Two facts presented by Mitchell of the critical issue (Mitchell, 1983). •The CISD protocol that Mitchell described was a group process of seven distinct phases. Prior to this Mitchell used a six-stage model (Mitchell, 1983). •The Society working party on psychological debriefing was given the aim of evaluating the available information and opinions and producing a clear statement on the status of psychological debriefing (Mitchell, 1983) Two facts presented by Devilly and Cotton on Critical issue Cotton and Devilly, (2003): •Psychological debriefing is a technique employed by social workers, clinicians, etc in which victims are encouraged to relive traumatic experiences and are warned of possible anxiety symptoms that they might suffer immediately after the event. •Cotton and Devilly, (2003); mention that in a national morbidity study performed in Australia in 2001, out of all the people who suffered a traumatic event, only 1.9% of men and 2.9% of women suffer from PTSD 12 months following the event. The two opinions presented by Devilly and Cotton are:
•CISD is a program developed with the intention of intervening with those exposed to trauma before allowing traumatic symptoms to fester over time (Everly and Mitchell, 2005). •Devilly and Cotton stated that psychological debriefing is “the first resort when disaster strikes (Mitchell, 1983). Two of the opinions presented by (Mitchell and Everly) are:
• CISD is a component of Critical Incident Stress Management. It is particularly effective in helping people talk about a given critical incident or disaster in such a way that it both relieves stress and helps them recovers (Mitchell, 1990). •The exact procedure for formal CISD is given in Critical Incident Stress Debriefing, an operations manual. Only mental health professionals specifically trained in this model should do Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (Mitchell, 1990). The strengths of the Pro side of critical debriefing are:
•Crisis intervention is not intended to be a substitute for psychotherapy, but rather an effective provision of support following life threatening trauma (Mitchell, 1990). •There is ample justification for having unequivocal confidence in the group CISD process when it is properly applied according to acceptable standards of practice, and by people who have been properly trained in applying the model (Mitchell, 1990). The weaknesses of the Pro side of critical debriefing are:
•Devilly and Cotton cannot legitimately state that “CISD is possibly noxious.” The studies they use to support this comment never actually evaluated CISD processes that were provided by properly trained personnel adhering to acceptable standards of care (Mitchell, 1990). •Although Devilly and Cotton assert that psychological debriefing is the first resort when disasters strikes, in fact, debriefings are not recommended for several weeks or longer after a disaster (Woodruff, 2009). Some of the strength associated with the Con side of the issue by is: •Good intentions and the passion to help following a trauma may result in paradoxical effects, particularly if the tools being used to aid are cursor understood applied, and the peer-reviewed research literature is ignored (Everly and Mitchell, 1997) •Debriefing is widely and routinely practiced, and is increasingly turned to as a first resort when disaster strikes (Everly and Mitchell, 1997) Some of the weaknesses associated with the Con side of the issue are: •The philosophy and techniques associated with psychological debriefing represent little more than “emotional first aid” for survivors of life threatening trauma (Mitchell, 2001) •It appears that CISD and CISM is indistinguishable (Mitchell, 2001). How credible were the authors of each argument? Explain your answer. The credible of this argument began with the debate that emerged from the findings that was focused on various methodological...