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.
Dear Sirs
Dr Dodes disagrees, strongly at times, with things neither written nor even thought by me (de Paula Ramos, 2004). According to him, my article has two main problems: generalization and the intention to attribute to ‘the father's pathology’ a general psychodynamic theory for chemically dependent patients.
To answer his questions I must begin by recalling the concept that supports the entire study, namely that of vulnerability. I state that
current studies on the etiology of chemical dependency, convinced of the syndrome's multi-determination, upon analyzing the many possible etiological factors, prefer to concern themselves with vulnerabilities. Just as biogenetic, social, ethnic, anthropological, and other vulnerabilities exist, so does the psychological, I believe. Though not present in every case, and perhaps not even in every type of chemical dependency, psychological vulnerability should be considered. Here we find patients who, for the most part, did not have a good enough father to identify with, and therefore reveal a frail ego (p. 474).
… To reiterate, I am of the opinion that the described psychological factors exist and; even not being specific, they create a vulnerability, previously alluded to, for the future installation of a process that creates dependence (p. 475).