|
http://scripts.ireland.com/search/highlight.plx?TextRes=Dr%20Woods&Path=/new spaper/opinion/2002/0204/845842443op04waters.html Irish Times Opinion Mon, Feb 04, 2002 When reason gives way to psychobabble
It will
have come as a surprise to many people that one of the supposed
"sanctions" imposed by the Medical Council on Dr Moira Woods,
following its Fitness to Practise Committee's decision to find her guilty of
professional misconduct, was that she should in future engage in child
protection work only as part of an expert multi-disciplinary team, writes
John Waters Most
people would imagine this should have been happening in the first place. It
is utterly incomprehensible to the layperson that investigations into
allegations as serious as child sex abuse can be carried out by a single
individual whose word becomes holy writ. In the Ireland of the 1980s, Dr
Woods, alone and unscrutinised, was vested with the powers of God, and given
licence to accuse, usually on the basis of the most cursory investigations in
which virtually no objective standards of proof were required. In even
minor criminal matters, it is incumbent upon the authorities to show that
they have gone to every length to show fairness to the accused. They must
judge whether the accuser is credible; whether the story is consistent and
believable; whether the accuser has an ulterior motive such as revenge or
reward; whether previous unsubstantiated allegations have been made;whether there
is physical evidence of the alleged misdeeds, i.e., conduct a thorough and
impartial investigation in which all possible knowledge of the alleged
wrongdoing is obtained and considered. The
standards laid down by the medical profession in cases of alleged sexual abuse
are even more rigorous. Practitioners are required to be impartial, to be
aware both of their own prejudices and the possibility that other investigators
may have agendas and/or identify strongly with the accuser. Doctors are
reminded that they must never, even where forensic proof appears to exist,
make judgments concerning matters which fall outside their expertise. When
forensic proof is lacking, as it frequently is, investigators are required to
be even more cautious. Conclusions should only be reached after a thorough
examination of the available facts and a sustained trawl for corroborative
material, if possible from disinterested sources. Final opinions must be
couched in terms of relative probability rather than certainty, and cautions
issued in respect of the weaknesses in the assessment process. It now
transpires that in many of the investigations carried out by Dr Woods in her
time with the sexual assault trauma unit in the Rotunda Hospital in the
1980s, such standards were flouted as a matter of course. It has been established
that she failed to apply acceptable standards of clinical judgment and
competence, and consequently advised the relevant authorities that certain
named children had been sexually abused when she knew or should have known
that there was insufficient basis for such advice; and that she showed what
was, to say the least of it, an alarming propensity to finger the fathers of
children as sexual abusers without affording them any opportunity to defend
themselves. These circumstances are not unique to this case. Similar
methodology to that employed by Dr Woods is in everyday use throughout
the Irish family law system. THE
secrecy afforded this system by the in camera rule has created a veritable
industry in psychobabble and mumbo jumbo, in which so-called techniques
involving "psychological assessment", dream therapy, guided imagery,
figure drawing and the use of anatomically correct dolls are employed to
"prove" some of the most serious allegations that can be made against
a parent, and to inform some of the most far-reaching decisions concerning
the lives of human beings. Although
it is acknowledged by medical authorities that such tests should be regarded
as no more than aids in assessing allegations for which there is substantial
pre-existing circumstantial and other corroborative evidence, and that
such techniques on their own are far too unreliable to be the basis for
professional opinions about real events, they are increasingly becoming the
primary tool in the weaponry of the expert witness. Worse, those with the
final authority to decide on the plausibility of accusations appear either
too lazy, too ignorant or too cowardly to do other than put their rubber
stamps to risible nonsense, thereby consigning decent people to lifetimes of
horror and despair. Too many
judges, considering themselves inexpert in matters of child welfare, are
willing to accept even the most preposterous constructions by so-called experts
rather than take personal judicial responsibility for deciding matters of
child welfare on the basis of common sense. The absence of public scrutiny
means reason has no jurisdiction where voodoo rules. Most
citizens discover too late, on finding themselves at the mercy of this system,
that they are in the power of utterly unaccountable, arbitrary and often, it
seems, irrational forces; that there are no objective standards which can be
called upon; that logic and fairness have no currency; and that they are in
the hands of people with the power and freedom to destroy their lives and
those of their children on the basis of prejudice, ideology, expediency or
whim. They discover, too, that the normal requirements of evidence are
suspended in favour of procedures in which a so-called expert witness, acting
alone and unaccountably, can mix and match the facts in accordance with some
unseen and unstated purpose, while those in authority look beyond the facts
to the letters of qualification attached to the alleged expert's name. This
has contributed much to turning the term "family law" into the most
laughable oxymoron in the land. (c) The Irish Times |
|
|
|
|