ABSTRACT
Weinstock has stated that 'no claims regarding the therapeutic usefulness of analytic treatment are made by the American Psychoanalytic Association. We are not responsible for claims made by individuals whose enthusiasm may outrun knowledge.' Dr. Glover (1955), in his book, The Technique of Psychoanalysis, wrote: 'We have next to no information about the conduct of private analytic practice ... such figures as are published regarding clinic practice would, in the majority of cases, be rejected as valueless by any reputable statistician, uncorrected as they are for methods of diagnosis and selection, for length of treatment, for method of treatment, for after-history, and for spontaneous cure. Indeed, apart from an occasional reference to a case that may have remained well for some years, we have no after-histories worth talking about ... we cannot attach any scientific significance to general impressions or assumptions regarding atry form of psychotherapy,' (pp. 376-377). Malan (1963) writes: ' .•. it nevertheless remains true that there is not the slightest indication from the published figures that psychotherapy has any value at all. If psychotherapy really is of value-and as a psychotherapist I find difficulty in believing that it is not-then how can this paradox be resolved?' (p. 164). Professor Mowrer (1959) concludes: 'From testimony now available from both the friends and foes of analysis, it is clear that, at best, analysis casts a spell but does not cure (p. 121) ... there is not a shred of evidence that psycho analysed individuals permanently benefit from the experience, and there are equally clear indications that psychoanalysis, as a common philosophy of life, is not only non-therapeutic but actively pernicious' (p. 161).
