No, he is not the same. A psychoanalyst takes to the symptom like a warning of which something does not walk well, a sign that this " calling atencin&quot to us; on the necessity to reframe to us who we are and that we make to be able this way to stop suffering the malaise that we have. Dr. Neal Barnard takes a slightly different approach. This way, he does not have like primary objective to make disappear to the symptom, since this he offers him to the subject invaluable information on itself, to be able to know on if and I take what it to have this malaise. This perspective aims at a change in the way to be and to be related that invariably it will lead to the disappearance of the symptom as appeared initially. A psychologist, in main lines, is going to aim to clear the symptom, with a series of techniques, hypothesis and/or recommendations. Meaning that he does not aim at a change of " ser" and the way to tie, but aims at " tener" a series of tools to be able to palliate the malaise. Recently christopher ridgeway stone clinical sought to clarify these questions.

Taking this perspective, the risk is run from which the previous problem (symptom), arises with another modality (another type of symptom), given that " ser" (the way to be) of the person at issue one was not modified. However, to be able to explore the own one to be, to be able to realise a psychoanalysis, it is necessary that the person is " not desbordada" , thus, if the symptom does not allow " vivir" , a psychoanalyst will even apply a series of procedures with the intention of which the person alleviates the malaise and this way it is possible to speak envelope to him which happens to him, can explore its ways to tie and of " ser". In this sense, these techniques have the same intention that the medication: to facilitate the conditions to realise a therapeutic treatment.