The society consists of psychoanalysts practicing throughout Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. We share an interest in psychoanalytic theory, practice, and research, and treat patients in a variety of settings–universities, medical schools, community agencies, and private practice. Monthly scientific meetings, an annual symposium, extension division courses, training in psychoanalytic psychotherapy, a newsletter, and various activities and collaborations serve to promote psychoanalysis among our members and in the community.
- More History
- Associations Newsletter
- Structure & Governance
• Promote research, theory and practice
• Provide postgraduate education
• Serve our communities
Adapted from WESTERN NEW ENGLAND: THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS by David A. Carlson, MD, Paper delivered in 2003 at the WNEPS, Psychoanalysis Hits the Streets
On Applied Psychoanalysis in a Youth Service Program by Jerome H. Meyer, M.D.
The ChildAnalysis Program at Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis summary by Kirsten Dahl, Edited by Wayne Downey, Jerome Meyer
The Western New England Psychoanalytic Society (WNEPS) and Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis (WNEIPS) were founded in the early 1950s when the Cold War, the Korean War and McCarthyism were national preoccupations. Despite common opinion, most psychiatry, then as now, was neither psychoanalytic nor psychotherapeutic but focused instead on the use of medication, shock treatment and other somatic modalities. Rapid growth of clinical psychology sprang from a very small base, fueled in part through the support of the Veterans Administration and the United States Public Health Service. Of those who made psychoanalysis American, no one outdid the Menningers who recruited an astonishing wealth of talent to Kansas. Many of our founding fathers came to New Haven by way of Topeka.
Robert Knight, an early analyst at Menningers, brought Roy Schafer, David Rapaport, Margaret Brenman, and Merton Gill from Topeka to the Austen Riggs Center in Stockbridge, Massachusetts in the 1940s. Around the same time, Milton J.E. Senn, a psychoanalytically informed pediatrician, was recruited from New York to reorganize the Yale Child Study Center (CSC) and Fritz Redlich replaced Eugen Kahn, the German advocate of “organic driveness,” as Chair of Yale’s Department of Psychiatry. Redlich transformed the department from one uninterested in psychoanalysis to one including some remarkable psychoanalyst professors. Three highly regarded analysts from Topeka: Alfred Gross, Henry Wexler and William Pious moved to New Haven, and together, New Haven and Riggs formed one psychoanalytic community that remained intact until the 1960s.
Officially founded in 1951, our Society was originally referred to as the “New Haven-Stockbridge Group.” It was established as an entity separate from Yale in order to ensure that the analytic process would not be coopted by the University’s greater resources for psychotherapy and modified forms of analysis.
Before the New Haven-Stockbridge Group’s first Society meeting in January 1952, the Society’s Education Committee (EC), consisting of Knight, Gross, Pious and Erikson, all previously training and supervising analysts elsewhere, met and drafted a request to AapsA for recognition of a new Institute without Society input. Their aim was to establish a training facility while minimizing the academic constraints they believed likely to result from reporting to the Society membership. In December 1952, WNEIPS was accepted as a new Institute. The first class matriculated in 1954 and in December 1956, AapsA extended the Institute full accreditation.
Our Institute’s bylaws, incorporated in 1953, were structured to shield educational matters from political pressures, a relevant concern at the time they were authored when prominent universities were choosing not to renew appointments of faculty members with alleged left-wing affiliations. The WNEIPS bylaws stipulate that the President of the Society may not at the same time be President of the Institute. They grant Trustees full responsibility for most of our financial affairs and our property, and granted the EC sole authority over all Institute educationalmatters.
The Child Analysis Training Program of WNEIPS was founded in the early 1950s too, the program developed by Ernst and Marianne Kris, Erik Erikson, and Samuel Ritvo. Upon finishing their analytic training, Drs. Sally Provence and Albert Solnit joined the faculty at the same time that Seymour Lustman, a child analytic researcher, was brought on board. These psychoanalytic parents created a stimulating, nurturing environment in which clinical psychoanalysis, applied psychoanalysis and scholarly writing blossomed. The program was home to the Kris’ longitudinal study as well as The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, still the premier journal of the field. Housed at the CSC, where all of the child analysts had faculty appointments, child psychoanalytic candidates often started their analytic training at the completion of their child psychiatric residencies. Through the Kris’ relationship with Anna Freud, the Center and its embedded child analytic program had an intellectual partnership with what we now know as The Anna Freud Centre. This relationship continues through the person of Linda Mayes who is now full Director of the CSC and a past co-director of the Anna FreudCentre.
In the early 1960s, the Society and Institute considered merging. The idea appealed to Society members interested in participating in faculty appointments and Institute members seeking financial backing from the broader membership for the Institute’s treatment center, library, classroom and secretarial space. Opposition came from those who had no wish to support the Institute and others who feared an erosion of academic standards. Eventually, the proposal to merge was dropped.
Austen Riggs went through changes of it’s own in the 1960’s. Rapaport and Knight died and Erikson left. The psychoanalytic powerhouse that had been a vital center of many Society members’ intellectual and educational lives, wound down, and what had been one psychoanalytic community became two independent groups. New Haven’s WNEPS and WNEIPS continued on while Stockbridge eventually established its own training center and society.
Beginning in the 1960s, WNEIPS leased attic rooms at 340 Whitney Avenue for classrooms and a library. In 1978, the Institute moved into its first administrative space, renting Henry Wexler’s former office on Whitney Avenue. Eight years later, in 1986, WNEIPS bought the Sargent Building on 255 Bradley Street built in 1911. With Wayne Downey serving as Chair for Fund Raising and Braxton McKee in charge of purchasing, an $100,000 grant from Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation was obtained and another $550,000 was raised with over 95% participation of our Institute and Society members. 255 Bradley formally opened in 1988 after renovations were complete.
Along with the Institute, the building became home to the Society’s administrative functions and activities. It houses our library, psychoanalytic offices and meeting rooms. Alongside the Institute’s general psychoanalytic training program is a monthly child seminar open to all candidates, a Psychoanalysis for Scholars Program, study groups and elective classes as well as a Psychoanalytic Clinic through which candidates conduct reduced fee analyses. The Society offers a formal two year Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy program, holds continuing education classes for the public covering a range of psychoanalytic topics, hosts a regular monthly series of Scientific Meetings, and oversees two annual seminars held off- site; the Spring Symposium and a Joint WNEPS/Connecticut Society for Psychoanalytic Psychology venture.
WNEPS members are kept abreast of Society and individual’s activities through “Associations,” a newsletter published six times/year on our website. In addition, there are a number of active Society committees that go beyond administrative functions and educational oversight, including ones on ethics, psychoanalytic practice, and social issues.
WNEPS has a history of involvement with social issues. Some examples of projects lead by Society members include Solnit’s first symposium that brought much of the Connecticut judiciary to New Haven to discuss family law and psychoanalysis, the late Kitty Lustman’s outreach to nursery school teachers, Steve Marans’s work with police, and Jerome Meyer’s Leadership, Education and Athletics in Partnership Program, a 26 year old mentoring, tutoring organization that started in 1991 as a local summer program for inner-city children and quickly grew into a year-round curriculum that approximately one year later served over 700 children in three cities.
We honor the work of all our members. The major distinction between the Society and Institute is purely organizational; the impact of these two psychoanalytic organizations on our community is intertwined. The Institute was created as a program for training and credentialing psychoanalysts while the Society was formed to explore and promote psychoanalytic understanding of the human condition. Together they create a unified center for analytic thought and action.
Since its inception, the source of Western New England’s vitality has been its membership. We welcome you to the Society and the community, and we look forward to working together.
The Western New England Psychoanalytic Society (WNEPS) has begun a two-year certificate program in psychodynamic psychotherapy. This program is taught and supervised by members of the WNEIP faculty. It is an excellent opportunity both for clinicians who are recent graduates of training programs who want to increase their skills in psychodynamic psychotherapy as well as for mid-career clinicians who want to develop and deepen their psychotherapy practices.
Scientific meetings seek to provide post-graduate education for psychoanalysts who are members of the Society, addressing issues of practice, technique, theory, and research relevant to the field of psychoanalysis. The meetings are open and offer educational opportunities for students and practitioners of all mental health professions.
There is no fee or registration necessary for these programs.
Those who wish to receive CEC/CME credit must sign attendance and evaluation forms available at the meeting.
There is a $10 fee per meeting for non-Society members for each CEC/CME certificate.
Meetings are held:
On: Saturdays at 4:00 p.m.
At: The Western New England Psychoanalytic Society
255 Bradley Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Click for Directions
WNEPS Annual Symposium
Structure and Governance
The Western New England Institute for Psychoanalysis is a non-profit corporation, governed by a Board of Trustees. All matters pertaining to psychoanalytic training are the responsibility of the Education Committee.
Allegations of ethical violations, including sexual harassment, by faculty and students are reported by completing a complaint form available on the Institute website and mailed directly to the Chair of the Society Ethics CommitteeThe process for acting upon such allegations is set forth in the document Procedures for Dealing with Complaints of Unethical Conduct by Members of the Western New England Psychoanalytic Society. Education Committee members recuse themselves from the Ethics Committee when the complaint involves a candidate.
Allegations of ethical violations, including sexual harassment, of or by employees or private contractors of the Institute are referred to the President of the Board of the Institute.
Candidates and Society members are expected to meet appropriate standards of ethical professional conduct as out-lined in the statement by The American Psychoanalytic Association entitled, “Principles of Ethics for Psychoanalysts” approved by the Board ion Professional Standards and the Executive Council, May l975. An amended copy (May 1990) is included below.
Code of Ethics
Principles and Standards of Ethics for Psychoanalysts
Psychoanalysis is a method of treating children, adolescents and adults with emotional and mental disorders that attempts to reduce suffering and disability and enhance growth and autonomy. While the psychoanalytic relationship is predicated on respecting human dignity, it necessarily involves a power differential between psychoanalyst, patient and, particularly in the case of children, the family that, if ignored, trivialized or misused, can compromise or derail treatment and inflict significant damage on both parties to treatment.*Constant self-examination and reflection by the psychoanalyst and liberal use of formal consultation are obvious safeguards for the patient, as well as the treating psychoanalyst.
No code of ethics can be encyclopedic in providing answers to all ethical questions that may arise in the practice of the profession of psychoanalysis. Sound judgment and integrity of character are indispensable in applying ethical principles to particular situations and individuals. The major goal of this code is to facilitate the psychoanalyst’s best efforts in all areas of analytic work and to encourage early and full discussion of ethical questions with colleagues and members of local and national ethics committees. These revised Principles presuppose a psychoanalyst’s life-long commitment to act ethically and to encourage similar ethical behavior in colleagues and students. It is expected that over time all psychoanalysts will enrich and add cumulatively to the guidance provided by the Principles with their own experience and values, and that the Principles will evolve, based on the profession’s insights and experience.
General Principles of Ethics for Psychoanalysts
The American Psychoanalytic Association has adopted the following Principles of Ethics and associated Standards to guide members in their professional conduct toward their patients and, in the case of minors, toward their parent(s) or guardian(s) as well as supervisees, students, colleagues and the public. These Principles and Standards substantially revise and update the ethical principles contained in the previous Principles of Ethics published by the American Psychoanalytic Association in December 1975, and revised in 1983. The revisions take account of evolving moral sensibilities and observed deficiencies in the earlier codes. As ethical standards change, behaviors that were acceptable in the past may no longer be considered ethical. In this regard, however, these evolving standards should not be used to punish individuals retroactively. These revised principles emphasize constraints on behaviors that are likely to misuse the power differential of the transference-countertransference relationship to the detriment of patients and, in the case of minors, their parent (s) or guardian(s) as well.
The new code seeks to identify the parameters of the high standard of care expected of psychoanalysts in treatment, teaching, and research. By specifying standards of expected conduct, the code is intended to inform all psychoanalysts in considering and arriving at ethical courses of action and to alert members and candidates to departures from the wide range of acceptable practices. When doubts about the ethics of a psychoanalyst’s conduct arise, early intervention is encouraged. Experience indicates that when ethical violations are thought to have occurred, prompt consultation and mediation tend to serve the best interests of all parties concerned. When indicated, procedures for filing, investigating and resolving complaints of unethical conduct are addressed in the Provisions for Implementation of the Principles and Standards of Ethics for Psychoanalysts.
There are times when ethical principles conflict, making a choice of action difficult. In ordering ethical obligations, one’s duty is to the patient directly, or indirectly through supervision or consultation with the treating psychoanalyst. In the case of patients who are minors there are also ethical obligations to parent(s) or guardian(s) which change as the patient becomes older and more mature. Thereafter, ethical obligations are to the profession, to students and colleagues, and to society. The ethical practice of psychoanalysis requires the psychoanalyst to be familiar with these Principles and Standards; to conduct regular self-examination; to seek consultation promptly when ethical questions arise; and to reach just sanctions when judging the actions of a colleague.
Guiding General Principles
I. Professional Competence. The psychoanalyst is committed to provide competent professional service. The psychoanalyst should continually strive to improve his or her knowledge and practical skills. Illnesses and personal problems that significantly impair the psychoanalyst’s performance of professional responsibilities should be acknowledged and addressed in appropriate fashion as soon as recognized.
II. Respect for Persons. The psychoanalyst is expected to treat patients and their families, students and colleagues with respect and care. Discrimination on the basis of age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status is ethically unacceptable.
III. Mutuality and Informed Consent. The treatment relationship between the patient and the psychoanalyst is founded upon trust and informed mutual agreement or consent. At the outset of treatment, the patient should be made aware of the nature of psychoanalysis and relevant alternative therapies. The psychoanalyst should make agreements pertaining to scheduling, fees, and other rules and obligations of treatment tactfully and humanely, with adequate regard for the realistic and therapeutic aspects of the relationship. Promises made should be honored.
When the patient is a minor these same general principles pertain but the patient’s age and stage of development should guide how specific arrangements will be handled and with whom.
IV. Confidentiality. Confidentiality of the patient’s communications is a basic patient’s right and an essential condition for effective psychoanalytic treatment and research. A psychoanalyst must take all measures necessary to not reveal present or former patient confidences without permission, nor discuss the particularities observed or inferred about patients outside consultative, educational or scientific contexts. If a psychoanalyst uses case material in exchanges with colleagues for consultative, educational or scientific purposes, the identity of the patient must be sufficiently disguised to prevent identification of the individual, or the patient’s authorization must be obtained after frank discussion of the purpose(s) of the presentation, other options, the probable risks and benefits to the patient, and the patient’s right to refuse or withdraw consent.
V. Truthfulness. The psychoanalytic treatment relationship is founded on thoroughgoing truthfulness. The psychoanalyst should deal honestly and forthrightly with patients, patient’s families in the case of those who are minors, students, and colleagues. Being aware of the ambiguities and complexities of human relationships and communications, the psychoanalyst should engage in an active process of self-monitoring in pursuit of truthful therapeutic and professional exchanges.
VI. Avoidance of Exploitation. In light of the vulnerability of patients and the inequality of the psychoanalyst-analysand dyad, the psychoanalyst should scrupulously avoid any and all forms of exploitation of patients and their families, current or former, and limit, as much as possible the role of self-interest and personal desires. Sexual relations between psychoanalyst and patient or family member, current or former, are potentially harmful to both parties, and unethical. Financial dealings other than reimbursement for therapy are unethical.
VII. Scientific Responsibility. The psychoanalyst is expected to be committed to advancing scientific knowledge and to the education of colleagues and students. Psychoanalytic research should conform to generally accepted scientific principles and research integrity and should be based on a thorough knowledge of relevant scientific literature. Every precaution should be taken in research with human subjects, and in using clinical material, to respect the patient’s rights especially the right to confidentiality, and to minimize potentially harmful effects.
VIII. Protection of the Public and the Profession. The psychoanalyst should strive to protect the patients of colleagues and persons seeking treatment from psychoanalysts observed to be deficient in competence or known to be engaged in behavior with the potential of affecting such patients adversely. S/he should urge such colleagues to seek help. Information about unethical or impaired conduct by any member of the profession should be reported to the appropriate committee at local or national levels.
IX. Social Responsibility. A psychoanalyst should comply with the law and with social policies that serve the interests of patients and the public. The Principles recognize that there are times when conscientious refusal to obey a law or policy constitutes the most ethical action. If a third-party or patient or in the case of minor patients, the parent(s) or guardian(s) demands actions contrary to ethical principles or scientific knowledge, the psychoanalyst should refuse. A psychoanalyst is encouraged to contribute a portion of his or her time and talents to activities that serve the interests of patients and the public good.
X. Personal Integrity. The psychoanalyst should be thoughtful, considerate, and fair in all professional relationships, uphold the dignity and honor of the profession, and accept its self-imposed disciplines. He or she should accord members of allied professions the respect due their competence.
Standards Applicable to the Principles of Ethics for Psychoanalysts
The American Psychoanalytic Association is aware of the complicated nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship and the conflicting expectations of therapists and patients in contemporary society. In addition, the Association recognizes that this complexity is increased when the patient is a minor and parent(s) and guardian(s) are a natural, if changing, part of the therapeutic picture. The following ethical standards are offered as a more specific and practical guide for putting into practice the Guiding Principles. The Standards represent practices that psychoanalysts have found over time to be generally conducive to morally appropriate professional conduct. A discussion of situation-dependent guidelines and dilemmas will be presented in a separate document, a Casebook on Ethics.
1. Psychoanalysts are expected to work within the range of their professional competence and to refuse to assume responsibilities for which they are untrained.
2. Psychoanalysts should strive to keep up to date with changes in theories and techniques and to make appropriate use of professional consultations both psychoanalytic and in allied psychotherapeutic fields such as psychopharmacology.
3. Psychoanalysts should seek to avoid making claims in public presentations that exceed the scope of their competence.
4. Psychoanalysts should take steps to correct any impairment in his or her analyzing capacities and do whatever is necessary to protect patients from such impairment.
II. Respect for Persons and Nondiscrimination
1. Psychoanalysts should try to eliminate from their work the effects of biases based on age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status.
2. The psychoanalyst should refuse to observe organizational policies that discriminate with regard to age, disability, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.
III. Mutuality and Informed Consent
1. Psychoanalytic treatment exists by virtue of an informed choice leading to a mutually accepted agreement between a psychoanalyst and a patient or the parent(s) or guardian(s) of a minor patient.
2. It is not ethical for a psychoanalyst to take advantage of the power of the transference relationship to aggressively solicit patients, students or supervisees into treatment or to prompt testimonials from current or former patients. Neither is it ethical to take such advantage in relation to parent(s) or guardian(s) of current or former minor patients.
3. It is unethical for a psychoanalyst to use his/her position of power in analytic organization, professional status or special relationship with a potential patient or parent or guardian of a minor patient to coerce or manipulate the person into treatment.
4. Careful attention should be given to the process of referral to avoid conflicts of interest with other patients and colleagues. Referrals between members of the same family, including spouses, and significant others, should be especially scrutinized and disclosure should be made to patients about the relationship in the initial stages of the referral so that preferable alternatives may be considered.
5. All aspects of the treatment contract which are applicable should be discussed with the patient during the initial consultation process. The psychoanalyst’s policy of charging for missed sessions should be understood in advance of such a charge. The applications of this policy to third party payment for services should be discussed and agreed upon by the patient. In the case of patients who are minors, these matters should be discussed early on with the parent(s) or guardian(s) as well as with the patient as age and capability dictate.
6. A reduced fee does not limit any of the ethical responsibilities of the treating psychoanalyst.
7. The psychoanalyst should not unilaterally discontinue treating a patient without adequate notification discussion with the patient and, if a minor, with the parent (s) or guardian (s) and an offer of referral for further treatment. Consultation should be considered.
1. All information about the specifics of a patient’s life is confidential, including the name of the patient and the fact of treatment. The psychoanalyst should resist disclosing confidential information to the full extent permitted by law. Furthermore, it is ethical, though not required, for a psychoanalyst to refuse legal, civil or administrative demands for such confidential information even in the face of the patient’s informed consent and accept instead the legal consequences of such a refusal.
2. The psychoanalyst should never share confidential information about a patient with nonclinical third-parties (e.g., insurance companies) without the patient’s or, in the case of a minor patient, the parent’s or guardian’s informed consent. For the purpose of claims review or utilization management, it is not a violation of confidentiality for a psychoanalyst to disclose confidential information to a consultant psychoanalyst, provided the consultant is also bound by the confidentiality standards of these Principles and the informed consent of the patient or parent or guardian of a minor patient has first been obtained. If a third-party payer or a patient or parent or guardian of a minor patient demands that the psychoanalyst act contrary to these Principles, it is ethical for the psychoanalyst to refuse such demands, even with the patient’s or, in the case of a minor patient, the parent’s or guardian’s informed consent.
3. The psychoanalyst of a minor patient must seek to preserve the patient’s confidentiality, while keeping parents or guardians informed of the course of treatment in ways appropriate to the age and stage of development of the patient, the clinical situation and these Principles.
4. The psychoanalyst should take particular care that patient records and other documents are handled so as to protect patient confidentiality (rv. 06-08).
5. It is not a violation of confidentiality for a psychoanalyst to disclose confidential information about a patient in a formal consultation or supervision in which the consultant or supervisor is also bound by the confidentiality requirements of these Principles. On seeking consultation, the psychoanalyst should first ascertain that the consultant or supervisor is aware of and accepts the requirements of the Confidentiality standard.
6. If the psychoanalyst uses confidential case material in clinical presentations or in scientific or educational exchanges with colleagues, either the case material must be disguised sufficiently to prevent identification of the patient, or the patient’s informed consent must first be obtained. If the latter, the psychoanalyst should discuss the purpose(s) of such presentations, the possible risks and benefits to the patient’s treatment and the patient’s right to withhold or withdraw consent. In the case of a minor patient, parent(s) or guardian(s) should be consulted and, depending on the age and developmental stage, the matter may be discussed with the patient as well.
7. Supervisors, peer consultants and participants in clinical and educational exchanges have an ethical duty to maintain the confidentiality of patient information conveyed for purposes of consultative or case presentations or scientific discussions.
8. Candidate psychoanalysts-in-training are strongly urged to consider obtaining the patient’s informed consent before beginning treatment, pertaining to disclosures of confidential information in groups or written reports required by the candidate’s training. Where the patient is a minor, the candidate is strongly urged to consider obtaining informed consent from the parent(s) or guardian(s); age and stage of development will assist the candidate in determining if the patient should also be informed.
1. Candidate psychoanalysts-in-training are strongly urged to inform psychoanalytic training patients and prospective psychoanalytic training patients that they are in training and supervised. Where the patient is a minor, the parent(s) or guardian(s) should also be informed. If asked, candidate psychoanalysts-in-training should not deny that they are being supervised as a requirement of their training.
2. The psychoanalyst should speak candidly with prospective patients or the parent(s) or guardian(s) if the patient is a minor about the benefits and burdens of psychoanalytic treatment.
3. The psychoanalyst should avoid misleading patients or parents or guardians of minor patients or the public with statements that are knowingly false, deceptive or misleading.
VI. Avoiding Exploitation
1. Sexual relationships involving any kind of sexual activity between the psychoanalyst and a current or former patient, or a parent or guardian of a current or former patient, or any member of the patient’s immediate family whether initiated by the patient, the parent or guardian or family member or by the treating psychoanalyst, are unethical. Physical touching is not ordinarily regarded as a technique of value in psychoanalytic treatment. If touching occurs, whether of the patient by the psychoanalyst or the psychoanalyst by the patient, such an event should alert the psychoanalyst to the potential for misunderstanding of the event by the patient or the psychoanalyst. and consequent harm to the future course of treatment and consultation should be considered. Consultation should be considered if there is concern about the future course of treatment.
With children before the age of puberty touching between the patient and the psychoanalyst is likely to occur as in helping or during a patient’s exuberant play. Also, a disruptive or out of control child may need to be restrained. The psychoanalyst needs to be alert to the multiple meanings for both parties of such touching. Keeping parent(s) or guardian(s) informed when this occurs may be useful. Consultation should be considered if the touching causes the psychoanalyst concern.
2. Marriage between a psychoanalyst and a current or former patient, or between a psychoanalyst and the parent or guardian of a patient or former patient is unethical, notwithstanding the absence of a complaint from the spouse and the legal rights of the parties.
3. It is not ethical for a psychoanalyst to engage in financial dealings with a patient, or in the case of a minor patient, the parent(s) or guardian(s) beyond reimbursement for treatment; or to use information shared by a patient or parent(s) or guardian(s) for the psychoanalyst’s financial gain.
4. It is not ethical for a psychoanalyst to solicit financial contributions from a current or former patient or the parent/guardian of a current or former patient for any purpose; nor should a psychoanalyst give the names of current or former patients or their parents/guardians for purposes of financial solicitation by others.
5. If a patient or parent or guardian of a minor patient brings up the idea of a financial gift to a psychoanalytic organization or cause during treatment, it should be handled psychoanalytically and, if necessary, the patient should be informed that his or her confidentiality might be breached by the treating psychoanalyst’s obligation to recuse him/herself from involvement in decisions governing use of the gift. If a gift is given nevertheless, the psychoanalyst is ethically obliged to refrain from any decision regarding its use by the recipient organization or cause.
6. If a current or former patient or the parent/guardian of a current or former patient, gives an unsolicited financial gift, or establishes a trust or foundation or other entity for the benefit of his/her psychoanalyst, or for the benefit of the professional or scientific work of said psychoanalyst, or for the benefit of the psychoanalyst’s family, or the gift is placed under the control of the psychoanalyst, even if not directly beneficial to the psychoanalyst or his/her family, it is not ethical for the psychoanalyst to accept any financial benefit or to control its disposition.
7. It is ethical for a psychoanalyst to accept a bequest from the estate of a former patient, provided that it is promptly donated to an organization or cause from which the psychoanalyst or his/her family do not personally benefit and over which the psychoanalyst has no direct control.
8. It is unethical for a psychoanalyst to use his or her professional status, special relationship, or position of power in an analytic organization to solicit gifts or funds, sexual favors, special relationships, or other tangible benefit from patients, the parent(s) or guardian(s) of minor patients, members of the patient’s immediate family, psychoanalysts-in-training or supervisees. Sexual relationships between current supervisors and supervisees are unethical.
9. Concurrent supervision of candidates by the spouse, significant other or other relative of their analysts should be avoided whenever possible in the interest of maintaining the independence and objectivity of both the supervisory and analytic processes.
VII. Scientific Responsibility
1. The psychoanalyst should take every precaution in using clinical material to respect the patient’s rights and to minimize the impact of its use on the patient’s privacy and dignity. In the case of minor patients the impact on parent(s) or guardian(s) needs to be considered. Particular care should be exercised in using material from a patient who is still undergoing treatment.
2. It is unethical for a psychoanalyst to make public presentations or submit for publication in scientific journals falsified material that does not refer to actual observations drawn from the clinical situation. Such clinical material must be disguised sufficiently to protect identification of the patient.
3. The psychoanalyst should exercise caution in disguising patient material to avoid misleading colleagues as to the source and significance of his or her scientific conclusions.
VIII. Safeguarding the Public and the Profession
1. The psychoanalyst should seek consultation when, in the course of treating a patient, the work becomes continuously confusing or seriously disturbing to either the psychoanalyst or the patient, or both. On occasion in the treatment of a minor, the relationship between the psychoanalyst and parental figure may cause sustained disturbance or confusion for the psychoanalyst. In such a situation consultation is indicated.
2. A psychoanalyst who undergoes a serious illness and extended convalescence, or whose analyzing capacities are impaired, must consult with a colleague and/or medical specialist to clarify the significance of his or her condition for continuing to work.
3. A request by a patient, a parent/guardian of a minor patient, or a colleague that the psychoanalyst seek consultation should receive respectful and reflective consideration.
4. If a psychoanalyst is officially notified by a representative of an institute or society that a possible impairment of his/her clinical judgment or analyzing ability exists, the psychoanalyst must consult with no less than two colleagues, one of whom may be a non-analyst medical specialist, each acceptable to the notifying body. If impairment is found, remedial measures be followed by the psychoanalyst in order to protect patients from harm and to prevent degradation of the standards of care in the profession.
5. It is ethical for a psychoanalyst to consult with the patient of a colleague without giving notice to the colleague, if the consultation has been requested by the patient.
6. It is ethical for a psychoanalyst to intervene on behalf of a colleague’s patient if he or she has evidence from a direct or indirect consultation with the colleague’s patient or from supervision of the colleague’s work with the patient that the colleague may be conducting him/herself unethically toward the patient or may be so impaired as to threaten the patient’s welfare.
7. It is ethical for a psychoanalyst to accept for treatment the current patient of a colleague if consultation with a third colleague indicates that it is in the best interest of the patient to do so.
8. In the event that a credible threat of imminent bodily harm to a third party by a patient becomes evident, the psychoanalyst should take reasonable appropriate steps to protect the third-party from bodily harm, and may breach patient confidentiality if necessary only to the extent necessary to prevent imminent harm from occurring. The same applies to a credible threat of suicide.
9. In the case of a minor where the psychoanalyst is concerned that a credible threat of serious self injury or suicide is imminent, the psychoanalyst should take appropriate steps. This would include the notification of parent(s) or guardian(s) even if a breach of confidentiality is required. Under these circumstances, any breach of confidentiality should be restricted to the minimum necessary to prevent harm of the minor child.
10. When a psychoanalyst becomes convinced that abuse is occurring the psychoanalyst may report adult or child abuse of a patient or by a patient to the appropriate governmental agency in keeping with local laws. Should the patient be a minor, informing parent(s) or guardian(s) needs to be considered. In these circumstances, confidentiality may be breached to the minimum extent necessary. However, in keeping with General Principle IX, a psychoanalyst may also refuse to comply with local reporting laws if that psychoanalyst believes that to do so would seriously undermine the treatment or damage the patient. Given the complexities of these matters, a psychoanalyst who is concerned that abuse of an adult or child is occurring is encouraged to continue to explore the situation and to consider utilizing consultation to determine what course of action would be most helpful.
11. Local psychoanalytic societies and institutes have an obligation to promote the competence of their members and to initiate confidential inquiries in response to ethics complaints.
IX. Social Responsibility
1. The psychoanalyst should make use of all legal, civil, and administrative means to safeguard patients’ rights to confidentiality, to ensure the protection of patient treatment records from third party access, and to utilize any other ethical measures to ensure and maintain the privacy essential to the conduct of psychoanalytic treatment.
2. The psychoanalyst is urged to support laws and social policies that promote the best interests of patients and the ethical practice of psychoanalysis.
3. The psychoanalyst is encouraged to contribute his or her time and talents, if necessary without monetary compensation, to consultative and educational activities intended to improve public welfare and enhance the quality of life for the mentally ill and economically deprived members of the community.
1. Psychoanalysts and candidate psychoanalysts-in-training should be familiar with the Principles of Ethics and Standards, other applicable professional ethics codes, and their application to psychoanalysis.
2. Psychoanalysts should strive to be aware of their own beliefs, values, needs and limitations and to monitor how these personal interests impact their work.
3. Psychoanalysts should cooperate with ethics investigations and proceedings conducted in accordance with the Provision for Implementation of the Principles and Standards of Ethics for Psychoanalysts. Failure to cooperate is itself an ethics violation.
Provisions for Implementation of the Principles of Ethics and Standards for Psychoanalysts
I. Committee on Ethics: There shall be a joint standing Committee on Ethics of the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council.
A. Composition and Appointment. The Committee on Ethics (“Committee”) shall consist of seven members appointed jointly by the President of the Association (“President”) and the Chair of the Board on Professional Standards (“Board Chair”). At least one of the seven members shall be a child analyst. Each member shall serve a staggered five year term; members will be appointed each year to replace members whose term has expired.
The President and Board Chair will jointly designate one member to act as chair of the Committee for a term of two years and, in the event of a vacancy on the Committee, will jointly appoint members to complete the unexpired term of the incumbent member. The President and the Board Chair will jointly appoint a substitute to replace any Committee member who recuses him/herself from a case or who is unable to serve for any other reason. In the event that the case involves a patient who is a minor the President and the Board Chair will assure that a child analyst will serve on the Committee. On completion of the disposition of such a case, the recused, or otherwise unavailable member shall resume his/her seat on the Committee.
B. Duties.The Committee on Ethics shall:
(1) Respond to communications regarding the “Principles and Standards of Ethics for Psychoanalysts” (“Principles”) and the “Provisions for Implementation of the Principles of Ethics for Psychoanalysts” (“Provisions”) and issue advisory opinions regarding the application of the “Principles” to particular conduct.
(2) Recommend to the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council appropriate additions or modifications to the “Principles” and “Provisions.”
(3) Pursuant to procedures hereinafter described, review decisions of Affiliated Societies, Study Groups, Approved and Provisionally ApprovedTraining Institutes (hereinafter, collectively, “local groups”) with regard to complaints alleging that a member of the Association has breached the “Principles.” Such review shall enable the Committee to (a) make a decision on the basis of the local group’s investigation and decision, regarding the psychoanalyst’s membership status in the Association; and (b) where appropriate, make recommendations to local groups regarding their handling and disposition of such matters.
(4) Complaints against colleagues who have no local membership will be heard by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Association President and the Chairman of the Board. Upon completion of this adjudication, the decision can be reviewed by the Ethics Committee of the American and/or appealed according to the usual procedures.
II. Association Procedures in Regard to Questions of Unethical Conduct
A. Advisory Opinions.
(1) Requests for advisory opinions will be referred to the Chair, Committee on Ethics for response. Copies of responses will be sent to the President and the Board Chair.
(2) The Committee will prepare summaries of any such advisory opinions rendered. Summaries will be distributed to the membership after approval by the Executive Committee or by the Board on Professional Standards and the Executive Council on referral from the Executive Committee.
(1) A complaint alleging breach of the “Principles” by a member of the Association must be made directly to a local group.
(2) If a complaint alleging breach of the “Principles” is addressed to the Association, it shall be referred to the charged member’s local group for investigation.
(3) The Association may also refer to a member’s local group publicly available information about the member, including information about malpractice findings, adverse membership actions by professional societies, and loss or restriction of license, and request that the local group initiate an ethics investigation on the basis of such information.
III. Adjudication at the Local Level
A. Committee on Ethics of Local Group. Each local group shall have a Committee on Ethics for dealing with complaints of unethical conduct.
B. Informal Proceedings and Resolution.
(1) Each local group shall consider establishing mechanisms to enable it to determine whether to proceed pursuant to formal procedures outlined in Section III below, or to address the issues through more informal, nonadversarial proceedings which can facilitate the efficient resolution of the complaint in a manner that is educational and corrective to the member.
(2) The local group’s procedures should include a description of any such informal mechanisms for resolution of which the complainant may take advantage and of any early, informal procedures by which the local group may decide to resolve the complaint through alternative, informal means, rather than through formal procedures.
C. Initial Response to Potential Complaint. The local group should furnish any potential complainant copies of the group’s procedures for dealing with complaints of unethical conduct, and of the Association’s “Principles” and “Provisions.”
The complainant should also be informed that such complaint must identify the charged member; must be in writing and be signed by the complainant; must clearly describe the facts and circumstances surrounding the charge of unethical conduct, citing, if possible, the applicable principle(s) of ethics alleged to have been breached; and must be accompanied by a signed statement agreeing to the use of the local group’s and the Association’s procedures, asking that action be taken and authorizing the distribution of the complaint and other materials submitted by the complainant in connection with the investigation.
D. Notification of Accused Member. The local group shall then notify the charged member of the complaint, providing copies of the complaint and other materials submitted by the complainant, the group’s procedures for handling ethics complaints, and the Association’s “Provisions.”
E. Determination of Whether Complaint Merits Investigation. The local group shall determine whether the complaint merits investigation under the ethical standards established by the “Principles,” and whether it might also constitute a violation of the rules of the charged members’s professional licensing board. If it does not, the complainant and the charged member shall be so informed in writing. Since the adjudication was not completed, the Committee on Ethics can not accept a request for review nor can the Association consider an appeal. If the complaint is determined to merit further investigation, the charged member shall be informed in writing and notified of the right to a hearing, and that during the investigation and hearing, the rights set out in Section (F) below shall apply. If the complaint also appears to represent violations of the charged member’s licensing board rules, the local group may choose to refer the complaint to that agency for investigation and adjudication, at the completion of which the local group will determine appropriate disposition of the case, applying the rights set out in Section (F) below.
F. Procedures of Local Group. The local group’s procedures for handling complaints of unethical conduct must assure fair process and provide the charged member with the following:
(1) the opportunity to be notified of, and to address, the charges;
(2) the right to be represented by legal counsel;
(3) the right to a hearing, including the right to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses, or reasonable alternatives thereto;
(4) notice of not less than 30 days of the date, place, and time of the hearing, the witnesses expected to testify thereat; and the member’s procedural rights at the hearing;
(5) the right to submit a written statement at the end of any hearing;
(6) the right to have a record made of the hearing proceedings and to have a copy of the record upon payment of reasonable charges; and
(7) that relevant evident will not be excluded from any hearings solely on the grounds that it would not be admissible in a court of law’
(8) the right to receive (a) the written final decision or recommendation of the ethics committee or other hearing body, including a statement of the basis therefore, and (b) if the hearing body makes a recommendation to its local group or other body of the local group, a written final decision of the group, including a statement of the basis for the decision.
G. Decision of Local Group. In any case in which formal procedures have been followed, after full and fair consideration of the complaint and all the evidence introduced at the hearing, the local group shall arrive at a determination as to the appropriate disposition of the case. In addition to any other disposition, the local group’s procedures may enable it to (1) conclude that unethical conduct may have occurred but recommend that no formal finding be made and no sanction imposed pending completion of remedial action recommended and agreed to by the charged member; or (2) dismiss the charges with prejudice, accompanying the dismissal with a letter of admonition, expressing the sense that there may be questions about the member’s practices or judgment and putting the member on notice that further education, consultation and/or supervision may be indicated as well as possible sanctions.
H. Notification of Charged Member and of American Psychoanalytic Association. After arriving at a decision, the local group shall advise the charged member, and the complainant complainant of the action taken by the local group. If the decision of the local group is to censure, suspend or expel the charged analyst, the local group shall also notify, the President of the Association, the Chair of the Board on Professional Standards and the chair of the Committee on Ethics.
I. Local Appeal Process. Each local group is strongly urged to establish a procedure for a local appeal of procedures used for investigation and/or the final local adjudication.
IV. Review of Decision of Local Group and Action by Association
A. Purpose of Review. The Association shall review a local group’s investigation and decision in order (1) to determine whether action by the Association is appropriate, and (2) where appropriate, to make recommendations to local groups regarding their handling and disposition of the case.
B. Circumstances of Review. The Association shall review an investigation and decision by a local group under the following circumstances:
(1.) Automatic Review. If a member of the Association has been censured, suspended, or expelled by a local group, or if his/her faculty status in an approved Institute has been suspended or terminated as a result of adjudication of complaints of unethical conduct, a review of the case shall be promptly undertaken.
(2.) Requested Review. If the disposition of a case is other than censure, suspension or expulsion by a local group, or suspension or termination of a member’s faculty status in an approved Institute, the Association shall undertake a review of the case if formal request for such review is made to the President of the Association, by the member(s) charged, the complainant, or the local group, within 60 days after notification of the group’s decision.
(a) Each such request by a complainant or charged member shall include the reasons for dissatisfaction with the action taken at the local level.
(b) Each such request by the charged member also shall include adequate information regarding the charge, and his/her defense.
(c) Each such request by a local group shall include identification of the charges and the persons involved, a description of all attempts by the group to resolve the matter, and the reason for referral to the Association.
(3) The Committee on Ethics of the American Psychoanalytic Association will not review any decision of a local group regarding a member if the Committee has already reviewed a decision regarding the same complaint or a complaint based on substantially the same facts about the member. This would have particular relevance to those societies and institutes that do not have joint ethics committees.
C. Process of Review.
(1) The initial review of the investigation and decision of a local group shall be conducted by the Association’s Committee on Ethics, which may confer with the President and legal counsel of the Association.
(2) The Committee on Ethics will request all records of the investigation from the local group and will review the procedures used by the local group, its interpretation and application of the Association’s “Principles” and its decision regarding the conduct complained of and any sanction imposed.
(3) In the course of its review, the Committee on Ethics may, but shall not be required to, request written briefs from complainant or counsel for complainant, charged member or counsel for the charged member, and the local group or counsel for the local group. Any brief received from the complainant or the local group shall be provided to the charged member, who shall be given at least 30 days to respond. Personal appearance before the Committee by the complainant, charged member, or local group representatives may be requested.
(4) The Committee on Ethics shall prepare a written summary of the case, including its decision and the basis of its decision.
D. Outcome of Ethics Committee Review.
(1) On the basis of its review of the investigation and decision of the local group, the Committee, by majority vote with no more than two members dissenting or abstaining, shall decide what action the Association should take with regard to the complaint filed against the charged member. While based on the information gathered by the local group, the decision of the Committee on Ethics may differ from the decision arrived at by the local group. The Committee on Ethics shall vote for one of the following measures:
(a) Exoneration. The charged member is cleared from blame as the evidence established no unethical conduct by the member.
(b) Dismissal of Complaint Without Prejudice. This disposition permits new proceedings with respect to the same charge at a later date; i.e., when a determination on the merits cannot be made because of insufficient reliable evidence or other procedural defects.
(c) Dismissal of Complaint With Prejudice. The complaint is dismissed without any finding of unethical conduct; proceedings with regard to the same complaint may not be reinstituted.
Where appropriate, such a dismissal may be accompanied by a letter of admonition, expressing the sense of the Association that there may be questions about the appropriateness of the conduct of the charged member and putting the member on notice that further education, consultation and/or supervision may be indicated.
(e) Suspension from the Association. Such suspension shall be for a stipulated period, not to exceed three years from date of suspension.
(f) Separation from the Rolls. A new application for membership in the Association shall not be entertained in less than five years from date of separation.
(g) Permanent Expulsion from the Association.
(2) On the basis of its review, the Committee may also decide to consult with the local group regarding its procedures in investigating the complaint of unethical conduct, its interpretation of the Association’s “Principles” and its decision regarding the conduct complained of and sanction imposed. However, the Committee and the Association may not otherwise reverse or modify the decision of the local group.
E. Procedure Following Committee on Ethics.
(1) The Committee on Ethics shall forward a summary of the case, including a statement of the basis of its decision, to the President of the Association. The President shall notify the charged member, the complainant, and the local group of the decision and shall provide the charged member with a copy of the summary.
(2) If the decision of the Committee on Ethics has been to exonerate the charged member, to dismiss the complaint with or without prejudice, or to censure the charged member, the charged member also shall be advised that such decisions of the Committee are final, and unappealable.
(3) If the decision of the Committee on Ethics has been to suspend, separate from the rolls, or expel the charged member, the decision is not final unless it has been ratified by the Executive Council pursuant to the procedures set out in Section IV(E)(4), below. When the President notifies the charged member of such a decision, the President also shall notify the member that he/she must indicate in writing within 30 days from the date of mailing of the notice, that he/she either accepts the decision or that he/she wishes to appeal it. Unless written notification from the charged member is received within the specified time, the right to appeal shall have been forfeited.
(4) Executive Council Ratification or Appeal. Following notification of all parties as set out above, the Chair of the Committee on Ethics shall present the case and its conclusions to the Executive Council sitting in Executive Session.
(a) When Appeal Not Requested. When the charged member has not requested an appeal, The Executive Council shall decide whether or not to ratify the decision of the Committee on Ethics.
(i) If the Executive Council by majority vote, decides to ratify the decision of the Committee on Ethics, the decision will be final. The Executive Council may prepare its own written decision of the case or adopt the conclusions of the Committee on Ethics as the decision of the Association.
(ii) If the Council fails to ratify the decision of the Committee on Ethics, the Council may refer the matter back to the Committee on Ethics for further deliberation and may specify questions or concerns it has about the matter.
(iii) If the Executive Council refers the matter back to the Committee on Ethics, the Committee shall reconsider its decision, following procedures set forth in Sections IV(C), (D) and (E). The President shall notify all concerned parties of the Council’s decision, provide the charged member with current status of the matter and remind the member of his/her right to appeal as set out in IV(E)(3). If the charged member does not exercise the right to appeal, the matter will again be presented for Executive Council consideration as set out herein.
(iv) On the Executive Council’s ratification of the decision of the Committee on Ethics, whether at initial or subsequent presentations, the charged member, complainant and local group shall be notified of its decision. The charged member shall be provided a copy of the final decision.
(b) When Appeal Requested; Executive Council Ratification. If the charged member exercises his/her right to appeal the decision of the Committee on Ethics, the President and Board Chair shall jointly appoint an Executive Council Ethics Appeals Committee consisting of five members, including at least two Councilors-at-Large, and at least one Executive Councilor. The remaining two members shall be former members of the Committee on Ethics. If the case involves a minor patient the Appeals Committee must include a child analyst. The appointment and composition of the Ethics Appeals Committee shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the Executive Council. This Committee is empowered to act on behalf of the Executive Council in adjudicating the charged member’s appeal, and its decision shall be final. The Committee shall review the record of the proceedings to ascertain that proper procedures have been followed. If it deems further fact finding is required, it shall refer the matter to the Committee on Ethics for the necessary further investigation and deliberation. On completion of its further review of the matter, the Committee on Ethics shall report its decision on reconsideration of the matter to the Ethics Appeals Committee. A majority vote of this Committee shall be required to reach a final disposition of the matter. This Committee’s final disposition shall be reported to Council and its report shall be considered an action by Council without further debate or vote by Council.
V. Confidentiality and Disclosure
All information and records pertaining to a charge of unethical conduct against a member, its investigation and any decision rendered shall be kept confidential except as set forth herein. Disclosure is authorized in the following instances:
A. Information may be disclosed to those members, staff and non-member consultants who need the information to assure the effective administration of these procedures.
B. A decision relating to a charge of unethical conduct, which has been reviewed and ratified by the Executive Council:
(1) shall be reported with identification of the member, to the Meeting of Members in the Secretary’s report of the Minutes of the Executive Council and in such written Minutes, circulated by mail to the membership of the Association if the decision has resulted in the suspension, separation from the rolls, or expulsion of the member from the Association;
(2) shall be reported to the membership of the Association as noted in V(B)(1) above if the decision has resulted in the censure of the member, with the identification of the member included only at the discretion of the Executive Council; and
(3) shall be reported, to the membership of the Association as noted above, if the decision has been to dismiss the charges or exonerate the member, with the identification of the member only on his/her written request.
C. The Committee on Ethics may, at its discretion, report decisions or disclose other matters brought before it to other components of the Association, provided the identity of the parties involved is not revealed.
D. The Committee on Ethics shall provide information concerning a charge of unethical conduct, including the name of the charged member, to the Association’s Membership Committee and the Board’s Certification Committee when either of these committees consider an application from a member who has been sanctioned for unethical conduct. This information should also be supplied to the Appointments Committee chairs of the Board and Council.
E. The Committee on Ethics may disclose a decision concerning a charge of unethical conduct to other appropriate ethical bodies or, when required by law, to appropriate governmental or other entities.
F. The Executive Council may report an ethics complaint or a decision finding that a member has acted unethically to any licensing authority, professional society or other entity or person if it considers such disclosure appropriate to protect the public.
The Association shall not be required to accept a resignation from a member against whom a charge of unethical conduct is pending. An offer of resignation, whether or not it is accepted by the Association, shall not require the termination of an investigation of unethical conduct, nor prevent the rendering or disclosure of a decision on such a charge.
As a condition of membership in the Association, each member agrees to cooperate with the work of the Committee on Ethics, on request, and to release, hold harmless and indemnify the Association, its officers, agents and members of the Committee on Ethics from any and all claims:
A. arising out of the institution and processing of investigations of unethical conduct in respect to said member, and the imposition and disclosure of sanctions as a result of such proceedings; and
B. with respect to any third party action or proceeding brought against such member based upon, relying on, arising from or with reference to the Principle of Ethics and Standards of the Association or any ethical proceeding conducted by the Association involving such member.
* When the patient is a child or adolescent (a minor) the parent(s) or guardian(s) play a significant role in the treatment. In these situations the functions of such a role changes with age, stage of development, diagnosis, as well as growth of capacity within the patient. How the psychoanalyst relates to the patient and family will reflect such changes. These shifts need to be dealt with in direct and open ways with all concerned. The potential power differential and transference-countertransference between psychoanalyst, patient and parenting figures (or other important family members) can be significant. If not recognized or mishandled such issues can interfere with the treatment and disrupt it.
 Refusal of such demands for confidential information, while ethical, may have serious consequences for the patient, e.g., loss of benefits, loss of a job opportunity, etc., which may cause the patient to take some legal action against the member. The fact that refusal is ethical is unlikely to protect the psychoanalyst in those circumstances, unless the member has made his or her position clear both at the onset and throughout treatment. Even with these clarifications a degree of exposure may remain.
 The caveat expressed in footnote 1 is applicable. Again, the psychoanalyst may refuse the patient’s demand that he or she act contrary to the Principles. While this may protect a member against accusations of unethical conduct, it is unlikely to protect a psychoanalyst against legal allegations of substandard conduct.
 A refusal to comply with local reporting laws may be in the patient’s best interest; however, the psychoanalyst must recognize that his/her action may result in exposure to prosecution by the government or a civil action based on these laws.
© 2009-2019 American Psychoanalytic Association
Psychoanalyst Resource Committee
History and Mandate
The Psychoanalyst Resource Committee (PRC) was approved by the Society Board of Directors on November 29, 2012 and by the Institute Board of Directors on April 9, 2013. The PRC replaces the former Joint Committee of the Society and Institute known as the Psychoanalyst Assistance Committee.
The Psychoanalyst Resource Committee (PRC) exists under the Western New England Psychoanalytic Society (WNEPS) with a mandate to provide education and resources to members of the WNEPS regarding the professional lives of psychoanalysts, including, but not limited to, analysts who might be impaired or in distress. The PRC also maintains an ongoing relationship with a health intervention assistance program authorized by state law to serve licensed healthcare professionals, such as the Health Assistance InterVention Education Network (“HAVEN”) or its equivalent. The PRC will inform the members of the WNEPS of the existence of such a State program at least once per year. The PRC would be available to consult with members of the community on options should a member or members have questions or concerns regarding an impaired analyst. If a member wished to consult with an agency such as HAVEN, or report an analyst to either such an agency or directly to the State, the PRC would be available to explain the process, provide information, and outline options along the way. The PRC would follow cases for as long as it deemed necessary based on the particular situation. In addition, the PRC would be available to analysts in the community who are concerned about potential complaints being brought against them, about complaints that have occurred, and about their own health or wellbeing. The PRC would be available to such analysts to discuss options and explain processes. The PRC would not be an investigative or reporting committee. Individual members of the PRC could recuse themselves from any case on which they felt that mandated reporting would be triggered in a way that would unfairly jeopardize the possibility of intervention at a lesser level. Each member of the community maintains their right to report any analyst to the State at any time at their own discretion.
HAVEN Phone number: 860-276-9196
State of CT
NON DISCRIMINATION POLICY
Structure and Governance
The Western New England Psychoanalytic Society does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or physical handicap in the administration of its admission or educational policies, scholarship and loan programs, or any other organization-administered program.
Western New England Psychoanalytic Society
|President||Elizabeth Wilson, M.D.|
|Past President||Matthew Shaw, Ph.D.|
|Vice-President||Lorraine Siggins, M.D.|
|Secretary||Christine Desmond, M.D.|
|Treasurer||Carole Goldberg, Psy.D.|
|Chair||Jean Vogel, M.D.|
|Co-Chair||Bonnie Becker, Ph.D.|
|Mary Ayre, M.D.|
|Rachel Bergeron, Ph.D., J.D.|
|Angelica Cappiello, M.D.|
|Debbie Fried, M.D.|
|Gretchen Hermes, M.D.|
|Lynn Reiser, M.D.|
|Chair||Robert White, M.D.|
|Bonnie Becker, Ph.D.|
|Chris Leveille, Psy.D.|
|Janet Madigan, M.D.|
|Chair||Erica Weiss, M.D.|
|Co-Chair||Shannon Drew, M.D.|
|Sheryl Silverstein, Ph.D.|
|Joan Poll, M.D>|
|Chris Leveille, Psy.D.|
|Linda Mayes, M.D.|
|Prakash Thomas, M.D.|
|Chair||Eileen Becker-Dunn, M.S.W.|
|Co-Chair||Matthew Shaw, Ph.D.|
|Paul Schwaber, Ph.D.|
|Gretchen Hermes, M.D.|
|Barbara Marcus, Ph.D.|
|Angelica Kaner, Ph.D.|
|Chair||Linda Mayes, M.D.|
|Co-Chair||Susan Bers, Ph.D.|
|Joan Poll, M.D.|
|Oscar Hills, M.D.|
|Chair||Carole Goldberg, Psy.D.|
|Chair||Steve Atkins, M.D.|
|Chair||Prakash Thomas, M.D.|
|Mary Ayre, M.D.|
|Lisa Driscoll, Ph.D.|
|Jean Vogel, M.D.|
|Co-Chair||Sheryl Silverstein, Ph.D.|
|Co-Chair||Susan Bers, Ph.D.|
|Michael Garland, M.D.|
|Linda Mayes, MD.|
|Guy Orly, L.M.F.T.|
|Prakash Thomas, M.D.|
|Jean Vogel, M.D|
|Joel Allison, Ph.D.|
|Stephen R. Atkins, M.D.|
|Mary Ayre, M.D.|
|Rosemary H. Balsam, M.D.|
|Bonnie Becker, Ph.D.*✓|
|Eileen Becker-Dunn, M.S.W., FABP|
|Rachel Bergeron, Ph.D.|
|Susan Bers, Ph.D.|
|Debra Boltas, Ph.D.|
|Lee David Brauer, M.D.|
|Elizabeth A. Brett, Ph.D.|
|Angela Cappiello, M.D.|
|David A. Carlson, M.D.|
|Phyllis M. Cohen, Ed.D.|
|E. Kirsten Dahl, Ph.D.|
|Christine Desmond, M.D.|
|Anne Dutton, LCSW* ✓|
|T. Wayne Downey, M.D.|
|Theodore F Fallon, Jr., M.D.|
|Deborah Fried, M.D.|
|Carole Goldberg, Psy.D.|
|Oscar F. Hills, M.D.|
|Sybil Houlding, M.S.W.|
|Angelica Kaner, Ph.D.|
|Robert A. King, M.D.|
|Fred Koerner, Ph.D.|
|Carolyn Cates Kovel, M.D.|
|Jonathan Lear, Ph.D.|
|James Leckman, M.D.|
|Christopher Leveille, Psy.D.|
|Lawrence Levenson, M.D.|
|Kay McDermott Long, Ph.D.|
|Jeffrey S. Lustman, M.D.|
|Janet Madigan, M.D.|
|Norka Malberg, Psy.D.*|
|Jocelyn S. Malkin, M.D.|
|Marshal Mandelkern, M.D.|
|Steven Marans, Ph.D.|
|Barbara Fibel Marcus, Ph.D.|
|Lisa Marcus, Ph.D.|
|Barbara Mason, M.D.|
|Linda C. Mayes, M.D.|
|Borislav Meandzija, M.D.|
|Jerome H. Meyer, M.D.|
|Nancy Meyer-Lustman, Ph.D.*|
|Jack Miller, M.D.|
|Eric Millman, M.D.|
|Victoria Morrow, M.D.|
|Theodore F. Mucha, M.D.|
|Richard L. Munich, M.D.*|
|Jennifer Myer, M.D.*|
|Jenifer Nields, M.D.*|
|Barbara Nordhaus, M.S.W.|
|Debra Nudel, Ph.D.|
|Nancy Olson, M.D.|
|Robert B. Ostroff, M.D.|
|Richard Ownbey, M.D.|
|Sidney H. Phillips, M.D.|
|Joan F. Poll, M.D.|
|Stanley G. Possick, M.D.|
|Ernst Prelinger, Ph.D.|
|Lynn Whisnant Reiser, M.D.|
|Robin Renders, Ph.D.|
|Bronce Rice, Psy.D.*|
|Lauri R. Robertson, M.D.|
|Linda Robinson, LCSW*|
|Neayka Sahay, M.D.|
|Sanford Schreiber, M.D.|
|Paul Schwaber, Ph.D.|
|Matthew F. Shaw, Ph.D.|
|Lorraine D. Siggins, M.D.|
|William H. Sledge, M.D.|
|Raina Sotsky, MD* ✓|
|Stanley Stern, M.D.|
|Nancy Suchman, Ph.D.* ✓|
|Allan Tasman, M.D.|
|Brian Tobin, M.D.|
|Jean Vogel, M.D.|
|Fred Volkmar, M.D.|
|Patricia A. Wesley, M.D.*|
|Joan Wexler, M.S.W.|
|Robert S. White, M.D.|
|Elizabeth Wilson, M.D.|
|Emanuel C. Wolff, M.D.|
|Lyn Yonack, LICSW*|