Our annual meeting in Puerto Rico seemed an excellent demonstration of the good health of the American Psychoanalytic Association—scientifically, organizationally, and personally. The scientific program was superb, the meetings of Board, Council, and various committees were highly productive, and the members and spouses were sporting excellent tans by the end of the week. We are indebted to our Puerto Rican hosts, particularly Dr. and Mrs. Victor Bernal and Dr. and Mrs. Rafael Padro-Yumet, for their diligence in helping to make this an especially enjoyable meeting. It is a tribute to the Program Committee and its retiring Chairman, Sydney Pulver, that the scientific sessions were of extraordinary quality and competed successfully with the attractions of the beaches, tennis courts, and rain forest.
A few matters require attention. At the request of the Executive Committee, the Executive Council took up the question of stipends for officers, to begin after the terms of the present officers. After a discussion the Council voted, with one dissenting vote, to provide stipends to the President and President-elect, beginning in 1982. Later, under new business, a motion was made to begin stipends for the President and Chairman now, and this motion also carried. I was not present during that discussion. After leaving Puerto Rico and arriving at the APA meeting in New Orleans, a number of members from different parts of the country indicated to me that they were disturbed that stipends had been voted, feeling that this has not been discussed adequately and the membership had not been sufficiently informed in advance, although the item had been brought up at the previous Council meeting. It is my impression that two different concerns were voiced. Some felt that stipends are inappropriate under any circumstances, while others felt that stipends are appropriate, but that the amounts and the arrangements for these stipends had not been adequately thought through. I have discussed these concerns with other members of the Executive Committee, and we are all agreed that a measure of this kind ought not to proceed without the fullest sense of the membership's support. We have decided, therefore, that no action will be taken towards the payment of stipends for anyone until the members of affiliate societies have had an opportunity to discuss it more fully, and we will place it on the agenda at the Council meeting again in December.
In suggesting that stipends be considered, I have been concerned that the commitment of time and the length of office for the major officers is now such that we may seriously limit our ability to attract nominees for these offices, unless we help them to meet some of the financial burden. I urge that local societies consider the matter and that councilors be prepared to discuss it again in December. No action will be taken before then. Dr. Hall and I have decided that we will not participate in any stipend plan during the remainder of our terms of office.
The proposal for the new membership category was discussed further, and considerable clarification was achieved in understanding the history of the proposal as an aspect of the certification procedure instituted in 1977. This clarification seemed to permit the debate to focus on the merits and demerits of the proposal rather than on ideology or hidden intent. I thought the discussion was productive. My hope is that the Council will vote at the December meeting and the appropriate By-Laws proposal will then go to the membership for their vote, accompanied by the Council's recommendation for approval or disapproval.
The preliminary discussion of the proposals for the training of nonmedical doctoral degree persons began in somewhat desultory fashion. The reports of the Committees on Prerequisites and Feasibility of Nonmedical Training are excellent and address primarily the educational issues. I think no one doubts that we are capable of training selected nonmedical persons. The other professional and intellectual issues, however, are not addressed in the report and require our most careful deliberation. We cannot now predict the numbers of nonmedical people who would be trained, and we should be aware of the impossibility of reversing our course, once begun. We should give the most careful consideration to what a less medical or nonmedical image of psychoanalysis would mean for our relationships with medical schools and the American Psychiatric Association, for our role in the community, for the nature of practice and colleagueship, and for our relationship to governmental bodies and third-party payers. The councilors were urged to encourage debate in the local societies.
The new Committee on Psychoanalytic Practice, formed as one of the recommendations of the Practice Survey Committee and chaired by Dr. Theodore Jacobs, has gotten underway, and I believe it will develop into a significant forum for research into the nature and patterns of analytic practice and for recommendations promoting the health of analytic careers. At the panel discussion on analytic practice held in Puerto Rico, it became clear that we should consider more carefully a diversity of analytic career patterns, developing several desirable models of practice, rather than the single model of the training analyst.
The new Liaison Committee to the Chairmen of Departments of Psychiatry, led by Drs. Wallerstein and Michels, has undertaken the task of providing educational assistance for college undergraduate, medical school, and psychiatric residency programs. Analysts have an important role to play in providing general education concerning psychoanalysis and psychodynamics at all of these levels of education, ranging from the broadest cultural considerations to psychotherapeutic education. I was also encouraged that our new scientific Committees on Careers in Psychoanalytic Research, chaired, by Dr. Philip Holzman, and on Feasibility for Outcome Study, chaired by Dr. Herbert Schlesinger, have begun to work in earnest, with every indication that they will be productive.
Finally, I should mention that we continue to be vigilant on the political front. The Central Office is preparing an information packet to assist local societies in those states where lay organizations are seeking legislative authority to establish themselves as accrediting or certifying organizations in psychoanalysis. We have also begun an exploration with the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy for Psychoanalysis to find whether we can jointly participate in establishing national certifying processes. These discussions are very preliminary and are being pursued by a joint ad hoc committee of Board and Council; we will keep you informed.
I think all of us left the meeting in Puerto Rico with a sense that a great deal had been accomplished and that the American Psychoanalytic Association, although complex and at times ponderous, is constantly growing, adapting, and maturing.
Best wishes for a good summer.
Arnold M. Cooper, M.D.
New York