As one of the older members (I'll be 90 later this year) of the Association, I would like to respond to Newell Fischer's recent letter in TAP (Winter/Spring 2004). In order to survive, I think psychoanalysis needs much more than changing the requirements for the national Association, but at least it is a place to start, and I support his suggested changes.
I think the Association needs to think more in terms of minimal than optimal requirements. I recall once after the organization for child analysts was formed that the practice requirements for that organization, for the American, and the training analysts were such that it would take 24 hours a day to fulfill! I could not, with the best of intentions, fulfill them all.
Also, it was beginning to be difficult to find analytic patients, especially any willing to come five or six days a week. I found that three times a week was sufficient to develop a transference neurosis. The requirements for performance of psychoanalysis must be stated in terms other than number of times per week, or number of years.
Interestingly enough, many years ago, when I applied to the Association, I was refused on the basis that my personal analysis was too long (rumor had it that I must be psychotic). It was then required of me that I must see a patient six times a week to be accepted. I was only able to keep a patient at that intensity for nine months. The committee must have changed, as I was then accepted.
I do want to say that I have learned much from my training and experience, and have been able to translate psychoanalytic insights into many consulting areas, and even into evaluation of disabilities for Supplemental Social Security. With such people as Newell Fischer, I have some hope for the future of the profession.
—Helen R. Beiser