The following article appears in the current issue of TREATING
ABUSE TODAY magazine, November-December 1995/January-February
1996
NOTES FROM THE CONTROVERSY
APA APPROVES FMSF AS CE SPONSOR
In a move that left many APA members puzzled and angry, the American Psychological Association (APA) recently approved the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, Inc (FMSF) as a provider organization able to offer continuing education for psychologists. This approval indicates that the APA recognizes the FMSF as an organization capable of planning and implementing educational programs for psychologists at the post-doctoral level. The APA approved this status despite its own earlier warning that the legislative agendas of many state FMS organizations posed a serious threat to the mental health professions, and to the general availability of quality mental health services. [1]
In a recent interview, Rhea Farberman of the APA's Public Affairs
Office justified the APA's decision as "non-political," based
solely on the merits of the FMSF's application for continuing
education (CE) provider status. She characterized FMSF stances,
including the debated existence of "false memory syndrome"
itself, as "unpopular science." She stressed, however, that the
APA would not deny CE provider status to any organization simply
because its science proved unpopular with most practitioners. She
further stated that the APA felt "a real responsibility" to
protect "research, data, and science."
Farberman stressed, however, that people shouldn't confuse the CE
sponsor approval with any kind of general or specific APA
endorsement of the FMSF. She pointed out that, in fact, the APA
found many FMSF positions, practices, and actions "troubling."
She also stated that many FMSF board members espoused positions
and acted in ways unacceptable to the APA.
CRITERIA OF FORM, WITHOUT CONTENT
According to Jill Reich, PhD (the Executive Director of the APA
Education Directorate), CE sponsors must offer educational
resources that improve professional competence, make available
new skills and knowledge, and encourage critical inquiry and
balanced judgment. Reich further stated, however, that the APA's
Committee for the Approval of Continuing Education Sponsors
(CACES) doesn't consider program content during the approval
process; rather, the Committee considers only the formal elements
of an organization (structure, management, instructors, and so
on).
When asked how the APA, without looking at program content, could
possibly know whether or not a particular organization met the
above criteria, Farberman indicated that an organization's past
educational activity and the presence of reputable specialists on
the organization's board offered sufficient assurance that it
would meet the criteria. In a published statement, Reich
confirmed this view when she indicated that the FMSF application
"provided ample evidence that the organization is capable of
offering continuing education that benefits psychologists and
has, in fact, done so in conjunction with another organization,
Johns Hopkins University." [2]
The FMSF, however, apparently takes a much more rigorous view
regarding the need for oversight of CE program content. In a
recent fundraising letter (dated November 1, 1995),
representatives of the FMSF stated:
Professional organizations still do not hold their members accountable. Too many continuing education programs still continue to disseminate unscientific information about memory, repression and therapeutic techniques that destroy families.Assuming that the FMSF includes the APA among these "professional organizations," it appears that the FMSF faults the APA for not scrutinizing the content of CE programs. The FMSF, however, has now taken advantage of the very weaknesses of a system that it earlier condemned. When asked about the apparent contradiction, the APA's Farberman characterized it as "ironic."
Many outraged APA members argue that the FMSF would fail the
scientific scrutiny it once called for, because (the members
maintain) this advocacy organization regularly participates in
activities that make a mockery of the scientific endeavor. Other
observers argue that the FMSF fails to meet all three of the APA
criteria for approving a CE sponsor, especially regarding the
need to encourage critical inquiry and balanced judgment. Charles
Whitfield, MD, for instance, stated that "the FMSF's conferences
and other educational offerings have always been greatly
unbalanced in favor of promulgating their one-sided claims."
Other APA members argue that the FMSF goes beyond bias to push a
pseudoscience based on a "syndrome" that no reputable medical or
psychological body recognizes; yet the very same organization
regularly cries "bad science" against researchers, clinicians,
and organizations (the APA included) who take a skeptical view of
FMSF claims.
In a recent letter of resignation from the APA, for example,
Elizabeth Loftus, PhD [3] (a prominent FMSF board member) claimed
that "APA subgroups and members have moved in directions that are
disturbingly far from scientific thinking." She further stated
that she decided to resign so she could "devote [her] energies to
the numerous other professional organizations that value science
more highly and more consistently" than the APA.
In this statement, of course, Loftus doesn't speak for the FMSF
generally, although her claims echo other FMSF claims made
elsewhere (such as in the fundraising letter cited earlier). Some
observers, however, find themselves struck by the oddity of the
situation: A prominent FMSF board member resigns from the
APA--citing irreconcilable scientific differences--shortly after
the APA grants CE sponsor status to the FMSF, so the organization
can teach its brand of "science."
Other FMSF critics wonder just how closely the APA scrutinized
the FMSF "instructors," presumably the members of the FMSF's
Scientific and Professional Advisory Board. Almost exclusively,
the Board includes members of the academic staff of colleges and
universities, with the odd magician and author thrown in for
spice. Despite the impressive variety in the backgrounds of the
board members, very few of them command clinical or research
expertise in trauma and abuse issues, the very issues that the
organization would teach to psychologists through its CE
offerings.
ASSUMED HELPLESSNESS
In many ways, Reich's published statement regarding the FMSF's CE
sponsor approval suggests that the Committee generally adopts a
position of assumed helplessness within the strictures of "rules
and procedures." At several points in her statement, Reich
explicitly absolves the Committee of any responsibility for its
decisions. She states, for instance, that "the Committee has no
authority to act" as a rational decision-making body; rather, it
can only act as a cogs-and-gears mechanism set in motion by
higher echelons within the APA. In short, the Committee "follows
specific procedures approved by the Council of Representatives,
and deals only with the evidence before it."
In true mechanistic fashion, once the Committee winds the spring
and sets the approval mechanism in motion, it "has no basis on
which to reconsider its decision." In other words, the Committee
has no power to change its collective mind. Those APA members
dissatisfied with a Committee decision can get it changed only by
throwing a wrench into the works. The only acceptable wrench,
according to Reich, must come in the form of a written complaint.
Farberman also stressed the conditional nature of the CE approval
granted to the FMSF, and she stated that the organization will
have to follow a standard cycle of review and approval. Reich
stands by these procedures, despite the feeling among many APA
members that the review and complaint process amounts to a
lengthy bureaucratic shuffle to shut the chicken coop after the
weasel's already inside.
Despite the aggravation inherent in the APA's after-the-fact
approach, a number of APA members have already written letters of
complaint. In two open letters, Kenneth Pope, PhD argues that
FMSF activists use a number of disturbing tactics, such as:
accosting the staff and clients of therapists; maintaining
"picket lines" (really gauntlets that clients must walk to get to
the offices of their therapists); encumbering resources through
legal and administrative ploys; covert investigations using
private investigators to infiltrate therapy practices; and making
repeated in absentia psychological diagnoses of people (sometimes
whole groups of people) who disagree with FMSF stances. Pope
argues that such tactics may keep some mental health
professionals from publicly expressing disagreement with FMSF
stances.
Farberman stated that the APA has no knowledge that the FMSF uses
such tactics. She indicated, however, that the Education
Directorate would act on complaints received from members who
attended an FMSF activity and found any practice objectionable.
She expressed particular concern over the possible development
and distribution of blacklists, though she stressed that the APA
had no evidence that the FMSF had involved itself in such
activities.
At an October 1995 Pennsylvania State FMSF meeting, however,
Pamela Freyd, PhD (the FMSF Executive Director) stated that her
organization's next "big project" involved the development and
distribution of a roster listing "thousands" of clinicians that
FMSF members have identified as therapists "destroying families."
At the meeting, she called for volunteers to help with the
daunting task of data input, to get the roster off and running.
At the same meeting, an attorney discussed ways to mount media
campaigns against "bad" therapists without risking libel, and
ways to encumber the resources of "bad" therapists through
administrative complaints and legal suits.
ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DISSOCIATION
Early last year, the APA recognized that at least one item on the
FMSF agenda constituted a severe threat to the psychological
profession. In a 1995 APA Action Alert issued under the
authority of Billie Hinnefeld, JD, Director of Legal and
Regulatory Affairs, the APA warned that FMSF-inspired legislation
"threatens to inappropriately curtail psychotherapy and make
needed mental health services inaccessible to the public." When
contacted for a statement regarding the APA's most recent
decision regarding the FMSF, Hinnefeld refused to comment beyond
pointing out that the Practice Directorate and the Education
Directorate make up two entirely separate APA functions, and that
neither has to answer for the decisions of the other.
A source who requested anonymity also pointed out that Ray
Fowler, PhD, the Chief Executive Officer of the APA, stated that
this controversy amounts only to a "PR" issue with some APA
members. According to Farberman, however, Fowler understands
that the controversy involves issues that go much deeper than
skirmishes in public relations. Fowler didn't return repeated
calls asking for comment.
The "organizational dissociation" inherent in the APA's stance
reflects the inevitable "professional dissociation" in a field as
complex as psychology. Some psychologists, for instance,
strongly support the APA's decision despite the fact that the
FMSF teaches about a "syndrome" that has no clinical or academic
underpinnings, and that the profession itself hasn't recognized.
Ira E. Hyman, Jr, PhD, for instance, argues that "the FMSF [can]
put together an educational program concerning repressed memories
and false memories that would be useful to academics and
clinicians" (Internet posting, November 26, 1995). [See note from Dr. Ira Hyman.] After
briefly discussing an FMSF conference held at Johns Hopkins Medical
Institutions in December 1994, a conference that included an
"impressive" list of presenters, Hyman concludes, "If the FMSF
can put together such programs, then my view is that they are an
appropriate group to offer credits for APA members."
Hyman fails to point out, however, that the presenters at this
conference came almost exclusively from FMSF ranks, a fact that
hardly bodes well for a rounded treatment of clinical issues. He
also doesn't mention that, shortly before the Johns Hopkins
conference, the FMSF failed to gain state CE credit for a
Washington State (US) FMSF conference, even though this
conference featured many of the same presenters as the Johns
Hopkins conference. In announcing the failure, John Cannell, MD
(the conference organizer) stated that "the Medical Association
here commented on the quality of the presenters." Hyman, who
lives in Washington State, serves as a faculty member in the
Psychology Department of Western Washington University.
According to Farberman, the APA recognizes the shortcomings of
current CE approval procedures, and she stated that the
organization would undertake a detailed review of the procedures.
She stressed, however, that the APA remains committed to an ideal
of open inquiry and non-censorship in scientific endeavors.
To directly express your views on this or any other matter
involving the American Psychological Association, call or write:
APA
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
(202) 336-5500 (voice) (202) 336-5708 (fax) (202) 336-6123 (TDD)
NOTES
[1] For a fuller discussion of this earlier APA warning, please see "APA Speaks Out Against Bureaucracy and Barriers to Service" in Vol 5, No 2 of TREATING ABUSE TODAY.[2] Reich appears unaware of the controversy surrounding the odd-bedfellows relationship between Johns Hopkins, a venerable medical institution, and the FMSF, a media-savvy advocacy organization. A great many mental health professionals were astounded when Johns Hopkins apparently embraced "false memory syndrome," when no psychological or medical organization has yet recognized its existence. In fact, Paul McHugh, MD--a prominent Johns Hopkins psychiatrist--orchestrated the partnership between the FMSF and Johns Hopkins. McHugh also serves on the Scientific and Professional Advisory Board of the FMSF.[3] For more information on Loftus's resignation from the APA, please see "Ethics Charges Filed Against Prominent FMSF Board Member," in the same issue of TREATING ABUSE TODAY (Vol 5 No 6/Vol 6 No 1).
No comments:
Post a Comment