More on Psychoanalysis

Hooray for Drs. David Brody and Michael Serby in the June 6 issue for being 100 percent “On the Mark” with their critique of the utility of psychoanalysis in the modern-day practice of psychiatry. Their point that psychoanalysis “has not stood up to research scrutiny or validation in everyday clinical practice” is well stated and undeniable, despite the indignation of the physicians who voiced their objection.

Patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and other major mental disorders do not benefit from analysis. Even Dr. Markham Kirsten’s anemic defense of this therapy in the August 1 issue states analysis would not be recommended in “99 percent” of his patients. Drs. Abraham and Marilyn Halpern state in the July 18 issue that they can “attest to the remarkable ameliorative, indeed, curative effects” of psychoanalysis. Really? Please show us your data. Remember, testimonials and pithy metaphorical assertions do not make good medicine.

Both Dr. Ann Turkel and Psychiatric News (who revealed its bias by implying that Brody and Serby were “Off the Mark”) ought to realize that the majority of psychiatrists don’t practice psychoanalysis or find it relevant because of its failure as an effective treatment and its highly questionable theoretical foundations. This is a very politically incorrect statement but one that I believe is reflective of current thinking in psychiatry.