Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Recovered memory dismissed by doctors

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

FALSE memories can be planted in patients' minds by psychiatrists and there is no evidence that memories can be "blocked out", a report set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists has concluded.

The report, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry today, says there can be no justification for using drugs, hypnosis or dream interpretation in treatment as they may distort memory or implant a new one.

Over the last six months the report has split the Royal College, provoking such intense anger amongst members that it was not published under the college's name. One member of the working party which wrote the report refused to put his name to it. Another source said the original report (the new report is a revised version) was so "inflammatory" that it read like "the British False Memory Society's newsletter".

The question of whether forgotten memories of childhood sexual abuse can be brought back with the aid of therapy has been bitterly contested since the first cases emerged in the United States a decade ago.

Many accused parents claim their family lives have been destroyed by fantasies planted in their children's minds by unscrupulous therapists. Gary Ramona, a Californian business executive, won pounds 335,000 compensation after his daughter who was undergoing regression therapy accused him of rape.

But those who say they have been abused, such as the American comedienne Roseanne Barr, argue that if it is possible for war victims to block out horrific events, why should this not be true of sexual abuse?

The authors conclude that a growing body of research indicates that memory is fallible and vulnerable to suggestion, and that no autobiographical memory can be relied on without some external corroboration. However, they accept that the secrecy surrounding child sex abuse may often make such corroboration difficult to obtain.

"No evidence exists for the repression and recovery of verified severely traumatic events," says the report. "There is also striking absence in the literature of well-corroborated cases of such repressed memory through psychotherapy. Given the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse, even if only a small proportion are repressed and only some of them subsequently recovered there should be a significant number of corroborated cases. In fact there is none."

"Memory enhancement" techniques do not enhance memory and there is evidence that they can be "powerful and dangerous methods of persuasion," they say.

"Many of the memories `recovered' by these measures refer to events in the early months and years of life which fall within the period of infantile amnesia and must be regarded as implausible for that reason," the report adds.

It concludes by saying that psychiatrists have a duty not to cause harm to patients or their families, and any report of child sex abuse should be listened to seriously and sympathetically. It adds that whether or not a patient who seeks help has true or false memories of past sexual abuse they are entitled to sympathetic and competent care.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in