Dr. Roy Lilleskov, Chairman of a special Joint Ad Hoc Committee of Board and Council read a report summarizing the reactions of the various Societies and Institutes to the “Chicago Proposal.” Dr. Lilleskov was commended for his fairness and industry at both Board and Council. The Chairman of the Board on Professional Standards, Dr. Edward M. Weinshel, announced the recommendation from the Executive Committee and the Coordinating Committee that no action be taken until December at the earliest because of the need for clarification of many questions asked by local groups. Dr. Lilleskov's committee will refer these questions to the Chicago Institute and will then transmit the answers to the Societies and Institutes, along with a digest of the discussions of Board and Council at the Annual Meeting in Denver for their further consideration. At the time of detailed discussion of the proposal, the President-Elect, Dr. Francis McLaughlin will chair the proceedings.
The report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee has by now been widely distributed to Institutes and Societies. It is so condensed that a summary of the points raised in favor and in opposition to the Chicago Proposal is impossible to report here. The conclusion was plain, however, that groups were about evenly divided, that those opposed tended to give detailed reasons, while those in favor tended to agree to the arguments put forth in the proposal without much additional elaboration since the proposal contained its own reasons for being.
Dr. Pollock added a note to the discussion in the Executive Council that was not emphasized in Dr. Lilleskov's report. He expressed concern that American medicine was undergoing such rapid changes that in ten years the M.D. degree might be replaced by a Doctor of Science degree in a sub-specialty. The “Science of Psychoanalysis,” as he called it, might be unprepared to take its proper place unless it attempts now to study the most effective pathways of training toward clinical psychoanalysis without being rigidly tied to the “traditional” medical route. He felt the Chicago Proposal is such an attempt. Dr. Kenneth Calder spoke in relation to this point at the Meeting of Members when he wondered whether the vital questions concerning the relationship of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic training to changes in the American medical and scientific scene were of such great concern to all analysts that a study of these developments should be undertaken under the direct aegis of the APsaA.
The widespread evidence of deep feelings as well as of careful, though opposed, opinions on all sides suggests that the “great caution in resolving this issue” recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee is wise. The actions of Board and Council to defer action until further thorough discussion and clarification are undertaken affirms this recommendation.