What in the actual Eff is going on here? If I pick up a book entitled, "Satanic Ritual Abuse; Principles of Treatment" I expect the author holds some degree of acceptance, allowance, and basic belief in his patients. Not Colin A. Ross. He seems confident suggesting we all discredit and disavow SRA survivors, if they can't prove it. Yet he's worked with enough survivors to write a book about it. Who writes a book on a topic while admitting the whole way through his sources are liars? What does that make his book?
I quote from Colin A. Ross:
"It is my opinion that many of the Satanic ritual abuse memories described by patients I treat are confabulated and comprise things that never actually happened. I assume, for the sake of discussion, that 1o per cent of the content of such memories could be historically accurate and based on distorted recall of childhood participation in small Christian cults; small, isolated groups of Satanists; deviant elements of the Ku Klux Klan; pornography; or other forms of abuse that a child could misinterpret as Satanic."
"...while there is no evidence of a widespread secret network of Satanic ritual abuse, it is possible that a certain percentage of Satanic ritual abuse memories are historically accurate or contain accurate elements."
"As I said earlier, at least 10 per cent of the reported memories could be real..."
"These cults, if they exist...."
"Other media sources provide hints but no proof that actual Satanic ritual abuse may be occurring in the Western world today."
He goes on to recommend letting down some disbelief barriers as to better give treatment to the patient. After all, there is historic documentation of rituals and atrocities in the human history spectrum. But since we can't prove they exist in present day, just pacify the clients so you can treat them. They're not smart enough to sense you believe they're lying.
The author is hellbent on needing evidence and documentation. In the intro, he slants book writing as inferior to journal articles, which allows him to ignore all of the SRA memoirs out there, I wonder?
If his patient pours out a heartful of hurt about marriage infidelity, as you would expect in therapy, does he not believe anything the patient is saying without evidence? Does he say to his 10:00 AM appointment, "I'm sorry, middle aged man, do you have documented proof your marriage is on the rocks? No? Well, I can't trust anything you tell me with out evidence." What kind of psychiatry is this?
Elizabeth F. Loftus, who wrote the afterword for this book, is on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation's Scientific Advisory Board. Her research methods and credibility have been questioned by other experts.
This book and this author make me sick to my stomach. Let's practice effective mental health services by disregarding what our patients tell us about their memories of Satanic ritual abuse because we don't have proof.
I know I'm being emotional and harsh in this review. Maybe I'll come back later and make it gentler. In the meantime, I'm tired of victims being re-victimized by those in the position and authority to do better. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of survivors telling their stories. They're not all lying, Colin.
Dorothy Parker has been credited with saying, "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."
I am confidently applying that quote to Ross' rubbish.