The article says :“ Each person is born equally elegant and ready to become a whole human being.”

Really? That does not explain the vast diversity in ability, accomplishment and performance in cognitive activities across the lifespan. One huge example: a person born with autism and one not. Those two people are not ”equally” born to be “whole”.
The article says: “A child who feels safe, loved, and good enough develops a healthy sense of self and is able to adapt to others without losing its identity.”

Really? How do we reconcile that many proven and long standing scientific observations of human development clearly point to the fact that the sense of security in humans that develop throughout childhood come FROM the environment and not from an internal sense of security of any kind that a child is born with. Identity comes FROM the environment and does not evolve from an internal schema or design. There are no pre-designs. The environment shapes identity.

The article says: “The child can choose to abandon the caretaker; if it does so, it faces annihilation or non-being because it has no other way of existing except in relationship to others. This choice leads to self-destruction.”

Really? It is difficult for a child to abandon its caregiver, physically or emotionally. The caregiver is the life support system for the person and abandonment of life support is simply not conceivable by children. The simply know nothing else – how can choose something different or better? It is difficult to even conceive something better for many children. Children do not abandon caregivers, they improvise, adapt and eventually overcome. However, they never really forget anything.

Lastly, let’s make sure we separate the difference between true, effective mental health care and philosophic musings(“creative” or not) embedded in our own personal interests or religious beliefs. Doing so is honest, doing less is clearly not – or perhaps even dangerous.