Not all of the comments were polarised. One respondent wrote: “ telecommunication has not to be rejected totally and absolutely, if it is really necessary….In the majority of cases it might be more advisable to analyse the tremendous longing for comfort and passivation. This might minimise the use of telecommunication and its risks decisively .” There were also reminders to continue making a distinction between training analysis and non-training analyses. One respondent wrote: “… Remote Training Analysis concerns a limited number of candidates, while remote analysis concerns a large numbers of IPA members who conduct analysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy training online in distant geographical areas or just in the same city .” Another pointed out that the situation in the USA is different from that which obtains elsewhere: “ the situation is not simple, as there are some APsaA institutes who offer online psychoanalytic training without complying to IPA Procedures on Remote Training Analysis, as the APsaA has some independence regarding training from the IPA. There are also some organizations initiated and run by IPA members who offer very competent psychoanalytic psychotherapy trainings online and who are actively seeking to expand their area of influence .” Several respondents put forward the view that in today’s world privacy is no longer possible. One wrote: “ We live in a society in which privacy as we knew it has ceased to exist. I understand the dilemma the IPA faces, but even if it is important to be aware of the realities of our world, there is little we can do about keeping privacy from being interfered. I think that we should measure the possible consequences of using telecommunications against the possibilities that it has provided for people that otherwise would not have the chance to have any analysis at all, not to speak about training .” Another wrote of: “… the almost complete destruction of any viable concept of individual privacy in the current techno- cultural environment… ”. A third wrote: “ the cultural environment clearly no longer supports concepts of privacy ”. The Committee does not share the pessimism of the more extreme versions of this view, but it recognises the dangers to privacy and hopes that this report will contribute to protecting the privacy of psychoanalytic consultation. As we point out in section 2.6 of the report, privacy is protected both by the IPA Code of Ethics and by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There were many comments about how to manage the risks and improve our awareness of them. Here are some examples: • “…I appreciated being informed of e.g. end point vulnerability in otherwise apparently well protected systems”; • “…what to do if patients ask to record their sessions… but with smart phones recording events has become an almost everyday activity.”; • “I found the list of steps that can be realistically taken on page … more helpful than the preceding discussion which seemed to lament rather pointlessly to my mind that 100% security in electronic communication cannot be achieved.”
44
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online