On the debate about so-called "false memories," the author posits a balanced view that should be considered by every therapist. Neither of the fervently-held positions of the opposing camps in the false-memory debate do justice to survivors. And they are Coffey's main concern. After referring to someone being given the appropriate clues to "remember" being abused not just by a stranger, but by a parent, a group of parents, even animals and Satan, the author writes:

"The difference between the skeptics and the advocates is this: Skeptics take the evidence about bias and confabulation and disbelieve survivors out of hand. Advocates weigh the evidence about bias and confabulation against what they know about themselves. Advocates know that survivors' testimony about abuse makes them, the listeners, angry and fearful. When they become angry and fearful, they remind themselves that almost no cruelty is outside the realm of possibility. And they remind themselves that if dissociative people are the least credible, this may be because they were the most severely abused. Not only do their trauma-born dissociative habits have them wandering in and out of hypnotic trance; these same habits infect their truth-telling style, making them seem wooden, unreliable, even hallucinatory. Doubting such people is far easier than believing."

"Advocates also weigh the evidence about bias and confabulation against what they know about survivors' fear, shame and self-blame. They know that discounting stark evidence is inescapably human, and that, because survivors are only human, they sometimes discount stark evidence about their own lives. Advocates know that because the truth can be so difficult for survivors to face, their stories may change with each telling. They know that the shifting sands of survivors' tales can make the stories seem crazy; even worse, they can make the survivors feel crazy. And advocates for survivors know that feeling crazy may be easier for a survivor than accepting the full reality of what transpired."