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.
With an established international reputation in his field behind him, Christopher Bollas, the British psychoanalyst, has now set out to tackle a professional issue with implications far beyond the usual confines of a psychoanalytic consulting room He has teamed up with David Sundelson, an American lawyer, to focus his critical acumen upon the troublesome erosion of confidentiality in psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic work In contrast, the privileges between pastor and parishioner, and between lawyer and client remain fully immune before the law Although they have concentrated their analysis on American data, particularly the impact upon psychotherapy of California's mandatory reporting of child abuse, the two authors believe the problem exists in Britain, Sweden, and elsewhere. There is much the Canadian reader will find relevant
Bollas and Sundelson are frank in their dismay with what they portray as the lamentable passivity and even collusion of mental health professionals in the increasing number of intrusions into “physician-patient privilege” They document the cooperation various professional societies have given the courts when access to dossiers has been required in criminal and civil cases, uttering pious phrases about the privacy of the psychotherapeutic relationship, while training their students to adapt their practice to the exigencies of the law Bollas and Sundelson note that professional societies have not played a significant advisory role in much of the Californian legislation and jurisprudence, which has altered psychotherapy's immunity Psychotherapists are now subject to mandatory reporting of child abuse and professional negligence
In the first part of the book, we are treated to a short history of mandatory reporting laws, and then to a detailed analysis of some recent court cases Bollas and Sundelson contend that the entire profession's “failure to educate the court” has left the judges “so uncertain about one of the competing interests and so