DR. DAVID VISCOTT

It was with deep sadness and shock that we, David Viscott’s four children, read Nora Zamichow’s vicious, sensational article on our recently deceased father in “Talk Was Cheap” (Jan. 26).

Clearly, Writing is Cheap.

Zamichow’s amateur journalism is riddled with countless errors, unfounded suppositions and fiction. Even one of the most basic facts, the date of our father’s death, is incorrect. She was supplied with many wonderful anecdotes by members of our family, as well as good friends and business associates, yet she used almost none--and those she did include were distorted and taken completely out of context to suit her. We have spoken to others who took a great deal of their time to be interviewed by Zamichow, and they, too, were as shocked as we were by the article’s crass nature.

We must comment upon the speculation that our father committed suicide or was murdered. This is at once pathetic, cruel and absurd, not to mention untrue. In addition, Zamichow had the audacity to telephone one of us to inquire what we thought of either possibility. She was told the truth--he died of heart failure in his sleep--and she was also emphatically told how disheartened we would be should she write something so false, so devastating to our family already in mourning and to our father’s name. Obviously the truth was not part of Zamichow’s agenda.

David Viscott was a brilliant psychiatrist who was devoted to helping people improve their lives, and he helped thousands--through his therapeutic methods, writings and media programs. He was an extremely witty, affectionate, optimistic, creative, hard-working and engaging man who was deeply loved and is missed enormously by his family, friends and associates.

David Viscott’s children Elizabeth, Penelope, Jonathan and Melanie

*

The article by Nora Zamichow was not only a gross injustice to my friend and associate Dr. David Viscott but it was also full of untruths, insinuations and misrepresentations. It not only damaged the reputation of this very astute, dynamic individual who contributed his life’s work to mankind but also damaged his wife and family greatly.

My relationship with David Viscott was that of a personal friend, confidant and business associate. I first met the Viscotts in 1986 at a party at the home of mutual friends Sonnai and John Rohrbeck. John was the head of KNBC-TV news and was responsible for David’s TV show. I spent time frequently with David’s family on holidays and celebrated my New Year’s Eve birthday with them at their home and vice versa. I spoke to him about personal matters or business almost daily.

The following is an outline that will attempt to clear up some “misconceptions” that appeared in the article.

(1) Regarding the issue of the million-dollar life insurance policy: David Viscott told me that he took out the policy for his wife, Katharine, so that she’d have some security, as he was unsure as to his future relationship with her as a result of her illness. Many people knew about his tenuous medical condition, as I did, and his medical history. He told several people, even publicly on the air. He had no intention of committing suicide, which was referred to as a consideration in several places in the article. He knew the ramifications and boundaries of this kind of policy. I believe that David Viscott died as a result of his known medical condition.

(2) David Viscott confided in me about his marriage problems on several occasions, but they were contrary to what was published for the article.

(3) On many occasions, David told me that he had everything to live for, and he would tell me all the future plans he had made. He had a love for life and people. There was no way he would have ended his own life.

The article did not mention what a brilliant, dedicated, talented, considerate person he was in both his personal and professional life and how he helped so many people with their troubled lives.

Stephanie J. Hibler

Los Angeles

*

In 1981, ABC offered me a daily national call-in psychology show, which I hosted for the next six years. Viscott had hosted the program for the three preceding months but lost it, I was told, when he demanded twice his salary.

When he learned I was taking it over, he called me at home. I barely knew him then and thought he was calling to congratulate me. To my shock, he spent more than 30 minutes berating and belittling me, saying I would never last, that I was out of my depth and that he was “the most brilliant and compassionate media therapist that ever lived,” and there was no way they’d ever take the program away from him. When I finally asked what he’d like me to do, he said, “Tell them you need a month to make up your mind, and that will give me time to negotiate with them.” When I said I wasn’t willing to do that, he repeated his demeaning comments and hung up.

I have personally heard Viscott call people “liars” and “jerks” on the air, intimidating and insulting them until they agreed with his version of reality. I have heard him tell adults who were molested as children that they must share in the responsibility of what happened to them. I have heard him talk of believing in alien possession.

He did a lot of damage to many vulnerable people.

Dr. Susan Forward

Sherman Oaks

*

Viscott’s on-the-air demeanor was harsh and abrasive, and I never understood why he was so popular. He seemed to choose a career path that was driven more by his own ego and lack of self-esteem than a true commitment to helping others get healthy.

It is a tragedy that we are a society that looks for quick solutions to problems that cannot be solved by talk radio psychology. Viscott got lost in a career that made him famous, yet not infallible. As the saying goes, he talked the talk but didn’t walk the walk.

Maureen Trelease

Torrance

*

Viscott may have done a great deal to publicize psychotherapy. He may have been a consummate showman. He may even, for a time, have functioned as a brilliant businessman. But he often did significant damage.

It’s rare in psychotherapy that the patients themselves don’t know what needs to be done. The problem with almost all of us is discovering what internal process is stopping us from acting on it. The technique of seducing patients to expose their vulnerabilities, then ordering them to take obvious steps--implying that they’re stupid or evil for not helping themselves--borders on cruelty.

I know little of Viscott’s training and have been able to listen to but a few of his programs, but I have had to treat several patients who were damaged by his approach. Even more important, his performance reinforced the public image of psychotherapy as an all- knowing father telling an incompetent child what to do. One wonders how many people in need of help were dissuaded from reaching out because of this insulting picture.

Marvin N. Kaphan, Diplomate

American Board of Examiners in Clinical Social Work

North Hollywood

*

I once called Viscott’s radio program when a family member was seriously ill and my fear was making it difficult for me to function. What he said to me was: “You are a narcissist, aren’t you? Always thinking about yourself.” That gratuitous cruelty so shocked me that I was filled with contempt for him. He was not a kind man and probably did more harm than good.

Merrill J. Gerber

Sierra Madre

*

Editor’s Note: The article reported that Viscott’s body was found in October. It incorrectly said Viscott’s last computer diary entry, entered four days before his body was discovered, was made on Oct. 12. In fact, it was Oct. 10.