e adults who have been sexually abused as children is unknown, as is the number of those who have developed psychological symptoms as a result. It is, therefore, important not to assume that memory recovery therapies always provide the most beneficial approach, regardless of one's stance on whether such memories are accurate or not, particularly in view of the resulting upheaval in family systems when abuse, either accurately or inaccurately is recovered (Farrant, 1998).Although science is starting to shed some light on the bitter debate over “false” vs. “repressed” memories, one side has yet to claim victory. There is evidence that supports both that memories can be repressed and later recovered and that memories can be implanted and fabricated. In evaluating this topic I feel a diathesis is needed. I feel this debate will never be settled with an absolute “winner” and “loser”. I feel that “repressed memory syndrome” is a separate phenomenon from “false memory syndrome” and that both occur at significant rates in our population.I feel when clinicians are working with patients who report repressed memories of abuse coming back, they should evaluate the information on an individual case basis. Ideally, one wants to see independent evidence to corroborate the putative victim’s report, for example, testimony from family members, diaries, photographs, medical and police records. Unfortunately, given the private nature of child abuse and the treats made to children to prevent them from telling others, independent evidence often isn’t available. I feel clinicians have a responsibility to examine the evidence they are presented very carefully. They need to be especially suspicious of memories that spring from hypnosis, dreams, or flashbacks. They should also be leery of patients who hesitate to give permission to search for outside corroboration. Those who are ...
