Lea Goldberg
Born in 2 April 1921 in Bialski, Poland. Was a Holocaust survivor. After  the war immigrated to Mexico, studied medicine and later trained as psychoanalyst.
She immigrated to Israel in1958 and worked there until 1962 when she returned to Mexico and later to Washington D.C. where she practiced as an analyst.
From 1985 till 2006 lived in Israel where she held a private practice,  taught and supervised.
She was member of the Psychoanalytic society of Mexico and the IPS. She also was a member of Yad Vashem in Mexico.
Dr. Goldberg contributed to the development of psychoanalysis in Poland after WWII.
She participated as a training analyst and as a group analyst in the first Eastern Europe Seminar in Hungary 1989.
In 1987 she wrote an open letter to Dr. Wallerstein (President of IPA) and in 1994 to the International Journal of psychoanalysis in which she called for having the psychoanalytic training as a university subject, with a university degree and an accreditation by each state (see letter below).
In 2006 Lea returned to Mexico where she died in 2011.
Dear Sir,
I was glad to find a mention in Dr Werman’s letter about a trend in the psychoanalytic community towards a change in regard to our institutes, from trade schools to centres of graduate-level studies.
Although I’m not a training analyst (out of choice), nonetheless psychoanalytic education has been and continues to be a preoccupation from the perspective of an ex-candidate. As a consequence of it, I handed a letter to Dr Wallerstein in 1987, just before the Montreal Congress, in which I outlined the reason why a change of our institutes to graduate studies at a university would be desirable. After the business meeting, and in response to a call of Dr Wallerstein, I wrote a memo to the IPA in which I proposed that the IPA change its legal status from a private institution to an International Graduate School with extension programmes in different countries. I believe the time has come for psychoanalysis to become a career in its own right, with an academic degree recognised by the respective authorities of each country and a licence to practise conferred by them.
Our curriculum would be inter-disciplinary, including some of the basic studies of medicine, psychology, philosophy of science, humanities, linguistics etc. Psychoanalysis proper studied integratively with the other subjects. Following Freud’s Lay Analysis, adapted to our times.
The analysis of a future analyst should be conducted outside of the academic structure by competent clinicians, while the theoretical teaching and supervision honoured by the degree of professor. Without this separation, training analysts exercise too many functions within the present structure of institutes, and so are vested with too much power, creating an anti-analytic setting. It is illusory to believe that a good-enough analysis can be conducted on both sides of the analysand/analyst dyad. According to this model, the evaluation of the student will happen in an open forum along the years of study and on different levels. The professional future of the prospective analyst will become more their responsibility, rather than resting on the sole decision of their teachers.
I also hope that our professional identity will become more uniform, because the curriculum would also allow for the study and clinical trial of divergent theories and concepts to make them complementary within a wider theory of mind/body. In short, we would become analysts and not members of different theoretical sects.
—————————————
February 1994
 
1 . Goldberg, L. (1979). Remarks on Transference–Countertransference in Psychotic States. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 60:347-356. […]

2..Goldberg, L. (1994). Psychoanalytic Training Institutes. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 75:619-619. […]