To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the copy of the letter to President Reagan and the accompanying article which appeared in the Spring, 1984 Newsletter. I was glad that a letter expressing concern about the nuclear peril was sent by the American Psychoanalytic Association. However, I was dismayed to see that the final letter had been much reduced in strength and clarity as compared to the draft that was unanimously endorsed at the December business meeting in New York. That original letter, composed mainly by Henry and Rachel Parens and Margaret Brenman-Gibson, mentioned some of the recent studies supporting the position stated in the letter. According to the article, the Executive Committee completely deleted the middle paragraph, “which had attempted to describe in greater detail the malignant nature of the arms race on psychological development, particularly of children and adolescents, and the consequence of such severe psychological tension as reflected in the international political arena.”
I recall that those members present voted unanimously to endorse the original draft and to send copies to all Members of Congress. The Executive Committee was to be allowed to revise the draft without the necessity for a new vote in order to save time, but the intent was to strengthen the letter if possible. Instead, the letter was weakened, and all evidence of our special expertise removed. According to the article, the committee was concerned about the loss of tax exempt status if the letter could be construed as a lobbying effort. I fail to see why giving the best scientific evidence we have in support of our position should necessarily be interpreted as excessive lobbying, deserving punishment. Indeed, we have done so in the past.
Scientific evidence such as the studies of Drs. Mack, Beardsley, and Escalona continue to present mounting evidence for the increasing stress created by current international tensions. Psychoanalysts should be considered experts on depth psychology and on the creative resolution of conflicts within and between individuals and groups of individuals. As experts we should clearly and strongly join with other professional groups in a clear statement about the effects of an unhealthy environment. I hope that we can continue to collect information from the experiences of individual clinicians as well as from surveys of groups of people about the effects of the nuclear situation and the policies pertaining to it. The most popular panel at the meetings of the American Psychiatric Association in California was the panel on this subject organized by a psychoanalyst, Lester Grinspoon. 4000 people attended, giving evidence of great interest in this issue—one that touches all of us.
The American Psychoanalytic Association courageously took a public position on the Cambodian crisis. It is time for us to become more public again. I suggest that we send another letter referring to our best scientific knowledge and send it this time not only to the Administration, but to each member of Congress, as had been advocated at the business meeting. We should also have a public forum on this topic. At times it is necessary for psychoanalysts to give up anonymity for the sake of a visible position regarding mental if not physical health.
Wolfgang O. Weigert, M.D.
Washington, D.C.