In terms of the proposed training model, we must admit that there is a disagreement between us and the Commission with regard to conceptualizing and specifying education that anticipates the role of psychiatric graduates in the next millennium. Our proposal calls for psychiatrists to continue to have sufficient training in the fundamentals of psychotherapy and human psychology to be able to conduct psychotherapeutic intervention should they so desire. It is our contention, however, that psychotherapy already is and certainly can be conducted by nonphysicians at a level of competence equal to that of psychiatrists for the so-called "worried well" patients and the general (but not severely ill or comorbidly complicated chronic) patients. In these circumstances, residents should learn how to do these therapies in a briefer and more efficient time interval than is currently provided. In fact, their identity as psychiatrists would be strengthened rather than weakened by our proposal, since they would avoid the common internal debate that typically occurs in the second year of residency: "Am I a social worker? Am I a psychologist? Am I a doctor? What is a psychiatrist?" We view psychiatry as a subspecialty of internal medicine and a specialty that deals with psychopathology and all forms of disturbed affect behavior, cognition, and motivation whether from genetic, environmental, general medical, or other etiologies. In this context we feel that the greater time that trainees would spend in neurology and general medicine recommended in our proposal would facilitate the identification of trainees as physicians, rather than impair their identification as psychiatrists. The art of forming the doctor-patient relationship, a therapeutic alliance, and the psychodynamics and psychology of managing people with psychiatric symptoms or syndromes can and should be learned in general medical, neurological, and psychiatric patients.