It has become apparent to me that a highly condensed sentence in my report on Certification could lead to misunderstanding which I would like to avoid by further clarification.
In stating that “In the opinion of the members of the Committee the composition of the Board of Psychiatry and Neurology is even more unfavorable to the interest of psychoanalysis at this time than in the past,” I was referring to the fact that the present Board has been enlarged and has, we believe, a more eclectic orientation than was the case in 1959. We concluded, therefore, that its viewpoint about what might be desirable or necessary for certification procedures in psychoanalysis would coincide less closely with the view of the American than had been the case in 1959, when the negotiating committee and the Board had reached essential agreement.
I did not mean to imply that the Board would be inclined to act in a way unfavorable to the interest of psychoanalysis or that it had done so in the past. Nor did I mean to suggest that the Board had been in any way inimical to the American in our preliminary talks. Quite the contrary, its representatives had been most cooperative and helpful. In fact, we have been assured that in the consideration of the alternate courses for certification or recognition by the national specialty board apparatus, the Board of Psychiatry and Neurology is most receptive to furthering the dialogue.
Our recent report was not intended to foreclose the possibility of further discussion with the Board should that appear indicated, but to inform members of the Committee's assessment of the possibilities for certification at this time. Should the Committee's judgement as to the probable attitude of a majority of members prove wrong, and there is strong support for certification under the Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, further contact with that body is possible and would be sought.
Sincerely,
Burness E. Moore, M.D. Chairman
Committee on Certification
September 16, 1975
Dear Sir:
In her article about the Congress held in London this year (Newsletter, Sept. 1975), Mrs. Helen Fischer laments that there was a “disquieting atmosphere of hostility toward the American Psychoanalytic Association emanating from some European and some American colleagues.”
Mrs. Fischer has distorted the facts just enough to give a completely false impression of what happened and I would like to set the record straight. Immediately after the resolution, described by Mrs. Fischer as “primarily a vehicle for attacking the American Psychoanalytic Association by alleging discrimination against some members… for their Kleinian position and practice…” was introduced, the American (Dr. Leon Ferber) introduced a motion to table it without further discussion. After the motion had passed and the American had gotten its wish to end discussion, the President of the American, Dr. Francis McLaughlin, took the floor and began to speak to the motion. He was reminded by the membership that he was out of order, since a motion had just been passed to prevent this discussion. It was only then, when he insisted on continuing to speak, even though he knew he was out of order, that the membership became angry and stopped him.
Mrs. Fischer, I assume, reflects the views of the American when she makes it appear that Dr. McLaughlin was the wronged party when the membership simply enforced the vote which the American had wanted in the first place. But worse, she abuses our colleagues from around the world by calling their healthy reaction to a usurpation of power, “an unruly public demonstration.” Is it any wonder that our colleagues are angry?
Sincerely yours,
Donald M. Marcus, M.D.
September 27, 1975