Fiona E. Raitt

‘It’s not me, it’s them’: How lesbian women make sense of negative experiences of maternity care: a hermeneutic study

AIM The paper is a report of one aspect of a hermeneutic study of lesbian womens experiences of maternity care, specifically interpretations of negative experiences. BACKGROUND There is a growing body of literature in relation to lesbian womens experiences of maternity care. Although most commentators discuss the negative experiences encountered by lesbian mothers, there has been no contextual analysis of these expressions of negativity in an increasingly positive environment. METHODS The study was undertaken using a qualitative approach using an adapted Gadamerian hermeneutic phenomenology using unstructured interviews with eight women. The interviews took place between November 2007 and March 2008. All of the participants had disclosed their sexual orientation in pregnancy. Snowball sampling was used. The data were then analysed using an iterative hermeneutic framework. FINDINGS The participants not only described their experiences of maternity care as being positive but also offered examples of negative experiences. These were analysed separately to explore the ways in which the women made sense of them in the context of an otherwise positive experience. These experiences were expressed in ways that distanced the negative and that seemed to rationalize behaviour or ascribe it to the health professional. CONCLUSIONS Negative encounters with health professionals are processed by women in a way that protects their overall experience. Health professionals in maternity care should consider the impact of negative responses to lesbian mothers and the effect that it has in reducing the overall quality of this significant life event.

Psychological evidence in the courtroom : Critical reflections on the general acceptance standard

The increasing ties between psychology and law have familiarized psychologists with the standards by which law admits scientific evidence into the courtroom. In the USA, these include the general acceptance standard and the Daubert guidelines and, in the UK, the Turner Rule. However, the psychological literature has largely failed to make clear the degree of legal debate that exists concerning the clarity and effectiveness of such standards. This paper will focus on the general acceptance standard, examining key problems of this standard and placing them in a specifically psychological context. Such consideration is important precisely because the standard has become so well known within the psychological literature and because insufficient attention has been given to the way in which it operates implicitly within jurisdictions outside the USA. The authors argue that it is the responsibility of psychologists to become more involved in the debate concerning admissibility standards, given the credibility and authority that law accords to psychology when admitting it into the courtroom. In particular, psychologists need to become more self-reflective about their role in creating and maintaining such standards.

Rape Trauma Syndrome: Its Corroborative and Educational Roles

Within the criminal justice system the treatment of women who have been raped has been the subject of much criticism. This has come from those participating professionally in the legal system, from academics conducting research on it, and from women who have been affected by their personal experience of the criminal justice system.1 Such criticism focuses on a number of themes, including the stereotyping of victims, the portrayal of rape as a sexual rather than a violent crime, and victim-blaming. In the face of these criticisms, various strategies have been pursued in reforming the law and pre-trial procedures with the intention of making it easier for women to report rape and to survive the judicial process. Police awareness has been increased of the need for sensitivity in handling the interviewing and medical examination of rape victims.2 Rape shield laws circumscribing crossexamination of a complainants sexual history have been enacted in many states in the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, England and Wales, and Scotland. One recent further strategy to emerge in some jurisdictions has been the introduction of expert testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS) to support the evidence of the woman complainant. Testimony in regard to this syndrome has developed in response to the failures of the substantive and procedural laws to secure convictions and to accord civilized treatment in court to rape victims. While the admission of evidence on RTS is not yet a practice accepted in the United Kingdom courts, experience of the gradual admissibility of other syndromes such as Battered Womans Syndrome, in cases where women kill their violent partners,3 or False Memory Syndrome, in cases where the claims of adult survivors of child abuse are alleged to be distortions of memory,4 suggests that it may only be a matter of time before

False Memory Syndrome: Undermining the Credibility of Complainants in Sexual Offences

*Fiona E. Raitt, LL.B. Department of Law and M. Suzanne Zeedyk, B.A., M.Phil., Ph.D. Department of Psychology both University of Dundee, Scotland, *corresponding author Department of Law University of Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom, DD1 4 HN Tel: +44 1382 345141 Fax: +44 1382 226905 email: f.e.raitt@dundee.ac.uk Published

Domestic violence and divorce mediation: A rejoinder to Kaganas and Piper and a proposal that the mediation process should always serve the best interests of the child

Abstract This paper is a response to Kaganas and Pipers article (1994), in which they articulate concerns emerging from the proposed move towards compulsory mediation in divorce cases. The response extends consideration of the complex issues which arise in mediating in abusive relationships. The first part of the paper explores the criterion ‘impact of the abuse’ suggested by Kaganas and Piper as part of the screening measures used to exclude abusive relationships from mediation. Weaknesses that may emerge in the application of that criterion are identified. The second part of the paper proposes the use of a supplementary criterion - ‘the best interests of the child’ - to strengthen these screening measures