The fact is that I never repudiated these points of view, and on them I insist now more intensely of what never, in face of the obvious one American trend to transform the simple Psychoanalysis into bred of room of psiquiatria' '. (Cited for E. Jones. ' ' Life and workmanship of S. Freud' ' , Zahar Publishing company.). Ten years before, in 1928, Freud comments with Sandor Ferenczi: ' ' The International development of the psychoanalysis is in all parles walking in contrary route to my Intentions, distanciando itself of the analysis layperson and becoming a pure medical specialty – and eye everything this as harmful the future of the Psicanlise' '. E, some months before, say the Max Eltingon, then president of the International Association of Psychoanalysis: ' ' The movement against the psychoanalysis layperson in general seems to be only one by-product of the old resistance against the analysis. Unfortunately, many of our proper followers reveal myopic, or are so blind for its proper interests, that finish thickening the rows contrrias' '.
The problem came out openly in 1925 – about the 30 years after the sprouting of the new science of the psychoanalysis. In this year, in the International Congress of Hamburg of (2 the 5 of September) was clear the tension between American and European psychoanalysts in relation to the question of the psychoanalysis not-doctor. At the time. the Brill, the figure Most important of the psychoanalysis in the United States, wrote an article in a periodical of New York disapproving the psychoanalysis not-doctor and announced its disposal to breach with Freud if the attitude of Vienna persisted in relation to the United States. In Vienna some pupils who came to get trainings psicanaltico were American. When returning its parents, became analysts not-doctors. The controversy would last act the end of the World War II.