3 ms·

Dr. McHugh, reached these decisions in 1975 -- as in 40 years ago -- in collaboration with his protégé Dr. Jon Meyer. [0] It may also be illuminating to read a

Dr. McHugh, reached these decisions in 1975 -- as in 40 years ago -- in collaboration with his protégé Dr. Jon Meyer. [0] It may also be illuminating to read about Dr. McHugh's involvement with the Roman Catholic Church and it's panels concerning the abuse of children by priests. [1] >In the early 1990's, Dr. McHugh was among those in psychiatry who argued that memories of sexual abuse recovered by adults were almost always false, a byproduct of poor practice by psychotherapists, who often elicited the memories through hypnosis or other techniques, failed to look for evidence corroborating the abuse and encouraged patients to press charges against the supposed abusers. [0] http://www.ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=581 http://www.ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=581 [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-was-surprised-by-furor-over-his-role-on-abuse-panel.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-wa...

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
He was right though, therapists were unwittingly teasing false allegations of sexual abuse out of kids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria
- DanBC 12y ago
  But was he right in the context of catholic priests? Or was he constrained by his cognitive biases into protecting abusive priests because he couldn't see past (the very real problem of) false memory created by "therapy"?
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    I couldn't say for sure. If he wasn't actively hiding malicious intent, it sounds like he thought the priest cases were pretty straightforward and awful, rather than involving repressed memories and ambiguous. The article lays out the controversy of that better than I ever could, when I finished it I figured I wouldn't be able to tell without digging into what he actually contributed to the panel. There does seem to be a common thread through his work, between fighting freudians and disputing repressed memories and multiple personality and I guess the transgender issue, he seems to emphasize that you can't take for granted that self-reporting is as trustworthy as people have tried to make it. But that's just my interpretation, I may be reading into that.
- hownottowrite 12y ago
  True. There is even a foundation dedicated to helping those falsely accused. The history of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (of which McHugh is a member) is interesting and their board of advisors is impressive. [0] Looking at corollary memory disorders, I noticed a pattern of conservative diagnosis and general skepticism. For example, WIRED[1] covered a panel looking to scale back PTSD diagnoses in 2013 (McHugh was part of that group). So, I went on to read a little more about McHugh and came across an essay called "Psychiatric Misadventures"[2]. In this essay, McHugh explains his philosophy in teaching psychiatry to new students as well as taking shots at the profession in general: >_PSYCHIATRY IS A RUDIMENTARY MEDICAL ART._ It lacks easy access to proof of its proposals even as it deals with disorders of the most complex features of human life--mind and behaviour. Yet, probably because of the earlier examples of Freud and Jung, a belief persists that psychiatrists are entitled to special privileges-that they know the secret of human nature--and thus can venture beyond their clinic-based competencies to instruct on non-medical matters: interpreting literature, counselling the electorate, prescribing for the millennium. What to say about all of this? On the one hand the man has a distinguished career with many accolades. On the other, there is an extreme bias and a fairly obvious agenda behind his actions. Some may call this principled activism. No doubt there are other descriptions less charitable. [0] http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=EarlyHistory http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=EarlyHistory [1] http://www.wired.com/2012/03/the-ptsd-trap/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/the-ptsd-trap/ [2] http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mchugh.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mchugh.htm

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

He was right though, therapists were unwittingly teasing false allegations of sexual abuse out of kids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-care_sex-abuse_hysteria

DanBC 12y ago
But was he right in the context of catholic priests? Or was he constrained by his cognitive biases into protecting abusive priests because he couldn't see past (the very real problem of) false memory created by "therapy"?
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  I couldn't say for sure. If he wasn't actively hiding malicious intent, it sounds like he thought the priest cases were pretty straightforward and awful, rather than involving repressed memories and ambiguous. The article lays out the controversy of that better than I ever could, when I finished it I figured I wouldn't be able to tell without digging into what he actually contributed to the panel. There does seem to be a common thread through his work, between fighting freudians and disputing repressed memories and multiple personality and I guess the transgender issue, he seems to emphasize that you can't take for granted that self-reporting is as trustworthy as people have tried to make it. But that's just my interpretation, I may be reading into that.
hownottowrite 12y ago
True. There is even a foundation dedicated to helping those falsely accused. The history of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (of which McHugh is a member) is interesting and their board of advisors is impressive. [0] Looking at corollary memory disorders, I noticed a pattern of conservative diagnosis and general skepticism. For example, WIRED[1] covered a panel looking to scale back PTSD diagnoses in 2013 (McHugh was part of that group). So, I went on to read a little more about McHugh and came across an essay called "Psychiatric Misadventures"[2]. In this essay, McHugh explains his philosophy in teaching psychiatry to new students as well as taking shots at the profession in general: >_PSYCHIATRY IS A RUDIMENTARY MEDICAL ART._ It lacks easy access to proof of its proposals even as it deals with disorders of the most complex features of human life--mind and behaviour. Yet, probably because of the earlier examples of Freud and Jung, a belief persists that psychiatrists are entitled to special privileges-that they know the secret of human nature--and thus can venture beyond their clinic-based competencies to instruct on non-medical matters: interpreting literature, counselling the electorate, prescribing for the millennium. What to say about all of this? On the one hand the man has a distinguished career with many accolades. On the other, there is an extreme bias and a fairly obvious agenda behind his actions. Some may call this principled activism. No doubt there are other descriptions less charitable. [0] http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=EarlyHistory http://www.fmsfonline.org/?about=EarlyHistory [1] http://www.wired.com/2012/03/the-ptsd-trap/ http://www.wired.com/2012/03/the-ptsd-trap/ [2] http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mchugh.htm http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/mchugh.htm