There are some lurking here at the moment, talking about false sexual abuse claims and the “sexual abuse industry”, and using these ideas to suggest ACC should be introducing hoops for sexual abuse survivors to jump through in order to get access to counselling.
The usual methods that some use to discredit and minimise sexual violence. No surprises these comments have popped up in defence of Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith, whose work and ideological stance on sexual violence I posted on a while back.
Some are also claiming their views of the sexual abuse “industry” are shared by organisations with expertise in the area.
To quote one of the posters with my notes in bold:
It’s true that never-ending counselling is not the best treatment for injuries caused by childhood sexual abuse……(later qualified slightly by inserting the words “probably” before the word “true” and “always” before the words “the best treatment”)…….
I think that the MHF (Mental Health Foundation) supports the new clinical pathways because the MHF supports better access to mental health treatment and management.
We believe the current proposal to be a significant tightening of the support available to victims. The suffering of sexual abuse victims if not healed remains as part of the community, with a range of negative connotations for generations.
They specifically raise concerns over the need to diagnose “mental injury” linked to a DSM IV diagnosis; the initial assessment to be done over just two sessions and the limited nature of counselling, to just 16 sessions.
Looks like the Mental Health Foundation, just like counsellors, psychotherapists, sexual violence agencies and survivors, can see this new pathway is unethical and will cause long term harm.
But Nick Smith plans only to review it after six months.