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.
Several general conclusions can be extracted from the preceding papers.
The couch is used consistently by all contributors, regardless of theoretical orientation.
All contributors appreciate the need (a) to analyze the patient's reluctance to use the couch whenever it appears and (b) not to coerce the patient into using it.
While all contributors reported that some of their patients sat up during certain periods of their analyses, only one (Jacobson) reported that he analyzed a patient sitting up all the way through and still considered it a bona fide analysis.
New rationales are evolving, both in the direction of using the couch (Grotstein, Sadow, Wolf) and in the direction of not using it (Gedo, Lichtenberg), while Freud's rationale continues to be the basic reference for suitable cases.
None of the contributors claimed empirical knowledge of conducting an analysis without the use of the couch for experimental purposes. All empirical knowledge without the use of the couch is derived from patients who refused to go along with the analyst's recommendations. This constitutes a select group of patients about which no general conclusions can be drawn.
Obviously, a good deal remains inconclusive or even contradictory. Given the nature of the subject under consideration, this is unavoidable. Nonetheless, I hope that some important questions have been raised that will direct more attention to this important and sensitive subject.