EDITORIAL COMMENTS

This chapter is a brief presentation of an attempt to attain consensus on some key questions in the field of debriefing, derived from a consensus conference held in 1996 in Australia. What becomes very clear is that even with those supportive of debriefing and those critical of it working together personally, there was extreme difficulty in gaining agreement on common issues. The result might be suggested to be a general and perhaps polite recognition of the other points of view, but nevertheless a strong commitment to the original respective beliefs.

While this specific consensus meeting was held some years ago the themes of difficulty in reaching agreement are reflected in more recent debates and in this book. The same proponents are profoundly committed, despite a growing body of scientific evidence questioning benefits. The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies has also recently addressed the need for a stronger evidence base and is developing Evidence Based Guidelines. Nevertheless, the belief that something must be done and the need to give this a structure make it difficult to challenge the commitment to debriefing. Thus moving to a consensus continues to be difficult.

This book shows that there has been some movement, particularly in the fields of establishing a stronger scientific base for both points of view. Nevertheless, the widespread and often uncritical usage of debriefing models by those who may have little training and experience with respect to the situations in which they apply their techniques must call for major concern – first, do no harm.