A significant weakness of the discussion is that it does not offer adequate and effective measures that can help bridge the gap between theory and practice and does not offer details about alternative techniques.
The discussion on the Con side discusses the process of using CISM and CISD and provides explanations for existing confusion about the terms. It also offers an explanation of the entire process of Psychological debriefing which and the circumstances in which it may be used effectively.
I think both authors were credible; and provided valuable inputs to the debate. On the whole, there was agreement that a short immediate use of a debriefing intervention is both inadequate and incompetent. While the author presenting the argument pro the statement that Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims is harmful emphasized the transient nature of the intervention in its present shape; the author against the statement provided inputs on the methods that would allow for the effective use of debriefing so that it would be helpful and not harmful.
Based on the information provided, I agree that using debriefing as an immediate and short term intervention may not be effective. Although I don’t believe that psychological debriefing is all bad; I do agree with the argument pro the statement ‘Psychological Debriefing for Trauma victims is harmful’ that is there is a chance of harm; it is wiser to look at other intervention strategies that are long term. Although there is evidence to support its use, I believe that there needs to be more detailed development of a comprehensive program like CISM so that strategies used are helpful without carrying the chance of harm.
There is research evidence for both sides of the argument; but I believe that the evidence that shows the improper and ill-timed use of debriefing methods can be more harmful if not ineffective (Mayou, Ehlers & Hobbs, 2000; van Emmerik et al, 2002). On the