[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
July 17, 1943


JAMA. 1943;122(12):811-812. doi:10.1001/jama.1943.02840290031011

In 1928 the late Dr. Joseph Jastrow1 declared that the freudian movement was rejected by the medical profession as unorthodox. "Its entire history is unfortunate," he said. "It was born in the clinic—an unfortunate birthplace for any doctrine with so wide and so personal an application; it was reared in distracting controversy; it traveled on the visé of psychoanalysis—a procedure as open to abuse as any narrow cult, and more so." A vast literature on freudianism and the psychoanalytic method, some of it bitterly derogatory, has appeared. Now, some thirty-seven years since the freudian theory was first brought to the United States by an article published by Boris Sidis in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, an unprejudiced opinion of freudianism as a theory and psychoanalysis as an instrument is still difficult to secure.

The aim of psychoanalysis as Freud conceived it "was not to tell people unpleasant truths about