בקבוצת ההדרכה שלי דנו בכמה סוגיות שנדון בהן כאן באופן כללי שאיננו קשור ישירות למטפל ולמטופל.
דנו בשאלת ה love transference ובנטייה של מטפלים לקשר זאת להיסטוריה של המטופל. הזכרתי בקבוצה את מאמרו של Gabbard על James W. Lomax, M.D., and Glen O. Gabbard, M.D Transference Love: An Artificial Rose? (Am J Psychiatry 161:967-973, June 2004
.והנה תגובתו של גאבארד
I don’t think I agree with either the patient or Dr. Lomax that love in psychoanalysis is an artificial rose. I think the love experienced in one’s analysis is basically similar to the love experienced outside of analysis. The feelings are just as real, but the actions are different. The analyst, as Freud noted, pursues a course for which there is no model in real life. The patient, on the other hand, is confined to verbalizing all of the feelings that would ordinarily be enacted.
A common mistake made by beginning analysts and therapists is failing to recognize the "real" nature of the love the patient feels for the analyst. The beginning therapist or analyst may, in fact, try to convince the patient that the loving feelings are really for someone else, like a parent, instead of for the analyst. Many patients experience this as a failure to validate their internal reality. I am certain that Dr. Lomax recognizes this distinction, but I call attention to it as a way of clarifying that from the patient’s perspective, the feelings are definitely real. In fact, the only difference between love inside and outside the transference is that the former is analyzed. All of our significant relationships are a mixture of real elements in the present situation and the recreation of past relationships.