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.
I applaud Dr. Forrest's desire to obtain funding for psychiatric research—this is laudable indeed! And from the side of potential recipients, it is a fine thing for them to receive money!
As much as I would like to support his initiative (for the above stated reasons), there seems to me to be one glaring problem, among other potential problems.
I cannot imagine telling a patient in psychodynamic, much less psychoanalytic or psychoanalytically oriented treatment, that he or she may not talk about a particular topic—especially one so potentially laden with transference implications!
This would seem to fly in the face of the “rule” of free-association that I believe most of us use in our work with our patients and that, in part, defines psychoanalytic treatment. That is, we tell our patients to talk about whatever they are thinking with the least possible editing.
I do have patients from time to time with high-level government security clearances who choose not to discuss certain aspects of their work with me—and I don't press them to do so. This may be adversely influencing their treatments—I don't know.
Dr. Forrest is, of course, not asking if we think he should proceed—he has already done so, it is a fait accompli.
He says that he has seen no evidence that treatment with his patients has been affected.
However, I cannot imagine that if a current patient were to give $10,000,000 (to pick a number—that to me, and to my patients, would be a lot of money) to the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia, that their treatment will not have been affected. I can imagine a whole host of feelings and fantasies about having made such a contribution and