I was just watching a video of Hellinger in Taiwan. He works with a case where
he posits abortions took place, and makes an association with that and the
presenting issue of cancer.
He compares abortion to murder, and cites the work of Bernard Nathanson, who
after performing many thousands of abortions, made a movie using ultrasound
footage of fetuses that were about to be aborted. He 'showed' the fetus moving
away from the instrument and 'screaming'.
Now, I subscribe to the general constellation view of abortion, as a
problematic and difficult dynamic in family systems, and certainly something
that creates subsequent problems.
But I do wonder about his use of this reference. I researched it, and its not
quite as scientifically valid as it is emotionally impactful. It was critiqued
for the manipulation of the film images, and for the authoritative 'scientific'
pronouncements and interpretations which are not necessarily validated by the
data.
So for instance, brain neurons do not exist prior to 4 weeks in utero. And the
'scream' is could also be a common movement that foetuses make, yawning for
instance.
Now, just because they don't have neurons, I believe they still have a rich
experiential life, closely connected of course to the mother's state of being.
But I don't like it when things are presented as solid science, when they have
a strong interpretive element which speaks with authority not necessarily
rigourous…even if I agree with the conclusions!
Part of the effect is another authority- Hellinger - quotes the original
'authority', and then that continues to become an authoritative 'fact'. I think
that transparency and responsibility are important in such communications….
I am interested in other peoples' perspectives on this.
Vinay
