To the Editors:

The rapid and accelerating proliferation of non-accredited (by us) psychoanalytic societies and training institutes has by now resulted in the inevitable—the American Psychoanalytic Assoc. is but one Psychoanalytic Association among many. Compared to the total, its membership is small. While one might well wish otherwise, if our differences are maintained it is not necessarily all bad. What is bad is that we are slowly, but steadily, eroding these differences by well-meant attempts at compromise. Such compromises jeopardize not only our identity, but the basic tenets of our science, e.g. the necessarily exclusive one-to-one relationship, the overriding importance of confidentiality, the holistic approach to Psyche and Soma, among others. Practically, we give up our right to determine what to diagnose, what to treat, whom and when to treat, and when to terminate. All of this seems to me too high a price to pay. It is time for the membership to reconsider non-participation in any form of compromise. We should not participate in any health insurance, national or private, which requires compromising the basic principles of analysis. This may be temporarily costly but the alternative is worse. We should not relax the requirement of Medical licensure for membership. Worthy non-M.D.'s now have their own places to get training. We should not pay a man to represent us in Washington. We are by nature and selection not politicians. We can lend our support to the American Psychiatric Association, where indicated. Let us get back to psychoanalytic practice and research. Let us maintain a clear identity, clear psychoanalytic principles and psychoanalytic self-respect.

Yours truly,

Merl M. Jackel

New York