Stone A A
Faculty of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Am J Psychiatry. 1990 Apr;147(4):419-27. doi: 10.1176/ajp.147.4.419.
The Osheroff litigation, which is central to Klerman's paper, ended in an out-of-court settlement. The author states that there is no legal precedent for the so-called right to effective treatment and that the case history was a much more complicated clinical scenario than Klerman reports. He concludes that there is neither in the law nor in the clinical facts a sound or certain basis for Klerman's conclusions or for the sweeping policy reforms and standardized clinical procedures he urges. Although they are directed against traditional psychoanalytic psychiatrists, Klerman's proposals could have serious consequences for the innovation, diversity, and independent thought essential to scientific progress in psychiatry.
奥谢罗夫诉讼案是克莱曼论文的核心内容，最终以庭外和解告终。作者指出，所谓的有效治疗权并无法律先例，而且病历所呈现的临床情况比克莱曼所描述的要复杂得多。他得出结论，无论是在法律上还是临床事实中，都没有坚实或确定的依据来支持克莱曼的结论，以及他所敦促的全面政策改革和标准化临床程序。尽管克莱曼的提议是针对传统精神分析精神病学家的，但这些提议可能会对精神病学科学进步所必需的创新、多样性和独立思考产生严重影响。
