within essentially the same theoretical framework, offered feedback. Although the underlying premises about the importance of such things as authenticity, integrity, and respect were the shared by all, the actual recommended actions to be taken diverged greatly. The woman presenting the case thoughtfully took in all these recommendations, asked for clarification or elaboration regarding some of them, and then formulated her next intervention for her group. She also commented that the diversity of opinion from highly respected colleagues was both disturbing and relieving, since it made clear that there is no single correct approach to any given clinical situation. Clearly this woman is not a candidate for getting involved in anything the looks like “manualization.” On the other hand, she is someone to whom I would refer, without hesitation, a person I love.
The most recent example of the trivialization of psychotherapy in our culture has come in the form of legislatively mandated keeping of “Medical Records.” In some instances legislation has been written in such a way as to include psychotherapists in general, and psychologists in particular, within its requirements. For psychotherapists to keep such records has at least two trivializing implications for psychotherapy. First is the implication that there would be some genuine utility in the keeping of such records. This assumes that a person could move from one psychotherapist to another, have his or her “Medical Records” transferred to the new psychotherapist, and pick up where he or she left off with the previous psychotherapist. This is a preposterous assumption when applied to as personal a relationship as is involved in psychotherapy. The second,