To the Editor:
I am grateful to those who responded in so thoughtful a manner to the recent exchange between Drs. Brockman and Pacella. It is encouraging to know that our members are concerned and have valuable ideas to offer, about our Public Information program.
I am particularly impressed with the suggestion—indeed, from Dr. Fink the invitation—to capitalize on the extensive and experienced resources of the American Psychiatric Association to help us in our efforts. Although some of our correspondents emphasize the uniqueness of our needs, we surely share with our psychiatric colleagues many areas of common concern in this era of shrinking resources and growing public skepticism about our work in particular and medicine in general (described graphically by Paul Starr in “The Social Transformation of American Medicine”). The APA cannot do our job for us, but it would be wasteful for us to ignore the help it can offer or to duplicate the work that they are able, with their greater membership and financial backing, to do. I intend to pursue this matter during the coming year.
Dr. Simon raises an issue that has concerned many members, and posed, as he notes, a significant problem during our Committee work on the informational brochure. Clearly the problem transcends the competence of this Committee, and reverberates with many discords in the Association. I do not, however, believe that the basic mission of the Committee—to promote the interests of psychoanalysis and of the Association through the media of public information—is as seriously compromised by these unsettled questions as he suggests. Most of the questions brought to us by journalists have to do with serious issues of theory and clinical practice, and we have used the. knowledge and talent of a broad range of analysts in an effort to respond to these inquiries. We have also sought, so far as is possible, to deal with irresponsible critical attacks on psychoanalysis; it is difficult, however, to reply to all of these, and a certain judicious selection is necessary. It would help the Committee if members would bring to our attention those that escape our notice (the one Dr. Fink describes did, for example), and it is clearly within the purview of local groups to respond to such attacks in media of local circulation.
Dr. Stevenson's call for greater integration of psychoanalysis with the “legitimizing” disciplines (are we illegitimate?) evokes a very positive response from me. Unfortunately, I don't think that this is a task that can be performed by a committee—it is a long range undertaking to be pursued by scholars and investigators, particularly in the academic community, with which, I believe, psychoanalysis must develop closer and more binding connections.
I hope that members will continue to submit to us their ideas and suggestions for improvement of our Public Information activities. In turn, I hope to be able to call upon them for help as situations arise.
Aaron H. Esman, M.D., Chairman
Committee on Public Information