Search

Writing from experiences in the consulting room in private practice in Australia, the author refers to the layered complexity of a conflict of ethical duty which has legal and social implications. The paper explores how the ethics that are congruent with creating a safe vas bene claustrum can be diametrically opposed to the social and legal structures and processes on which we all rely. It is suggested that within the vas, analysts and analysands engage in a shared process of emotionally connected, layered, symbolic thinking. Subpoenas directed at analysts are seeking concrete evidence that will stand up in court. The paper argues that this is a category error based on ignorance and misconceptions of what analytic work entails. The intrusion of a subpoena into the vas has the potential to cause havoc in the mental health and the lives of already vulnerable, possibly traumatized and isolated individuals. It can undermine a fundamental human right and undermine the profession of psychotherapy as a whole. The paper proposes that analysts have an ethical obligation to protect the work contained within the vas from these category errors and to educate other professionals as to why we cannot provide the kind of evidence that the courts require., (© 2019, The Society of Analytical Psychology.)

Research Question: The study investigates the factors that have a bearing on the development of a chief expert opinion in standardized German psychotherapy (psychodynamic therapies)., Methodology: As part of the MARS project a documentation system was developed to record the sociodemographic, clinical and biographical data of the patients as well as data relating to the therapists and the evaluation of the experts, all of which are contained in the therapist's reports. In a comparison of n = 153 chief expert opinions with n = 291 opinions relating to the control group under the normal process, differences occurred between the two groups with respect to the data on both patients and therapists. Moreover, the system records the frequency with which the individual experts contribute to the initiation of a chief expert opinion over a period of 3 years., Results: Proceedings based on chief expert opinions are initiated with patients who have severe psychopathologies and marginal prognostic prospects. Reservations expressed by the experts refer in particular to the psychodynamics described and the foreseen treatment planning. The qualification and gender of the therapists are certainly an issue for chief expert opinions. The experts themselves contribute with varying degrees to the initiation of an expert opinion., Discussion: While the role of patients and therapists in the realization of a chief expert opinion comes as no surprise and is in fact testimony to the quality assurance function of the process, considerable differences have emerged in the handling and approach adopted by the experts themselves. Calls for a better coordination process on the part of the experts should not go unheeded.

Full parity of health insurance benefits for treatment of mental illness, including substance use disorders, is a major achievement. However, the newly-published regulations implementing the legislation strongly endorse aggressive managed care as a way of containing costs for the new equality of coverage. Reductions in "very long episodes of out-patient care," hospitalization, and provider fees, along with increased utilization, are singled out as achievements of managed care. Medical appropriateness as defined by expert medical panels is to be the basis of authorizing care, though clinicians are familiar with a history of insurance companies' application of "medical necessity" to their own advantage. The regulations do not single out psychotherapy for attention, but long-term psychotherapy geared to the needs of each patient appears to be at risk. The author recommends that the mental health professions strongly advocate for the growing evidence base for psychotherapy including long-term therapy for complex mental disorders; respect for the structure and process of psychotherapy individualized to patients' needs; awareness of the costs of aggressive managed care in terms of money, time, administrative burden, and interference with the therapy; and recognition of the extensive training and experience required to provide psychotherapy as well as the stresses and demands of the work. Parity in out-of-network benefits could lead to aggressive management of care given by non-network practitioners. Since a large percentage of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals stay out of networks, implementation of parity for out-of-network providers will have to be done in a way that respects the conditions under which they would be willing and able to provide services, especially psychotherapy, to insured patients. The shortage of psychiatrists makes this an important access issue for the insured population in need of care.

Research Question: According to the German Guidelines for Psychotherapy, psychotherapists need the consent of the respective insurance company to commence outpatient therapy. They have two options: (1) To begin a so-called short-term therapy (KZT) for up to 25 sessions--a quick and easy procedure requiring few formal expenses. Afterwards the therapist must provide the reasons for extending the therapy in a formal expert assessment request (extension request). (2) It is also possible to obtain the consent of the insurance company at the beginning of therapy (initial request) for up to 50 sessions (psychodynamic long-term therapy) or even for up to 160 sessions (analytical psychotherapy), both of which require the same expert assessment to be filled out beforehand (LZT). This study examines the initial and extension requests submitted for evaluation for psychodynamic therapies according to the German Guidelines for Psychotherapy. The question is posed as to what influences are important in the selection of therapists for these two types of request., Methodology: In the context of the MARS study, we evaluated a total of 362 randomly chosen requests submitted between May 2007 and June 2008, 128 of which were initial requests and 234 of which were requests for an extension. The evaluation of the reports proceeded on the basis of a previously developed documentation system with various modules comprising information on the sociodemographics and morbidity of the patients as well as information on the therapists themselves. Further modules are assessed in this review., Results: There were many more requests for an extension submitted than initial requests. Initial requests were preferably made when planning analytical psychotherapy. Patients for whom initial requests were submitted were also distinctly younger. The morbidity of the patients had no noticeable influence on the choice of procedure. In particular, diagnoses that could require crisis intervention were not more common in the requests for an extension than in the initial requests. Variables among the therapists had no influence on the form of procedure. These results were confirmed by a multivariate statistical analysis., Discussion: The inconsistencies found in the reported and encoded morbidity of the patients confirm earlier results. Basic conditions, like the guidelines themselves or the payment of trial treatment, seem to determine therapists' behaviour. We also discuss whether or not the advantages of the current procedures to both the patient and the therapist outweigh the possible disadvantages..

Though it is unlikely that instituting universal guidelines will ever be possible for patient approval of the analyst's use of clinical material outside of the treatment setting, the author offers some supplementary reflections to those already available in the literature. Broadly applied informed consent guidelines would increase the distortion that already exists in our clinical literature due to self-imposed restraints by writers. Moreover, the powerful irrational forces mobilized by consent in the dyad are not easily 'held' by traditional applicable legal categories. Metapsychological formulations of the intrapsychic and intersubjective impact of patient participation in the writing process on individual analytic dyads are needed. Notions of privacy protection, validation, dyadic co-construction, or writing-as-containment by a third as rationales for informed consent fail to encompass the transindividual and external sources of human identity and the ineradicable lack of unity in the unconscious. Nevertheless, theoretical affinity and preferred technique may be mediating factors in positive outcomes of the consent process. Some paradigms not only accommodate more comfortably but also actively seek the intersubjective repercussions of informed consent. As an alternative or complementary viewpoint, the author offers the hypothesis that the clinical ramifications of either disguise or consent are not exclusively, nor even necessarily, concerned with what patients read about themselves, but what they assess or intuit--directly or indirectly through the material presented--of their analyst's unconscious strivings. To truly triangulate the clinical reporting project, it is wisest to consult the third ear of a colleague to assess the potential impact on patients on what might be being unconsciously transmitted by the analyst in the writing and the consent process.

The author argues that the use of clinical material for educational purposes or for publication presents the analyst with a conflict of interest between the protection of the patient's privacy and the educational and scientific needs of the field, and also that it places analysts in the position of using confidential patient material in the service of their own professional advancement. The strategies of dealing with this dilemma can be classified as follows: (1) thick disguise, (2) patient consent, (3) the process approach, (4) the use of composites and (5) the use of a colleague as author. Some of these options may, of course, be used in combination with one another. All of these methods have a place, and the author argues against a uniform approach. Each of these strategies is discussed in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. While no choice is without various risks, some guidelines are offered to assist analysts who wish to present or write about clinical cases.

In this paper, reservations are expressed about two deviations from analytic neutrality: when the analyst seeks the patient's permission for publication or presentation of clinical material and when the analyst allows the patient access to the dossier under access-of-information legislation. In the first case, concern centres mainly on the entanglement of the patient in the therapist's sanctioned version of their work, an entanglement that might inhibit future revisions of the patient's self-understanding. In the second case, the analytic mental space, symbolised by the dossier, is viewed as neither uniquely the analyst's nor the patient's, a complex dialectical chamber the privacy of which must be respected, even by the patient whose discourse contributes to it, in order for it to function effectively. Transparency and accountability in the analytic context reveal a paradox that is not exclusive to it: the possibility of full disclosure runs counter to the expression of subjective truth. In a clinical example, curiosity about the dossier is seen to have been a new version of an earlier thwarted questioning about origins and identity. A specific deficiency in the therapist's understanding may have contributed to the patient's enactment.

Expert Opinions and Social Insurance Tribunal Rulings on the Scope of Medical Insurance Cover for Analytic Psychotherapy.--In Germany at present medical insurance cover is more or less automatic for a bone-marrow transplant costing anything up to 100,000 dollars--an operation where the death of the patients is by no means infrequent. In view of this state of affairs it is hard to comprehend the refusal on the part of insurance cover reviewers to approve ongoing cover for analytic psychotherapy beyond the 240-hour limit. In the case presented here, privately financed continuation by some 180 hours demonstrated that this prolongation and intensification of therapy was in fact essential to ensure the success of the treatment.

The causes of therapist-patient sex are complex and multidetermined. Efforts to understand why psychotherapists transgress sexual boundaries are hampered by the lure of reductionism and oversimplification. Most of those who examine this issue would prefer to categorize all such therapists as "bad" and "corrupt" as a way of distancing themselves and disavowing any similarities between these therapists and themselves. The pathology of therapists who commit sexual boundary violations generally falls into four broad categories: (1) psychotic disorders, (2) predatory psychopathy and paraphilias, (3) lovesickness, and (4) masochistic surrender. Although a variety of individual psychodynamic factors are involved within each group, this classification is highly useful for informed treatment planning.

This paper presents a case that documents an extreme example of "fostered dependency." After 18 years of psychoanalysis, which eventually escalated to 8-10 sessions per week, with two treating (and married) analysts, the patient sought legal redress and compensation for negligent treatment. The lawsuit claimed that continued psychotherapy first created, then unduly fostered, dependency. Other problems cited were dual relationships, confused boundaries, excessive sessions, exorbitant fees, length of treatment, failure to keep records, failure to identify goals, and failure to keep therapy focused upon the patient's well-being. This case, which eventually settled out of court, is instructive in several regards: (1) it provides an example of the extent to which dependency can be created and manipulated; (2) it suggests a strategy by which the profession can facilitate a patient's rights; and (3) it also raises a number of broader issues about the conduct of psychotherapy.

Treating suicidal patients is one of the most stressful aspects of psychotherapeutic work. This paper describes and evaluates two models of therapy with suicidal patients. The crisis-intervention model, which assumes suicidal feelings are acute and suicide is preventable; and the continuing-therapy model, which emphasizes chronic suicidal feelings and posits that suicide is not preventable. Ethical and legal issues as well as treatment strategies from each model are described. Both therapy models stress the importance of assessing, understanding, and validating the patient's feelings as well as establishing a good therapeutic relationship. The crisis intervention model recommends an active, directive intervention while the continuing therapy model emphasizes ongoing therapy principles. After reviewing the different models, this article concludes that the assumptions of the crisis-intervention model are not supported while those of the continuing-therapy model are. In addition, it is concluded that there are more therapeutic advantages to employing the continuing-therapy model. These include taking short-term risks to acquire long-term gain, treating the patient as a responsible adult and seeing the suicidal behavior in the context of the total personality.

The behaviour of physicians is increasingly coming under scrutiny and attack, both from patients and from institutions that represent the public interest. This social process is partly a necessary and healthy quest for healing and partly a retaliatory response to inevitable failures on the part of physicians to live up to the standards expected of them. The process can assume such ruthless and pervasive forms that physicians are becoming exposed to impossible demands and even abuse at the hands of those they are trying to help. As a result, many physicians become defensive, withdrawing from patient care or reasserting their own needs in regressive ways that further offend or injure their patients. This increases public anxiety and outrage resulting in regressive and even violent "solutions", creating a vicious cycle in which mutual trust and respect is eroded and true health eludes our grasp. Physicians who practise psychotherapy are particularly aware of such regressive emotional pressures and therefore their experience can be taken as a bellwether of social change. Stirred by recent encounters with colleagues who have undergone public inquisition, humiliation and punishment, and drawing on personal clinical experience with patients whose regressive self-expression could at times be considered "borderline", the author attempts to understand the nature of the emotional forces being experienced by members of the profession at large. As in therapy, so in social change; the outcome depends on how well we understand, contain and channel the powerful feelings that underlie whatever actions are taken.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The author offers systematic approaches to evaluation of claims of therapist-patient sexual misconduct, together with their rationales. False accusations should be considered in all such cases in order to maintain the balanced forensic perspective and to probe for malingering, as in all evaluations. Practical techniques are offered and the underlying reasoning described.

The dilemmas between legal obligations and ethical responsibilities can often create problems in clinical work. The treatment of minors, and particularly adolescents, can present special issues to the clinician that are becoming increasingly frequent and difficult. The issue of informed consent for treatment of adolescents raises serious questions for the clinical practitioner who is faced with both legal and ethical dilemmas in making decisions about treatment. There are an increasing number of cases where adolescents may seek treatment yet are in circumstances that preclude parental consent. This paper uses case material to illustrate some of the legal, ethical, and treatment considerations in the situation of adolescent treatment where parental consent is problematic.