Critics argue that most of these children have never received state-of-the-art, evidence-based traditional treatments, so proponent’s claims that “traditional therapies don’t work” are not well founded. Furthermore, they argue that using holding therapy or similar techniques to force children who were severely maltreated to have close, confining physical contact is more likely to exacerbate their difficulties than to help. In addition, critics note that holding therapy and those attachment therapies that seek to demonstrate dominance and control over the child may duplicate the dynamics of abuse experiences and reinforce rather than ameliorate relationship problems.

SPONSOR

Critics dismiss the anecdotal reports or testimonials offered on Web sites about the controversial attachment therapies or endorsements offered by former patients. They note that even quackery or demonstrably harmful treatments have their passionate adherents and can proffer many satisfied patients who describe stories of miraculous cures. This type of evidence simply cannot be considered persuasive from a scientific perspective. Critics further note that obtaining and using client testimonials in public advertising may violate established professional ethical standards (American Psychological Association, 2002, p. 9).


On the other hand, proponents of holding therapy and other controversial attachment therapies argue that the techniques present no physical risk to the child, parent, or therapist if done properly, and dismiss the concerns raised by critics as misunderstandings based on scattered and unrepresentative vignettes that have been taken out of context. They dispute that holding therapy involves coercion or involuntary restraint. Proponents describe their approach to holding as gentle or nurturing rather than coercive or humiliating (Keck, n.d.). Moreover, proponents may argue that nontraditional and intensely physical and emotional techniques, such as holding, reparenting, or catharsis, are required to help the children they describe as having attachment disorders. The primary evidence offered by proponents to support these arguments is anecdotal report, patient testimonials, therapist observations, and their own clinical experience of appearing to achieve success in cases where prior treatments have failed.