CPC/HPC Open Meeting - May 12, 2012

Attendees:Richard Lightbody, Arthur Rosenbaum, Drew Clemens, Sarah Tucker, Joanne Naegele, Judith Pitlick, Devra Adelstein, Jose Camerino, Kay Levine, Elisabetta Superchi, Barbara Streeter, Shari Nacson, Eva Basilion, Phyllis Brody, and Elaine Hadden. Richard Lightbody began with introductory remarks. Today is our 3^rd meeting for the purpose of exploring the way in which HPC and CPC can work together to use our resources in an effective way to provide continued psychoanalytic treatment in Cleveland. At the upcoming American Psychoanalytic Association in June, in Chicago, this discussion will continue with any interested attendees. HPC’s Curriculum Committee are: Elisabetta Superchi, Marge Zerba, Vickie Todd, Jose Camerino, Bunny Griffin, Devra Adelstein. There continues to be some confusion as to whether HPC is to consider  how to collaborate with CPC or instead consider IF they will collaborate with CPC.   Their meetings to date have focused on the HPC Curriculum and whether there are aspects that need to be altered or updated. Since 2006, Joanne Naegele has been chair of the subcommittee of child psychoanalysis of CPC. To date there have been no graduates in this program. Joanne continues to hope that in 10 years there will be another generation of child analysts working here in Cleveland. Her concern is that there will be a predictable attrition of older analysts over time. The CPC Child Psychoanalysis Committee are:  Art Rosenbaum, Scott Dowling, Joanne Naegele, Judy Chused, Anna Janicki, Bunny Griffin, Judy Pitlick and Kay McKenzie. There have been four CPC child meetings so far, and there is a readiness to meet with HPC to discuss this. CPC has an adult psychoanalysis program approved by APsaA, and an adult, child and adolescent program combined that is also approved by APsaA . Currently there is no separate child psychoanalysis program. Child psychoanalysis programs have been approved all around the United States, and their graduates are all eligible to become full members of the APsaA . CPC’s Child Psychoanalysis Subcommittee is trying to determine what would comprise child training. Some ideas of this are – infant observation, therapeutic school involvement, open case conferences for analysts and candidates, the idea of immediate assignment of a child supervisor for those wanting the child training, attendance of candidates at Friday seminars. There is also talk of having essential modules in such a program. Some of these are:  development, beginning of child and adolescent analysis, parental functioning and working with the parent, techniques of child psychoanalysis, defense mechanisms, treatment via the parent, work on dreams, termination, and what is especially relevant in Freud for child and adolescent development. Also mentioned are additional optional modules- metapsychological profiles, readings of Winnicott, Antonino Ferro, Melanie Klein, Piaget, and research. Joanne would like to talk to HPC to see if these could be a joint curriculum for both HPC and CPC.  She said that at the recent Santa Fe meetings, “Everyone is rooting for Cleveland”. She continued that there is a consortium of Birmingham and Cincinnati, the SE Regional Consortium. Birmingham takes adult analysts who want child training. They meet in person 3 times a year, but Skype on an ongoing basis. Cincinnati offers a child only program. HPC and CPC could have a program in which child candidates would be put together in one curriculum.  There would be two ways of entering – one through HPC, a free standing training program, that is attached neither to APsaA or IPA, and child training that would be through CPC’s child training program, which will be APsaA approved.  Either route could result in graduation. Amongst those in attendance today, there was support for a consortium model. Multiple people spoke of a fear that with an HPC/CPC collaboration, HPC would lose important aspects of their program such as terminology, concepts, and values. In response to this issue, a wise quote of Winston Churchill’s was mentioned- “British and Americans are two great people divided by a common language.” It was then said that what separates us is not our curriculum, but that we all need to work through our history, and get beyond it to where we are now. Our field is scientifically based study, and we need to learn, to assimilate new knowledge, and to apply it in ways to help people. The threat from biological influence is a bigger threat than our struggles together. It was clearly said that there is no wish for HPC to become CPC or to be dominated by APsaA. As a reassurance, it was repeatedly stated that CPC is flexible and wants to collaborate with HPC. Also mentioned was that language can be used to divide or to bring together. It also can widen a gulf rather than bridge.There is more than a different language at HPC. There is a different culture. The more we talk about worry about assimilation the better it will be. A suggestion was made that HPC should make a list of their terminology, and valued concepts which they want to preserve, as well as various stances held such as views of ADHD and psychotropic medication for children. Also discussed was the governance issue at HPC re: decision making policy.Various thoughts about an HPC/CPC model were shared. There was an example of a university model in which there are core basic courses, and an array of optional courses to provide a broad education to students. A discussion followed on the benefits vs. difficulties of multiple course choices for psychoanalytic candidates. There was some discussion about HPC’s search for a new director. One view was that our collaboration process should wait until the new director is appointed. Others felt the search does not need to delay the ongoing process of exploring HPC/CPC collaboration. Multiple people felt that a new director of HPC will be looking to us to create patients, new candidates, and so our work on collaboration should continue to move forward. Also mentioned was that it is invaluable for key people to attend these meetings and to be part of the discussions. This would eliminate hearing information second hand, and would lessen misinterpretation and confusion. Additionally, this would facilitate the forward movement of our endeavor, and enrich our discussions. Richard Lightbody will make efforts on this manner.There are two other summaries of previous meetings posted in Members News on March 3, 2012 and February 19, 2012.