As some have pointed out, psychotherapy research is so complex, as there are
so many factors to control for.  However, there was a similar debate about 2
years ago on the clinical psychology forum, also involving Dr. Eisman and
others including myself.  At that time, I posted specific references from
controlled research (including meta-analyses) showing that, overall, therapy
identified as "psychodynamic" or "psychoanalytic" was just as effective--from
a symptom reduction framework--as other forms of therapy identified as
"interpersonal" and "cognitive-behavioral" and others.  And that's my
summation of all of the research--psychoanalytic therapy is no better and no
worse than other forms of therapy.  The only exceptions are possibly
psychosis and manic-depression--for which medications work better (from a
strictly symptomatic framework).  Now personally, I prefer psychoanalytic and
other "depth" approaches since they value that which is human in people,
rather than treating people as machines.  But that's simply my value, and I
don't expect that to be shared by others if they have different tastes.

By now, I've lost these references.  Besides, my best recollection is that
after I posted them on the list, Dr. Eisman didn't respond.  That's
interesting.

I think Dr. Eisman points out correctly that one of the problems is that
therapists who tout themselves as specialists in "treating mental illness"
have no basis to make such an assertion, probably irrespective of their
approach, since by and large there are no significant statistical differences
between forms of therapy, in terms of symptom outcome, when one looks at
large sectors of the controlled research on the subject.

I think for psychotherapists who are interested primarily in understanding
and working with the subjectivity involved in human existence and the human
condition, we'd be better off by ridding ourselves altogether of the term
"illness" when referring to those with whom we work (I dislike both "patient"
and "client").  And we'd be better off getting out of "mental health" and
"medicine" altogether--since both presume that we have some agreed-upon
standard of what constitutes "mental health,"  which is far from the case.
Not to mention rid ourselves of the horrible notion of "psychopathology,"
which also presumes that we have some yardstick of "normality" in this world,
whatever that is.  And in this way, we'd leave the issue of "scientific
credibility" for medication specialists and scientists to worry about, as we
continue to understand the phenomenology of human suffering, empathy, and
relationships.

And as far as the issue of who ought to be doing psychoanalysis or
psychotherapy (social workers, psychiatrists or whatever), I think ANYONE
who's interested in doing therapy--regardless of their academic
background--ought to be considered for training --assuming they have an open
mind and are serious about it.  I have friends with no college background
whatsoever who are far better "psychotherapists" than many of my colleagues
with years of formal training and experience, as far as their ability to
intuit the suffering of others in a manner which leads to constructive
change.

David Mittelman, Ph.D.