None of the prevailing points of view on trauma suffices to give the clinician a complete understanding of the effects of child abuse. Each of the major vantage points in contemporary thinking about trauma has major strengths and substantial shortcomings. Trauma research gives us an overall perspective on the nature of trauma, the phenomenology of resulting pathology, and the course of the ensuing posttraumatic disturbance but does not, as a methodology in itself, show us the soul of the trauma sufferer or the intricacies of sustained psychotherapeutic treatment, concerns that are often tangential to the major interests of systematic researchers. Clinicians closest to the immediate treatment situation, who often know the most about the predicament and the sufferings of the trauma sufferer, are usually faced with overwhelming clinical responsibility. Often they have positions whose scope is confined to triage and brief treatment rather than sustained follow-up and thoroughgoing psychotherapeutic treatment. Accordingly, these clinicians—those who staff emergency rooms, work with family service agencies, or work in the context of recovery programs—often have neither the mandate nor the resources to provide sustained and in-depth psychotherapeutic treatment to the traumatized patient. Psychoanalysts, whose training and expertise fit them well to do in-depth and sustained psychological treatment, are mostly in private practice without direct access to the trauma patient and often ignorant of the advances in our understanding of trauma provided by trauma research. The clinician-reader, therefore, is for the most part on his or her own in developing a synthesis from points of view, each incomplete in itself, that may be integrated into a balanced, in-depth approach to the trauma patient.