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.
Some years ago I compiled a list of former patients and supervisees. The purpose of the list, composed of eighty-three names, was a retrospective evaluation of the analytic and supervisory work. The list included: (1) sixteen psychiatrists who sought psychoanalytic treatment independent of training; (2) thirteen psychoanalytic trainees who sought personal analysis to fulfill educational requirements; (3) fifty-four candidates in training who sought supervision for the same requirements. Later a letter was sent to a limited number of those former patients and students. The selection of those to receive the letter was by no means random. None were in treatment or supervision at the time, and none had been seen for at least four years. All were seen for a varied period of time during the span of twenty-one years.
The purpose of the project was a retrospective evaluation of the analytical, therapeutic, and educational yield for the analyst-teacher as well as for the analysand and the supervisee. However, as the study proceeded without feedback from those who had participated in the work, another question challenged the inquiry, namely, whether a follow-up of psychoanalytic patients