Una nota sopra una malintesa sentenza della Cassazione. (Appendice alla mia «Risposta alla Memoria sulla “psicanalisi laica” dei proff. Dazzi e Lingiardi»)

Abstract

Following a sentence imposed by the Court of Cassation in 2011 to a lay psychoanalyst, a paradoxical situation arose which thwarts the ambiguity of many false supporters of lay
psychoanalysis, who are always ready to mourn its demise. Not only does this verdict not put aside lay psychoanalysis, in that such a verdict is only valid for those types of psychoanalysis with a medical purpose (relieving suffering, healing) instead of a cognitive purpose as true Freudian psychoanalysis, but it also emerged that, where the analytic Freud-based conversation has no healing purpose, unlike the medical ones, psychoanalysis cannot be considered as a «restricted» practice. Therefore, non adherence to Law 56/89, as the SPF has consciously done, means it can maintain the analytical experience with its distinctive Freudian features.