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.
More than two years ago I had the opportunity to discuss a somewhat expanded version of the Boyer presentation now under consideration. The final paragraph of that discussion still seems pertinent:
“Finally I must say that Dr. Boyer's mode of presentation has left us no way to be fair to him. He has tried to encompass too much in too limited a space. He has dealt with a theory of psychotic illness, the theory of his technique, specific but minimal clinical data, broad generalizations about results that surpass our most optimistic expectations, and in the same breath has given us a challenge not only to our expectations and the beliefs of many analysts but also a challenge to their specific and repetitive experience. Under these circumstances nothing less than the most detailed factual reporting of a great many cases or clinical experiences could really be considered as a methodologically sound approach to reporting this research. It is my sincere hope that Dr. Boyer will soon undertake the more extensive but certainly much needed task.”
Such large claims for success, even if inadequately supported by data, should at least have the virtue of clarity and consistency. I
miss these qualities in the presentation. The reporting confuses me.
For example, the title of the paper suggests that we are dealing with schizophrenic patients. Yet when the patients are categorized, seven of them are merely defined as people who were hospitalized and who believed in the reality of their hallucinations or delusions. This is purely descriptive. Seven additional patients are termed “borderline.” At best this is a doubtful diagnostic category. Three of the 17 cases dealt with are undefined, undiagnosed, even unmentioned.
At a later point it is said that the “majority [of patients] could well have been labeled to suffer from schizoaffective psychoses with depressive affects prevailing over manic.” At which point I find myself really troubled. We have difficulty enough defining schizophreni