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.
It has long been my impression that the psychotherapist whose primary interest is to provide patients with the benefits of his own wisdom and solutions for the problems of life risks the danger of violating the scientific integrity of his role. Almost inevitably, his concern with being a therapeutic force in the lives of the fellow beings he deals with in his treatment relationships leads him into the position-untenable for an objectively descriptive and analytical instrument of treatment-of volunteering his personal judgments on moral and ethical issues and of deciding what is rational or irrational, desirable or undesirable for his patients. This impression has been strengthened by the highly critical, judgmental attitude which Dr. Emanuel Schwartz and Dr. Alexander Wolf take toward certain psychotherapeutic procedures in their timely and stimulating paper.
The temptation to exceed the limits of his professional role is not one to which the “pure” scientist is exposed. His task is to describe an existing situation as accurately as he can and to develop the particular hypotheses which make it possible to foretell the subsequent course of events. Since he can measure his predictions against the events which actually do flow out of the situation, he can determine for himself the correctness of his position.
One cannot operate so fortuitously in an applied science. In this area it is more difficult to decide which hypothesis or approach is best, which will stand the test of time. Additional considerations, such as practicality and the immediacy of benefits, figure in the