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.
These few words are a brief response to Garcia's paper, published in the August edition of the Journal (Garcia, 2023). It follows on from the online symposium on ethical publishing that took place in March 2022, and the papers that followed in the December 2022 edition of the Journal, opening up a discussion around how we share the development of clinical practice, technique, and understanding through writing up cases, or aspects of cases, in a safe and ethical manner.
I have been reflecting on this subject for the last two or three months, vacillating between enthusiasm for moving the debate forward or giving up altogether and walking away from it. The former carries energy and enthusiasm at the prospect of engaging with colleagues and peers in a creative way, in order to come up with solutions to the very real problems attached to seeking consent for publication, while the latter reflects the depth and breadth of thinking required to properly engage with this complex issue, the time and energy needed to do it justice, and, not least, the potential for anxiety raised by the different views expressed on the subject. It is clear that there is no easy solution to the problem of obtaining fully informed and freely given consent, including sharing of a draft prior to publication being agreed.
Garcia is clear in his view that the ‘consent situation’ is not possible without disrupting or harming the psychoanalytic frame, including the transference relationship. I agree that, at certain points of a psychoanalytic intervention, asking for consent could be disruptive and even harmful, thus the need to think carefully about this. However, I suggest that it is possible for the psychoanalytic frame to remain valued and protected in a situation where consent to publish is being discussed. This may be a point of contention. We could imagine a dividing line with, on one side, those who regard asking for consent to publish as harmful and, on the other side, those who see a collaborat