FMSF NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE - June 1, 1994 - Vol. 3, No. 6, HTML version

Return to FMSF Home Page

3401 Market Street suite 130,  Philadelphia, PA 19104,  (215-387-1865)

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000
    The FMSF Newsletter is published 10 times a year by the  False
    Memory  Syndrome  Foundation.  A hard-copy subscription is in-
    cluded in membership fees. Others may subscribe by  sending  a
    check  or  money  order, payable to FMS Foundation, to the ad-
    dress above. 1994  subscription  rates: USA: 1 year $20,  Stu-
    dent $10; Canada: $25 (in U.S. dollars);  Foreign: $35; Single
    issue price: $3. ISSN #1069-0484
           August Piper
              John Taylor
                 John Hochman
                    Allen Feld
                       James Simons
                          Dan Goleman

Dear Friends,
   "Our children have been used as human guinea pigs," said a father
at a recent meeting in Michigan.
  There is no scientific evidence that recovered memory therapy is a
safe and effective therapy. If a therapy technique has not been tested
and shown to be safe and effective, then it is experimental. Unless 
recovered memory patients have signed consent forms, they were used as
human guinea pigs.
  "Recovered memory therapy exploits women." It is primarily women who
report being harmed by this phenomenon. Of the more than 300 recovered
memory therapy patients known by the Foundation who now say that their
"recovered memories" were false, 3 are men. Families report 92% of
their lost children are women.  Those most likely to enter therapy are
female, white, educated, well paid and divorced, separated or never
married. (p 61 US News and World Report , May 24, 1993).
  "Why hasn't this therapy been tested before such wide-spread use?"
It has been typically the case that women's care -- unlike men's --
goes untested. Important strides are now being made in ordinary
medicine to equalize standards of therapy. It is time for the
psychotherapists to join the rest of the world.
  Not only is recovered memory therapy untested as to its
effectiveness compared to doing nothing or compared with other
techniques, there are reasons to consider that it is harmful.  Some of
these reasons are: the patient is not treated for the presenting
problem; regression and abreactions carry known risks; severing a
patient from a family support system is an extremely radical
procedure; the scientific data on memory enhancement techniques is
ignored.  Recovered memory therapy is based on a highly controversial
and unproved theory.  It frequently relies on techniques such as
hypnosis and sodium amytal in the misguided belief that accurate
"memories" can be recovered.  Scientific evidence is abundant that
this is simply not true. How could mental health workers be so
reckless in a treatment for women?
  If any other medical product had more than 13,000 complaints and had
never been shown to be safe or effective, it would be taken off the
market. If any other medical product was based on a a highly
controversial theory and had components that were dangerous, it would
be stopped. The professional organizations have failed to provide safe
and effective mental health treatment for women. The monitoring and
licensing boards of the states have failed to protect the public.
  Is this a wide-spread problem? "I know that there are some
unscrupulous therapists, but this is not a very big problem," say some
therapists. In this issue of the newsletter we report briefly on a
study by Poole and Lindsay (1994) on the extent of recovered memory
therapy in the clinical psychology community. Their results indicate
that it is likely wide-spread.
  "Can't people just see that a mistake happened?" We seem to be
dealing with a paradox. The popular belief that recovered memory
therapy is good for the special needs of women appears instead to be
setting them back. How could this happen? Certainly it was not by
design. One feminist writer said to us, "Can't people just see that a
mistake happened?"
  Indeed, carelessness might be a major culprit in this tragic mess.
During the 1980's our country saw the vast spread of the "recovery"
movement. Substance abuse went from being considered a moral weakness
to being considered a disease.  Incest recovery programs were
established as our country came to recognize the extent of the problem
of child sexual abuse. The recovery programs that proved safe and
effective in the treatment and recovery for substance abuse were
transposed without proper modification to other situations. Incest
victimization is not an addictive behavior
  A necessary condition for an effective substance-abuse recovery
program is for the client to realize that he or she has a problem.
Until that happens, the client is said to be in denial and to bring
the client out of denial intervention strategies were devised.
Consider what happens, however, when that same vocabulary is applied
to the incest/sex-abuse setting. If a person does not remember any
abuse, he or she is said to be in denial and can't get well. From this
assumption, then, the intervention strategies proceed to bring the
client out of denial, which means to "recover memories".
  As a culture we all bought into this model. As a culture we all 
carried it too far. As a culture, we need to say, "We made a mistake."

  The number of calls and letters from individual psychiatrists,
psychologists and social workers who tell us that they think what we
are doing is very important has continued to increase. This is
encouraging but in contrast to the professional organizations.
  The American Psychiatric Association which had its Annual Meeting
last week in Philadelphia is an example. The good news is that we
heard many speakers talk about memory as constructive and the need for
professionals to be careful. We noted only one workshop that mentioned
satanic ritual abuse. The presenters who have written extensively on
this topic were Bennett Braun, M.D., Lloyd deMause, B.A., Jean
Goodwin, M.D., and Martha Kirkpatrick, M.D.
  It was profoundly disappointing, however, to note that prestigious
Guttmacher Lecture speaker, Judith Herman, M.D., used the opportunity
to compare those who question recovered memory therapy with those who
question the existence of the Holocaust. This is the description of
her talk as it appeared in the APA program.

    "The conflict between knowing and not knowing, speech and silence,
  remembering and forgetting, is the central dialectic of
  psychological trauma. This conflict is manifest in the disturbances
  of memory, amnesias and hyperamnesias, and of traumatized people. It
  is manifest also on a social level in persisting debates over the
  historical reality of atrocities that have been documented beyond
  any reasonable doubt. Social controversy becomes particularly acute
  at moments in history when perpetrators face the prospect of public
  exposure or legal accountability for crimes long hidden or condoned.
  Judith L.  Herman, M.D., examines current public controversy over
  the credibility of adult recall of childhood abuse as a classic
  example of the dialectic of trauma."

  A report of her presentation in the Philadelphia Inquirer
("Repressed-memory syndrome splits psychiatrists," May 23, 1994, by
Mark Bowden) noted "Herman's prestige has lent credibility to accounts
that many psychiatrists would consider fanciful. Yesterday, she
likened the vigorous denials of alleged rapists, mostly men, to the
elaborate denials made by Germans involved in carrying out the
Holocaust during World War II. She urged therapists and doctors to
have the courage to stand behind patients who make these often-
unprovable charges." The report noted that Herman ended her
presentation with a slide that showed demonstrators carrying a sign
that read "Women Unite!" She argued that rape and incest are
"political crimes" used to subordinate women.
  Dr. Herman has refused invitations to participate with families of
the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. The president of the American
Psychiatric Association has not responded to our letters. This is a
public invitation to them both to speak with the FMSF fathers and
mothers who are Holocaust survivors. On their behalf and on behalf of
all caring people in the world, I hereby express outrage at Dr. Herman
for making such statements and at all the members of the American
Psychiatric Association for honoring such statements. To compare
families who are grieving for the loss of their children and who have
questioned the appropriateness of untested therapy to people who deny
the Holocaust is unworthy. It is unworthy of professionals. It is
unworthy of decent human beings.
/                                                                    \
|                     International Conference                       |
|                 MEMORY AND REALITY: RECONCILIATION                 |
|                                                                    |
|      CoSponsored by The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and       |
|          The Johns Hopkins Continuing Education Program            |
|                                                                    |
|               Baltimore, MD December 9, 10, 11 1994                |
|     Registration form appears at the end of this e-mail posting    |

   Debra Poole, Central Michigan University, and Stephen Lindsay,
University of Victoria, have made the first systematic study from
which we may begin to understand the extent of the current FMS
phenomenon.  "Psychotherapy and the Recovery of Memories of Childhood
Sexual Abuse: Study of Doctoral-level Therapists' Beliefs, Practices,
and Experiences." Poole and Lindsay (in press).
  A random sample of licensed doctoral therapists listed in the
National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology were
surveyed. Of the 151 respondents (estimated to be 38% of recipients
who do psychotherapy with adult female clients), 75% reported at least
some use of memory recovery techniques with the specific aid of
helping clients remember childhood sexual abuse, and 25% indicated
that (a) they believe it is important that abused clients remember
their abuse, (b) they sometimes form the opinion that clients who deny
a history of abuse were in fact abused, and are sometimes "fairly
certain" of this after the initial session with the client, and (c)
they use two or more memory recovery techniques to help clients
remember childhood sexual abuse.
  Even if the Poole and Lindsay survey was maximally selective of
memory recovery-oriented therapists (such that zero of those who did
not return the questionnaire take such an approach), the results
indicate that 9% of NRHSPP members who do psychotherapy with adult
female clients (something on the order of 1,100 highly trained
therapists) think it is important for clients to remember abuse,
quickly form the opinion that clients who deny a history of abuse were
in fact abused, and use two or more memory recovery techniques to help
clients remem- ber.
  Therapists reported working with an average of 85 adult female
clients during the last 2 years, so even this very conservative
interpretation of the finding would suggest that more than 90,000
clients received psychotherapy from NRHSPP members whose approach
includes an emphasis on memory recovery.
  The questionnaire does not yield sufficient information to know
whether these therapists pursue memories in a single-minded and highly
suggestive ways or in more open-minded and cautious ways, but the
results are clearly consistent with the concern that even among highly
trained doctoral therapists some practitioners do use techniques and
approaches are considered risky by many cognitive psychologists.
  Psychologists are just one of the many groups of mental health
workers. When families tell the Foundation about therapists that they
believe had harmed them and their children, the titles they use most
often are social worker, marriage and family counselor, pastoral
counselor or therapist. The Poole and Lindsay study suggests that we
are dealing with a very extensive phenomenon.

/                                                                    \
| Given memory's indispensability and frailty, it's striking that so |
| many of us are ready to play so fast and loose with it. When we    |
| uncritically embrace reports of recovered memories of sexual       |
| abuse, and when we nonchalantly assume that they must be as good   |
| as our ordinary memories, we debase the coinage of memory          |
| altogether.  What we should do is shore up the legitimacy of an    |
| imperfect but precious human capacity -- the capacity to attest to |
| events that we have always remembered -- by resisting the creating |
| of a new category of memory whose products are so often mere       |
| inventions conjured by the ministrations of recovery specialists.  |
| In stead, too many of us undermine that legitimacy by according to |
| recovered memories, even the most bizarre ones, the same status -- |
| psychologically as well as legally -- that we accord to            |
| traditional forms of memory...                                     |
|   Memory is one of our most precious human assets. It needs        |
| protection from those who, by debasing it, diminish its integrity, |
| even as victims of sexual abuse need protection from those who, by |
| abusing them, diminish their humanity.                             |
|                                                 Walter Reich, M.D. |
|                                         "The Monster in the Mists" |
|                           New York Times Book Review, May 15, 1994 |


      "Government inquiry decides satanic abuse does not exist"
       Rosie Waterhouse, Independent on Sunday, April 24, 1994

  The British government commissioned a probe into into 84 cases of
alleged black magic ritual. The three-year investigation by the
Department of Health that began in 1991 found no evidence for the
claims of satanism that have been made.
  "Providing the first official definition of satanic abuse, the
report explains: "Rites that allegedly include the torture and sexual
abuse of children and adults, forced abortion and human sacrifice,
cannibalism and bestiality may be labeled satanic or satanist."
  "Their defining characteristic is that the sexual and physical abuse
of children is part of rites directed to a magical or religious
objective. There is no evidence that these have taken place in any of
the 84 cases studied." The research was conducted by Jean L Fontaine,
Emeritus Professor of social anthropology at the London School of
  In 3 of the 84 cases there was "ritual" abuse which was secondary to
the sexual abuse. the rituals did not resemble those that figured in
the allegations of the other 81 cases.  "The report also tried to
explain how the satanic abuse scare spread. "The Evangelical Christian
campaign against new religious movements has been a powerful influence
encouraging the identification of satanic abuse. Equally, if not more,
important in spreading the idea of satanic abuse in Britain are the
'specialists', American and British. They may have few or even no
qualifications as professionals but attribute their expertise to
'experience of cases'."

  We thought it was interesting to contrast this report from the
British government with the articles appearing in the Spring issue of
The Journal of Psychohistory, V 21, No.  4 entitled "Cult Abuse of
Children: Witch Hunt or Reality?"  Several of our advisory board
members are discussing the proper legal action to take with respect to
editor's incredible assertion:

 To begin with, the founder of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation
 had been accused of sexual molestation by her daughter, and major
 contributors and "researchers" affiliated with the group are usually
 either accused molesters, members of pedophile advocacy groups, or
 appear in journals such as Paidika: The Journal of Paedophila.

For the record: the founder of FMSF has never been accused of sexual
molestation by anyone, we know of no affiliated researchers (with or
without quotation marks) who are members of pedophile advocacy groups,
only two who ever were quoted in Paidika, and very few who themselves
are accused molesters. The number of errors in this one sentence is
remarkable but not unusual for the journal in question. Lloyd DeMause
(who has no known credentials in psychotherapy) started his own
journal to push his own theory that "universal incest" is the cause of
everything from the Holocaust to the Gulf War (The Nation, Mar 11,
91). His journal purports to be a "learned journal" but its standards
of accuracy are beneath those of your local Sunday supplement. (As
just one example the issue refers to a UCLA archaelogist named E. Gary
Stickle (of McMartin tunnel fame). A quick call to UCLA would have
informed the journal that E. Gary Stickle has never been on the UCLA

  Our very success in bringing our message to the world at large is
forcing our opposition to dirty tricks. They have smeared the staff,
and now they are attempting to smear the members of the FMSF Advisory
Board. They have been declared guilty by association with the comments
of one board member, Ralph Underwager who did make statements printed
in the journal Paidika that are upsetting to many people.
Dr. Underager resigned from the Advisory board. He does not support
pedophilia, and he may be contacted directly by those who are
concerned. The tactic of "guilt by association" was frequently
employed during the McCarthy era. The FMSF Advisory Board is strong
for the very reason that its members do not all represent "one"
position. These scholars disagree on many points. But they do agree
that the processes that are used in intellectual debate are important.
Name calling and guilt by association are poor tactics when the
discussion is about issues of memory that can be tested through
scientific inquiry.
  Ian Russ writing editor of Heritage Southwest Jewish Press on May 13
tried to discredit one board member by stating his membership on the
board and then writing about the Foundation as follows: "False Memory
Syndrome Association (FMS), a group consisting largely of parents
whose adult children have alleged child abuse perpetrated by those
parents. A major focus of this organization is to propagandize in the
press their point of view which is that child abuse is mostly a
fictitious creation of often well meaning but gullible and misled
psychotherapists who implant false memories of abuse." The writer goes
on to state the the board member is an "official spokesperson" for the
Foundation. How could a responsible editor make such an outrageous

                              SAD NEWS:

  Two more suicides of people involved in recovered memory therapy
were reported to us this month. The first involved a woman in the
midwest who was terrified that the cult was going to torture her. The
second was a retractor in the east who had started to reunite with her
family. It is important to note that we do not know the reasons for
these suicides. It is also important to note that FMSF families have
been extremely worried about the possibility of suicide by their 
children. On the one hand these children came to believe they didn't
even know their own history and that the people they most loved had
betrayed them. On the other hand, if they come back to reality, they
will have to recognize the hurt they caused people they loved.

                       HEADLINES TELL THE STORY

Below are headlines of articles that have appeared after the Ramona
decision.  This is not a random sample, but reflect what arrived in
our mail.

The Arizona Daily Star, May 14, 1994

San Jose Mercury News, May 14, 1994

The New York Times, May 14, 1994

San Diego Union Tribune, Sunday May 15, 1994

Then Mail on Sunday, London, May 15, 1994

Sunday Times,  London, May 15, 1994

San Francisco Examiner, May 15, 1994

Gannett Suburban Newspapers, May 15, 1994

Philadelphia Inquirer, May 15, 1994

Sunday Republican, Waterbury Ct, May 15, 1994 

The Press, Atlantic City, NJ, May 15, 1994

The New York Times, May 15, 1994

Napa Valley Register, May 15, 1994

The Miami Herald, May 15, 1994

The London Times, May 16, 1994

Wall Street Journal, May 17, 1994

Knoxville News-Sentinal, May 18, 1994

Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1994

The Sunday Telegraph, May 22, 1994

The Sunday Times, May 22, 1994

Los Angeles Times, May 22, 1994

New York Post, May 23, 1994

Time, May 23, 1994

Daily Breeze Torrance, CA, May 23, 1994

The Oakland Tribune, May 29, 1994

The Tribune, Scranton, PA, June 1, 1994

/                                                                    \
|  What happened to the acceptance of personal responsibility? Why   |
| is victimhood rather than responsibility so appealing in our       |
| society?  Is everyone trying to avoid feeling guilty? Is a         |
| person's value determined mainly by survival from trauma?          |
|  As therapists, it is important that we question our patient's     |
| willingness to wallow in the victim position even though we may    |
| have helped patients understand how they have been victimized,     |
| they need to be encouraged and helped to find out how they, in the |
| present, perpetuate their victimization and how to stop it. Taking |
| responsibility gives them power to change. To have been a victim   |
| may be a reason but its not an excuse for endless maladaptive or   |
| unacceptable behavior.  It is, instead, a challenge to the patient |
| and the therapist to do the necessary hard work to develop real    |
| control leading to a fulfilling life.                              |
|                                             "Moral Responsibility" |
|                                    Arline C. Caldwell,  President, |
|                     American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians. |


                            ODDS AND ENDS
                       August Piper, Jr., M.D.

No single theme to this month's column.

  Glimmerings of daylight and common sense are beginning to be visible
in the strange world of multiple personality disorder. The following
story is proof. A well-known authority on this condition recently
wrote to a Foundation member.  The writer, who did not request
confidentiality for his views, asserted that MPD was currently being
overdiagnosed in North America, criticized the vague diagnostic
criteria for the condition, stated that inpatient treatment worsens
the condition, and warned that "memories" unearthed under Amytal or by
use of hypnosis should not be considered accurate unless corroborated
by other sources.
  Readers may wonder why these ideas are remarkable: after all,
members of the Foundation's scientific board have held similar views
for years. They are remarkable because this expert's past positions on
MPD differ markedly from his present ones. He has acknowledged the
errors of his earlier thinking. One example: in the past, if a
therapist had trouble finding a patient's alter personality, the
expert recommended asking the personality -- as often as necessary --
to show itself, even though such behavior obviously suggested behavior
to patients, and thereby contributed to the problem of overdiagnosis.
Also, in a 1984 paper, the expert noted with approval that about 150
patients yearly were admitted to a certain inpatient unit. Finally,
the expert now correctly recognizes that information obtained under
hypnosis or Amytal may well be inaccurate, unreliable, and the result
of suggestion by the therapist. Such recognition, however, has not yet
led this authority to publicly recommend the obvious next step:
sharply restricting hypnosis as a means of treating MPD. For example,
the expert says nothing about the danger that hypnosis may produce
more alter personalities.
  After all is said, however, this authority is to be commended for
having the courage and honesty to modify his beliefs.
  A reader asked for a definition of "abreaction." The American
Psychiatric Glossary: "emotional release or discharge after recalling
a painful experience that has been repressed because it was
consciously intolerable" (emphasis added). The definition highlights
the controversy over, and vagueness of, "repression." Most authors
believe repression operates exclusively unconsciously. Therefore,
according to this definition, those who talk about MPD patients
abreacting traumas are misusing the word, because MPD is said to
result from an unconscious, automatic response to abuse.
  The trouble with all the gibble-gabble that is written about
repression is -- or should be -- obvious: no one can observe a person
and decide whether that person is trying to remember something and
can't (repression), is deliberately focusing attention on something
else (suppression), or is merely claiming to be unable to recall
something (faking). For this reason, jurists have rightly been
skeptical about claims of repression and amnesia; the rest of us
should also.

August Piper Jr., M.D. , is a psychiatrist in private practice in

/                                                                    \
| No state or federal funds should be used for any therapy that has  |
|  not been shown to be safe and effective.                          |
|                                    Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D. |
|                                 MidWest FMSF Meeting, May 21, 1994 |

                            by John Taylor

            from "The Lost Daughter", Esquire, March 1994
                      Reprinted with permission

   Proponents of MPD attribute the explosion in diagnoses of the
disorder directly to Sybil -- "the true and extraordinary story of a
woman possessed by sixteen separate personalities," as the book's
jacket proclaims. Sybil, a pseudonym, was the patient of a New York
psychoanalyst named Dr. Cornelia Wilbur. Wilbur diagnosed her patient
as suffering from a multiple-personality disorder that was brought
about by her mother, who, according to Sybil's recovered memories,
shoved objects like spoons and knife handles and buttonhooks up her
vagina, copulated with her husband in front of her, defecated on
neighbors' lawns while her daughter was forced to watch, sexually
molested her, and engaged in lesbian orgies with young girls in her
  Wilbur herself did not actually publish a report of her treatment of
Sybil.  Instead, Wilbur approached Flora Rheta Schreiber, an English
professor, and suggested she write about Sybil. Schreiber's book is a
melodramatic novelization, full of re-created scenes and dialogue. She
tells the story from the point of view of Sybil, her various
personalities and her therapist, shifting in and out of characters to
suit her dramatic purpose. A huge commercial success, Sybil reached
the top of Time magazine's best-seller list and was made into a movie
starring Sally Field as Sybil and Joanne Woodward as the heroic Dr.
  To therapists who specialize in multiple personalities, Cornelia
Wilbur, who died in 1992, is a sort of matriarchal cult figure. They
pay her ritual homage by the use of phrases like "the Wilburian
revolution" and "the post-Wilbur paradigm" when referring to the
notion that multiple personalities are created by childhood sexual
abuse. But the cult of Cornelia Wilbur may have been founded on a
  Herbert Spiegel, a psychiatrist and former professor at Columbia
medical school who specializes in hypnosis, diagnosed and treated
Sybil in the mid-Sixties when Dr. Wilbur sent her to him after her
psychoanalysis had become stalled. "Wilbur asked me to see her because
she was treating her as a schizophrenic, but some of her symptoms
didn't seem consistent with schizophrenia," Spiegel told me one
afternoon last December, sitting in an office in his Upper East Side
apartment.  "She was suicidal and would come to see me when Wilbur was
out of town. When I talked to her about aspects of her life, she would
say, 'Do I have to become Helen or can we just discuss this?' I said,
'Why are you asking?' She said, 'Dr. Wilbur would want me to."' I
said, 'You can if you want to,' and she would not. She would discuss
her problems, her suicidal tendencies, without switching
personalities.  Sybil's mother was a schizophrenic, but there was no
sexual abuse. It was not corroborated. I treated her for more than a
year and was in contact with Wilbur during that time, and Wilbur never
mentioned MPD.
  "That came up later," Spiegel continued. "After Sybil had stopped
treatment, Schreiber came to see me and asked me to cooperate with her
and Wilbur on a book. I agreed and said I would open my
files. Schreiber said as she was leaving the office that she was
calling it MPD. I said she's not. She doesn't have the key figure of
MPD, spontaneous switching between personalities. These came up during
therapy. They were hysterical imitative. What gave it away was her
telling me Wilbur requested certain personalities.
  "I said I would work with Schreiber if Sybil was diagnosed as a
hysteric or as a dissociative disorder. Schreiber [who died in 1988]
said that publishing companies wouldn't be able to sell it unless it
was MPD. I said that was a hell of a reason for a medical diagnosis.
She got mad as hell and left the room in a huff. She wouldn't talk to
me after that and neither would Wilbur. Their goal was to do something
to capture the imagination of the public. They succeeded."
  This did not bother Spiegel too much at the time because the
techniques Wilbur used did seem to help Sybil, and she never made a
formal accusation against her mother. But now, Spiegel said, naive
therapists influenced by Sybil are working at what he calls 'memory
mills" and diagnosing MPD in patients, producing "phony memories" that
patients then take into court. "I addressed some of them at one of
their annual meetings, and I was surprised by the dumbness of the
questions.  They have no training. They believe the literalness of
each personality.  They know nothing about hypnosis. A therapist can
hypnotize suggestive patients without either the therapist or the
patient being aware of it."
  Spiegel pointed out that people with dissociative disorders are
extremely susceptible to hypnosis. To dissociate is, in fact, to go
into a trance, and they go in and out of trances constantly, often
without being aware of it.  Spiegel said that if suggestive patients
like Sybil, whom he considered a hypnotic virtuoso, pick up a premise
-- are told or infer that there is a Communist plot to take over the
media or that they've been sexually abused by their fathers -- they
can fill in the details on their own. "The details are presented to
the therapist as memories, and if the therapist doesn't know what is
going on, he or she accepts them as memories."
  Hypnotized patients will just as easily accept premises that
contradict their core convictions and actual experiences as they will
those that reflect them.  Spiegel showed me a videotape of an
experiment he had conducted in 1967 with NBC correspondent Frank McGee
and a highly hypnotizable subject. The subject, who had left-of-center
political views, was quickly put into a trance by Spiegel, who then
told him in a general way that there was a Communist plot to take over
the American media. After coming out of the trance, the subject,
without any prompting, quickly revealed the existence of the plot, and
then as McGee pushed him for details, began, with total conviction,
supplying from his own imagination names of people who were part of
the conspiracy and locations where secret meetings had taken place.
  "Memories can be vivid under hypnosis," Spiegel said when the tape
was over, "but they are not necessarily true."

/                                                                    \
| "The fact that some of these tales are false does not mean --      |
| except to the simpleminded -- that all are false. The fact that    |
| some are true does not mean -- except to the simpleminded -- that  |
| all are true. It is a matter for careful workup and a differential |
| diagnostic effort accompanied by scrupulous avoidance both of      |
| contaminating suggestions and of the imposition upon the patient's |
| material of trendy ideologies."                                    |
|                                           Thomas G. Gutheil, M.D.  |
|                           Letters, Psychiatric News, March 4,1994  |

                          John Hochman, M.D.

  I've received back issues of The Retractor from the FMS Foundation;
they've been most helpful in helping me understand the whole problem.
I was invited to join the Scientific Advisory Board because of my
expertise in cults.
  I published the first paper in the psychiatric literature on therapy
cults back in 1984. Little has been published since. I gave a workshop
on therapy cults at an American Psychiatric Association national
meeting in the mid 1980s; three thousand psychiatrists were registered
and about nine people showed up, a few because they were my friends.
The whole idea of therapy cults has never generated a lot of interest
among professionals, but it's certainly of concern to contributors to
The Retractor -- and rightly so.
  I came up with my own empirical definition of "cult" because the
dictionary definitions just didn't seem to fit today's cults. It uses
a concept borrowed from Dostoyevsky's vignette The Grand Inquisitor.
He talked of how people can be enslaved by the simultaneous influence
of "miracle, mystery, and authority." I label a group as a destructive
cult if it uses these three modalities. Here's how I think it applies
to the FMS problem:
  Recovered memory therapy (RMT) is a miracle cure. It treats a
disease that doesn't exist ("incest survivor syndrome") with an
unproven "therapy" that is sustained by the emotional conviction of
its practitioners. RMT therapists aren't concerned with verifying the
"memories" that their patients are "recovering." One psychologist on
the FMS Advisory Board says this is an example of "transcendental
therapy" ("We believe its true, so therefore it is true; end of
  Therapists ease patients into RMT by surrounding it in a veil of
mystery.  Patients are not aware from the onset that their "treatment"
has the potential to turn their lives upside down, fracturing their
families and possibly their personalities. The initial impression many
patients seem to have is that they will plug away, recover some
memories, and will be "cured." Thus patients entering RMT do so
without the opportunity for informed consent. I believe most patients,
if they were told up front how their lives would eventually be changed
by RMT would chose to go elsewhere.
  RMT therapists take on enormous authority over the lives of their
patients that departs from the usual role of psychotherapists. A
principal goal of all mainstream psychotherapies is to enable the
patient to grow, which can only occur if the therapist allows the
patient autonomous decision making. Proper therapists are trained to
help patients extend their insight into themselves and their lives,
and then to make their own important choices. RMT patients are
distracted from the massive influence their therapist is having on
their relationship with their families by being made to believe the
therapist is helping to "empower" them.
  Retractors I've talked to have had very different experiences in
their RMT.  Some have had RMT complicated by sexual or economic
exploitation by therapists.  There seems to be a big push for RMT
therapists to turn patients into ideologic clones. All power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  People who leave therapy cults experience lots of distress in a
mixture of depression and post traumatic stress disorder: guilt, low
self esteem, diminished confidence, rumination about their
experiences, and nightmares of their therapy. And of course, it's hard
to trust a therapist again, any therapists.
  Retractors gain benefit by educating themselves about the mechanics
of hyper-indoctrination that is variously labeled as "brainwashing,"
"mind control" or "thought reform." A good start is the granddaddy
book on the subject written by psychiatrists Robert Lifton in the
1950's: Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. (Recently
republished by the U. of No. Carolina Press). Lifton studied victims
who were brainwashed when the Communists took over China. Their
captors put them under endless pressure to come up with memories to
"prove" that they were "perpetrators" of capitalist exploitation
against the Chinese people.  Torture played a part, but I think the
key elements were endless journal writing and group pressure to come
up with "memories" of prior "crimes." Lifton, a psychiatrist, gives
detailed portrayals of victims who were not at all stupid or
"neurotic" before their "re-education."  Chapter seven of this book is
particularly valuable.
  Aside from "book learning", if retractors network with each other,
they will probably find their experiences marked by more similarities
than differences.  Retractors' families need to understand what
happened as well, in order to deal with angers, fears, hurts, or
guiltridden obsessions that their own "neuroses" are to blame.
Retractors must gain conviction that they are casualties of
incompetent psychotherapy, and not just saps.
  Psychotherapy is not "just talk;" if it has enough power to
influence people for the good, it can also do harm if misapplied.

 John Hochman, M.D. ,a psychiatrist in private practice in Encino, CA,
is a member of the FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board.

/                                                                    \
| [P]sychiatrist Lenore Terr testified on behalf of the defense.     |
| Among the symptoms that Terr noted as corroboration that Holly had |
| been sexual abuse: Holly's dislike of people with teeth that       |
| resembled her father's, her dislike of bananas and pickles -- that |
| reminded her of oral sex, and her childhood games that involved    |
| destroying a villainous man...It turns out that in the vast world  |
| of pop-psych repressed-memory handbooks, almost anything can be a  |
| sign of childhood sexual abuse.                                    |
|                                                        Jon Carroll |
|                                    Are you nuts or just in denial? |
|                               San Francisco Chronicle May 10, 1994 |

                        A Review by Allen Feld

  True and False Memories of Childhood Sexual Trauma: Suggestions of
Abuse by Michael D. Yapko (271 pages, Simon & Schuster $ 22.00) reads
like a conversation with a long-time friend and is a book that can be
easily read by the general public. What Dr. Yapko writes is
particularly important to therapists and to families who may be caught
up in the family situations created by accusations that arise from
false memories. The sentence, Abuse happens, but so do false memories.
(p.21) captures the simple truth that Yapko seems to want therapists
to understand. He approaches the task of trying to create that greater
understanding in a variety of ways: he uses his own research to
support his concern about misinformed therapists; he provides a
concise and current review of the scientific views about memory; he
thoroughly discusses the roles that therapists' thinking and the
contemporary societal climate play in enhancing suggestibility to and
believability of false memories of incest; his use of case examples
from his own clinical practice gives further meaning to the concerns
he expresses; and he offers concrete suggestions and advise to his
  Yapko personalizes his comments and takes responsibility for his
beliefs. At times he is very forceful, his comments pointed and his
strong convictions and concerns are evident. However, he never
appeared to be attacking, demeaning or insensitive to therapists, even
when he was most critical of some of their serious shortcomings. This
may be due, in part, to his excellent skills as a communicator.
  Another important reason why his book appeared to be non-threatening
is that it is hard to argue with the facts which he presents. He
reports his own research based on two questionnaires which he
developed and administered to more than one thousand therapists during
1992. The questionnaires, therapists' responses, and his discussion of
the reults are important elements in this book. Again, this is
presented in non-technical language so that non-professional as well
as professional audiences should find these portions of the book
equally satisfying. What he reports makes it clear as to why he is so
concerned (and perhaps why society should be concerned, too) about the
ignorance many therapists display concerning client suggestibility,
human memory and hypnosis. While it is uncertain if the results can be
generalized to all therapists, it would be foolhardy to ignore his
data for that reason. Yapko seems to be holding a mirror up to
therapists. One can only hope that what they see are true reflections
and what they don't auto- matically assume is that Yapko is writing
about some other therapists.  If the suggestions to therapists were
followed, it is reasonable to believe there would be fewer shattered
  Yapko demonstrates his understanding and concern for victims of
abuse and for those harmed by false memories. His first-hand
experience as a therapist has given him the vantage point of seeing
the pain from both perspectives. He explores the various difficulties
which often develop when only one spouse is accused and the
experiences of siblings who may have their loyalties tested.  Here,
and in his discussion of meeting with the therapist of the accusing
child, Dr. Yapko seems to be a giver of advice. The suggestions he
makes undoubtedly are informed by his clinical experience, value
system and perhaps view of the world. Obviously, when it comes to
giving advice, others with different experiences, perspectives and
values would possibly suggest other ways to handle these situations.
At times, it seems like others in a family, already over-burdened with
accusations of incest, are asked to take on a helping role in addition
to their usual family roles. When a non-accused spouse or a sibling is
asked to assume certain additional new responsibilities because of the
accusations, e.  g. keeping communication open or active neutrality,
that role may bring some unintended negative consequences. There may
not be enough cautions given to the readers. However, in the context
of this book, it is appropriate for him to step forward with his ideas
as long as the readers recognize the uniqueness of each situation.
  Dr. Michael Yapko's entry into the ever-growing field of literature
on false memory can be viewed from the frame of reference of "bad news
good news". The "bad news" is that it portrays another example of the
sorry state of some therapy; the "good news" is that Yapko, a highly
regarded therapist, is joining the growing cadre of clinicians and
researchers and who are providing leadership by attempting to correct
the injustices being generated by therapist-assisted false memories.

 Allen Feld, ACSW, LSW is an Associate Professor at Marywood College,
School of Social Work, Scranton, PA. This review was written while he
was on sabbatical as a Research Associate with the False Memory
Syndrome Foundation.

/                                                                    \
| Among the great and enduring achievements of the women's movement  |
| has been the dramatic reshaping of social attitudes toward         |
| violence against women and children.                               |
|  We now know far more than we did 20 years ago about the extent of |
| child abuse, rape and sexual harassment, and we have declared      |
| these acts to be abhorrent. We have developed an impressive array  |
| of legal and public-policy remedies to combat them. Police forces  |
| now treat rape as a serious crime. Women's shelters offer refuge   |
| for the battered, and are funded not only by governments but by    |
| civic-minded corporations. Everywhere, workplace behaviour that    |
| used to be taken for granted (as part of a woman's lot) is no      |
| longer tolerated. When people abuse children who are entrusted to  |
| their care, we throw them in jail.                                 |
|  But women and men who rejoice in this progress can only watch in  |
| sickened dismay as the quest to root out these evils catches the   |
| innocent, too. The price of progress is very high when anyone,     |
| anywhere, can hold anyone else hostage before the court of public  |
| opinion, so long as the allegations is a sex crime.                |
|                                                   Margaret Wente   |
|                      When good intentions release a malign genie   |
|                                 The Glove and Mail, May 14, 1994   |

                              FMSF Staff

  In the April newsletter, Attorney Jim Simons discussed procedures
for filing a complaint against an accusing child's therapist. Many
parents try to meet with their accusing child's therapist before
taking this type of action and some see this step as a first step to
  This month and in future issues, we will discuss some of the options
and concerns for parents and siblings to consider before deciding to
attend a meeting. These will include developing strategies when you
initiate the meeting, when you are invited, when the therapist refuses
to meet with you and develop realistic expectations for the outcome of
such a meeting. Our information is largely based on insights of
families who have shared their experience with us.  We invite further
comment from families, professionals and retractors who have had
experiences (both positive or negative) with such meetings.
  "Should I try to see my child's therapist?" Many parents told us
that they felt that this is a necessary step for them to take in order
to help their child, exonerate themselves, demonstrate that they have
nothing to hide, and let therapists see for themselves who they are.
The underlying notion seems to be that once the therapist sees the
parents and how much they love their child, he or she will realize
that they could not possibly be guilty of the accusations.  While it
may be human nature to "hope for the best," this scenario has not been
confirmed by the anecdotes we have collected. In the cases that we
have documented, such expectations were not fulfilled. However, if any
of you have had a positive experience, please let us know what you
have learned. It may be that we do not hear about the cases in which
communication was positive.
  So, again parents are left with a difficult decision. Here are some
things to consider if you have to make that decision. Think about what
can be achieved.  Consider the best and worst possible outcomes. Ask
yourselves, what is the best possible outcome? How likely is it? What
outcome is totally unacceptable to you?  What are you prepared to do
if this happens? Is there anything between the best and the worst
outcomes that can lead to progress? Be realistic. Sometimes making the
effort to set the record straight may be all you can accomplish. Be
aware that you may be setting yourselves up for a disappointment if
you believe that you can change your child's mind or the therapist's
beliefs in one meeting.
  It may be desirable for the parents' therapist and the child's
therapist to work out arrangements for the meetings ahead of time,
rather than for the parents to negotiate directly with their child's
therapist. Communication between the therapists may help to avoid
situations in which either party feels victimized. For example, many
parents have told us that they went to a meeting in good faith only to
find out that the agenda was for them to be re-accused or confronted
with a series of allegations; that they were not allowed to respond;
and that the meetings were highly structured and controlled. While it
is impossible to anticipate every potential scenario, some dialogue
between the professionals involved may help to set some reasonable
expectations for both parties.
  It is important to keep in mind that each person invited to a
meeting with a professional is entitled to know the purpose of the
meeting or to be involved in setting the agenda when requesting a
meeting.  If the meeting is structured in such a way that is
unacceptable to you, you can exercise your right to leave at any time.
Consider finding out ahead of time who is going to attend, what is
hoped to be accomplished, the location (some parents have suggested a
neutral location), whether it will be taped and who is expected to pay
for it.  Each party attending is entitled to equal consideration. If
one party has his/her therapist, the other should have one too. (Some
parents simply showed up with their therapist.) If one party is asking
for uninterrupted time to present a point, the other should do the
  Factor the answers (or refusal to answer) to these questions into
your decision to attend a meeting with your child's therapist. For
example, if you are told, as one parent was, without explanation, that
another person (in addition to their child's therapist) will be there;
that you will find out the purpose of the meeting when you arrive, and
that you may not bring your therapist along -- you may decide not to
go. Or you may decide to go with a very different set of expectations.
Under these conditions, you may realize that there is little
opportunity for change and progress. However, you may still decide to
take the opportunity to see your child and to tell her how you feel
about her and the situation.
   If meeting with your child and his or her therapist is something
that you choose to do, be aware that "there are many potential hazards
in meeting the therapist involved in your child's memory work, and you
need to know what they are if you are to have any hope of handling the
interaction well. You should work out ahead of time what you will say
and do (and not say and do) in response to the wide range of things
that can happen in such meetings. If you go into such a meeting
without a plan, you run the risk of getting blindsided." (Yapko, 1994)
  One final note: whether speaking to your child's therapist directly
or through your therapist, you may want to consult an attorney before
attending a meeting with your child's therapist, just to be sure that
you have considered all of the potential legal ramifications of such a
 You may order the Foundation's booklet "Meeting with your child's

/                                                                    \
| To the extent that "reasonable doubt" remains a fundamental        |
| criterion in our judicial system, we must worry about convicting   |
| or maligning defendants on the sole basis of recovered memories of |
| childhood abuse.                                                   |
|                                               Matthew Hugh Erdelyi |
|                     Professor of Psychology,Brooklyn College, CUNY |
|                           letter to New York Times, April 22, 1994 |

                             LEGAL CORNER 

If you have questions or concerns to be answered in the Newsletter,
please send them to Legal Corner, care of James Simons at FMSF.

                   Analysis of the Ramona Decision
                Jim Simons , J.D., Practicing Attorney
                    with comments from FMSF Staff

  The Ramona case (reported elsewhere in this newsletter) which was
recently decided in California is expected to have far-reaching and
welcome influence throughout the rest of the country. Of course, this
is not because California law is binding on other states -- it is not
-- but because of the power of the legal reasoning which allowed
standing to Mr. Ramona to bring his case in the first place. This
month's column is the first in a two-part analysis of California law,
Ramona, and how developments in California law might affect the larger
question of a parent's right to sue a therapist or mental health
provider when the plaintiff/parent is not the therapist's patient. The
following discussion is also intended to provide some understanding of
the kind of problems one might expect to encounter in states where
development of the law does not fit the facts of a typical repressed
memory case as favorably as does the law in California.
  In order for a cause of action for negligence (in general) to be
successful, four elements must be present, and the plaintiff has to
prove all four in court.  If even one element is missing, the case
fails. These are: (1) a legal duty of care; (2) a breach of the duty;
(3) causation; and (4) resulting injury. As a general rule, the action
of negligence is available as a cause of action against professionals
as well. The elements are slightly modified to bring in the additional
responsibilities of persons who engage in certain types of activities
based on specialized training or education. There are also four
elements to a professional negligence lawsuit which incorporate
specific standard of care into the elements of a negligence claim: (1)
the duty of the professional to use such skill, prudence and diligence
as other members of his profession commonly possess and exercise; (2)
a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the
negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or
damage resulting from the professional's negligence. Budd v.  Nixon,
(1971) 6 Cal. 3d 195, 200; 98 Cal. Rptr. 849; 491 P.2d, 433).
  In either case, breach of the duty may be because of something the
professional does or fails to do. Because the licensed professional
enjoys a presumption of credibility simply by virtue of his being
recognized by the state, the professional must also exercise wisdom
and restraint in avoiding the issuing of their opinions (which will
always be regarded as "professional" opinions) when they have no
reasonable basis for doing so. Such professionals must meet a
"standard of care" which is defined by state law.
  The sticking point in both general negligence and professional
negligence cases is establishing the duty of the defendant/therapist
to the plaintiff/parent. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a
question of law regardless of how egregious the facts of a particular
case may be. If the law does not recognize a duty between the
defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff lacks standing to sue. In
many states the existence of duty depends upon the foreseeability of
the risk which might occur as a result of the defendant's actions. And
upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of
liability. Public policy involves the court's perceptions of what
is/is not of benefit to society as a whole. Such considerations are
often the reason the courts keep (unpredictabily) changing the
guidelines for defining one or more of the elements necessary for the
cause of action.
  In repressed memory cases, the cause of action alleged is the
emotional distress and other injuries suffered by the parent are a
result of the alienation of their child brought about by the
therapist's treatment of the child. However, the fact that the parent,
himself, is not a patient/client of the therapist is all-important in
many states.  If the therapist simply has no duty to non-patients, the
non-patient, no matter his injury, has no standing to sue.
  Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728, 69 Cal. Reptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912
(1968), is a famous case which has now been accepted by or has greatly
influenced the law in other states. In Dillon, the California Supreme
Court recognized a general negligence theory permitting the recovery
of damages when the plaintiff had suffered no physical injury in the
usual sense, but had as a consequence of observing the injury of a
third person through the negligent acts of another, suffered emotional
distress sufficiently severe that its physical manifestations were
observable. This typical "bystander" victim situation would be a
mother witnessing her child's injury by a passing motorist. Reasonable
foreseeability that the plaintiff would suffer such emotional distress
was a primary factor in determining whether the defendant owed a duty
of care to the plaintiff/mother (in addition to that owed to the
  Dillon was refined in a 1985 case, Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.
3d 159, 216 Cal. Rptr. 661, 703 F. 2d 1. In that case, the mother
experienced emotional distress upon observing her son's medical needs
being ignored by juvenile authorities when she visited him in custody
prior to his death. The court rejected the defendant's argument that
there must be a sudden and brief occurrence such as an accident in
order to allow bystander recovery. Recovery was permitted if the
plaintiff observed both the defendant's conduct and the resultant
injury and was aware at that time the conduct was causing the injury.
The facts of the case permitted the mother to be considered a
"bystander" victim.
  In a 1988 case, Molien v. Kaiser, Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal. 3d
916, 167 Cal. Reptr. 831 616 P.2d 813, the California Supreme Court
held that a defendant/doctor owed a duty directly to the husband of
the patient whom he had misdiagnosed as suffering from a sexually
transmitted disease. The doctor had told the wife to inform her
husband and to have him come in for examination. The court found that
not only was it foreseeable that the husband would suffer emotional
distress, but the defendant's conduct actually was directed at the
husband as well as the wife patient. The court drew an express
distincion between the status of a plaintiff who suffered injury
solely from witnessing the infliction of injury on another and the
status of the husband as a "direct" victim, thusJthe origin of the
"bystander" versus "direct" victim analysis that is currently applied
in California.
  One year later in Marlene F. v Affiliated Clinic, Inc., 48 Cal. 3d
583, 257 Cal. Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278, the California Supreme Court
further revised the third party plaintiff test. Three mothers brought
their sons to a clinic to obtain counseling for family emotional
problems. All of the sons were assigned to the same therapist, who
began treating the mothers as well. Later the mothers learned the
therapist had molested each of their sons sexually during the
counseling session, causing the mothers great emotional distress. The
mothers' complaint alleged that the discovery by the mothers of the
therapist's sexual misconduct caused them serious emotional distress,
further disrupting that family relationship.
  The court held that the counseling was not directed simply at each
mother and son as individuals but to both in the context of the family
relationship. "In these circumstances, the therapist, as a
professional psychologist, clearly knew or should have known in each
case that his sexual molestation of the child would directly injure...
his other patient, the mother, as well as...the parent-child
relationship that was also under his care. His abuse of the
therapeutic relationship and molestation of the boys (thus) breached
his duty of care to the mothers as well as to the children."
  The court defined the direct victim theory to mean that there must
be a duty of care owed to the plaintiff directly. In other words, the
therapist's tortious conduct was, by its very nature, "directed at"
the mother plaintiffs because he treated the mothers directly, and the
very purpose of the therapy was to improve intra-family difficulties.
  The court decided that foreseeability of the injury was the
threshold element in determining the existence of a duty of care and
refined the interpretation of Dillon to exclude the remote and
unexpected and to specify the class of potential plaintiffs entitled
to recover for the emotional distress occasioned by witnessing the
injury of another.  In consideration of public policy, the court
reasoned that society could not continue to afford the cost associated
with allowing damages to be awarded to everyone who fit Dillon's
original set of requirements.
  The Court also clarified Molien to mean that damages for severe
emotional distress are recoverable in a negligence action when they
result from the breach of a duty owed the plaintiff that is assumed by
the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that
arises out of a relationship between the two. The court found that in
Molien the doctor assumed a duty to convey accurate information, and
the husband was a "direct"' victim of the doctor's negligence (in
stating that the wife was suffering from syphilis).
  Thing v. La Chuysa, 48 Cal. 3d 644, 771 P.2d B14, 257 Cal. Reptr.
865 (1989) involved an automobile accident in which the child of the
plaintiff was injured by the negligent acts of the driver. The mother
was nearby but neither saw nor heard the accident. In denying her
recovery, the California Supreme Court held that a "bystander"
plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by
observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person "only in
strictly limited circumstances: (1) must be closely related to the
injury victim; (2) be present at the scene of the injury producing
event at the time it occurs. . . and be aware that it is causing
injury to the victim; (3) as a result suffer serious emotional
distress." The new restriction on the Dillon guidelines did not apply
to those plaintiffs who could claim to be "direct" victims of the
defendant's negligence.
  In Schwartz v. Regents of University of California, 226 Cal. App. 3d
149, 276 Cal. Rptr. 470 (Court of Appeal, Second District, 1990)
review denied (by California Supreme Court), a father brought suit
against his son's psychotherapist for negligent infliction of
emotional distress. The psychotherapist had assisted the mother of the
child in removing the son from the country and concealing his
whereabouts. The Appellate Court held that the treatment was directed
at improving the child's mental health and resolving his particular
problems and was not intended to treat the general dysfunction in the
family unit.
  The court observed: Even in the absence of the negligence, the
treatment of the emotional problems of one family member well may have
an adverse effect on the relationship of the patient with one or more
other members of the family...That a third party thus suffers an
adverse consequences (in this case, distancing the child from the
parent) does not mean the defendant's conduct is directed at the third
party (removing the child was part of the treatment). The court
concluded that negligence in the treatment of another is actionable
for the resulting serious emotional injury to a closely related
plaintiff only when negligent condition is by its very nature directed
at plaintiff.  The picture is further complicated by Martin by and
through Martin v. U.S., 779 F. Supp. 1242 (N.D. Cal. 1991), a case
which concerned a mother's claim under the direct victim theory. The
suit was against a day care provider for negligent supervision of a
child who was abducted and raped. In holding that the mother was not a
direct victim, the Federal District Court interpreted California law,
and in so doing, the court saw Schwartz as holding that when the
negligence is alleged to occur during medical diagnosis, those
individuals whose interests are foreseeable and directly affected by
communication of a negligent misdiagnosis are given standing to sue as
direct victims of the negligence. But when the negligence is alleged
to have occurred during medical treatment, only those individuals
receiving treatment are given standing to sue, because the "end and
aim" of treatment is directed solely to the patient.
  The court observed that in treatment cases, parents and spouses,
although emotionally concerned, are not granted standing to sue as
direct victims. The relatives' interest is not united with that of the
patient. As the relatives' state of mind is secondary and incidental,
the caregiver's conduct is not intended to affect the relatives'
interest to any significant extent. California does not permit one
family member to sue for injury to another when the negligent conduct
is directed solely at the patient under treatment. Martin was affirmed
on appeal by the 9th Circuit, 984 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1993), without
comment on the District Court's pronouncements regarding diagnosis
versus treatment.
  While it does not technically fall under the topic of negligence, it
should be observed here that the extent of duty under a contract
theory remains to be decided by the California Supreme Court. At
present, the Schwartz decision that applied the direct victim theory
stands. Thus, when negligence is alleged to have occurred during the
medical treatment of the child, the defendant's conduct is directed
solely at the child/patient, the intended beneficiary of the contract,
and not at the parent who enters into the contract solely as a
surrogate for the minor child. In sum, the simple existence of
contract between a parent and a medical caregiver to provide medical
treatment for a child is not in itself sufficient to impose on the
caregiver a duty of care owed to the parent.
  In 1992, the California Supreme Court heard a case which concerned a
mother's claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising
form injury to her child during delivery. Burgess v. Superior Court, 2
Cal., 4th 1064, 9 Cal Rptr.  2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197 (1992). The Court
held that the mother was a "direct" victim under the facts of the
case. In discussing the State of California law regarding "bystander"
versus "direct" victim theory, the court held that bystander liability
arises in the context of physical injury or emotional distress caused
by the negligent conduct of a defendant with whom the plaintiff had no
preexisting relationship and to whom the defendant had not previously
assumed a duty of care beyond that owed to the public in general. 831
P.2d at 1200. In contrast, the "direct" victim label arose to
distinguish cases in which damages for serious emotional distress are
sought as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is
"assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of
law or that arises out of a relationship between the two." (citing to
Marlene F.)
  Part Two of this discussion will examine the issue of standing as it
was resolved in the Ramona case and what effect those decisions may
have in states where the law is not so favorable to third party

/                                                                    \
| A lot of therapists suffered in the recession. There is a feeling  |
| that 'if I have got a client I will hang on to that client.' A     |
| good therapist will help a patient understand their past and leave |
| it behind. An unscrupulous therapist never lets you get over your  |
| past.                                                              |
| The [recovered memory] movement is all about telling the patient   |
| you can never grow up and be an independent person because you are |
| fatally flawed. The recovery movement is a marvelous money spinner |
| because no one in the recovery movement ever recovers.             |
|                           Dr. Dorothy Rowe, Clinical Psychologist  |
|                    in "Therapists accused of misleading patients"  |
|                                                by Rosie Waterhous  |
|                                      The Independent June 1, 1994  |

                Mark Sauer, John Wilkens, Jim Okerblom
                San Diego Union Tribune, May 26, 1994

  Jim Wade, former Navy man who was declared innocent after genetic
tests proved he was not the rapist of his child settled part of his
suit against therapists, government and hospitals. When this is added
to other settlements in this case, the total settlement is $3.7
million. This case featured in the San Diego Grand Jury Report


  Gondolf, "I believed my family abused me," Woman's  World (May)
  Gross, "Who's telling the truth,"  Ladies Home Journal  (June)
  Holmes,  "Evidence for Repression," 
         Harvard Mental Health Letter. (June)
  Reich, "Monster in the Mists," New York Times Book Review, May 15
  Ross, " Blame in on the devil,"  Redbook  (June)
  Goodyear-Smith, First Do No Harm, (from New Zealand). Author is
family doctor who helped establish procedures for medical examinations
of rape and sexual abuse victims. This book is available through FMSF.

                          By Daniel Goleman
Copyright (c) by The New York Times Company.  Reprinted by permission

  In a scientific nod to the frailty of memory, neurologists and
cognitive scientists are coming to a consensus on the mental
mechanisms that can foster false memories.
  The leading candidate is "source amnesia," the inability to recall
the origin of the memory of a given event. Once the source of a memory
is forgotten, scientists say, people can confuse an event that was
only imagined or suggested with a true one. The result is a memory
that though false, carries the feeling of authenticity.
  This has been an epic month for false memory. Three new books have
been published that investigate the phenomenon and its mirror
opposite, repressed memory. In mid-May, a California court awarded
$500,000 to the father of a woman who had accused him of sexual abuse
after supposedly recovering memories of childhood incidents during
therapy. The plaintiff, Gary Ramona, had asked for $8 million in
damages against his daughter's therapists and the medical center where
they worked.
  Earlier in the month new scientific agreement on the most likely
neurological and cognitive bases of false memory emerged during a
conference on the issue at Harvard Medical School.
  Part of the fragility of memory is due to the way the mind encodes a
memory, distributing aspects of the experience over far-flung parts of
the brain, various researchers said at the meeting. The brain stores
the memory of each sense in different parts of the neocortex -- sound
in the auditory cortex, sight in the visual cortex, and so on, reports
at the meeting pointed out. Another part of the brain, the limbic
system, has the job of binding these dispersed parts of the memory
todgether as a single experience.
  One of the more frail parts of a memory is its source -- the time,
place, or way the memory originated. Based on careful observations of
neurological patients to see which mental operations are harmed by
damage to different parts of the brain, the frontal lobes seem to be
the main site of source memory, according to a report at the Harvard
meeting by Dr. Morris Moscovitch, a neuropsychologist at the
University of Toronto.
  Patients with damage to specific zones of the frontal lobes are
prone to confabulate, concocting stories to make sense of the shards
of memory they retrieve, and are unable to evaluate the reasonableness
of their fabrications.  "The confabulator picks out a bit or piece of
an actual memory, but confuses its true context and draws on other 
bits of experience to construct a story that makes sense of it," said
Dr. Daniel Schacter, a Harvard psychologist and another organizer of
the meeting.
  Such a plausible scientific explanation has been missing until now
in the debates about false memory. The conclusions of scientists at
the meeting call into question the methods not only of many therapists
who specialize in helping patients retrieve memories of childhood
sexual abuse but also those commonly used by officials investigating
such charges. Scientists say these methods can inadvertently plant a
false memory, and are based on naive or distorted assumptions about
how memory works.
  "The lay expectation is that whatever we remember should be true,
but memory does not work like a video camera," said Dr. Marsel
Mesulam, head of the neurology department of Beth Israel Hospital at
Harvard Medical School, and one of those who convened the meeting.
"From the point of view of neuroscience, every memory is a fragile
reconstruction of what the nervous system actually witnessed."
  For example, one of Dr. Moscovitch's patients with frontal lobe 
damage said he had been married for just four months, although he had
actually been married nearly four decades. When confronted with the
discrepancy, he explained it away by saying he had been married twice
-- a confabulation that arose to make sense of the initial mistaken
  "Source memory defects -- retrieving the content without knowing its
origin -- are a major cause of distorted memory," said Dr. Schacter,
"with some people confusing whether they heard about, imagined or had
something happen to them."
  Source amnesia is common, and usually benign, as when one recognizes
a face but has no idea where one has seen the person before -- the 
memory for the face is retained, but not the memory for the time and
place the face was first seen.
                       Context Quickest to Fade

  This kind of forgetfulness is a natural result of the constant re
shuffling and gradual decay of memories in the brain. "What we witness
is encoded over neurons that were involved in remembering things we
witnessed earlier, and later ones will be encoded over the new one,"
said Dr. Mesulam. "There are no fresh neurons, like a clean diskette.
There's a constant remolding of memory in the brain as older memories
are redistributed by newer ones."
  Gradually, aspects of a memory are degraded by the normal wear and
tear of brain functions. "As time goes on, pieces of the memory may
not bind together so well, though most of the individual pieces
themselves are alive and well in memory," Dr.Mesulam said.
  This means the source of a memory may fade even as the rest of the
memory can be retrieved, said Dr. Stephen Ceci, a psychologist at
Cornell University. In his presentation at the Harvard meeting,
Dr. Ceci cited the experimental work of Dr. Charles Brainerd at the
University of Arizona, which shows that "the context -- the time and
place -- in which you acquire a memory is the quickest part of the
memory to decay and the easiest to interfere with."
  Another reason for confusion in memory, said Dr. Schacter, is that
all memories are subject to contamination by leakage from related bits
of information. In recalling a memory, for example, people typically
make inferences about what may have happened to fill in gaps, and can
then confuse the sources, melding what they inferred with the actual
memory. In addition, Dr.  Schacter warned, "just because a memory is
vivid does not mean it is more accurate."
  Part of the new scientific evidence for the vulnerability of memory
to suggestion comes from studies in which false memories are implanted
through experimental manipulations.
                  Children Particularly Susceptible 

  Many of these studies have involved young children, who are
particularly susceptible to false memories. At the Harvard meeting,
Dr. Ceci reported a series of recent experiments, none of which have
yet been published, showing the surprising ease with which children
can become convinced that something they only imagined or was
suggested to them really happened.
  In an earlier study involving 96 preschool children reported last
year, Dr.  Ceci showed that with repeated questioning about events
that had never occurred, many children gradually came to believe that
the events had happened. The false memories were so elaborate and
detailed that psychologists who specialize in interviewing children
about abuse were unable to determine which memories were true,
Dr. Ceci said.
  At the Harvard meting, Dr. Ceci reported on five more studies with a
total of 574 preschool children, all of which confirm his earlier
results. After 10 weeks, 58 percent of the children in those studies
had made up a false account for at least one fictitious event
repeatedly suggested to them, and a quarter of them had concocted
false stories for most of the phony events. Three of the studies are
scheduled for publication next year, one in The Journal of Child
  "Each time you encourage a person to create a mental image, it
becomes more familiar," said Dr.Ceci. "Finally they see the imagined
image as an actual memory, with the same feel of authenticity. In our
studies there are about a quarter of the children we can't talk out of
the fact the memory we implanted was real, even though we explain
their parents helped us concoct the false memory."
                         Frontal Lobe Factor

  Commenting on Dr.Ceci's findings, Dr. Moscovitch said, "Young
children may be led into concocting memories so easily because their
frontal lobes are immature.  Until age 7 or 8, children respond to
neurological tests like adults with frontal lobe damage."
  Source amnesia is also frequent in the elderly whose frontal lobes
have deteriorated. "There is some anatomical evidence that in aging
the frontal lobes deteriorate faster than other brain regions," said
Dr. Schacter. In an article published earlier this year in The Journal
of Psychology and Aging, Dr. Schacter reported that failures of source
memory in the elderly seem to be associated with decline in their 
frontal lobe function.
  But adults whose brains presumably are intact can also be led to
believe in memories of fictitious events. Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a
psychologist at the University of Washington, reported at the Harvard
meeting on the final results of a study in which false memories about
childhood events were created in 24 men and women ages 18 to 63.
  Dr. Loftus reported that the parents of volunteers in the experiment
cooperated to produce a list of events that had supposedly taken place
in the volunteer's early life; three were true and one, a description
of the person becoming lost on a shopping trip, was fictitious.
  "I vaguely remember walking around K-Mart crying" one volunteer said
when asked about the fictitious event. "I thought I was lost forever.
I went to the shoe department, because we always spent a lot of time
there. I went to the handkerchief place because we were there last. I
circled all over the store it seemed 10 times. I just remember walking
around crying."
  Such false memories incorporate "elements of the truth," said Dr.
Loftus, "but there is a confusion about the source in their minds."
  To be sure, most adults do not so readily concoct false memories in
response to suggestion. "About 10 percent of adults will come up with
a specific elaborated memory from childhood, and another 15 percent or
so will say they feel a vague sense of certainty that it occurred if
you keep asking them about it" said Dr. Loftus. But she also found
that about 75 percent of those studied did not manufacture false
memories in this experimental situation, despite the implicit pressure
to produce one.
  But that can change under conditions that foster an openness to
suggestion.  "Some therapists unabashedly recommend 'suggestion' as a
means of pursuing memories," said Dr. Loftus. "Yet decades of memory
research has shown these are surefire ways to implant false memories."
                    Mixing Imagination With Memory 

  Dr. Ceci said: "Our study asking children each week about a supposed
memory is an analog of the therapist who asks you to think back to a
time when you felt uncomfortable in your childhood, and says 'focus on
some image that floats to mind,' and not to worry if you're mixing
imagination with different episodes of memory. They say you can sort
all that out later, but that's a naive view of memory. Once they're
mingled, it's very hard to separate their source."
  Psychotherapy patients who undergo methods like hypnosis, which
heighten suggestibility, can easily become "honest liars," convincing
themselves of the truth of a false memory, said Dr. David Spiegel, a
psychiatrist at Stanford University, in a report at the Harvard
meeting. In a 1983 study, for example, 27 people were told while
hypnotized that as they slept the night before they had been awakened
by the sound of a car backfiring; when questioned a week after the
hypnotic session, 13 reported having heard the backfiring on that
night.  Six of those in the study were so convinced they had heard the
fictitious backfiring that they persisted in the false belief even
after experimenters explained to them how the memory had originated.
  "Under hypnosis people can experience themselves as retrieving a
memory when in fact they are creating it, and also develop an inflated
conviction that the fabricated recollection is accurate," Dr. Spiegel
  This conviction of truth becomes stronger the more intensely people
work at retrieving details of the event. "It's a real concern about
using hypnosis to retrieve memories," said Dr. Spiegel. "It inflates
your confidence in your accuracy more than it improves your accuracy.
You don't need hypnosis to get the same effect -- a therapist pressing
a highly suggestible patient to try to remember could do the same."
  Given the scientific evidence for the frailty of memory, "the
miracle is that anything we remember is true," said Dr. Mesulam, "not
that there is distortion."

/                                                                    \
| The child looked at him in dismay. She'd heard of repressed        |
| memory. All the kids were talking about it, and some were already  |
| repressing tons of memories so they would have some good ones to   |
| retrieve later when midlife crisis sent them into therapy.         |
|    Granddaddy," she asked, "are you retrieving repressed memories  |
| about the old days?"                                               |
|                                                    Russell Baker   |
|                                          "Waiting for a Purpose"   |
|                               The New York Times, April 23, 1994   |

                           FROM OUR READERS

  I contacted your organization back in February not knowing that my
family was coming to the end of its long ordeal with False Memory
Syndrome. I'm sorry I didn't do it when I first heard of it more than
a year ago. The contents of that small envelope gave me the most
relief I'd felt in three years. I passed it along to other family
members who felt the same. Then in March my sister recanted. My father
said the only time he had felt a similar relief was during the war. He
was on Lete Island in the Philippines with a field hospital. They
endured five weeks of air bombardment with no air cover. He kept
repeating "the siege is lifted." The analogy is fitting. For although
there is enormous relief when it's over, the damage is extensive and
some is irreparable.
                                                          A Sister
  My daughter and I are doing better. At least she talks to me when I
call her, although it would be nice if she would call me now and then.
Last summer I asked her to join me in therapy with a therapist of my
choice and at my expense. She agreed "for my mother's sake." As a
result, we are talking but the rules are that we can no talk about her
therapy. It is easier for me to comply with her wishes as I understand
more about what has happened and I don't feel so much the need to
defend myself. This understanding has also helped me let go of my
anger towards her. It's getting better. We've had a few nice get-
togethers.  I believe that time is on my side and will take care of
the rest and that my best course of action is just to be the loving
mother I've always been. Hopefully in time, she'll decide to tell me
what this was all about and we'll be able to have an honest and open
discussion and everything I've learned about bad therapy.
                                                               A Mom

  This is a tribute to my mother "M" and to all of the widows who live
with the accusations of a once-loving child brought against a father
who dies soon after the confrontation.  History will long mark this
cruel and selfish behavior that some label "therapy." My sister came
to believe that the persistent unexplainable chronic depression she
experienced was due to traumatic repressed childhood memories. Being
an honest and straightforward person, she felt that bringing this to
the attention of the supposed perpetrator would be the appropriate way
to alleviate the debilitating depression.
  "To commemorate my father's passing in 1991, I send this letter. I
wish to honor him, to clear his name and to restore his reputation. My
family has love and respect for the memory of my father.  
                                                         A Daughter

  I was at work yesterday morning, a day I'll never forget. The phone
rang. The voice on the other end said "Mom." I recognized my
daughter's voice immediately.  She said, "Mom, I've missed you and I
love you." I told her missed her and loved her also. We were both
  She told me about my year old grandson whom I have never seen. She's
sending pictures and is doing fine. No mention of our lost three
  I have no idea what prompted her to call and it really doesn't
matter. I'm ecstatic. I will take one day at a time. For the first
time in three years I feel there is hope.
  I wanted to share my good news."
                                                       A Mom

  "My daughter was married recently. Her brothers and I were invited.
She was warm, friendly. I like my new son-in-law very much. But the
past five years of estrangement were not mentioned. i am bewildered.
She seems genuinely happy and I don't want to interfere with that. She
lives close to 1,000 miles from me so a yearly visit is about all I
can expect. Should I do anything to resolve the long estrangement?
Does she need to talk about it? Do I pretend nothing happened? How do
other families deal with such questions?"  
                                                            A Mom
  Thanks to FMSF, I've made a few new friends -- accused parents. They
continually insist that my retraction and the experience I suffered
prior to my return to honesty, has helped them immensely. And I, in
turn, have the same gratitude toward them.
  Each day I do something for my Mother and my two older brothers.
They were the accused, the victims. Two recent events, I'd like to
share with you. For my mother's 80th birthday, I arranged and paid for
my brothers' transportations to my home as a surprise. It's been
nearly 20 years that we all were together, under the same roof,
joking, laughing, hugging, sharing and talking, just like we've always
done.  And for this Mother's Day, I had enlarged four different
pictures of our family that were taken at my mother's 80th birthday. I
had them framed as one and shipped to my mom. I can just see her
aglow. How I wish my local FMS friends get the opportunity someday
soon to hug their own daughters the way they share and hug me.
  I am so grateful to you and your staff and your supporters. I hope
by sharing my past and present experiences, sons and daughters will
return to honest and mend broken hearts.
                 From a mother of three - ages 11, 9, and 3 1/2 years. 

  I need to get something off my chest here that happened over
Mother's Day. My husband and I have been spending a lot of time on the
weekends with my parents because we know that it makes them happy when
we are there. This particular weekend, Mother's Day weekend, we sent
my mother a card but it had not arrived by Mother's Day. I told her it
was in the mail and that was fine. We did not buy her anything because
we were going to take her out to brunch because she always cooks for
us when we are there. My mother said that would be too many people to
take out and that we could cook her a nice breakfast at home. We had a
good weekend.
  On Tuesday I called her. She was crying and said I didn't love her
and was inconsiderate because I had not gotten her anything for
Mother's Day. I was so upset. I think that she is mad at my sister who
has made the accusations and cut off and that she taking it out on
me. Every Mother's Day is getting worse.
  I am a little bitter at this point. I think this has gone on long
enough, four years. I wish my mother and father could just get on with
their lives instead of thinking she is going to make a remarkable
recovery and come flying home. I don't think that will happen and I
don't think I should have to take the brunt of my mother's angry
                                                         A Sister
  Fantastic news!! I had a call from our daughter on Mother's Day...
after almost 19 months of separation.
  Hearing the familiar voice say -- tremulously -- into the phone,
"Happy Mother's Day," I thought I would drop dead of shock and joy.
What a thrill!
  She said I'd been in her dreams a lot lately, that it was very hard
not to have a family, that she realized how much she loved us and
missed us. She said she was really sorry she had hurt us, that she had
done what she had felt she had to do at the time. She said she had not
wanted to hurt us. She said she realized now she must have hurt us 
terribly and she was truly sorry. She begged our forgiveness. What a
Mother's Day gift.
                                                       A Mom
  I read with mixed feelings some of the letters from accused parents
quoted in the March Newsletter. On the one hand, my heart went out to
them, especially the mothers who so desperately want to forgive and
forget. Yet I couldn't help wondering where is the righteous
indignation of the falsely accused?
  Perhaps I am being callous and hard-hearted to feel mostly anger and
resentment. I was a decent father. No doubt there have been better,
but none who were more innocent of abusive or perverted thoughts or
conduct toward my children. Yet my daughter has accused me of the 
vicious and disgusting crime of having sexually abused her as a little
girl. Her psychiatrist "diagnosed" her as having beef child abuse
because she exhibited all the "symptoms." In my mind, that does not
excuse her. She is a grown woman with a good husband and a lovely
daughter, and if she's not responsible for her actions now, she never
will be.
  I can forgive the pain and the sleepless nights which my daughter
has caused me, but only after heart-to-heart talks which convince me
beyond any doubt that she is truly sorry. I hope I'm not alone in
feeling the way I do, because if I am, I have a great deal of soul-
searching to do.  
                                                         A Dad
  As a "retractor" I have held my tongue and suffered pain as I have
read attacks against the possibility that false memory does exist. I
attended the conference in Montreal when Dr. Lief bravely stood his
ground. I personally was terrified by the crowd, my very being felt at
risk. As my friend spoke through her tears and her pain, icy stares
came our way. Perhaps the starers believed we were an isolated
incident, but what about the other retractors across North America
telling the same story. Our experiences in therapy are so similar --
finding at the end of our treatment that it's all been a lie.
  I will not stoop to pointing fingers or name calling because I
believe that as a woman with new-found dignity, I do not need to
disgrace anyone in order to be heard. My heart aches for others like
myself who have experienced a cruel therapy treatment.
   Today I am free to think for myself, choose who I will share my
life with, take responsibility for all areas of my own life. My dad
has suffered enough for a crime he did not commit. I am blessed to
still have him today.
  To those who call us names I say, "Shame on you." The loudest is not
necessarily the truth.  
                                                       A Retractor
  Several weeks ago, a group of families whet to our state
representative. We told him our stories and our concern about a local
mental hospital, part of a very large chain of private hospitals. We
asked if he could investigate. He assured me that he would if we could
give him evidence that the hospital received state money.
  I called the hospital and told them a "story" about my mother who
was in depression and possibly needed professional help. I explained
that my mother was on Medicare. We were told that was "not a problem"
as they had many Medicare and Medicaid patients. She added that
Medicare pays 190 days of inpatient care, and unlimited outpatient
care five (5) days a week between the hours of 9 AM and 3 PM. She also
said "Mom" would be evaluated by her (the R.N.) and not a doctor.  She
then went on to tell me what type of care she would need, probably
extensive inpatient at first. This was simply astounding to me that a
nurse would be making these decisions at what would be a very critical
time in the treatment.
  The representative will initiate action.               
                                                             A Dad


  Anyone who has been involved in Reevaluation counseling, please call
Paul (203) 458-9173

/                                                                    \
| Shame and guilt answer to no time constraints.  They are a 24 hour |
| fact that blends into a retractor's "recovered" life.              |
|                                      from The Heart of a Retractor |
|                                               by Susan M. Catalano |

             Scientific, Clinical and Legal Issues of FMS

*Registration form appears at end of this e-mail posting*


Stouffer Harborplace Hotel
  202 East Pratt Street
  Baltimore, Maryland  21202
  (410) 547-1200
  (410) 539-5780 FAX
  $115 Single/Double plus 12% Tax

Accommodations have been reserved at Stouffer Harborplace Hotel, the
meeting site, for the convenience of our registrants. Stouffer's, a
four star, four-diamond, full-service luxury hotel, is part of the
impressive waterfront complex of Harborplace. It is directly
accessible to The Gallery, a four-story atrium of distinctive shops
and eateries, and is steps away from the many exciting attractions of
Baltimore's Inner Harbor. Check-in time is 3:00 PM.  Convenient
on-site parking is available ($8.00 daily).

Stouffer is easily accessible from routes I-83, I-395 and US 40. It is
approximately ten minutes from Pennsylvania Station (Amtrak) and 30
minutes from Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

Make your reservations DIRECTLY WITH THE HOTEL. Specify that you are
attending the False Memory Syndrome meeting to receive the special
room rate of $115.00 single/double. After November 15, 1994,
reservations will be accepted only on a space-available basis.


UNIGLOBE Travel, Inc. can assist you in making your travel arrange-
ments. They may be reached at (800) 353-2121.

As the official airline for this seminar, USAIR offers registrants
five percent (5%) off applicable first class and lowest applicable
published fares, as well as ten percent (10%) off applicable unre-
stricted coach fares with seven days' advance reservations and ticket-
ing, for standard round trip within the United States/Bahamas/Canada/
Puerto Rico. You or Your travel agent may call USAir's Convention
Sales office at (800) 334-8644 (from Canada, call (800) 428-4322, ext
7719) to obtain the lowest possible fare. Refer to GOLD FILE NUMBER


If you are interested in receiving information from the BALTIMORE AREA
VISITORS CENTER YOU CAN CALL 1-800-282-6632 and they will send you a
complete packet which contains many interesting brochures including
maps, visitor guides etc. If you are in the Baltimore area you can
call 410-837-7100 direct. 

Scientific, Clinical and Legal Issues of FMS


Thursday December 8   Registration 6-8 PM 

Friday December 9

 8:00  Registration
 9:00  Opening Remarks  
 9:15  Panel 1   Overview of Phenomenon -
10:45  Break
11:00  Panel 2  Scientific Issues - Dissociation/Repression 
12:30  Lunch - on your own
 2:00  Panel 3  Scientific Issues - 
          Imagination, Suggestibility and Narrative
 3:30  Break
 3:45  Panel 4  Clinical issues - Standard of Care
 5:15  Break
 5:30  Informal Discussion Groups/ Posters
 6:30  Dinner - on your own

Saturday December 10

 8:00  Registration
 9:00  Panel  Clinical issues -
                  Family Reconciliation, Primary Victims
10:30  Break
10:45  Panel  Legal Overview, What is Credible Evidence?
12:15  Lunch - on your own
 1:45  Invited  Address   
 3:15  Break
 3:30  Panel  Legal Issues:  Guilty v not Guilty - 
                    Rights of Individuals, Patients, Families 
 5:00  Break
 5:15  Informal Discussion Groups/ Posters
 6:30  Dinner - on your own

Sunday  December 11

 9:00  Panel Right v wrong - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. 
                    Rights of Society
10:30  Break
10:45  Panel  Educational  Issues
12:15  Closing comments

*Registration form appears at end of this e-mail posting*

Speakers will include: Terence Campbell, Ph.D.; Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.;
George, Ganaway, M.D.; Allen Gold, Barrister, ;Richard Green, M.D.,
J.D.; David Halperin, M.D.,;John Hochman, M.D.; David Holmes, Ph.D.;
Harold Lief, M.D.; Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D.; Paul McHugh, M.D.; Stephen
Lindsay, Ph.D.; Harold Merskey, M.D.; Steven Moen, Esq.; Douglas
Mould, Ph.D.; Richard Ofshe, Ph.D.; Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.; Campbell
Perry, Ph.D.; August Piper, Jr. M.D.; Harrison Pope, M.D.; Paul
Simpson, Ph.D.; Searcy Simpson, Esq.; Ralph Slovenko, J.D., Ph.D.;
Donald Spence, Ph.D.; Jeffrey S.  Victor, Ph.D.; Hollida Wakefield,
M.A.; Louis Jolyon West, M.D.  

The next FMSF newsletter will be a commbined July-August issue. We
expect to take it to the printer on July 8, 1994

                            FMSF MEETINGS

  Committee for the Scientific Investigation of 
     Claims of the Paranormal
  The Psychology of Belief
  June 23-26, 1994
  Seattle, WA
Carl Sagan, Robert Baker, Richard Ofshe,
Elizabeth Loftus, Stephen Ceci

Call person listed for meeting time & location.  
key:  (MO) = monthly; (bi-MO) = bi-monthly

ARKANSAS - Area code 501
Little Rock
  Al & Lela 363-4368
Central Coast 
  Carole (805) 967-8058

North County Escondido  
  Joe & Marlene (619)745-5518

Orange County   
  Chris & Alan (714) 733-2925  
  1st Sunday (MO) - 10:00 am
  Jerry & Eileen (714) 494-9704
  3rd Sunday (MO) - 6:00 pm

Rancho Cucamonga Group  
  Marilyn (909) 985-7980  
  1st Monday, (MO) - 7:30 pm

Sacramento/Central Valley
  Charles & Mary Kay (916) 961-8257

San Francisco & Bay Area - bi-monthly
  east bay area  
  Judy (510) 254-2605
  san francisco &  north bay 
  Gideon (415) 389-0254
  Charles (415) 984-6626 (day); 435-9618 (eve)
  south bay area  
  Jack & Pat (408) 425-1430
  Last Saturday,  (Bi-MO)

Burbank (formerly  Valencia)  
  Jane & Mark (805) 947-4376  
  4th Saturday (MO)10:00 am

West Orange County  
  Carole (310) 596-8048
  2nd Saturday (MO)   

  Ruth (303) 757-3622
  4th Saturday, (MO)1:00 pm

CONNECTICUT - Area code 203
New Haven area  
  George  243-2740
  Sunday, June 19, 1994 (bi-MO) 1:00 pm

Dade-Broward Area    
  Madeline (305) 966-4FMS  
Delray Beach PRT
  Esther (407) 364-8290
  2nd & 4th Thursday [MO] 1:00 pm
Chicago metro area (South of the Eisenhower)
  Roger (708) 366-3717
  2nd Sunday [MO] 2:00 pm

Indianapolis area (150 mile radius)
  Gene (317) 861-4720 or 861-5832
  Helen (219) 753-2779
  Nickie (317) 471-0922 (phone & fax)
Des Moines
  Betty/Gayle (515) 270-6976
Kansas City
  Pat (913) 238-2447 or Jan (816) 276-8964
  2nd Sunday (MO)

  Dixie (606) 356-9309
  Bob (502) 957-2378
  Last Sunday (MO) 2:00 pm

MAINE - Area code 207
  Wally 865-4044
  3rd Sunday (MO)

Ellicot City area  
  Margie (410) 750-8694  
  Sunday, June 5, 3:00 pm

  Jean (508) 250-1055
Grand Rapids Area - Jenison
  Catharine (616) 363-1354
  2nd Monday (MO)

St. Paul 
  Terry & Collette (507) 642-3630
  Saturday, June 18, 9 am - 3 pm

St. Louis area
  Mae (314) 837-1976 & Karen (314) 432-8789
  3rd Wednesday [MO]

  Bob (513) 541-5272
OKLAHOMA - Area code 405
Oklahoma City
  Len 364-4063   Dee 942-0531
  HJ  755-3816    Rosemary  439-2459

Harrisburg area
  Paul & Betty (707) 761-3364
  Rick & Renee (412) 563-5616
Wayne (includes So. Jersey)  
  Jim & Joanne (610) 783-0396
  Saturday, June 4, 1994, 9:30 am - 1:00 pm
   Important: Call for location & directions
Central Texas  
  Nancy & Jim  (512) 478-8395
Dallas/Ft. Worth
   2-day Texas FMS Seminar - Aug 26 & 27 
  Lee & Jean (214) 279-0250
  Jo or Beverly (713) 464-8970

VERMONT  & Upstate New York
  Elaine (518) 399-5749
  Monday, July 11, 1994, 7:00 pm
VIRGINIA, West Virginia, Washington DC
  Charlottesville - area  meeting
  Nina (703) 342-4760
  Maryanne (703) 869-3226
  Saturday, July 9, 1994, 1:00-8:00 pm 
WASHINGTON, DC - See Virginia

WEST VIRGINIA - See Virginia

  Katie & Leo (414) 476-0285


Vancouver & Mainland
  Ruth (604) 925-1539
  Last Saturday (MO) 1:00-4:00 pm
Victoria & Vancouver Island
  John (604) 721-3219
  3rd Tuesday (MO) 7:30 pm

  Joan (204) 257-9444
  1st Sunday (MO)

  Eileen (613) 592-4714
  Pat (416) 445-1995   

 Ken & June, P O Box 363, Unley, SA 5061

Dr. Goodyear-Smith
tel 0-9-415-8095
fax 0-9-415-8471 

The British False Memory Society
Roger Scotford (0) 225-868682

* * * 
Attention - New meeting notice deadline: Notices must be received by
the 10th of the month two months prior to the scheduled meeting as
  Deadline:  Issue:
  July 10   September 
  August 10  October 
  September 10 November/December 
Standing meetings will continue to be listed unless notified otherwise
by state contact or group leader. For information about local
newsletters -- formerly listed on this page -- call state contact or
group leader.

Attention: All Downstate Illinois Members
  As of July 1st, Bob and Mary will no longer be state contacts for
Southern Illinois. They are seeking one or more persons to be contacts
for their area, which includes area codes 618, 217, and 309.
  Bob and Mary are willing to assist their replacement(s) and get them
started on the right foot. Please call them at (217) 463-3840 after
5:00 pm.

/                                                                    \
|          Do you have access to e-mail?  Send a message to          |
|                                         |
| if  you wish to receive electronic versions of this newsletter and |
| notices of radio and television  broadcasts  about  FMS.  All  the |
| message need say is "add to the FMS list". It would be useful, but |
| not necessary,  if you add your full name (all addresses and names |
| will remain strictly confidential).                                |

                         FAMILY SURVEY UPDATE

We recently included a short "survey update"in the newsletter. We
have coded 492 replies and found:

Who is accused?    #   percent
  Mother         199    40%
  Father         420    85%
  Sibs            44     9%
  Grandparents    57    12%
  other           64    13%

Does the accusation include Satanic ritual abuse? 81 respondents did
not know. Of the rest, 17% report this is included in accusation.

Does the diagnosis include any of the following?  

                  Yes   No  Don't know
  MPD              80  112  243
  Schizophrenia    11  153  247
  Epilepsy         11  186  213
  Depression      198   39  215
  Eating Disorder  94   97  232
  PTSD             66   81  278
  Bipolar          18   90  283

THANK YOU if you have already returned the survey update. For those
who forgot, we have included another form in the pinted version of
this newsletter (not the e-mail version). Please return this survey
even if there has been no change in the status in your family.

  The False Memory Syndrome Foundation is a qualified 501(c)3 corpora-
tion  with  its  principal offices in Philadelphia and governed by its 
Board of Directors.  While it encourages participation by its  members
in  its  activities,  it must be understood that the Foundation has no 
affiliates and that no other organization or person is  authorized  to
speak for the Foundation without the prior written approval of the Ex-
ecutive Director. All membership dues and contributions to the Founda-
tion must be forwarded to the Foundation for its disposition.

Pamela Freyd, Ph.D.,  Executive Director

FMSF Scientific and Professional Advisory Board April 2, 1993: TERENCE
W.  CAMPBELL,    Ph.D., Clinical  and   Forensic  Psychology, Sterling
Heights, MI; ROSALIND  CARTWRIGHT, Rush Presbyterian St. Lukes Medical
Center, Chicago,  IL; JEAN  CHAPMAN,  Ph.D., University  of Wisconsin,
Madison,  WI; LOREN CHAPMAN,  Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison,
WI; ROBYN M. DAWES, Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA;
DAVID  F. DINGES, Ph.D.,  University of Pennsylvania, The Institute of
Pennsylvania Hospital,  Philadelphia,  PA;  FRED  FRANKEL,  M.B.Ch.B.,
D.P.M.,   Beth Israel Hospital,  Harvard  Medical  School, Boston, MA;
GEORGE  K. GANAWAY, M.D., Emory  University  of Medicine, Atlanta, GA;
MARTIN GARDNER,  Author,  Hendersonville, NC;  ROCHEL GELMAN,   Ph.D.,
University of  California, Los Angeles,    CA; HENRY GLEITMAN,  Ph.D.,
University  of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,   PA; LILA GLEITMAN, Ph.D.,
University  of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, PA;  RICHARD  GREEN, M.D.,
J.D., UCLA School of  Medicine,  Los Angeles,  CA; DAVID A.  HALPERIN,
M.D., Mount Sinai  School of Medicine,  New York, NY; ERNEST  HILGARD,
Ph.D., Stanford University, Palo  Alto, CA;  JOHN HOCHMAN, M.D.,  UCLA
Medical School, Los Angeles, CA; DAVID S. HOLMES, Ph.D., University of
Kansas, Lawrence,  KS; PHILIP S.   HOLZMAN, Ph.D., Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA; JOHN  KIHLSTROM, Ph.D., University  of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ; HAROLD LIEF, M.D.,  University of Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia, PA;
ELIZABETH  LOFTUS, Ph.D., University  of Washington, Seattle, WA; PAUL
McHUGH, M.D., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; HAROLD MERSKEY,
D.M., University of   Western Ontario, London,  Canada; ULRIC NEISSER,
Ph.D., Emory University, Atlanta, GA; RICHARD OFSHE, Ph.D., University
of  California, Berkeley, CA; MARTIN ORNE,  M.D., Ph.D., University of
Pennsylvania,  The Institute  of Pennsylvania Hospital,  Philadelphia,
PA; LOREN  PANKRATZ,    Ph.D.,  Oregon Health    Sciences  University,
Portland, OR; CAMPBELL PERRY,  Ph.D., Concordia University,  Montreal,
Canada; MICHAEL A. PERSINGER,  Ph.D., Laurentian  University, Ontario,
Canada; AUGUST T.  PIPER, Jr.,  M.D., Seattle, WA; HARRISON POPE, Jr.,
M.D., Harvard  Medical School, Cambridge,  MA; JAMES RANDI, Author and
Magician, Plantation,   FL; CAROLYN  SAARI,  Ph.D., Loyola University,
Chicago,  IL; THEODORE SARBIN,  Ph.D., University of California, Santa
Cruz, CA; THOMAS  A. SEBEOK,  Ph.D., Indiana Univeristy,  Bloomington,
IN; LOUISE SHOEMAKER, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA; MARGARET SINGER, Ph.D., University   of California, Berkeley,  CA;
RALPH SLOVENKO, J.D.,  Ph.D., Wayne    State University Law    School,
Detroit, MI; DONALD SPENCE, Ph.D., Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center,
Piscataway, NJ;  JEFFREY  VICTOR, Ph.D., Jamestown  Community College,
Jamestown, NY;  HOLLIDA  WAKEFIELD,  M.A., Institute  of Psychological
Therapies, Northfield,   MN; LOUIS JOLYON  WEST, M.D.,  UCLA School of
Medicine, Los Angeles, CA.

    Scientific, Clinical and Legal Issues of False Memory Syndrome
                      December 9, 10 & 11, 1994
           Stouffer Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland


Please print or type

first name           middle initial                  last name/deg

social security number*        specialty    areacode/daytime telephone

mailing address

city                                    state             zip + 4 code
*for our office records, please 

Fax # if available_________________________________

Please, circle your selection in the REGISTRATION FEE SCHEDULE below
and mail to:
   Office of Continuing Medical Education, 
   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Turner 20
   720 Rutland Avenue
   Baltimore, Maryland 21205-2195. 
Include check payable to:
                           Hopkins/False Memory.

or Fax to (410) 955-0807

For Credit Card Registration

____VISA           ____MASTERCARD

Card #____________________________  Expiration Date ___________________

Name ______________________________________________________
  as it appears on card; please print

Signature ____________________________________Date ____________________

("Advance" means postmarked by October 1)
                            ADVANCE  ON-SITE  ONE DAY  
Professionals                  $300     $350     $200         $________
Family (limit two persons per family)  
                               $125     $175      $90         $________
Each additional family member
                                $80      $90      $50         $________

Professionals                  $400     $450     $250         $________
Family (limit two persons per family)
                               $275     $325     $150         $________
Student* or additional family members
                               $100     $110      $60         $________
(*send photocopy of student ID)
                                                       TOTAL  $________

Please note the savings in the fee schedule for members of the FMS
Foundation as compared with nonmembers. Become a member today and pay
members' fees.  Make sure you mail your membership dues only to the
FMS Foundation, 3401 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. Mail

This address and the phone numbers have changed as of July 15, 2000
program registration form and fees to the address listed above.
Registration fee does not include meals or accomodations.

                  Space limited. Register early.