Complicated. You really can't rule out the possibility of the younger child carrying some trauma purely because it was treated as trivial, when that really isn't trivial...
But the older child should definitely not be persecuted for it.
It's now 10 years on. She has no memory of the event, and at the time thought very little of it. She would have been more upset if he had run off with her bike for 5 minutes.
Out of interest, are you saying the older child should definitely not be persecuted/prosecuted for it because of his age at the time or because of his autism?
Ok. But the mind is more complicated than we understand and you never know. Hopefully, nothing will come of it.
Because of both. Either of those reasons would render the child incapable of understanding the reasons what he did was wrong. That doesn't change that it WAS wrong or make it acceptable, but the child cannot be held responsible. It's concerning that it happened and I'd be concerned about what incidents lead to the child doing it.
Well, as a retired psychiatrist I can confirm that there's a lot we don't know about the mind, but I'd also caution that we're in danger of moving towards an ad ignoratiam fallacy if we step from 'you never know' to 'and therefore it's the case'. Not that you're going down that route.
I can't say I dealt with abuse victims specifically in my many years of clinical practice, though there will have been abuse victims among my patients. There is, by the way, no credible evidence for repressed memory theory; on the contrary, trauma tends not to leave people alone.
I have a confession: the parents acted the way they did on my advice. They wanted to get the police and social services involved, and I was concerned that they would create harm where there was none. I'm therefore playing dumb in order to see whether people challenge my advice or support it.
Repressed memory DOES exist, although it's true that some therapists have created it in some people.
I didn't remember being sexually abused as a small child until I was in middle age, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and didn't have long term effects I didn't understand until the memory surfaced
Honestly, I don't know what the "right" answer is. I doubt there is one. It's far too complicated. It's an awful thing to have happened, for both children.
To be honest, I think the right answer is that it wasn't an awful thing to have happened. I recognised that they would create trauma where there was none, which would mean they (collectively) would be abusing her. Hence my advice. They took my advice, and things have worked out fine. But it has sprung to mind a few times over the years.
IIN to treat abuse as trivial to avoid traumatizing the victim?
← View full post
Complicated. You really can't rule out the possibility of the younger child carrying some trauma purely because it was treated as trivial, when that really isn't trivial...
But the older child should definitely not be persecuted for it.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's now 10 years on. She has no memory of the event, and at the time thought very little of it. She would have been more upset if he had run off with her bike for 5 minutes.
Out of interest, are you saying the older child should definitely not be persecuted/prosecuted for it because of his age at the time or because of his autism?
--
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Ok. But the mind is more complicated than we understand and you never know. Hopefully, nothing will come of it.
Because of both. Either of those reasons would render the child incapable of understanding the reasons what he did was wrong. That doesn't change that it WAS wrong or make it acceptable, but the child cannot be held responsible. It's concerning that it happened and I'd be concerned about what incidents lead to the child doing it.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well, as a retired psychiatrist I can confirm that there's a lot we don't know about the mind, but I'd also caution that we're in danger of moving towards an ad ignoratiam fallacy if we step from 'you never know' to 'and therefore it's the case'. Not that you're going down that route.
I can't say I dealt with abuse victims specifically in my many years of clinical practice, though there will have been abuse victims among my patients. There is, by the way, no credible evidence for repressed memory theory; on the contrary, trauma tends not to leave people alone.
I have a confession: the parents acted the way they did on my advice. They wanted to get the police and social services involved, and I was concerned that they would create harm where there was none. I'm therefore playing dumb in order to see whether people challenge my advice or support it.
--
Ellenna
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
charli.m
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Repressed memory DOES exist, although it's true that some therapists have created it in some people.
I didn't remember being sexually abused as a small child until I was in middle age, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and didn't have long term effects I didn't understand until the memory surfaced
Honestly, I don't know what the "right" answer is. I doubt there is one. It's far too complicated. It's an awful thing to have happened, for both children.
--
Anonymous Post Author
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
To be honest, I think the right answer is that it wasn't an awful thing to have happened. I recognised that they would create trauma where there was none, which would mean they (collectively) would be abusing her. Hence my advice. They took my advice, and things have worked out fine. But it has sprung to mind a few times over the years.
--
Ellenna
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You don't know that things have "worked out fine" nor that they always will: this type of response trivialises abuse