>Dr.Eisman has made an number of statements that are simply mistaken.
>
>Far from their being no data about the effectiveness of psychoanalysis
>there is a considerable amount of research in this area (see Galatzer-Levy
>et al. (2000) Does Psychoanalysis Work. Yale University Press and the
>website http://www.ipa.org.uk/research/R-outcome.htm  , An Open Door
>Review of Outcome Studies in Psychoanalysis, which reviews additional
>materials.) As in any field many of the specific researches are flawed or
>suffer from significant limitations. This is partly because much of the
>research was done some time ago when expectations for clinical research
>were lower, partly because there are no huge drug companies supporting
>psychoanalytic research, and partly because serious outcome research in
>psychoanalysis is intrinsically extremely difficult. The data is not as
>good as we wish it to be but this is a far cry from the implied total
>absence of data suggested by Dr. Eisman.
>
>I am sorry that Dr. Eisman has bought the insurance companies' blather
>about only reimbursing for treatment that has documented efficacy in
>controlled clinical trials. Much of medical practice, procedures like
>appendectomies, have no such data. The insurance companies are in the in
>the business of making money and use whatever excuses they can get away
>with for not distributing it. It hardly makes sense to attack colleagues
>for not pleasing these companies or failing to live up to their made up
>standards.
>
>It should also be pointed out that the question of efficacy is not the
>only empirical question in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis includes several
>theories and groups of ideas that have been extensively studied
>empirically with varying degrees of rigor.
>
>I am particualrly sorry that Dr. Eisman has chosen to attack women social
>workers. He must live in a different culture than I do because calling
>oneself an analyst as opposed to a therapist has a negative impact, if
>any, on the economics of practice where I come from. More important, the
>idea of condemning individuals who have chosen something different from a
>lockstep professional path as a route to careers starting in midlife  or
>who take what strikes me as the economically sensible step of sharing an
>office with a friend or spouse, seems to me condescending and silly. I
>know there are second rate institutes and it is my impression that they
>attract all manner of individuals. However, at the Chicago Institute for
>Psychoanalysis, where I teach and serve as a training and supervising
>analyst, and which I can say with confidence enjoys an outstanding
>reputation in the analytic community,  I can assure you that several of
>our most outstanding candidates and graduates in recent years have been
>women social workers who pursued analytic training in midlife, exactly the
>sort of people Dr. Eisman seems to be condemming.

Robert M. Galatzer-Levy, M.D.            Telephone 312 922 5077
122 South Michigan Avenue                 Fax 312 922 5084
Chicago, Illinois 60603                        E-Mail [log in to unmask]