Commentary: "Countertransference" on trial--witness or defendant?

Sattar, et al. have made a contribution to our profession generally in the manner of our use of terminology by noting that some phenomena observed in psychotherapy are similar to those in the work of the forensic psychiatrist, such as in the psychiatric evaluation, preparation of testimony, and provision of testimony. In doing so, the authors clarify the definition of the work of the forensic psychiatrist, as well as that of the psychotherapist. They clearly demonstrate the usefulness of these ideas (especially “countertransference”) but raise questions about whether the term “countertransference” is appropriate to describe the work of the forensic psychiatrist. They are right to do so, and in doing so, raise a challenge to the field of psychotherapy as well as forensic psychiatry about how we use words. The concept of countertransference bears witness to some of the complexity of the forensic psychiatrists’ work and at the same time may misrepresent the tasks of the forensic psychiatrists.