Psychoanalytische Therapie

A statement of the professional umbrella society DGPT is presented that was formulated in cooperation with the various professional societies and with the German Society of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy and the Society of Child and Adolescent Therapy. The statement is a reaction to the public claim for effective evidence of psychotherapy and takes the opportunity for a comprehensive presentation of this field. In the introduction Alf Gerlach, as chairman of the umbrella society at the time of the formulation of this statement and now executive chairman responsible for coordinating research, describes the history of the development of the statement.There were two particular moments prompting this statement. On the one hand the Scientific Advisory Board for Psychotherapy as an advisory committee based on the law of psychotherapy, has presented demands for effective evidence that are incompatible with psychoanalysis. Thus, the recognition of psychoanalysis as a treatment method for illnesses was put in doubt. On the other hand, a suggestion was put forward to the Board to recognize psychodynamic psychotherapy as an independent entity. This questioned the unity of the psychotherapeutic field.The statement was passed onto the Scientific Advisory Board last autumn. It is intended for a professional audience and includes answers to important issues of this field. It will have an important role to play in future discussions about professional politics. For this reason, we have decided to begin the present issue of our journal with this statement and thus to open a wide discussion forum.

---

---

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychoanalyse, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Tiefenpsychologie e.V. (DGPT)In Verbindung mit:Deutsche Gesellschaft für Analytische Psychologie (DGAP)Deutsche Gesellschaft für Individualpsychologie (DGIP)Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychotherapeutische Medizin (DGPM)Deutsche Psychoanalytische Gesellschaft (DPG)Deutsche Psychoanalytische Vereinigung (DPV)Vereinigung Analytischer Kinder- und Jugendlichen-Psychotherapeuten (VAKJP)Redaktion: Stephan Hau und Marianne Leuzinger-Bohleber

---

Ambulant oder stationär?

A central issue in psychosomatic-psychotherapeutic consultations is whether to recommend outpatient or inpatient psychotherapy. In a prospective field study at a psychosomatic outpatient unit sociodemographic and clinical variables were compared for patients for whom outpatient treatment (N = 129) or inpatient treatment (N = 112) had been recommended. The assessments of the therapeutic alliance were made by the referring therapist and the therapist who conducted the therapy. The main findings were: The decision about what type of treatment to recommend was based mainly on the type and severity of the disorder, including the patient's functional level and personality structure. There was no difference between the patient groups in how the referring therapists assessed the initial therapeutic alliance, but there was a difference in how the treating therapists did, the relationship to the inpatients being rated significantly less favorably. The importance of the different treatment settings in interaction with the severity of the disorder is discussed. The initial therapeutic alliance in the consultation did not enable a prognosis about the therapeutic alliance during therapy.     

Simulation à la Goldman: pretend and collapse

Theories of mind draw on processes that represent mental states and their computational connections; simulation, in addition, draws on processes that replicate (Heal 1986) a sequence of mental states. Moreover, mental simulation can be triggered by input from imagination instead of real perceptions. To avoid confusion between mental states concerning reality and those created in simulation, imagined contents must be quarantined. Goldman bypasses this problem by giving pretend states a special role to play in simulation (Goldman 2006). We argue that this path leads to the resurgence of the threat of collapse (Davies 1994), diluting the principled distinction between simulation and theory use. Exploration of a related method of real-mental states operating in a pretend mode leads to a factually untenable model. Our main goal here is to raise this problem as a challenge for Goldman’s reconfigured simulation theory. Only at the end we will briefly sketch a possible alternative way of quarantine that preserves the replicative element of simulation and avoids collapse. Figure 1 provides a guide to our argument. Fig. 1 Structure of argument

---

Die Natur des Subjektiven: Einige Bemerkungen zu Kutscheras Objektivismus-Kritik

Kutschera's criticism of an objectivist theory of mind is shown to rest on a premise which an objectivist need not accept, namely, that there is a deep metaphysical distinction between the physical and the psychological domain. This premise can be rejected on naturalistic grounds. Referring to the work of Rosenthal, Dennett and Davidson, it is argued that less metaphysically loaded explanations can be given of what is subjective about the mind. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

AMICAI: A Method Based on Risk Analysis to Integrate Responsible Research and Innovation into the Work of Research and Innovation Practitioners

Science and Engineering Ethics - The integration of ethics into the day-to-day work of research and innovation (R&I) is an important but difficult challenge. However, with the Aachen method...