To the Editor:
I almost hesitated to write this letter; I know very well that our colleagues who give so much time and effort in working on the Newsletter must feel little reward and not much thanks. I can't reward, but I can and do thank you and your staff for the excellence of the work for the Association.
That said, I want to express some personal concern about the last issue, which features, to an unwarranted degree I thought, the debates about possible changes in membership policies. Whether the extent of the coverage was warranted or not, the real worry was that the opinions expressed seemed to be all toward one side of the question. Much of the space was given over to the President's personal views, including his call for membership changes which go considerably beyond the “Chicago Proposal.” There is no question of the appropriateness of the Newsletter's presentation of the President's views. But there is reason to wonder at the featuring of not one but two long “Points of View,” both from the same Society, each advocating even more drastic changes in the structure of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
I am aware that past numbers have featured the points of view of Drs. Goodman, Solomon, Cooper and Kaplan, and these presentations have been useful. But an unwary reader of this particular issue might never guess that other rational, respectable views exist. He could have found at least suspicions of these other opinions if, in contrast to opinion the news of what happened on the Board of Professional Standards had been reported. While the Newsletter did report the action of the Board in endorsing the recommendations of the Committee on Membership and the Co-ordinating Committee, it did not report the strong majority of the vote (27-18). And the reader would not have understood just what it was that the Board endorsed so strongly, inasmuch as only one sentence was given to the Committee on Membership's extensive consideration, including recognition of the need (also mentioned by many speakers before the Board) that we must find out just how many potential members “out there” are failing to seek certification, and for what reasons, before rational recommendations for basic structural changes in the Association can be made. Only one general sentence is devoted to the extensive and high level discussion at the meeting of the Board. Finally, the reader could hardly have guessed what it meant to endorse the Coordinating Committee's unequivocal recommendation; the report of the Secretary of the Board was not mentioned.
The Newsletter has a just reputation for clarity and impartiality. I have not the slightest doubt that the “tilting” of this particular issue was inadvertent. And I am sure we all agree that the first duty of the publication is to present the news, dispassionately and in as much depth as possible. Balanced expressions of private opinion have a place too, but not at the expense of the news, which includes the public expression of a variety of differing opinions, leading eventually to collective action.
Vann Spruiell, M.D.
New Orleans
Secretary
Board on Professional Standards