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.
The articles by Allan Compton, Barbara Milrod, Stanley Blatt, and Nadine Kaslow and her colleagues that appear in this issue of JAPA clearly demonstrate that there is a rich potential in research in psychoanalysis, and that insights gained from such research can contribute much to our understanding of the etiology and treatment of psychiatric illnesses. Unfortunately, historical forces within psychoanalysis have played a role in limiting the contributions that the field of psychoanalysis can make to modern psychiatric treatments, and Compton clearly points out the limitations of the traditional focus on the single case study approach to research. This is not to dispute the tremendous advances in our psychological understanding that have resulted from such an approach, nor to criticize its use, but to acknowledge that the state of the art in psychiatric research has moved far beyond this approach, so critical to the establishment of modern psychoanalysis.
The articles by Compton and Milrod address the importance of further psychoanalytic research in our understanding of the role of psychological processes in anxiety disorders. Such an effort will have tremendous impact on future directions in caring for this group of patients. As many readers of this journal are aware, the approval last year by the American Psychiatric Association of practice guidelines for panic disorder was cause for great concern among psychoanalysts, and highlights the need for the kind of research that uses the modern techniques outlined in Compton's proposal.
That the minimization of the role of psychoanalytic understanding in panic disorder in the APA's guideline would send ripples of dismay and frustration across psychoanalysis comes as no surprise in a field whose origins lie in the understanding and treatment of patients with