Bowman C G, Mertz E
Northwestern University School of Law, USA.
Harv Law Rev. 1996 Jan;109(3):549-639.
In this Article, Professors Bowman and Mertz question recent popular and academic commentary that disputes the validity of all delayed-recall memories of childhood sexual abuse. They examine one court's decision to allow a father, accused by his daughter of childhood sexual abuse, to recover malpractice damages from his daughter's therapist in connection with therapy during which the daughter recovered memories of the abuse. The authors argue that such third-party liability is unsound in terms of established principles of tort doctrine and in terms of public policy. After a review of the scientific evidence, the authors further conclude that, although some memories may be inaccurate, delayed-recall memory can also accurately reflect that past abuse occurred. Permitting third-party liability against therapists when accurate memories of abuse surface in therapy gives abusers a weapon to use against their victims. Because such suits exclude the party in privity (the client), they effectively erase the victim's voice. Professors Bowman and Mertz argue that such a novel extension of third-party liability is at best a misuse of the courts' resources and ultimately harms abuse survivors, therapists, and the community far more than it helps any wrongfully accused parents.
在本文中，鲍曼教授和默茨教授对近期流行的和学术性的评论提出质疑，这些评论对所有关于童年性虐待的延迟回忆记忆的有效性提出了争议。他们审视了一个法院的判决，该判决允许一名被女儿指控童年遭受性虐待的父亲，就其女儿在治疗过程中恢复了对虐待的记忆这一情况，从女儿的治疗师那里获得医疗事故损害赔偿。作者认为，就侵权法既定原则和公共政策而言，这种第三方责任是不合理的。在对科学证据进行审查后，作者进一步得出结论，尽管有些记忆可能不准确，但延迟回忆记忆也能够准确反映过去确实发生过虐待。当治疗中浮现出对虐待的准确记忆时允许对治疗师提起第三方责任诉讼，这会给施虐者提供一件用以对付其受害者的武器。由于此类诉讼将直接相关方（客户）排除在外，它们实际上压制了受害者的声音。鲍曼教授和默茨教授认为，这种对第三方责任的新颖扩展充其量是对法院资源的滥用，最终对虐待幸存者、治疗师和社区造成的伤害远远超过对任何被错误指控的父母可能带来的帮助。
