13,069 views
The topic of diagnosis is always current and relevant, as it is crucial both for conducting clinical treatment and for promoting public policies in any country. This means that, although the objects of study and work tools of psychoanalysis and psychiatry are quite different, they have worked increasingly closely together, in accordance with the demands of the subjects undergoing treatment, sometimes of their parents or guardians, and even the demands of the institutions where these subjects are inserted. In contemporary times, psychoanalytic clinics with children and adolescents have received and referred cases to and from psychiatry, pediatrics, neuropediatrics, and other medical disciplines. We have worked more frequently in multidisciplinary teams with nutritionists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, psychopedagogues, occupational therapists, and therapeutic companions. Given this diversity of knowledge, how should we think about the issue of diagnosis in clinical practice with children and adolescents? This is the purpose of this meeting and today: we consider that psychoanalysis serves the subject and not the child, the adolescent, the adult or the elderly. We also consider that the diagnosis in psychoanalysis is not taken in terms of disorders, but of structures. We will include in this discussion Jean-Claude Maleval's proposal to think of autism as a fourth structure. Given all these unique elements of psychoanalytic practice, how can we practice psychoanalysis and, at the same time, contribute to and receive other knowledge from multidisciplinary work?