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.
I am going to introduce the work of the seminar by briefly describing its origins; and in doing so I hope to indicate some of the perspectives through which the work might be viewed. Two colleagues from the seminar, an orthoptist and a social worker, will then describe cases that were discussed, so that the work of the seminar can speak for itself through the reflections of the two of the participants.
The multi-disciplinary seminar to which the title refers was held at the Tavistock Clinic between February and July 1996, and included the following thirteen participants: a consultant psychotherapist, two social workers, three orthoptists, a consultant paediatrician, an optometrist, a consultant ophthalmologist, a research registrar in ophthalmology, and three general practitioners.
Twenty meetings were held, each lasting one and a half hours, at weekly intervals. The work was based on the presentation of current cases. Forty-four patients were discussed, some on several occasions; and they represented a wide range of severity and variety of problems, with an approximately equal distribution of cases in which there was a physical basis to the disorder, and those in which no clear physical basis had been identified.
The seminars were planned as a pilot project, an exploratory venture, and not as teaching events. They were to be based on mutual learning: between the individuals participating, and between members of different disciplines who seldom discuss cases together in any detail. The focus was on our shared understanding of individual cases, and on the kind of psychological help that can be given within the various ophthalmic settings in which the participants worked.
This morning we have heard something about the rather few clinicians who have had an interest in the psychosomatic aspects of eye disease and ocular symptoms, starting either from an ophthalmological or from a psychoanalytic perspective; and who of course included Inman, who uniquely com