The Talking Cure in the Cross Fire of Empiricism—The Struggle for the Hearts and Minds of Psychoanalytic Clinicians: Commentary on Papers by Lester Luborsky and Hans H. Strupp

I outline the arguments advanced by Lester Luborsky and Hans H. Strupp on the current controversy regarding empirically supported treatment (EST). I support Luborsky's criticisms of some current attempts to provide empirical support for psychoanalytic treatment, but, unable to endorse the conclusion that therapies are equally effective, I argue that substantial evidence does exist to guide clinicians, even if this evidence is not yet accessible through a mechanical process of review. I also suggest that Luborsky's “open verdict” on the length-of-treatment issue is too conservative: Longer psychoanalytic treatments have been repeatedly associated with superior outcomes across a range of measures. I agree with Strupp that the current emphasis on EST is probably motivated primarily by economic rather than ethical conditions. However, I criticize Strupp's largely negative treatment of the issue of treatment “manualization” and argue that, though manualization is a mixed blessing, only a clear, structured, and coherent framework that guides the therapeutic process can enable the therapist to withstand the interpersonal pressures inevitably generated in the consulting room. I conclude by arguing that there is a need for refinement of the concepts and methods by which outcomes are evaluated in order to help

psychoanalysis and psychotherapy become a more specific family of treatments for particular conditions.