid I would be,
  Didn't you know it would be difficult for me?
  Didn't you think about the memories it would start,
  Didn't you care they would threaten to tear me apart?
  Didn't you think that maybe it would be too much to bear,
  Didn't you know those voices would start calling me there?

  Didn't you know they were only voices of the past,
  Didn't you know what they wanted most you gave them at last?
  Didn't you know by giving in they finally would win,
  Do you know that now I too am battling to save myself from that sin?

  Did you know that I really cared for you my friend:
  But I will not let the voices of the past determine my end.

Editor's note: In the past two months, we have been informed by
parents of three more suicides. One took place last year and two took
place during the past two months. To the best of our knowledge, two of
these suicides took place while the people had a full belief in
memories that their families say never happened, and one was in the
confusing process of questioning the beliefs developed in therapy.
Arriving at the time of these reports, the poem and letter from Maria
Meyers prompted us to contact our Advisory Board about this matter. A
research plan for a preliminary study to determine whether there is
anything unusual about the incidence of suicide reports has been
designed. We will report on the results as quickly as possible.

                    To:  A Professional and A Mom
                   From:  A Dad and A Professional

  Your letter, Rare Bird, in the October 1994 Newsletter presents your
perspective, as a professional, about the use of the phrase Recovered
Memory Therapy (RMT). As a Social Worker I disagree with your opinion,
and there is a factual aspect of your column that requires a
response. If the record isn't set straight, readers of the Newsletter
may come to believe that the Foundation created that term. I don't
believe that to be so. RMT is widely used in various other types of
publications, including professional journals, books and texts, and
the popular press. When FMSF uses that term, they are using a phrase
that has meaning for its readers. I also strongly reject the notion
that FMSF is assigning blame by the use of that term. If others choose
to "assign blame", that is their choice. I believe it is important for
you to separate the assigning of blame from the analysis of the
research and the techniques that have brought so much pain to our
children and to families like ours.

  You may be targeting the wrong issue in your letter. Clearly, the
"...coining of the term RMT" does not remove the obligation of
"...'good' therapists from responsibility to examine and change their
thinking..." (p.9). The NASW Code of Ethics should cover that for us
just like other professional codes of ethics speak to our colleagues
in the other helping professions. Your energy as it relates to your
"Mom" role may be better used with our professional organization. Now
that NASW (National Association of Social Workers) has been successful
in pushing licensing laws through state legislatures, and the number
of states where social workers qualify to receive third-party payments
keeps growing, concerned parents and professionals would be well-
advised to turn their attention to Continuing Education. The quality
of the required continuing education courses should be monitored. At
this point, monitoring is virtually non-existent, and the economic
benefits to providers of these programs can be vast. Continuing
education programs are where RMT and other similar non-scientific
notions are spread. Since hypnosis (as well as memory) is not part of
a social worker's formal MSW education, I'm certain from your
description of your professional use of hypnosis and guided imagery
that you are aware of the importance of continuing education as a
vehicle for professional development.

  Finally, I think it is important that the readers of the Newsletter
become aware that not all social workers (or therapists) believe that
"Repressed memory questions go to the heart of our cherished beliefs
as therapists." (ibid. ). If you believe that to be true, I think you
should be able to document that statement. Many therapists, including
myself, don't know the validity of that concept because of the lack of
scientific support for it. I don't hold professional "cherished
beliefs" in something that is unproved. I hope I am not in the
minority among my colleagues.
                           CLEARING MY NAME
  "I'm sure you understand why I have to clear my name. The
consequences of not resolving this accusation before I die is that the
whole family and ancestors will suffer."
                                                     A Dad (83 years)
  "I have found a closure for what has happened to me. All the
families I have talked to all agree that the hardest part of this is
that there is no closure.  As I began my walk through this valley of
loss, I wrote down in a journal my feelings and experiences as they
happened. In the last months, I have put into my journal excerpts,
dates, other articles, etc. for the day when my grandchildren might
want to know what happened to their family. This is now completed, and
that has been my way of achieving closure on this part of my life."
                                                                A Mom
                           FMSF NEWSLETTER
  "Many thanks for your FMS Foundation's Newsletter. My husband reads
it once, deriving some satisfaction in your efforts to turn up the
heat on incompetent psychotherapist. I read your Newsletter several
times. First, with a blur of tears, sharing the deep hurt with other
FMS families; then I tuck the Newsletter into my purse or place it on
the snack bar to read and reread it several times before filing it
away with past issues."
  "Why do I do this? Maybe it's unresolved anxiety or comfort of not
being alone or that your Newsletter fills the void of an FMS daughter
I have not seen for four years or heard her voice or know where she
lives. Many thanks."
                                                                A Mom
                     WON'T TALK ABOUT ACCUSATION
  "My daughter has resumed communication but will not talk about the
accusations. It bothers me a great deal because I don't think it is
possible to be completely relaxed around anyone if certain subjects
are taboo. She is still seeing the same therapist and I am angry that
my daughter who does not make very much money has been paying this
person $50 a week for the past four and a half years. Even though not
being able to discuss therapy causes there to be an invisible wall
between us and I am always on guard because I never know what trouble
that therapist will cause next, still I am thankful every day that I
am again able to see her and talk with her about the normal part of
her life. She still has a wonderful sense of humor."
                                                                A Mom
                           DEAR "A MOTHER"
  I have read your letter in the October '94 FMSF Newsletter many
times, and I am writing to tell you that you have put into words my
own feelings precisely.
  My daughter's first assault upon me occurred in the summer of 1989
when I received a series of vicious letters which angrily accused me
of vague, unspecified maltreatment. I was absolutely devastated. I
won't bother to go into details now, other than to say that I was
instructed by her not to contact her for "an indefinite period of
time." Her therapist had advised this. And so, the communication
  A year later, the letters and accusations began again. This time, I
responded only briefly. For three years, I agonized and grieved for my
daughter. I couldn't believe she would say and think these things
about me.
  After three years of nonstop, miserable ruminating, I consulted a
therapist myself, a very competent man who, among other things, put me
in touch with FMSF.  These two events helped me to pull away and
really look at what had happened.
  In the two years since then, I have had a significant change of
heart. I feel very much as you do. By thinking more objectively about
her behavior, I came to realize that my daughter, too, had "turned on
a bright light" (to use your phrase) and forced me to see what a
thoroughly self-centered person she was. I also realized that I no
longer liked her very much. Like you, I too cherish the memory of my
daughter when she was young and when she was growing up. But I do not
care for the person who (occasionally) still calls or writes to inform
me about how wretched her lot is or how great her suffering, but who
refused to take any responsibility for her own life -- or aknowledge
some of the loss she has caused others, including, I might add, her
own children.
  Now, after not having seen my daughter for 5 1/2 years, I find that
I can get through most days without giving her much thought. I no
longer grieve, and (finally) to see other women relating comfortably
with their adult daughters no longer cuts me to pieces.
  I feel that those of us who have come to the conclusion that you and
I have -- that it is time to get on with our lives and be done with
the past -- need all the support we can get. Despite some expressed
opinions to the contrary, we both know that this is no easy step to
  Thank you again for your letter. It needed to be said.
                                                      Another Mother
                          FINDING EACH OTHER
  "After WWII, the Red Cross and community bulletin boards seemed to
be the common ground for people to locate each other. Then, like now,
families were separated beyond repair. But, some survived to find each
other. And where they went was to common bulletin boards looking for
other survivors."
  "It seems that retractors call the Foundation because it is their
'Red Cross.'  And those of us who have had our families torn from us
also call the Foundation because the Foundation has been there for
  "I doubt if our accusing daughter will ever contact us directly, nor
do I expect that. But, if she wanted to, would she be as afraid to
contact us as we are to push the issue and contact her? And aren't
there others like us?"
  "Right now retractors seem to be contacting the Foundation. Could
this be the bulletin board that says 'Go ahead and call your parents;
they have indicated that they want to communicate?'"
  "I don't know the logistics, possibilities, costs, etc. just the
availability of databases and the intense desires of parents and
probably their children.  This is a vague idea but maybe something can
be worked out."
  "...For myself, I cannot just forgive and forget. Understanding --
yes; forgiving -- maybe; forgetting -- no. No matter how much we miss,
or love the daughter that was, we cannot forget that our daughter
chose to follow. She chose to destroy. She did not afford us choices
in the matter...If she were to call me today, (one of those fantasy
dreams), I would expect her to be prepared to admit her own part in
this before I could even begin to bridge the gulf between us. It is
just as fundamental to the person she was as to the person I have
always been."
                                                               A Mom
/                                                                    \
| "For many families, people (especially accusers) may need to       |
| rebond before they will be able to review what happened."          |
|                                              Margaret Singer, Ph.D |

                             BOOK REVIEW

                    by Terence W. Campbell, Ph.D.
       ppbk, 265 pages, Upton Books, a division of SIRS $14.95

       Review by Jaye Sharp, Editor of Michigan PFA Newsletter.

  "Traditional psychotherapy faces a crisis of enormous proportions,"
(p 34) writes Dr. Terence Campbell, Michigan clinical and forensic
psychologist.  Campbell sees little hope for the field of
psychotherapy unless it undergoes a radical "paradigm shift." The
reader should not be put off by the term "paradigm," although such a
reaction would be understandable considering the trivialization it has
suffered at the hands of writers of popularized psychobabble. It is a
perfectly good and descriptive term and the reader is urged to put
aside any negative associations and remember "paradigm" as meaning
simply a "model" or "standard".
  Science philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, writes Dr. Campbell, "defines
prevailing theories, methods, and procedures of a profession as its
'paradigm.' When the existing paradigm of a profession is no longer
viable -- as in the case of traditional psychotherapy -- a crisis
prevails and the profession must undertake a 'paradigm shift.'
Otherwise, it jeopardizes its legitimacy as a profession.  Once a
profession has accomplished a paradigm shift, 'it (quoting
Dr. Kuhn)...will have changed its views of the field, its methods,
and its goals.'" (pp 34-35)
  Briefly, Campbell defines traditional psychotherapy as Analytic
therapy, Client center-humanistic (or CC-H) therapy, and Behavioral
therapy. Analytic therapy has as it goal a client's insights into
his/her own behavior. (p 54) CC-H therapy encourages the client to
value getting in touch with feelings as opposed to achieving any
intellectual awareness. Behavioral therapy assumes that a client's
psychological distress comes from learned patterns of behavior. (p 87)
All three therapeutic approaches share the same defect, from
Campbell's point of view -- in spite of their different approaches --
in that they do not adequately serve the client's true needs. The
client is, in all three orientations, subservient to therapy
ideology. With such traditional psychotherapy, says Campbell, "unless
changes in the paradigm of each of these therapeutic orientations
occur, there will be no change in views, methods or goals." In other
words, until or unless there is change in the theoretical ideology of
a therapy, there is no change in the practice of the therapy.
  FMS readers may initially be disappointed that Campbell does not
cover "recovered-memory" therapy in depth. But this is not within the
book's objectives, which are, rather, a critical look at the failures
of traditional therapies, an urgent plea for changes within the
traditional therapeutic community, and a guide for the lay person
seeking therapy.
  Recovered-memory therapy is dealt with under "incest-resolution
therapy," in Part III of the book: Therapeutic Relationships,
Therapist as Prosecutor. This makes sense within the context of the
book. Recovered-memory therapy, or as it is referred to in the book,
incest resolution therapy, fulfills all the conditions of traditional
psychotherapy. It isolates the client from his/her family, makes the
therapist the only important person in the client's life, and
disregards research in the field while adamantly adhering to a rigid
ideology.  Not surprisingly, Campbell does not see much hope for a
paradigm shift in this area. "...therapists whose professional
identities and incomes depend largely on their reputations as 'incest
resolution experts' might find it particularly difficult to
objectively assess the pitfalls of their orientation." (pp 181 -182)
  Campbell is scathing in his view of his profession, but not
rancorous. At the same time that he condemns traditional psychotherapy
(the current paradigm) for its failings, he offers concrete and
attainable solutions for " a professional in crisis." He is adamant,
for example, in his insistence that the client-therapist relationship
needs to be reoriented from a client preoccupation toward a client-
family (or significant others) preoccupation. This therapeutic
approach enlists the people who are closest to the client -- involving
them as part of the client's therapeutic solution -- and places the
therapist in a more peripheral role. (pp 217-218) "Unless
psychotherapists undertake the necessary paradigm shift," warns
Campbell, "they will reduce themselves to the status of charlatan and
faith-healers." (p 245)
  Beware the Talking Cure: Psychotherapy May be Hazardous to your
Health is above all, a cogent, concise, and relevant guide for a
anyone thinking about entering therapy. It dispels the confusion and
defuses the agony involved in choosing and assessing a therapist. In
the book's Afterword, Hiring and Firing a Therapist, the lay person is
offered the kind of advise that will save many a potential client a
lot of time, money, and anxiety. Campbell insists that potential
clients should not hesitate to ask a therapist about his/her training.
Such questions, writes Campbell, "are altogether necessary and
appropriate. Any therapist who refuses to answer, or responds
evasively, is a therapist to avoid." (p 248) For the person already in
therapy, there is a list of 40 questions which serves as an invaluable
aid in assessing one's own therapeutic experience. If the person in
therapy, for example, answers 'yes' to ten or more questions, "you
need to carefully question your therapist about the relevance of your
therapy..." advises Campbell. "He is probably doing you more harm than
good." (p 251) There is an additional implied message here, and that
is that the client should assume a less passive role in the
client-therapist relationship and accept a greater responsibility in
order to insure a successful therapeutic outcome.
  Is there hope for a genuine improvement in psychotherapy? "The
American public," says Campbell, "deserves more than the illusory
effectiveness of wise words, kind words, and encouraging words. Most
likely, the impetus for a paradigm shift will come from an informed
public demanding it. (Emphasis added) At this point in time, the
public possesses greater potential for objectivity about psychotherapy
than psychotherapists do. In their dogged determination to protect
their obsolete paradigm, traditional therapists have sacrificed their
objectivity." (pp 245-246)
  Beware the Talking Cure is a book which should be on the shelves of
every library and every book store in the country. It will go a long
way toward educating consumers about the pitfalls of traditional
psychotherapy and informing them about the kinds of mental health
services they have a right to demand: effective, constructive therapy
from well-trained effective therapists.

                          by Daniel Goleman
              New York Times, Tuesday, October 25, 1994
           Reprinted with permission of The New York Times.

  Do you remember where you went on your first date? Or the most
terrifying scene of the last movie that really frightened you? Or what
you were doing when you heard the news that the space shuttle
Challenger had blown up?
  The fact that most people have detailed answers for such questions
testifies to the power of emotion-arousing events to sear a lasting
impression in memory.
  Scientists believe they have now identified the simple but cunning
method that makes emotional moments register with such potency: it is
the very same alerting system that primes the body to react to life
threatening emergencies by fighting or fleeing.
  The "fight or flight" reaction has long been known to psychologists:
the heart beats faster, the muscles are readied and the body is primed
in the most primitive of survival instincts. These and other
distinctive reactions are triggered by the release into the
bloodstream of the hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline.
  The same two hormones, it now appears, also prime the brain to take
very special note in its memory banks of the circumstances that set
off the flight-or-fight reaction.
  The discovery "suggests that the brain has two memory systems, one
for ordinary information and one for emotionally charged information,"
said Dr. Larry Cahill, a researcher at the Center for the
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California at
Irvine. Dr. Cahill and colleagues published the findings in the
current issue of the journal Nature.
  The emotional memory system may have evolved because it had great
survival value, researchers say, insuring that animals would vividly
remember the events and circumstances most threatening to them.
  The findings confirm in humans the relevance of 15 years of research
on the neurochemistry of memory with laboratory rats by Dr. James
L. McGaugh, director of the Irvine center and a co-author of the
paper. His work with animals had implicated adrenaline and
noradrenaline in emotional arousal and memory.
  "I think it's very exciting," said Dr. Larry Squire, a research
scientist specializing in memory at the medical school of the
University of California at San Diego. "When you study the effects on
a rat's brain of having its foot shocked, you don't really know what
emotional state that corresponds to in humans -- you could argue its
analog in humans is sheer panic. But this suggests it's related to
more unusual emotions, like hearing surprising news, being worried or
a little scared."
  The new experiment depended on use of a drug known to block the
effects of adrenaline and noradrenaline and on seeing if it impaired
emotion-laden memories in subjects who have been told a horrifying
story. In the study volunteers watched a slide presentation with one
of two narratives. In the neutral, rather boring version a mother and
her son go for a walk to visit his father at the hospital where he
works; the story describes the bland details of what he saw on the way
and while he was there.
  But in the upsetting version, the boy is critically injured in a
terrible accident on the way, and rushed to the hospital, where he is
treated for severe bleeding in the brain and a surgical team struggles
to re-attach his severed feet.
  Before hearing one or another version of the story, half the
volunteers received an injection of propanolol, a drug that nullifies
the usual effects of adrenaline and noradrenaline by plugging up the
receptor sites on the surface of cells that normally respond to the
two hormones.
  A week later, the volunteers were given a surprise memory test for
details of the story. The volunteers who did not get the propanolol
remembered more of the upsetting details of the story than the neutral
parts, showing that even minor emotional distress enhances memory -- a
result found in many previous studies.
  The key finding was that those volunteers who received the
adrenaline-defeating drug were worse at recalling the upsetting
details of the story -- but not the neutral details -- than were those
who had no injection.  Blocking adrenaline and noradrenaline impaired
just the emotional memory of the subjects.
  "This is a memory boost system that works in gradations, activating
in proportion to the emotional charge," said Dr. Cahill. "We find that
it doesn't depend on some intense trauma, but works even when you're
just mildly emotionally aroused. But it doesn't activate until there's
an emotionally loaded event."
  The study is the first to make a definitive bridge to humans from a
parallel body of research on emotions and memory in animals. Dr.
McGaugh, through a long series of experiments with animals, has
pinpointed the amygdala, a pair of walnut-shaped structures that
regulate emotion, as the key site where the adrenergic hormones,
adrenaline and noradrenaline, affect memory.
  "We don't know the precise point of initiation in the brain," said
Dr. McGaugh, "but when we get excited about something, a nerve
running out of the brain to the adrenals triggers their secretion of
adrenaline and noradrenaline."  The adrenals are glands that sit on
top of the kidneys; when they excrete adrenaline and noradrenaline,
the hormones surge through the bloodstream, making the heart beat
faster and otherwise priming the body for an emergency.
  The adrenaline and noradrenaline appear to activate receptors on the
vagus nerve running into the brain. While one job of the vagus nerve
is to regulate the heart, it also carries signals to the amygdala.
"The noradrenaline activates neurons within the amygdala, which in
turn signal other brain regions, presumably cortical areas, to
strengthen memory," said Dr. McGaugh. "That's what makes us remember
emotionally arousing events so well."
  The findings that a minor emotional surge is enough to implant
information a bit more firmly in memory might imply, for example, that
the anxiety students feel while studying for an exam could itself
improve their memory for information -- at least to a point. Too much
agitation disrupts concentration on what one is trying to read, and so
interferes with its registering in memory in the first place.
  "Psychologists have said for decades that motivation is important
for learning," said Dr. McGaugh. "We'd say excitement is important. In
my judgment, it would do no harm to make learning more exciting."
  Another implication is for preventing trauma in people like rescue
workers who know they are about to enter an upsetting situation. The
fight-or-flight system seems to play a major role in the troubling and
intrusive memories that disturb people with post-traumatic stress
disorder. "This suggests it might be possible to mute the formation of
symptoms by inactivating this system," said Dr.  McGaugh. "People like
investigators of airplane crashes could take a propanolol-like drug to
prevent traumatic memories."
  Still another implication is "a modest alert that some people taking
beta-blockers for treatments of heart conditions may find the
medication atte qnuates their memory under emotionally arousing
conditions," said Dr.  McGaugh, referring to the general name for
adrenaline-defeating drugs. Other studies of the effects of beta-
blockers on memory have come up with mixed results, but its effects
specifically on emotional memory have yet to be studied, said
Dr. McGaugh.
  The findings also suggest that compounds that enhance, rather than
block, the effects of adrenaline and noradrenaline might improve
memory in humans, Dr. McGaugh said. That possibility is already
supported by work with laboratory animals.
  Researchers say they are struck by the elegance of the brain's
design for memory. "In evolution, this emotional memory system has
obvious adaptive value," said Dr. Cahill. "It's very smart of Mother
Nature to build a system that remembers things in proportion to how
much it helps you survive -- like what to eat and what eats you."

                             LEGAL CORNER
                              FMSF Staff

  Preliminary results of the 1994 FMSF Legal Survey indicate that most
civil suits brought on the basis of "recovered repressed memories" of
childhood sexual abuse rely almost entirely upon the testimonial of
the complainant. Survey results indicate that for an inordinate number
of suits no objective corroborating evidence is presented or where
evidence is presented, it is found insufficient. Courts, therefore,
are faced with determining the intrinsic reliability of the "recovered
repressed memories" on which the claims are based.  There are serious
grounds for doubting their reliability in light of the fact that --
   -- the scientific community has challenged the assumption that
memories of repeated traumatic events may be repressed and then
retrieved in pristine form, unaffected by the kind of well-documented
distortions known to occur with "normal" recollection;
   -- many researchers, as well as the American Medical Association,
have shown that at least one memory recovery technique, hypnosis,
touted by some as effective in recovery of memories of traumatic
events, is known to increase suggestibility and confabulation, "memory
hardening", source amnesia and a loss of critical judgment. This view
has been corroborated by a number of leading clinicians and
   -- clinicians and researchers have warned that a patient's beliefs
about the accuracy of a retrieved memory can be influenced by a
therapist's assumptions about memory, repression and hypnosis;
   -- there is no accepted "litmus test" with which to conduct an
internal evaluation of the validity of the memory itself;
   -- objective corroborative evidence is usually required by
competent professionals in clinical practice to determine the validity
of the "refreshed" memory.

  Hypnosis is one "memory enhancement technique" around which an
extensive case law has developed. In most of these cases, hypnosis was
used by a forensic hypnotist to "enhance" the memory of a crime victim
or witness. To date, only a few decisions have referred to memories
induced after formal hypnosis in a therapeutic setting and every one
the author is aware of has been subjected to the criteria of
reliability of forensic hypnosis precedents. What have been the
concerns of the courts about the reliability of memory "enhanced" by
forensic hypnosis? How should those concerns apply to "memory
recovery" resulting from hypnosis in therapy?
  Hypnosis is being touted as a "powerful" technique to uncover
painful memories for victims of childhood trauma.[1] Practitioners of
hypnosis in "memory recovery" often cite the need for extraordinary
measures to combat the anxiety and defensive mechanism that impede
recall of traumatic experiences. In many cases, so much emphasis is
placed on the removal of obstacles that the reliability of the
technique is not discussed. It is not the place of this report to
question the propriety of such assessments in clinical practice, but
to focus on the potential use of such recollections as testimony in a
court of law. From the importance given hypnosis by memory recovery
advocates, we may expect to find hypnosis disclosed in the therapy
records of Plaintiffs in increasing numbers of repressed memory cases.
  Over a decade of case law has reviewed studies showing how hypnosis
may alter a subject's memory, raising questions about its reliability
and therefore its admissibility as evidence in court. The rationale
given for the effectiveness of hypnosis as a "memory recovery
technique" must be juxtaposed against the concerns with the effect of
hypnosis on memory as described in professional research, legal cases
and law review literature. These concerns include increased
suggestibility, tendency to confabulate, possible creation of
pseudomemory, a tendency toward "memory hardening", source amnesia and
loss of critical judgment. The United State Supreme Court [2] stated:
  "Three general characteristics of hypnosis may lead to the
introduction of inaccurate memories: the subject becomes 'suggestible'
and may try to please the hypnotist with answers the subject thinks
will be met with approval: the subject is likely to 'confabulate',
that is, to fill in details from the imagination in order to make an
answer more coherent and complete; and the subject experiences 'memory
hardening' which gives him great confidence in both true and false
memories, making effective cross-examination more difficult."
  Other courts [3] have, after extensive review of relevant scientific
studies, considered the following six areas potential problems for the
reliability of a memory which was the subject of a hypnosis session:
  1. A person in a hypnotic trance is subject to a heightened degree
of suggestibility. The source of the suggestion could be subtle verbal
or nonverbal cues of which even the hypnotist is not aware. Such
suggestion may be of particular concern when the hypnotist is not a
"neutral" party. Suggestions may be heightened by the subject's
perception that hypnosis will provide a more accurate recall or by a
desire to please the hypnotist.
  2. Confabulation may occur when an individual remembers part of the
event and fills in the missing gaps in his or her memory with
incorrect or inaccurate information. These additions, while plausible,
may consist of facts taken from an unrelated prior experience or from
fantasy. It is impossible for anyone, including the subject or a
psychiatrist or psychologist with extensive training in the field of
hypnosis, to determine whether a particular piece of information is
actual memory or confabulation, absent independent verification.
  3. Hypnosis may create a "pseudomemory" in the hypnotized
individual. The vividness of hypnotic recall can give the impression
of being a real memory.  Thus after being hypnotized, the individual
may falsely believe his post-hypnotic recall of the event accurately
reflects the event itself.
  4. "Memory hardening" refers to the subjective conviction that the
memory after hypnosis is accurate in every detail, and beyond even the
fallibility most subjects are willing to concede in day-to-day memory
recollection. Memory hardening is exacerbated by certain factors.
Before being hypnotized the subject may be told (or believe) that
hypnosis will help her/him to remember very clearly only truthful
facts about an event and that the subject will not interject any
fantasies. During the trance s/he may be given the suggestion that
after s/he awakes s/he will be able to remember the event clearly and
comprehensively. Some lay hypnotists have maintained that such
suggstions actually guard against the process of confabulation because
subjects obey them to the letter. There is little evidence that such
communications will eliminate the inaccuracies: they are likely to
remain the same with or without the suggestions. The effect, in fact,
may be to ensure uncritical acceptance of the pseudomemory.
  Many jurisdictions have noted that the memory-hardening phenomenon
may eliminate fear of perjury as a factor ensuring reliable testimony.
Additionally, effective cross examination may be seriously impeded,
when the witness cannot distinguish between facts known prior to
hypnosis, facts confabulated during hypnosis to produce
pseudomemories, and facts learned after hypnosis.
  5. Another serious problem in the translation of belief into memory
in a hypnotic session is source amnesia. The subject may confound
memories evoked under hypnosis with prior recall, believing that what
was post-hypnotic memory was known all along. When this happens, it is
impossible to go back and recreate the subject's pre-hypnotic memory.
Very often hypnotic subjects have refused to believe they actually
went into a trance, others claim they were only pretending to be
  Many jurisdictions conclude that only independent verification of
what the subject says can distinguish between the accurate and the
inaccurate. Many also insist that accurate records be made of the
subject's pre-hypnosis memories to aid in the determination of
reliability and admissibility.
  6. Researchers have shown that hypnosis allows a subject to lower
her/his critical judgment, becoming more willing to accept suggestion
as s/he is more willing to please her/his hypnotist. S/he may also be
more apt to speculate about the details of an experience and more
willing to engage uncritically in fantasy and role playing.

  The courts have taken three main approaches to admission of
hypnotically-enhanced testimony. The approach adopted by a particular
jurisdiction generally reflects its perception of the degree to which
the problems with hypnosis affect a person's memory of an event.
Regardless of the approach followed, testimony based on memory created
and induced solely under hypnosis where no memory existed prior to the
hypnotic interview and where no independent objective corroboration is
presented, has been rejected. The use of hypnosis as a sort of "lie
detector test" has also been rejected. (The most recent edition of the
FMSF Summary of Legal Resources reviews relevant case law and includes
cites to professional research and law review articles related to the
admissibility of post hypnosis testimony.)  These approaches can be
summarized as follows:
  1. The first approach [4] establishes a per se rule excluding any
hypnotically refreshed or enhanced testimony at trial. However, even
under this rule some jurisdictions may allow the previously hypnotized
witness to testify about the details of events that are demonstrably
recalled prior to undergoing hypnosis.  The burden is on the offering
party to show the extent of the testimony recalled without the aid of
hypnosis and in some courts to show that the new evidence has met the
Frye standard. The rationale in most of the cases adopting a per se
exclusion rule is derived from the admissibility requirement for
scientific evidence set by the United States Supreme Court in Frye v
United States.[5]
  2. The second approach [6] admits such testimony, holding that
hypnosis affects the weight and credibility of hypnotically-refreshed
testimony, not its admissibility. Credibility and weight are to be
determined at trial by cross-examination of the witness, based on
expert testimony or aided by cautionary instructions to the jury. A
basic tenet of this approach is that hypnotically-enhanced recall is
similar to ordinary recall and where differences exist they are only a
matter of degree. In other words, jurisdictions following this view
find that hypnotically-refreshed testimony is not inadmissible as a
matter of constitutional law.
  3. The third approach [7] holds that hypnosis may affect reliability
of hypnotically-refreshed testimony and admits such testimony as long
as the party offering the testimony establishes compliance with
certain procedural safeguards. Related to this approach are the
jurisdictions which consider reliability of the testimony on a
"case-by-case" or "totality of the circumstances" basis. Under this
approach, procedural safeguards as well as other factors are
considered with the intent of balancing the inherent dangers of
hypnotically refreshed testimony against the testimony's reliability.
The safeguards suggested are used by trial courts to determine
reliability and subsequent admissibility. Hypnotic testimony from a
session which follows the suggested guidelines is not automatically
admissible, nor is testimony automatically inadmissible where all
possible safeguards were not followed.[8] A listing of some of the
safeguards considered by the courts is given below. Not every court
has considered each of these, although courts contemplating admission
under the "totality of the circumstances" basis are likely to have
done so. Again, see the FMSF Summary of Legal Resources for related
case cites.  Safeguards considered include:
   -- whether the hypnotist is a licensed, qualified psychiatrist or
psychologist trained in the use of hypnosis and aware of its possible
effects on memory so as to be able to aid in the prevention of
improper suggestions and confabulation;
   -- whether the hypnotist is neutral with little investment in the
ultimate disposition of the case. The qualified professional should
have minimal preconceptions about the case;
   -- any information given to the hypnotist prior to the session
should be noted in writing so that subsequently the extent of
information that the subject received from the hypnotist may be
   -- a detailed record should be made of pre-hypnosis description by
the subject to determine whether the hypnotic interview affected the
memory of the witness;
   -- the session should be recorded, and preferably video-taped, so
that a permanent record is available to the court to determine the
nature of the questioning and the existence of any suggestive
   -- evaluation of any discernible motivation the subject may have
for remembering or forgetting the events in question;
   -- the amount of confidence the witness had in his initial
recollection and whether hypnosis so enhanced the witness' confidence
in his original recollection that the opposing party's right to
cross-examine has been substantially and materially impaired;
   -- the appropriateness of using hypnosis to restore memory loss in
this case;
   -- the existence of corroborating evidence independent of the
proposed testimony.
  How will the higher courts respond to the reliability of repressed
memory claims? Can the clinical needs of exploring "narrative truth"
be reconciled with the courts' requirements for "historical truth"?
Part II of this article, to appear in a subsequent newsletter, will
review the reasoning of courts which have considered the reliability
of testimony which was the subject of therapeutic hypnosis.
  In the words of Judge J. Wright [9]: 

    "Psychotherapists who engage in recovered memory methods are
  considered either forensic or clinical. Each group uses different
  techniques in attempting to retrieve a repressed memory because each
  group is attempting to accomplish something fundamentally different.
  The forensic psychotherapist is typically trying to elicit
  information that will be admissible at trial and, therefore, will
  not 'prepare' the patient, make suggestions, or ask leading
  questions during therapy. The clinician's purpose, however, is
  completely different.  The clinician's goal is rehabilitation. The
  treatment program is provided solely to benefit the patient. If a
  patient's rehabilitation can be accomplished by assisting that
  patient to recall a traumatic memory heretofore repressed, whether
  the memory is fact or fantasy, the clinician will encourage the
  patient to recall that memory in whatever form. For it is not
  necessarily the recalling of an accurate memory with which the
  clinician is concerned, but with the patient's overall
  rehabilitation. For example, in attempting to rehabilitate patients
  by helping them recall a traumatic memory, clinicians may reveal
  their own expectations before the session about the information they
  expect to recover, ask leading questions, and encourage patients to
  use their imagination.  None of these techniques is appropriate in
  the forensic setting....The practice of memory recovery is fraught
  with unreliability and, when used in the judicial system, should
  receive...skepticism and critical examination."

Part II of this article will appear in a subsequent newsletter.

    [1] Herman, J. (1992) Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books.
    [2] Rock v Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 62, 97 L.Ed.2d 37, 107 S.Ct.2704
    [3] The points noted here are taken directly from decisions which
  quoted relevant scientific findings. For an extensive listing of
  decisions and jurisdictions which have reviewed these concerns in
  making admissibility determinations, see FMSF Summary of Legal
  Resources, 1994 edition which may be ordered from the FMS
    [4] See decisions from Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
  Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
  Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York,
  North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pensylvania, Utah, Virginia and
    [5] Frye v United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923) sets
  the standard for acceptance of scientific evidence, admitting only
  if the offered evidence has met general acceptance in the relevant
  scientific community.  The purpose of this standard, where applied,
  is to prevent the jury from being misled by unproven and unsound
  scientific methods.  The courts hold that the method hypnosis has
  not gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community,
  nor can the enhanced memory, which is a product of the method, be
    [6] See decisions from First Circuit, Third Circuit, Ninth
  Circuit, Tenth Circuit, Louisianna, Mississippi, North Dakota,
  Tennessee, Wyoming.
    [7] See decisions from Idaho, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas,
  Wisconsin, Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit.
    [8] Several courts have rejected the "case-by-case" safeguards
  approach, noting that safeguards refer to only one of the potential
  problems with hypnosis, that of suggestibility.  The other problems
  affecting reliability can be neither limited nor measured by the
  safeguards suggested.
    [9] Ault v Jasko, 70 Ohio St. 3d 114; 637 N.E.2d 870; 1994. Judge
  J. Wright for the dissent. Ohio LEXIS 1840 (Ohio Supreme Court,
/                                                                    \
| This issue is the last newsletter of 1994. Members, however, will  |
| soon receive a copy of a new FMSF booklet,                         |
|                    "Frequently Asked Questions."                   |
| We hope you will write with suggestions for improving it.          |
|                                                                    |
|                          HAPPY HOLIDAYS                            |

                        FMSF FUNDRAISING DRIVE

  When the FMS Foundation began, we really didn't have any
understanding of the scope of the problem that would be exposed. We
wanted to learn what was causing our children to rewrite their
histories, to do cruel things and to cut off contact. We wanted to
find ways to reach our children. We wanted to go out of business.
  As we consider the strides we have made along with the things that
still need to be done, it has become clear that we should stick
around. The job is not done. If that is the case, then we need to
plan. The Foundation has been existing on a financial "hand-to-mouth"
status. Our critics' claims notwithstanding, stories of our great
wealth are as fantastic as the stories of alien abduction or satanic
cult abuse. We are, therefore, going to start a fund-raising drive.
  The Foundation directors have asked Charles Caviness to assume the
leadership in a fund raising effort. Charles, a vice president and
financial consultant with a major brokerage house, has been an active
member in his local area and at the state level in California. He is
active in his home area in various secular and religious-affiliated
philanthropic areas and brings a wealth of experience to this
important volunteer role. Currently, along with a small planning
committee, Charles is completing the final preparation for the effort
to contact people who have been involved with the Foundation. When he
or his volunteers gets in touch with you, please be as generous as you

  Confidentiality: Because of FMSF policies about strict
confidentiality, the Foundation cannot use many of the standard
fund-raising strategies of ordinary organizations. It's a dilemma and
a challenge. We count on your help and your resolve to put an end to
this nonsense
/                                                                    \
|                                                                    |
| The Memory and Reality: Reconciliation conference will be          |
| professionally videotaped and audiotaped by Aaron Video Company.   |
|  When tapes are available, you will be able to order directly      |
| from Aaron Video. Information about ordering tapes and the cost of |
| the tapes will appear in the January 1995 FMSF Newsletter.         |
|               Aaron Video, 6822 Parma Park Blvd.,Parma, OH  44130  |


Scientific, Clinical and Legal Issues of False Memory Syndrome
December 9 - 11, 1994
Stouffer Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland
6-8 pm   Registration, Stouffer Harborplace Hotel, Fifth Floor Foyer
 7:15  Registration and Coffee, Fifth Floor Foyer
       Pamela P. Freyd, Ph.D.
       Paul R. McHugh, M.D.
       Chair: David S. Holmes, Ph.D.
       Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D.
       Daniel L. Schacter, Ph.D.
 9:30  Refreshment Break
       Linda Meyer Williams, Ph.D.
       D. Stephen Lindsay, Ph.D.
       Larry R. Squire, Ph.D.
11:30  Lunch (on your own)
       Chair: Campbell Perry, Ph.D.
       Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.
       Phillip F. Slavney, M.D.
       Michael G. Kenny, Ph.D.
       Donald P. Spence, M.D.
 3:15  Refreshment Break
       Chair: Harold I. Lief, M.D.
       Harold I. Lief, M.D.
       Janet M. Fetkewicz
       George K. Ganaway, M.D.
                                IN  RECOVERED  MEMORY  THERAPY
       Margaret T. Singer, Ph.D.
 5:00  Formal Program Adjourns
       Coordinators: Allen Feld, M.S.W.
                     Joseph de Rivera, Ph.D.

 7:15  Coffee
       Chair: August T. Piper, Jr., M.D.
       Paul R. McHugh, M.D.
       Harold Merskey, D.M.
                          A  REVIEW  OF  THE  EVIDENCE
       James I. Hudson, M.D.
       Harrison G. Pope, Jr., M.D.
10:15  Refreshment Break
       Chair: John Hochman, M.D.
       Louis Jolyon West, M.D.
       Paul W. Simpson, Ph.D.
       Saul Wasserman, M.D.
12:30  Lunch (on you own)
       Chair: Andre W. Brewster, Esq.
       Richard Harrington, J.D.
       Skip Simpson, J.D.
       Anita J. Lipton
 3:25  Refreshment Break
       Chair: Richard Green, M.D., J.D.
       Alan D. Gold, Barrister
                                      "I'M    NOT  A  DETECTIVE"
       Steven P. Moen, J.D.
       Andrew J. Graham, J.D.
 5:00  Formal Program Adjourns
       Coordinators: Allen Feld, M.S.W.
                     Joseph de Rivera, Ph.D.

 8:00  Coffee
       Chair: Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.
       Ralph Slovenko, J.D., Ph.D.
       Douglas E. Mould, Ph.D.
       Terence W. Campbell, Ph.D.
10:15  Refreshment Break
       Chair: Robyn M. Dawes, Ph.D.
       Paul R. McHugh, M.D.
       Carolyn Saari, Ph.D.
       Lee Sechrest, Ph.D.
       Pamela P. Freyd, Ph.D.
       Paul R. McHugh, M.D.
 1:00  Conference Adjourns

                   SMALL GROUP SESSIONS - Tentative
   Registration for these sessions will be done at the conference.
 Sons as Accusers
 Model legislation
 Self-care tips for the falsely accused
 Dealing with state licensing boards
 Families being sued: A proactive stance
 Mediation and trial preparation
 For families new to FMS
 Meeting with your child's therapist
 Reconciliation area
 Family's experience with reconciliation
 Retractor meeting
 Courage to stand: A parent's experience on being sued.  
 Dealing with the media
 From MPD to DID: New names -- old problems
 Living with False Memory Syndrome
 State contact meeting
 Spouses of the accused
 Meeting of social workers
 How to find a lawyer
 Experiencing religious counseling
 Canadian families meeting
 Siblings caught in the middle
                            FMSF Meetings


Washington State
3-Day Seminar: November 4, 5, 6, 1994
"Current Topics in the Law and Mental Health"
presented by Missoula Psychiatric Services 
The Westin Hotel, Seattle
Call 406-542-7526 for information

Northern California 
Regional Meeting
Lunch meeting, November 19, 1994
Guest speaker: Richard Ofshe, Ph.D.
author of Making Monsters 
Call San Francisco/Bay Area contacts 
for information.

Southern California 
Regional Meeting
Lecture - Friday, December 2, 1994 - 7 pm
Guest speaker: Larry Hedges, Ph.D.
distinguished psychoanalyst & author of
 Remembering, Repeating and Working Through Childhood Trauma 
Call Chris or Alan(714) 733-2925 for information.

Call person listed for meeting time & location.  
key:  (MO) = monthly; (bi-MO) = bi-monthly

ARKANSAS - Area code 501
Little Rock
  Al & Lela 363-4368

Northern California
Sacramento/Central Valley  - bi-monthly
  Charles & Mary Kay (916) 961-8257
San Francisco & Bay Area - bi-monthly
  east bay area  
  Judy (510) 254-2605
  san francisco &  north bay 
  Gideon (415) 389-0254
  Charles (415) 984-6626 (day); 435-9618 (eve)
  south bay area  
  Jack & Pat (408) 425-1430
  Last Saturday,  (Bi-MO)

Central Coast 
  Carole (805) 967-8058

Southern California  
  burbank (formerly  valencia)  
  Jane & Mark (805) 947-4376  
  4th Saturday (MO)10:00 am 
  central orange  county
  Chris & Alan (714) 733-2925
  1st Friday (MO) - 7:00 pm
  orange county  (formerly laguna  beach)  
  Jerry & Eileen (714) 494-9704
  3rd Sunday (MO) - 6:00 pm
  Covina  group (formerly rancho 
   cucamonga )  
  Floyd & Libby  (818) 330-2321  
  1st Monday, (MO) - 7:30 pm
  west orange county  
  Carole (310) 596-8048
  2nd Saturday (MO)   

  Ruth (303) 757-3622
  4th Saturday, (MO)1:00 pm

CONNECTICUT - Area code 203
New Haven area  
  George  243-2740

Dade-Broward Area    
  Madeline (305) 966-4FMS  
Delray Beach PRT
  Esther (407) 364-8290
  2nd & 4th Thursday [MO] 1:00 pm

Chicago metro area (South of the 
  2nd Sunday [MO] 2:00 pm
  Roger (708) 366-3717

Indianapolis area (150 mile radius)
  Gene (317) 861-4720 or 861-5832
  Nickie (317) 471-0922 (phone & fax)
Des Moines
  Betty/Gayle (515) 270-6976
Kansas City
  Pat (913) 738-4840 or Jan (816)931-1340
  2nd Sunday (MO) except december

  Dixie (606) 356-9309
  Bob (502) 957-2378
  Last Sunday (MO) 2:00 pm

MAINE - Area code 207
  Irvine & Arlene 942-8473
  Wally 865-4044
  3rd Sunday (MO)
  Betsy 846-4268          
Ellicot City area  
  Margie (410) 750-8694  
  Jean (508) 250-1055
Grand Rapids Area - Jenison
  Catharine (616) 363-1354
  2nd Monday (MO)

St. Paul 
  Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630

Kansas City
  Pat (913) 738-4840 or Jan (816)931-1340
  2nd Sunday (MO)
St. Louis area
  Karen (314) 432-8789
  3rd Sunday [MO]1:30 pm
  Retractors support group also meeting.
Springfield - Area Codes 417 and 501 
  Dorothy & Pete (417) 882-1821
  Nancy & John (417) 883-4873
  4th Sunday [MO] 5:30 pm


NEW YORK - Upstate / Albany area
  Elaine (518) 399-5749 

  Bob (513) 541-5272

OKLAHOMA - Area code 405
Oklahoma City
  Len 364-4063   Dee 942-0531
  HJ  755-3816    Rosemary  439-2459

Harrisburg area
  Paul & Betty (707) 761-3364
  Rick & Renee (412) 563-5616
Wayne (includes So. Jersey)  
  Jim & Joanne (610) 783-0396
  No further meetings until  March,1995
Central Texas  
  Nancy & Jim  (512) 478-8395
Dallas/Ft. Worth  
  Lee & Jean  (214) 279-0250
  Jo or Beverly (713) 464-8970
   Wednesday, November 2, 7:30 pm
    Speaker: Eleanor Goldstein 

  Elaine (518) 399-5749

  Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285


Vancouver & Mainland
  Ruth (604) 925-1539
  Last Saturday (MO) 1:00-4:00 pm
Victoria & Vancouver Island
  John (604) 721-3219
  3rd Tuesday (MO) 7:30 pm

  Muriel (204) 261-0212
  1st Sunday (MO)

  Eileen (613) 592-4714
  Pat (416) 444-9078
  Saturday, November 26 (Bi-MO)

 Ken & June, P O Box 363, Unley, SA 5061

Task Force False Memory Syndrome of
 "Ouders voor Kinderen"
Mrs. Anna de Jong, (0) 20-693 5629

Mrs. Colleen Waugh,  (09) 416-7443

The British False Memory Society
Roger Scotford (0225) 868-682

Deadline for JANUARY 1995 Issue: Friday, December 16

RATE INCREASE - Nov 1. '94 The FMSF Newsletter is published 10 times a
year by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. A subscription is in-
cluded in membership fees. Others may subscribe by sending a check
or money order, payable to FMS Foundation, to the address below. 1995
subscription rates: USA: 1 year $30, Student $10; Canada: 1 year $35;
(in U.S. dollars); Foreign: 1 year $40. (Single issue price: $3 plus

                               WHAT IF?

  What if, parents who are facing lawsuits and want legal information
about FMS cases, had to be told, "I'm sorry, there isn't any such
thing available?"
  What if, your son or daughter began to doubt his or her memories and
called FMSF only to get a recording, "This number is no longer in
  What if, a journalist asks you where to get information about the
FMS phenomenon, and you had to answer, "Sorry, I don't know?"
  What if, you want to ask a question that only an expert, familiar
with FMS can answer, and find out that FMSF can no longer provide that
information? Where would you turn?
  What if the False Memory Syndrome Foundation did not exist? A
frightening thought, isn't it?
  Please support our Foundation. We cannot survive without your
                    Reprinted from the August 1994 PFA (MI) Newsletter


Professional - Includes  Newsletter $125______
Family  - Includes  Newsletter      $100______
        Additional Contribution: _____________

__Visa:        Card # & expiration date:____________________
__Mastercard:: Card # & expiration date:____________________
__Check or Money Order: Payable to FMS Foundation in U.S. dollars
Please include: Name, address, state, country, phone, fax

/                                                                    \
|          Do you have access to e-mail?  Send a message to          |
|                                         |
| if  you wish to receive electronic versions of this newsletter and |
| notices of radio and television  broadcasts  about  FMS.  All  the |
| message need say is "add to the FMS list". It would be useful, but |
| not necessary,  if you add your full name (all addresses and names |
| will remain strictly confidential).                                |

  The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a qualified 501(c)3 corpora-
tion  with  its  principal offices in Philadelphia and governed by its 
Board of Directors.  While it encourages participation by its  members
in  its  activities,  it must be understood that the Foundation has no 
affiliates and that no other organization or person is  authorized  to
speak for the Foundation without the prior written approval of the Ex-
ecutive Director. All membership dues and contributions to the Founda-
tion must be forwarded to the Foundation for its disposition.

3401 Market Street suite 130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104,  (215-387-1865)

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000

Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.,  Executive Director

FMSF  Scientific and  Professional Advisory  Board, November 1,  1994:
TERENCE    W.  CAMPBELL, Ph.D.,    Clinical  and Forensic  Psychology,
Sterling Heights, MI; ROSALIND CARTWRIGHT, Rush Presbyterian St. Lukes
Medical  Center, Chicago, IL;   JEAN   CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University   of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI; LOREN CHAPMAN, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin,
Madison, WI; ROBYN   M.   DAWES, Ph.D., Carnegie  Mellon   University,
Pittsburgh, PA; DAVID F.   DINGES, Ph.D., University of  Pennsylvania,
The   Institute   of  Pennsylvania Hospital,   Philadelphia,  PA; FRED
FRANKEL,  M.B.Ch.B., D.P.M.,   Beth  Israel Hospital,  Harvard Medical
School,  Boston, MA; GEORGE   K.  GANAWAY, M.D.,  Emory  University of
Medicine,  Atlanta,  GA; MARTIN  GARDNER, Author,  Hendersonville, NC;
ROCHEL GELMAN, Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, CA; HENRY
GLEITMAN, Ph.D.,  University  of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,  PA; LILA
GLEITMAN, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; RICHARD
GREEN, M.D., J.D., Charing Cross Hospital, London; DAVID A.  HALPERIN,
M.D., Mount Sinai School  of Medicine, New  York, NY; ERNEST  HILGARD,
Ph.D.,  Stanford University, Palo Alto,  CA;  JOHN HOCHMAN, M.D., UCLA
Medical School, Los  Angeles, CA; DAVID  S.  HOLMES, Ph.D., University
of Kansas,  Lawrence,   KS;   PHILIP  S.   HOLZMAN,   Ph.D.,   Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA; JOHN KIHLSTROM, Ph.D., Yale University, New
Haven,     CT;  HAROLD LIEF,    M.D.,   University   of  Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; ELIZABETH  LOFTUS, Ph.D.,  University of Washington,
Seattle,  WA; PAUL McHUGH,  M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD; HAROLD MERSKEY,   D.M.,  University of   Western Ontario,  London,
Canada;  ULRIC NEISSER, Ph.D., Emory  University, Atlanta, GA; RICHARD
OFSHE,  Ph.D., University of  California,  Berkeley, CA; MARTIN  ORNE,
M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, The Institute of Pennsylvania
Hospital, Philadelphia,  PA;  LOREN  PANKRATZ, Ph.D.,    Oregon Health
Sciences University,  Portland, OR; CAMPBELL  PERRY, Ph.D.,  Concordia
University, Montreal, Canada; MICHAEL A.  PERSINGER, Ph.D., Laurentian
University, Ontario, Canada; AUGUST T.  PIPER, Jr., M.D., Seattle, WA;
HARRISON POPE, Jr., M.D., Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA; JAMES
RANDI, Author   and Magician,  Plantation, FL;  CAROLYN  SAARI, Ph.D.,
Loyola University, Chicago,  IL; THEODORE SARBIN, Ph.D., University of
California, Santa  Cruz,   CA;  THOMAS  A.   SEBEOK,   Ph.D.,  Indiana
Univeristy, Bloomington, IN;   LOUISE SHOEMAKER, Ph.D., University  of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; MARGARET  SINGER, Ph.D., University of
California,  Berkeley, CA; RALPH  SLOVENKO,  J.D., Ph.D.,  Wayne State
University Law School, Detroit,  MI; DONALD SPENCE, Ph.D., Robert Wood
Johnson  Medical Center,    Piscataway, NJ;    JEFFREY VICTOR,  Ph.D.,
Jamestown Community College,  Jamestown, NY;  HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD, M.A.,
Institute of  Psychological Therapies,   Northfield, MN; LOUIS  JOLYON
WEST, M.D., UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.