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.
Haule's article begins with a description of a Dr Michaels, who apparently was sued by a patient for having sexual relations with her. The situation was reported by a journalist in the Boston Globe and Haule uses the conflict between journalist and doctor in an attempt to understand how the very different perceptions of these two illustrate two utterly different standpoints on the question of analyst/patient sex. Haule's strength, it seems to me, lies in his passionate meditation on his process with a patient, and his finely-honed sense of what processes are cooking within him. Talking about one's countertransference in a very open way can feel quite dangerous in our community, and Haule is one of the few willing to risk misunderstanding and even condemnation in order to follow the dictates of his conscience and speak of taboo subjects in a community that tends to choose the politically correct route.
Nevertheless I find certain of his comments problematic. His concept of mutuality, though tempting, ignores the fact that true mutuality is not possible in a situation where a patient comes to an analyst in the hope of healing (after all, who pays whom?). The analyst, I think, is the servant of the analysis, and by extension, of the analysand. It is essential that such an attitude be maintained for at least two reasons.