At the business meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association in Montreal on July 29, 1987, the members who were in attendance voted overwhelmingly to accept the proposed resolution submitted by ten members of the American Psychoanalytic Association recommending changes in the constitution and bylaws of the IPA. If accepted by the wider membership by mail ballot, this resolution will result in a significant change in the relationship of the American with the IPA. The proposal eliminates the second part of the 1938 agreement between the American and the IPA thereby permitting any group of qualified analysts in the U.S. to apply directly to the IPA for status as a study group, a provisional society, or a component society, without any affiliation with the American. The IPA would assume responsibility for insuring that these groups adopt and maintain training standards and graduation requirements consistent with those of the IPA and would serve as consultants in cases where there are institutional difficulties.
There was considerable discussion of this proposed change at the meeting of Presidents and Officers of Component Societies on Sunday, July 26 and at the Business Meeting on July 29 before the vote was finally taken. At both meetings Robert Wallerstein, President of IPA, gave a clear and detailed account of the history of the special relationship which the American has had with the IPA since the agreement of 1938. He reminded the members that the 1938 agreement was made when psychoanalysis was collapsing in Europe and analysts were fleeing, most to the United States. Of the members of the IPA at the time, two-thirds were then in the U.S. It was to the advantage of the IPA at that time to give the American financial
and administrative responsibility for those institutes developing within its borders.
The 1938 agreement gave the American Psychoanalytic Association two basic responsibilities:
to determine standards of training, graduation, and membership for its accredited institutes (outside of the U.S. the IPA has full responsibility for this);
membership in the IPA within the borders of the U.S. would be limited to members of the American Psychoanalytic Association (outside of the U.S. members may apply directly to the IPA).
Between 1938 and 1949 there were no IPA Congresses. By 1949, the agreement was in place and working well. The new proposal submitted in Montreal and approved by the membership present eliminates the second part of this agreement only; that is, the American would still retain autonomy over training in its own accredited institutes as a Regional Association of the IPA.
There was considerable discussion by members from other countries in regard to the Regional Status of the American. Both Wallerstein and Richard Simons, President of the American, spoke to the importance of acknowledging the history and traditions of the American and its relationship over time with the IPA. Dr. Simons reviewed the history of the founding of the American in 1911 by eight American psychiatrists, the year after the publication in the U.S. of the Flexner Report. Based on the Flexner Report, high standards were set for medical training in the U.S. and many substandard medical schools were closed. Founded in the wake of this report and with a medical-psychiatric identity from its inception, the American has paid close attention to maintaining high standards for analytic training in the U.S. over the past 75 years. Simons went on to explain that for the past 40 years this has been overseen by the Board of Professional Standards which has kept in close touch with the 26 American institutes through a variety of means, including on-site accreditation visits, the establishment of procedures for the certification of graduates, and assistance in and monitoring of the development of new institutes, among other functions. The officers of the American believe strongly that it is important to maintain a Regional Association for these institutes and a national organization which assumes the financial and administrative responsibility for maintaining high standards of analytic training and practice.
Discussion turned to the importance of the American; opening its doors to non-medical members. From the beginning, most of the component societies of the IPA have been open to medical and non-medical analysts, making it difficult for analysts from other countries to understand this issue in the U.S. Both Wallerstein and Simons carefully went through this history in the American from the first admission in the 1950's of non-medical research analysts, to the current admission, following the acceptance of the Gaskill Report, of non-medical clinical analysts approved by a new Committee of the American on Non Medical Clinical Training. Simons informed the group that 68 percent of the membership of the American had voted to approve the Gaskill Report. By May 1987, 14 of 26 institutes had already made application for waivers to the new Committee of the Board, and 18 out of the total of 24 applications submitted by these institutes were approved. Simons assured the group that the American is acting in good faith when it insists that these changes are best done gradually and with the approval of the membership of the American.
Many questions about the lawsuit against the American and the IPA were raised, and these were answered openly and candidly by Wallerstein and Simons during the discussions preceding the vote at both meetings. Some of the concern centered on the financial drain of the suit on the resources of the IPA. From 1985 to 1987, approximately $90,000 was spent by the IPA in connection with the suit brought against it by the four American psychologists charging “conspiracy to restrict trade”. Beginning in January 1987, the American agreed to pay 60 percent of current and future legal expenses incurred by the IPA, based on the fact that non-American membership of the IPA is approximately that percentage at this time. Dr. Schlossman, Treasurer of the IPA, projected that, as a result, the 1987 costs connected with the lawsuit will be about two percent of the annual income of the IPA. It was clear from the discussion that the officers of the IPA feel it is in the best interests of the IPA not to settle the suit now as the plaintiffs are making demands inconsistent with the present functioning and standards of the IPA and asking large amounts in damages. But the officers of the IPA expressed their hope that the negotiations would proceed toward a reasonable settlement.
The vote overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed resolution reflected confidence in both the leadership of the IPA and the leadership of the American Psychoanalytic Association.