vent gets mistaken for a perceived event, and if there is a way to determine if this is indeed what has happened in people who have created false memories of abuse.I feel that continued research on this topic is especially important considering the growing number of lawsuits between the accuser and the accused, and the client and clinician. The outcomes of these suits have critical implications both for the legal system and therapeutic community. The contrasting research findings, far from favoring one side of the debate, in fact provide some evidence to support both stances. In light of the evidence of the fallibility and suggestibility of memory, it is conceivable that there are occasions when individuals develop false memories of childhood sexual abuse. However, the evidence suggesting that it is also possible to forget and later recall sexual abuse indicates that recovered memory for real events is also a genuine phenomenon. It is, therefore, possible to incorporate both positions, as the two stances are not mutually exclusive. The extreme positions adopted are, therefore, not tenable and to claim that either false memories are never created or that genuine abuse is never forgotten cannot be justified in view of the evidence. A more rational position, which I am choosing to commit to, is to accept that both may be possible. The reality is that child sexual abuse does occur in all too many cases, and helping the victims recover from their experiences should be the primary goal of all involved in these cases.In conclusion, the debate between “repressed” vs. “false” memories will continue, until both sides of the controversy realize that there is solid evidence for both phenomenon. My hope for the future is that both sides of the debate can possibly work in conjunction to help clinicians and law personal in determining the veracity of the accounts of repressed memories. ...
