No wonder the report by the independent panel reviewing ACC sexual abuse claim procedures has been kept quiet.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/4158659/Letter-ACCs-flawed-review
The panel relied heavily on emotive sex abuse industry anecdotes, myths and misinformation.
It ignored good science and the interests of taxpayers who pay for ACC sex abuse claims.
It recommends a diluted, weakened and more costly process. Instead, the need is for fairness, healthy scepticism and robustness.
The panel made much of the supposed causal link between sexual abuse and mental injury. I understand no sexual abuse syndrome exists because there is no scientific evidence that sexual abuse causes any specific psychiatric, psychological or behavioural condition.
Disdaining such elementary science, the panel relied on the Massey Guidelines, which claim more than 700 symptoms or indicators of sexual abuse have been identified. That covers almost every human behaviour.
The panel accepted sex abuse industry myths that most victims never disclose their abuse, and only 9 per cent of sexual offences were reported to police. It is impossible to know about undisclosed or unreported events. The panel failed to apply critical thinking. It was a deplorable waste of our resources.
23 September 2010
ACC's flawed review
A letter to the editor of the Dominion Post by Gordon Waugh
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
PMSL
ReplyDeleteDoes that even need to be commented on. It is so 'weak' it is laughable.
What Professional qualifications does Gordon have?? We know he was part of COSA and is very good friends of the Potters and Goodyear-Smith so really no surprises there with this statement.
Oh and have his daughters 20 years later after accusing him of sexual abuse changed their stories?? What a nasty, misinformed little man he is. No scienific evidence?? PMSL. Is he for real?
Sounds like a call to arms! Why has the panel's report been kept quiet? We've heard from SOSA, NZAP, Labour, the Greens and NZPsS. Where are all those other people and organisations who cared so much a few months ago? Kevin Hague has called for an apology and those in power should rally behind him. We asked ACC to "stop the abuse" and the panel recognised the truth. The report was a triumph and the only way ACC is going to pay attention to it is if we make some noise!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have bothered posting it if he didn't get one thing right: the report is being kept quiet. We're at a crucial point in this battle and we can't stop now.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree, though I think sadly the earthquake overshadowed it somewhat.
ReplyDeleteDo you think Gordon is suffering from paraniod delusions? Does he really think there is a sexual abuse industry and it includes all those Professional Colleges and Bodies, as well as the Organisations and other services who put in submissions and/or commented to the Review Panel?? So that means the Social Workers, the GP's, the Psychiatrists, the Nurses, the Psychologists etc are also all part of his 'created industry'. But yes, it would be nice for those Colleges/Organisations to be able to reply.
I just want to know what "sexual abuse syndrome" is. Like FMS, I can't find it in the DSM. Could it be that Gordon is using concepts and terms outside of science to support his point? Surely not... :)
ReplyDeleteGreat letter. Right on the nail.
ReplyDeleteThis letter and from a man brought before the Courts for sexually abusing his own two daughters. Well at least we know why he's so anti-sexual abuse victims - it causes him to have to look at his own actions!
ReplyDeleteFor the record, Annelise, I would love to have a rational discussion, but it seems from the comments made by castorgirl, grm and Jax that it is unlikely to occur. Rational debate and discussion calls for open minds and a fair and reasonable exchange of information, while the participants refrain from indulgence in ad hominem argument. But if by chance you did want serious discussion, you could email me.
ReplyDeleteWhy do your correspondents hide behind noms de plume ?
Castorgirl clearly has difficulty with elementary science. He/she needs to try to understand the essential scientific point that it is impossible to conclude from a person's psychiatric, psychological or behavioural condition that sexual abuse is the cause of that condition. That is why there is no such thing as a "sexual abuse syndrome". Formulation of a syndrome demands empirical evidence - there is none in this matter. Guessing, assuming or believing is simply not good enough.
grm asks whether the two daughters who accused me 20 years ago of sexual abuse have changed their stories. He/she would be much better informed by an examination of the statements they made to the police, as well as the mass of contra-evidence. One could drive a dumptruck through the incredible nonsense they, with the help of a counsellor, managed to invent. It was a very simple matter to disprove each and every allegation they made.
Even though they accused about a dozen or so men, no person was ever arrested, charged or convicted as a result of their ill-made allegations. There is nothing those sad, sad children can change their stories to, without making themselves look even more ridiculous.
grm is indeed very busy ! He/she also asks whether I am suffering from paranoid delusions. That's just silly ! It would help immensely if grm would learn to assemble verifiable facts, apply logic to them, and overlay them with professional judgement, before writing. That process would certainly help him/her to clarify and refine thinking processes.
Jax needs to distinguish between facts and her fantasies. She has got entirely the wrong end of the stick. No person was ever arrested, charged or convicted on the basis of the extensive allegations made by these two daughters. The allegations they made were transparently false, impossible, improbable and contradictory. The girls were thoroughly misled by a sex abuse counsellor. Police closed the file on the basis of "No Offence".
Again for the record, I have never been "brought before" any court on any matter whatsoever !!
Gordon
Hi Gordon,
ReplyDeleteI think you may have misunderstood my comment. I was pointing out that in your attempt to question the casual link between abuse and a range of issues (including those involving mental health), you were using non-scientific means. That is the use of the term "sexual abuse syndrome", which is not listed in any scientific text that I have found - although it is cited in some court proceedings from the 1990's.
I can't speak for the others commenting here, but I use a nom de plume as part of standard Internet security practices.
Regards,
CG
And my point, Castorgirl, is that there is no empirical evidence available to prove that sexual abuse causes any specific psychiatric, psychological or behavioural condition. Accordingly, there cannot be a "sexual abuse syndrome". This is a matter of precise science. I was not using non-scientific terms.
ReplyDeleteAll that can properly be said about links between sexual abuse and psych conditions, behaviours etc, is that any effects of sexual abuse which might occur are idiosyncratic and therefore unpredictable. The "lists of indicators of sexual abuse" in common use by counsellors and others are therefore essentially useless. The Massey Guidelines claim that more than seven hundred such "indicators" have been identified. QED.
Regards,
Gordon
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here Gordon! Do you not believe child sexual abuse causes problems for people later in life?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you base your research on? I think it is one of the most researched 'cause and effect' topics around, and yet you are saying it's not scientific! I would love to hear you say that to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and others to work and research in behaviour, psychological and psychiatry. You are basely calling there professions a joke and not based on science. Is this attitude based on your own experience and the COSA and MENZ opinions, or are your theories about us all being part of the 'sexual abuse industry' self serving?
You may be aware that while a lot of research has been done in NZ Universities in recent years NZ is also party to a number of relevant international resolutions and conventions around this area also, including:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/134, Eliminating Rape and other forms of
sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations
(General Assembly, 2008)
the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (General Assembly, 1989).
Well I am not even going to dignify the twat with a response....
ReplyDelete> Do you not believe child sexual abuse causes problems for people later in life?
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of factors that may contribute to problems later in life...drug and alcohol abuse among them. Separating CSA from these other factors is extremely difficult if not impossible. Indeed, the fact that you link CSA with "problems" seems to suggest that you believe there is some kind of sexual abuse syndrome, which Gordon and CG pointed out doesn't actually exist.
"I would love to hear you say that to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and others to work and research in behaviour, psychological and psychiatry. You are basely calling there (sic) professions a joke and not based on science." Well, do you know what science is and how it operates? Why did esteemed psychologist Beth Loftus leave traditional psychology behind her? She did so because psychologists were generally not operating in a scientific manner and were eschewing the scientific method. I have read many articles written by psychologists and psychiatrists. A lot of them are poorly written and you will find little or no science in them.
The comments by Jax and grm rather prove my point about the difficulty in having a rational discussion with people of their ilk.
ReplyDeleteJax, twat or not, you were wrong. Simple as that. Accept it.
Tut, tut grm ! Your venom is showing - it's corrosive, you know. You would benefit from studying the reasons why "cause" and "association" are different things, as you appear to have them thoroughly confused, and why "science" is so different from "belief and assumption". BTW, suggest you also learn the meaning of "empirical evidence" and "the scientific method".
Regards,
Gordon
Gordon - do you believe that child sexual abuse causes problems for people in later life or not?
ReplyDeleteYes, Anonymous... Gordon hasn't answered the question. Hmmm. It does make you wonder a?
ReplyDeleteI know what empirical evidence and scientific method is... thanks Gordon! But again if you base science purely on this then you are saying the professions of Psychology and Psychiatry are a joke as most of there practices are based around empirical research that is tested and proved but largely comes from non-empirical evidence. Are you saying that these Professions a 'crook of shit'??
Also are you saying that other forms of research methodology are invalid unless they are empirical evidence based? You are truly showing your age if that is the case! Tell that to the people who have lost their homes and are hugely stressed in Christchurch after an earthquake that their feelings and reaction can't be measured so they aren't able to receive any emotional suport or counselling.
This "twat" has all but both feet in the grave. He has nothing better to do that to Gresham his bits and plague the next generation with his self righteousness. Not long now before we won't even have to worry about the likes of this AND hopefully, that will be when BOTH his DAUGHTERS get some peace of mind too!
ReplyDeleteI for one stand alongside his two kids he sexually assaulted. I don't expect you to like that Twat but guess what things are as "simple as that. Accept it."
Good grief, grm - I didn't say any of those things !!
ReplyDeleteAll you need do is prove that sexual abuse IS a direct cause of any specific psychiatric, psychological or behavioural condition, and then define the incontrovertible evidence to establish a "sexual abuse syndrome." I wish you luck in this.
No further comment from me is necessary.
Jax is way off the planet. All SHE needs to do is find some credible, testable evidence - any shred will do - that I ever sexually assaulted anyone. And do get out in the sun and enjoy yourself.
Regards,
Gordon
Gordon - do you believe that child sexual abuse causes problems for people in later life or not?
ReplyDeleteHi Gordon,
ReplyDeleteCan you please clarify your position? Within the letter to the editor, and the comments here, you are indicating that sexual abuse doesn't cause any impact on the victim. Is this correct?
If so, what scientific knowledge do you base this on?
If so, then why do you think that sexual abuse is considered a crime?
Do you believe that other crimes, such as robbery or murder of a loved one, create a psychological response for the victim? If not, then why do you think that the legal system accepts victim impact statements?
Longitudinal studies have shown links between sexual abuse and the various impacts on their life. Unless you are willing to purposefully inflict sexual abuse on a study group, this is the closest you will get to scientific fact.
Regards,
CG
Why do I need to prove it is a 'direct' cause again Gordon? I don't have to prove that, the courts don't require that and neither does ACC, so why does anyone need to prove it to you?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying unless someone can prove a mental injury is a direct result of a trauma (sexual abuse or otherwise) they shouldn't receive funding for counselling? No one can prove a 'mental injury' of any kind other than what is assessed by GP's, Psychiatrists, and Therapists through non-empirical evidence. So, you are in fact saying people working in these Professions are not practising scientific medicine by supporting claimiants in this way! How do you even prove any mental injury or mental illness without non-empirical evidence let alone the direct cause of the injury or illness?
From this Review Report http://admin.beehive.govt.nz/webfm_send/13 you mention above...
"ACC says that the test for causation is the ‘balance of probabilities’: “the mental injury must be more likely than not the direct result of the abuse/assault rather than any other factors that are also present."
From Professor Mannings findings...
"If there is reason to think that the sexual abuse was a substantial or a material cause of the mental injury the claim could be accepted under the Act."
This is based on thorough research and what we all know about the short-term and long-term effects of sexual abuse on a person as described by even those people NOT applying for ACC or any kind of assistance..... it is not some scam to get funding for counselling. Most people have to top up the ACC subsidised counselling out of their own pocket so are invested (as much as they can afford to be) into getting well. They go looking for a counsellor not the other way around. So, I'm not really sure where you are coming from with all your comments about this at present, if not to undermine the stated Professions?!?
Hi CG,
ReplyDeleteThis will be my last comment on this page, so I'll explain my position for you, in quite brief form.
Firstly, all the emotion has to be stripped out of the discussion so that a clear picture emerges.
I did NOT say that sexual abuse doesn't cause any impact on the victim. What I DID said was that no credible scientific evidence has been presented that sexual abuse is a direct cause of specific conditions, and thus, there cannot be a "sexual abuse syndrome".
What may be properly said is that when effects of abuse do occur, they are idiosyncratic and therefore unpredictable. But the reality is that this cannot work in reverse, inasmuch as if a client presents with a number of indicators of dysfunction (eg depression, anxiety low self-esteem and so on) - and the client also professes to have been sexually abused - it is wrong to conclude that the cause of those conditions is sexual abuse. It could only possibly be correct IF (repeat) IF a "sexual abuse syndrome" did exist.
It is imperative that credible, testable evidence of the claimed abuse be made available and properly examined. Unless there is a high degree of certainty that abuse actually did occur, it would be unprofessional, and unfair to the client, to give treatment for sexual abuse, when indeed, the causes may have nothing at all to do with abuse.
Those "indicators of dysfunction" in fact have myriad causes. Test it for yourself by attempting to write a list (for example) of all the possible causes of depression. Sexual abuse is certainly not the sole cause !
The Massey Guidelines claim that over 700 such indicators have been identified, which is of course utter nonsense. Such a lengthy list would cover almost every known human condition ! A favourite saying in the sex abuse industry is the claim that "the client exhibited behaviours which are consistent with abuse" - but of course, they are incapable of describing behaviours which are inconsistent with abuse - the two types of behaviour must be clearly different. When examining these matters, it is crucial that the distinction between "cause" and "association" be clearly understood.
Far too often, the flaws in retrospective surveys, in which self-reports of abuse are made and used without testing their validity, are overlooked - often quite deliberately so. There are literally thousands of such surveys, most of them not worth the paper they are written on.
It follows that in the absence of credible evidence of sexual abuse, a counsellor cannot know whether a client was sexually abused. Even though they claim to be witnesses to crimes, counsellors do not have the skills, resources, or the authority, to determine whether a criminal sexual event occurred. When these factors coincide, it is wrong and misleading to claim that the client was sexually abused, and therefore give the wrong treatment.
The saddest part of all this is that for every person who claims to have been sexually abused, there is a wide circle of others (family, friends, acquaintances) affected by those allegations and claims.
Of course, the sex abuse industry doesn't want to know about any of this. It seems impossible to have a sensible discussion with its proponents and advocates. One can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.
Kind regards. I do hope you manage to live a happy life.
Sincerely,
Gordon
Sorry, I didn't know I had to prove it to you Gordon. Why?? How do you even prove a mental injury or a mental illness without non-empirical evidence, let alone that it DIRECTLY resulted from a specific event? You can't! But then it isn't required as the courts and ACC are already aware of the huge research and body of knowledge around the effects of sexual abuse.
ReplyDeleteLike this report says, http://admin.beehive.govt.nz/webfm_send/13
"ACC have pointed out to the Panel that it is factually often quite complex to determine the causation of the mental injury and the extent to which it is ‘caused by’ the sexual abuse. In many cases there are pre-existing conditions, co-morbidities and other events or aspects of a person’s environment that may also have contributed to the injury. In advice to
practitioners who provide initial assessments, ACC says that the test for causation is the ‘balance of probabilities’: “the mental injury must be more likely than not the direct result of the abuse/assault rather than any other factors that are also present."
BUT THE LAW PROFESSOR WENT FURTHER SAYING...
"If there is reason to think that the sexual abuse was a substantial or a material cause of the mental injury the claim could be accepted under the Act."
So like Castorgirl said, where is the scientific evidence that says it doesn't impact on a persons life and/or cause mental injuries?
In fact, what are you actually trying to say here and in your letter to the Editor if not to say Clinicians such as those working or researching in Psychology and Psychiatry are wrong?? Do you honesty believe all these clinicians from around the world (regardless of ACC) are making up research to create a 'sexual abuse industry'? Well, that does sound somewhat paranoid or delusional to me!
A much broader view is necessary, grm. The real issue here is one of belief versus evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe sex abuse industry is guilty of intellectual arrogance and cowardice. It professes certainty of knowledge but confuses cause and association, fact and opinion, possibility and probability. It focuses on belief in the claimed effects of sexual abuse, but fails to apply even simple tests such as Daubert, Ockham’s Razor and Primary School arithmetic.
The claimed 700+ effects of SA each have myriad causes. Belief that they are caused solely by SA is a convenient, but dishonest, substitute for credible evidence and a properly formulated syndrome.
The two fundamental flaws in the industry belief-system are failure to verify by external evidential means that claimed abuse actually did occur, and failure to establish the real cause of the client presenting conditions. The papers you cite don't change those facts.
I wish you luck in finding the industry Holy Grail – the mythical sex abuse syndrome.
Regards and goodbye,
Gordon
It's interesting that some of the commenters here seem to base their beliefs on a particular ideology about child sexual abuse.
ReplyDeleteAn anonymous commenter asks, rhetorically it seems, whether child sexual abuse causes problems for people in later life. The answer is that clearly for some it does, but for most it doesn't. The assumptions held by many on here seem to be that CSA causes psychological harm and that treatment is necessary to heal the patient. The trouble is that these assumptions are not supported by the evidence. That's where science comes in. If you have a beautiful theory and an ugly fact, which are you going to adopt? I am not interested in theories or assumptions, but science-based evidence.
I suggest those that remain unconvinced read the following article about what I've been discussing.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_3.htm
You say, "The answer is that clearly for some it does, but for most it doesn't. The assumptions held by many on here seem to be that CSA causes psychological harm and that treatment is necessary to heal the patient."
ReplyDeleteSo, as you say, if child sexual abuse does cause psychological problems for some people in later life, can that harm be eased or even reversed with expert help?
For example, if someone is plagued with nightmares and flashbacks of abuse he suffered as a child, cannot get a good night's sleep and lives in a heightened state of anxiety and depression, EVEN IF there is no way to test the scientific proof of this, should this person be able to get some help so he can lead a normal life?
For example, if someone suffers from panic attacks when close to a large white male wearing black because of the armed hold-up she experienced at her shop, EVEN IF there is no way to test the scientific proof of this, should this person's problems be acknowledged so that one day she can go back to work?
For example, if a woman feels that she deserves to be emotionally and physically abused by her partner because she was abused as a child by her caregivers and had no opportunity to learn any different, EVEN IF there is no way to test the scientific proof of this, should she be able to get help to strengthen her self esteem, enabling her to better protect herself and her kids?
Just wondering.
Thanks for the link to the article Anonymous. Do you have any research that uses more recent references? Considering that Oellerich retired in 1999 from Ohio University, it doesn't capture the change in thinking and approach that has occurred in the last 10 years.
ReplyDeleteIt also looks at a very narrow scope - that of child and adolescent psychotherapy. Anything on adult psychotherapy?
One of the conclusions, indicates it's place in the history of psychotherapy - "Moreover, it indicates that the asymptomatic should most definitely not be referred for psychotherapy." If a person is not symptomatic, it is unlikely that they will seek out therapy; be seen by a therapist for any length of time; or be funded in that therapy by ACC.
Isn't your statement "The assumptions held by many on here seem to be that CSA causes psychological harm and that treatment is necessary to heal the patient." an assumption that you hold? You don't know me, or my views about this subject. What I respond to here is part of my worldview, not the totality. By pigeon-holing me as a "feminist" or "part of the sexual abuse industry", you are placing assumptions on my beliefs which are incorrect.
I'm also interesting in your response to the scenarios posed by the second Anonymous commenter.
Regards,
CG
I see Gordon has clearly been falsely accused by at least one of you who hasn't checked his history. Suggesting he was brought before the courts leaves you open to a libel suit. I suggest you all might be best to curb this risky habit for your own sakes.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for you, implying his personal history proves him wrong that is also a useless argumentum ad hominem. This logical fallacy forgets that idiots can say things that are correct, so you cannot argue that even Bert Potter (with whom I strongly disagree, let me add) is wrong in everything he says. He might be unreliable as a source of information on sexual abuse, but unreliable does not mean always wrong. He is only wrong if what he says is illogical or his conclusions are not supported by evidence. I would venture to suggest Gordon's experiences might have made him more reliable at spotting false claims if abuse. But that does not prove much as I have just pointed out. As they say, judge every case (or statement) on its own merits. Similarly, arguing from authority is a weak argument. I attended Auckland university where I gained my Masters degree in Psychology. I thought several of the professors were unreliable because they seemed to believe in "Neurolinguistic programming" a known quack or unproven therapy beloved of Bert Potter. The origins of the second "university" in Auckland are as a polytech, and I find it less credible. However, as I say, this is only a weak argument but it might influence where I look to hope to find reliable information.
I think sexual abuse is likely to create problems for many victims. It is an unpleasant experience for a start. I am very sympathetic towards genuine victims - I'm not so sure with some who only allege abuse because some of them have proven to be liars.
Bad experiences affect different people in different ways. While bad experiences may trigger (often pre-existing) psychological and psychiatric problems, it is quite a different thing to say that any specific problem or set of problems (syndrome) is proof of sexual abuse or any other specific trauma.
Jonathon Harper
Practical Psychology Tutor
CG,
ReplyDeleteYou say that the Oellerich article "doesn't capture the change in thinking and approach that has occurred in the last 10 years". What has changed in the last 10 years?Oellerich acknowldges that what he writes about is not politically correct. That is, the convention wisdom among counsellors has been that child and adolescent sex is harmful, that victims need counselling and that counselling will assist victims to recover. Researchers have questioned these assumptions and some have suggested that counselling may be harmful.
In relation to the funding of counselling by ACC, I certainly think it's appropriate to test these assumptions. It is surely a waste of taxpayers' money to pay for counselling that is unnecessary or, worse, that is unhelpful or may harm the victim. It would be improper and unethical to allow counselling to take place under such circumstances.
As for the scenarios posted by Anonymous, let's take the first one: "if someone is plagued with nightmares and flashbacks of abuse he suffered as a child, cannot get a good night's sleep and lives in a heightened state of anxiety and depression, EVEN IF there is no way to test the scientific proof of this, should this person be able to get some help so he can lead a normal life?"
ReplyDeleteThe answer depends on whether that "help" is actually going to assist the victim. What if the victim recovers without any counselling? What if the victim gets help for the next 10 years but remains depressed and anxious? It would appear then that the help was unhelpful.
On the other hand, if the victim wants to fund their own treatment, that is surely their decision - they can decide how long that should last and how much they are prepared to pay. However, if I am paying for their treatment, aren't I entitled to know, firstly, that they need counselling, secondly, that their depression and anxiety were caused by childhood abuse and not something else, and thirdly, that their ongoing treatment is likely to produce results?
Hi Jonathon,
ReplyDeleteI asked Gordon to supply the scientific information to support his position, he chose not to.
You say that "Gordon's experiences might have made him more reliable at spotting false claims if abuse". Yet, I wonder what bias he would bring to the situation? His statements, such as "There is nothing those sad, sad children can change their stories to, without making themselves look even more ridiculous" indicates that there is possibly emotions still unresolved about this issue. Any bias adds to the picture about someones credibility when discussing an issue.
Hi Anonymous,
If you're unaware of current therapeutic practice and theory, it makes it difficult to have a discussion about it with you. As I am a survivor, and not a mental health professional or educator, I suggest you approach one of the many professional bodies or schools about the issue. If you're uncomfortable doing that, I suggest you visit the library or search the Internet for ways in which the mental health profession has developed over the past ten years.
In your response to the situation about the person with the nightmares - ACC have the accountability measures that you talk about, and have for years. If you're unsure of this, please contact ACC SCU and ask about the reporting measures that the mental health professionals have to undertake, and the psychiatric assessments that each survivor is required to undertake on a regular basis.
Please don't assume that therapy is the only way in which survivors are assisted. One of my friends received a prescription for a dog while in-patient at one of the leading US psychiatric hospitals. Just as drugs are not considered to always be the answer, neither is therapy. Generalisations are unfair for all concerned.
Thank you Annelise for allowing this discussion.
Regards
CG
Interesting. One of my three scenarios has been partially responded to. I suppose Gordon Waugh et al have no answers to real-life situations. Note to self: angry old men aren't worth the time!
ReplyDelete