Renik O
Int J Psychoanal. 1994 Dec;75 ( Pt 5-6):1245-50.
This article explores a correspondence between the conduct of clinical psychoanalysis and the publication of clinical facts in the psychoanalytic literature. At issue in both activities are the nature of psychoanalytic understanding and the way psychoanalytic understanding is communicated. An analyst intervening in the treatment situation offers an interpretation to a patient; an analyst publishing a clinical case report offers an interpretation to colleagues. How can we best judge the validity of an interpretation in either instance? How do we conceptualise the accuracy of a published clinical fact in the light of the observing analyst's irreducible subjectivity? Is disguise for the purpose of preserving confidentiality acceptable in the publication of clinical facts? These and related questions are taken up, using an illustrative clinical vignette as a basis for discussion. The publication of clinical facts drawn from systematic empirical research studies is compared with the publication of clinical facts drawn from observations made by single treating analysts.
本文探讨了临床精神分析实践与精神分析文献中临床事实的发表之间的对应关系。这两项活动所涉及的问题都是精神分析理解的本质以及精神分析理解的传达方式。在治疗情境中进行干预的分析师向患者提供一种解释；发表临床病例报告的分析师向同事提供一种解释。在这两种情况下，我们如何才能最好地判断一种解释的有效性呢？鉴于观察分析师不可避免的主观性，我们如何理解已发表临床事实的准确性呢？在临床事实的发表中，为保护保密性而进行伪装是否可以接受呢？本文以一个具有说明性的临床案例为讨论基础，探讨了这些及相关问题。将系统实证研究得出的临床事实的发表与单个治疗分析师的观察得出的临床事实的发表进行了比较。
