You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Dr. Sue Elkind and I were looking forward to a spirited dialogue about our articles on ruptured terminations. Instead, in my opinion, Dr. Clemmens has written a diatribe. “Alerting” the community about our “reprehensible” spirit and accusing me of “intemperate dramatization” and behaving in a “treacherous” manner only creates obstacles to a respectful and meaningful exchange of differences. Dr. Elkind and I have given enough presentations to know that there are a range of important and valid questions raised by this work; we invite a conversation within the professional community. We acknowledge that it is a radical change in paradigm to question the sanctity of the dyad and it is understandable and appropriate for doubts to be expressed.
Please remember that these two papers represent only one aspect of a larger body of impasse and rupture work. We chose our cases to demonstrate shadowy cases of abrupt termination. Not all cases of abrupt termination involve an ethical issue, but in my letter I will focus on ethical accountability because this is what so upset Dr. Clemmens.