However, a revival precipitated, accelerated, without therapeutic alliance of abreaction and forced, and not individually rewritten verbalization (more or less which would be according to some the debriefing) can assume a re-traumatisation; in spite of this seems to be widely used in psychological interventions in emergencies and disasters (generalized, say some voices): in view of the contradictory results is feasible to ask the Why’s this unconditional acceptance. However, it seems not possible to understand the current situation without taking into account interests that go beyond the exercise of psychology, as economic and legal interests answers, are very different and maybe not is has yet reached a consensus clear; In this regard, some authors stress the fact that organizations, banks, hospitals and agencies, they should continue using this technique given its low cost in comparison with others and the difficulty of developing alternatives (Kenardy, 2000;) Paton, 2000; Stuhlmiller and Dunning, 2000a). Furthermore, thanks to the simplicity of the Protocol it is possible to use the technique in a universal manner, applying it to all types of individuals and groups, without taking into account their culture, experience or personality traits (Paton et al., 2000) something that greatly reduces costs.Vera-Poseck B. Debriefing: a review of the current controversy. Cuadernos de crisis. If you have additional questions, you may want to visit Pinterest. 2004; 3 (2): 7-26. Original author and source of the article.