[25]

THE PROBLEM OF
LAY-ANALYSES

I

IT appears to me that the title of this trea-
tise may require an explanation. Let me,
therefore, state that the problem of Lay-
Analyses expresses itself most succinctly in
the question of whether medically untrained
laymen should be permitted to practise psy-
choanalysis.

This problem, timely in general, is subject
to national laws.

It is a timely question, in so far as, up to
now, apparently nobody ever cared who was
practising psychoanalysis. As a matter of fact,
too little attention was paid to the question into
whose hands the employment of this new
science was entrusted, with unanimity prevail-
ing only in reference to a more or less strong
tendency to wish that nobody at all should

[26]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

practise psychoanalysis. There were different
reasons for this well-nigh general aversion.

The demand, then, now put before the
legislatures of certain countries, that only
physicians be permitted to apply psycho-
analysis proves that, after all, a new, and ap-
parently more tolerant opinion is becoming
prevalent, as regards the recognition of our
science. This new trend of putting the stamp
of official and scientific approval on psycho-
analysis, by reserving the monopoly of its
application to medically trained men, must,
however, first successfully clear itself of any
and all suspicion of being nothing other than
just a modification of the resistance hitherto
shown towards psychoanalysis. Today, at last,
it is admitted that, under certain circum-
stances, psychoanalytical treatment is in or-
der. However, if it is to be applied, certain
countries stand ready to impose the restriction
that licensed physicians only shall be permit-
ted to administer this treatment.

The problem before us right now, then, is
why only physicians should be permitted to
practise psychoanalysis. This is a problem

[27]

subject to national laws. In the United States
and Germany, for example, this problem
does not amount to more than just an academic
discussion, because in these countries a pa-
tient may receive treatment from anybody he
chooses. In these countries, anybody who feels
the inclination may treat, as a “quack” to be
sure, “cases,” provided he stands ready to as-
sume full responsibility for the effect of his
treatment. Not before the authorities are actu-
ally appealed to to retaliate for such tangible
harm as a patient may have suffered from
the hands of an unlicensed practitioner of
psychoanalysis, does the law interfere in the
United States, Germany and many other
countries.

In Austria, however, where I am writing
this treatise, bearing in mind the special con-
ditions which prevail there, in regard to the
administration of psychoanalytical treatment,
the authorities employ the law of the country
as a preventive. In my country, without con-
sidering ultimate results, the law, in sweeping
restrictions, enjoins all and sundry laymen
from treating ailing people.

[28]

The Problem of Lay-Analyses

In the Republic of Austria, therefore,
there is a very practical aspect to the question
of whether laymen should be permitted to
treat ailing people with psychoanalysis. As
a matter of fact, under present conditions,
this question seems to be settled since it is
already answered by the wording of the law,
now appearing on the statutes of my country:
Nervous people are unquestionably sick peo-
ple; laymen are doubtlessly no licensed phy-
sicians; psychoanalysis is a remedy for the
healing, or improvement, of nervous dis-
orders. As in the eyes of the law, the latter
are considered diseases and the treatment of
all such ailments reserved for licensed phy-
sicians exclusively, laymen are liable to se-
vere punishment when employing psycho-
analysis for the treatment of nervous people.

In view of this plain state of affairs, one
scarcely dares to approach the question of per-
mitting the laity to practise psychoanalysis
in Austria. However, in spite of the obvious-
ness of the situation as a whole, there are some
additional aspects to the question which,

[29]

albeit the law does not take cognisance of
them, should nevertheless be considered.

It may develop that in connection with
psychoanalysis, people in need of treatment
are not sick people, in the broad meaning of
this term; laymen not always to be considered
laymen, nor physicians what physicians are
generally supposed to be–the very premise
upon which these physicians base their claims.
If such a state of affairs becomes apparent, it
would be justifiable to insist upon a modifica-
tion of the law, prohibiting the unlicensed
practise of medicine, as far as the application
of psychoanalytic treatment is concerned.