This weekend’s profile of Boston Dr. Bessel van der Kolk brought up some bad memories of the debate over what is clinically known as “dissociative amnesia.” The story profiles van der Kolk’s approach to treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, known as psychomotor therapy.
“Trauma has nothing whatsoever to do with cognition,” he says. “It has to do with your body being reset to interpret the world as a dangerous place.” That reset begins in the deep recesses of the brain with its most primitive structures, regions that, he says, no cognitive therapy can access. “It’s not something you can talk yourself out of.” That view places him on the fringes of the psychiatric mainstream.
Not the first time, the story notes, as it recalls the doctor’s past support of repressed memories – a much debated concept that came into play when charges of sexual assault were levied against day care workers and priests in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Dr. van der Kolk’s Harvard colleague, psychologist Richard McNally, called the concept “the worst catastrophe to befall the mental-health field since the lobotomy era.”
From the Times:
For a time, judges and juries were persuaded by the testimony of van der Kolk and others. It made intuitive sense to them that the mind would find a way to shield itself from such deeply traumatic experiences. But as the claims grew more outlandish — alien abductions and secret satanic cults — support for the concept waned. Most research psychologists argued that it was much more likely for so-called repressed memories to have been implanted by suggestive questioning from overzealous doctors and therapists than to have been spontaneously recalled. In time, it became clear that innocent people had been wrongfully persecuted. Families, careers and, in some cases, entire lives were destroyed.
After the dust settled in what was dubbed “the memory wars,” van der Kolk found himself among the casualties. By the end of the decade, his lab at Massachusetts General Hospital was shuttered, and he lost his affiliation with Harvard Medical School. The official reason was a lack of funding, but van der Kolk and his allies believed that the true motives were political.
Not clear what the story means by “political,” but the implication is that he was banished for promoting an unpopular concept.
It didn’t help critics of repressed memory that the concept was being used in cases against alleged pedophiles. Most notoriously, lawyers defending defrocked priest Paul Shanley, who was convicted of raping a young boy, used doubts about the concept to discredit the grown-up victim who testified that he had repressed memories of abuse. Shanley — who was the subject of numerous complaints to the church — was found guilty in 2005. His lawyers filed an appeal, again based on the shakiness of the repressed memory concept.
You have prominent scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists saying this is not generally accepted. So why allow it in a court of law in a criminal proceeding?” Mr. Stanley’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr., asked the state’s highest court Thursday.
The debate over repressed memory — the idea that some memories, particularly traumatic ones, can be inaccessible for years — has simmered since the 1980s, when some patients in therapy described long-past scenes of sexual abuse. Some of those experiences turned into high-profile legal cases. The scientific controversy boiled over in the 1990s — as experts raised questions about many claims — and then died down.
Recently, scientists have begun to spar again over the theory. New studies suggest, and many scientists argue, that what people call repression may just be ordinary forgetting; memory is not “blocked.” Others say the process is more complex and may involve a desire to forget.
“My impression is there continues to be a few scientists who honestly believe that it is actually possible for someone to be involved in a traumatic event and not be able to remember it at all,” said Dr. Harrison G. Pope Jr., a professor of psychiatry at Harvard. “But you cannot possibly argue that it’s generally accepted, which is the criteria for it to be admissible from a legal standpoint.”
In 2010, The Globe reported that the request for a new trial was thrown out
Jan 16, 2010: “In sum, the judge’s finding that the lack of scientific testing did not make unreliable the theory that an individual may experience dissociative amnesia was supported in the record, not only by expert testimony but by a wide collection of clinical observations and a survey of academic literature,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote for the SJC.
Shanley, now in his late 70s, was originally prosecuted by Martha Coakley, who is now attorney general and a Democratic candidate for US Senate. Her successor, Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr., whose prosecutors defended the conviction before the SJC, applauded the ruling.
“As the SJC recognized, repressed memories of abuse is a legitimate phenomenon and provided a valid basis for the jury to find that the victim, a child at the time of the assaults, repressed memories of the years of abuse he suffered at the hands of Paul Shanley, someone who was in a significant position of authority and trust,” Leone said.
But Shanley’s appellate attorney, Robert F. Shaw Jr. of Cambridge, said the SJC had made a grievous mistake. Shaw, who argued in court papers that recovered memory was “junk science,” said Shanley deserved a new trial.
The SJC noted – literally in a footnote – that repressed memories alone may not be enough to convict a defendant. From the Globe:
The court also said that it may decide in the future to throw out a conviction where the only evidence is based on recovered memories.
“We do not consider whether there could be circumstances where testimony based on the repressed or recovered memory of a victim, standing alone, would not be sufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction,” Cordy wrote in a footnote.
But, the debate goes on. A review in the current issue of the American Psychological Association’s journal Psychiatric Bulletin, tries the put the issue to rest. Harvard’s McNally is one of the authors. The article is in response to a 2012 paper in the same journal supporting the concept of repressed memories.
(Although) a key assumption of the TM (Trauma model) is dissociative amnesia, the notion that people can encode traumatic experiences without being able to recall them lacks strong empirical support. Accordingly, we conclude that the field should now abandon the simple trauma–dissociation model and embrace multifactorial models that accommodate the diversity of causes of dissociation and dissociative disorder.