Thoughts on the Ethics of Non-Disclosure

written by: ROY BARSNESS, EARL BLAND, BRAD STRAWN

Exposing the ubiquitous nature of self-disclosure, over the last few decades the

relational turn in psychoanalysis has struggled to effectively articulate the appropriate

use of the analyst’s experience within the fraught landscape of mutual influence.  While

there is a rich literature on the ethical dimensions and clinical utility of managing self-

disclosure (e.g., timing, content, extenuating circumstances, boundary

crossings/violations), little has been written about the ethics of the analyst’s non-

disclosure.  

My good friends and colleagues, Earl Bland and Brad Strawn and I have had some

robust conversations about the risk and ethical concerns of withholding the unfolding

relational dynamics within the therapeutic dyad and will presenting these conversations

on a panel at the 2026 Conference of the American Psychoanalytic Association in San

Franscisco in January. We are concerned that often under the guise of containing

patient’s projections, therapists overlook the potential hazards of such actions. We have

concern that the therapist’s internalization of a patient’s negative affective states,

wishes, desires, or unwanted repetitions, without engaging these affective states

dialogically in these strongly held feelings, reactions and desires, unwittingly causes the

analyst to become sick and worse – project these unwanted aspects of the therapist’s

self onto the patient!

It is most common for the analyst to be reticent to address negative reactions and these

states of being end up festering, gradually seeping into sessions and generally become

expressed or enacted either aggressively or dismissively and the placed upon the

patient pathologically.

Because the literature on ethical dilemmas of non-disclosure is limited (or even non-

existent), exploration of the fundamental relational psychoanalytic principle urging

clinicians to confront and engage directly the affective states evoked in the analytic

relationship is incomplete.

However, when viewing the therapeutic relationship as an intersubjective experience we

are faced with placing primary emphasis on exploring the ongoing analyst-patient

interaction, rather than solely interpreting defensive structures, (e.g., projection, reaction

formation) or viewing transference phenomena as a condition of the patient. In contrast,

the relational approach encourages/required mutual dialogue and exploration, tackling

the dilemma of non-disclosure directly. 

Framing non-disclosure within the domain of relational ethics fundamentally alters the

analyst’s positionality vis-à-vis their own internal process.  This change requires

vulnerability of a new kind, often requiring us to acknowledge and reveal how our power,

our privilege, our “isms,” and the unconsciously expressed traditions that emerge within

the treatment are influencing and intersecting in our work.

Remaining silent may hide the very “truths” our patients are seeking, and we suggest,

may be in violation of our guild’s ethics of professional integrity and of avoiding harm.