oh yes you are! oh no we're not!

2
CORRESPONDENCE From Haya Oakley Oh Yes You Are! Oh No We're Not! I intend this to be my last letter in the David Will versus Oakley, Oakley & Gans series to try and halt its deterioration to a psychoanalytic Punch & Judy show with `fantasies', ` resistances' etc. being used as ammunition. Moved by the tragicomic element in Dr Will's `a reply to three antipsychiatrists', (Will 1986), I would like to make three brief points: 1) On being called an 'anti -psychiatrist': In the hot summer of 1976 a very disturbed patient of mine was hospitalised. The consultant psychiatrist invited me to a staff meeting where I was meant to make 'an invaluable contribution to the treatment plan (not entirely surprising given that I was the only person at that time apart from the patient's mother who seemed able to make any sense of his discourse). At the end of the meeting I was told by the consultant that I would be ` allowed' to visit the patient once a month for five minutes! When I arrived home I received a phone call from the psychiatric social worker on the ward who was very upset and apologised for the consultant's `unfair' decision. `She believes' he said `all mental illness to be of physical origin and does not think that relationships have anything to do with it'. He proceeded to say that he himself was in analysis and found it difficult to be away from his analyst at weekends. A month would be unthinkable. In short, would I like him to beg on my behalf?' 'No!' I said, for when I heard the consultant's decision I was faced with a choice: I could take it either as an insult or a joke. I opted for the latter and decided to see my patient if and when he and I thought it appropriate. Now, if being openly critical of this and many more such illustrations of what one might benignly describe as `psychiatric insensitivity' merits the title 'antipsychiatrist', I shall gladly carry it. I do however suspect that Dr Will attached the title to my colleagues and me in order to undermine our argument in the eye of the reader. Although my colleagues and I are not in any way associated with it, there is in fact an international anti-psychiatric movement which in recent years played a significant part in amending the mental health act in this country, as well as practically revolutionising the attitude and legislation vis-a-vis psychiatry in Italy. If this is `being trapped in a cul-de-sac', so be it. 2) On being a `Laingian'. I have been intrigued for many years by people who claim that R D Laing made no original contribution whilst simultanously claiming the existance of a Laingian school of thought. It often brings a story to mind. A professor of obstetrics asks the students to list the signs of pregnancy; one of them replies `your stomach gets big, you do not menstruate and you feel sick'. The outraged professor exclaims `My stomach is big, I do not menstruate and it sickens me to hear such an answer'! What exactly constitutes a Laingian? A Scottish origin? A critical attitude to psychiatry? A training at the institute of psychoanalysis? Believing like Freud that symptoms have meaning, or like Winnicott that what goes on in one's family really matters? I've often wondered!

Upload: haya-oakley

Post on 21-Jul-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

CORRESPONDENCE

From Haya Oakley

Oh Yes You Are! Oh No We're Not!

I intend this to be my last letter in the David Will versus Oakley, Oakley & Gans seriesto try and halt its deterioration to a psychoanalytic Punch & Judy show with `fantasies', `resistances' etc. being used as ammunition.

Moved by the tragicomic element in Dr Will's `a reply to three antipsychiatrists', (Will1986), I would like to make three brief points:1) On being called an 'anti -psychiatrist':In the hot summer of 1976 a very disturbed patient of mine was hospitalised. Theconsultant psychiatrist invited me to a staff meeting where I was meant to make 'aninvaluable contribution to the treatment plan (not entirely surprising given that I was theonly person at that time apart from the patient's mother who seemed able to make any senseof his discourse). At the end of the meeting I was told by the consultant that I would be `allowed' to visit the patient once a month for five minutes! When I arrived home I receiveda phone call from the psychiatric social worker on the ward who was very upset andapologised for the consultant's `unfair' decision. `She believes' he said `all mental illness tobe of physical origin and does not think that relationships have anything to do with it'. Heproceeded to say that he himself was in analysis and found it difficult to be away from hisanalyst at weekends. A month would be unthinkable. In short, would I like him to beg onmy behalf?' 'No!' I said, for when I heard the consultant's decision I was faced with achoice: I could take it either as an insult or a joke. I opted for the latter and decided to seemy patient if and when he and I thought it appropriate. Now, if being openly critical of thisand many more such illustrations of what one might benignly describe as `psychiatricinsensitivity' merits the title 'antipsychiatrist', I shall gladly carry it. I do however suspectthat Dr Will attached the title to my colleagues and me in order to undermine our argumentin the eye of the reader. Although my colleagues and I are not in any way associated withit, there is in fact an international anti-psychiatric movement which in recent years played asignificant part in amending the mental health act in this country, as well as practicallyrevolutionising the attitude and legislation vis-a-vis psychiatry in Italy. If this is `beingtrapped in a cul-de-sac', so be it.2) On being a `Laingian'.I have been intrigued for many years by people who claim that R D Laing made no originalcontribution whilst simultanously claiming the existance of a Laingian school of thought. Itoften brings a story to mind. A professor of obstetrics asks the students to list the signs ofpregnancy; one of them replies `your stomach gets big, you do not menstruate and you feelsick'. The outraged professor exclaims `My stomach is big, I do not menstruate and itsickens me to hear such an answer'!What exactly constitutes a Laingian? A Scottish origin? A critical attitude to psychiatry? Atraining at the institute of psychoanalysis? Believing like Freud that symptoms havemeaning, or like Winnicott that what goes on in one's family really matters? I've oftenwondered!

192 British Journal of Psychotherapy

3) PhenomenologyWhat can one possibly say in response to Andrew Collier's statement that phenomenologyis '... merely a defence mechanism against knowledge...'? Why, I would let Nietszche,Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl and others speak for themselves. Or better still, readMerleau-Ponty...

Haya Oakley

References

Gans, S., Oakley, C. & Oakley, H. (1985) An open letter to David Will. In British Journal ofPsychotherapy, Vol. 1, pp. 226-228.

Will, D. (1984) The progeny of positivism: the Maudsley school and anti-psychiatry. In BritishJournal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 1, pp. 50-67.

Will, D. (1986). Science psychotherapy and anti-psychiatry. In British Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol.2, pp. 230-238.

From Dr. N. Dryden

Dear Dr. HinshelwoodI write to express my concern about the title of The British Journal of Psychotherapy whichyou edit. Although at the beginning of the journal's mission statement it is clear that thejournal is not "aligned with any one psychotherapy...", the journal's emphasis is on "clinically oriented papers which concern the practice of analytical psychotherapy". Indeedat the beginning of your recent editorial you say that "The Policy of the Journal is toprovide as wide a spread of interesting material on psycho-analytical psychotherapy aspossible". Vol. 2 (2).My concern is that the title of your journal leads one to expect a journal that is non-alignedbut yet it is clear the focus is very much on psychoanalytic psychotherapy.As an editor of two international journals in the field of psychotherapy, I am unhappy withthe title and believe it creates a false impression of the journal and also possibly of the stateof psychotherapy in Britain which is, of course, wider than psychoanalytic psychotherapyas I show in the series I edit for Harper & Row entitled "Psychotherapy in Britain".I await your response with interest.Yours sincerely,

W. Dryden, Ph.D.,Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Goldsmiths College(Co-Editor, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy; Associate Editor (Europe) InternationalJournal of Eclectic Psychotherapy)

[We hope that Dr. Dryden (and indeed others) may be persuaded to write more extendedviews on the fields of cognitive and behavioural psychotherapies, and the points of contactor distance from analytical psychotherapies - Ed.]