Response to Zepf and Gerlach

I appreciate the interest and dedicated study of Siegfried Zepf and Alf Gerlach in their commentary (JAPA 61/4, pp. 771-786) on my paper “Suicide Prevention for Psychoanalytic Institutes and Societies” (JAPA 60/4, pp. 707-719). Their agreement with major conclusions and recommendations formulated in my paper of course gives me satisfaction. In fact, to my reading, much of what they disagree with is based on a misunderstanding of my position. To begin with, they agree with doing away with the privileged status of the training analysis system; they agree with a careful selection of supervisors in terms of realistic assessment of their interests and capabilities for that function; and, importantly, with the fact that in essence the “training analysis” does not differ in quality from the therapeutic analysis. They also agree that my proposals would counteract the “corrupting narcissistic grandiosity induced by the privileged status currently accorded the ‘training analyst’ as superior psychoanalyst …” (Kernberg , p. 714; Zepf and Gerlach , p. 773). They also agree with my proposal that certified psychoanalysts, all of whom are authorized to psychoanalyze candidates, do not need to be members of an institute nor of the society to which the institute belongs. However, I question their expansion of this view to suggest that analysts should not be permitted to give lectures in the teaching of candidates they analyze: in my view, this would make analytic training in smaller communities impossible.

The authors also agree with my critique of the “ecumenical tolerance” of contradictory theoretical and clinical approaches and the need to carry out scientific research to determine the truth value of incompatible or contradictory approaches (Zepf and Gerlach , p. 774). Here, however, the authors make a fundamental error in their reading of my paper. They suggest that my proposal for tolerance of different theories and