no it's voodoo. as nitemagi points out the whole field of psychiatry (based on diagnoses) is not scientifically valid so if that is a concern you should not do psychiatry.
the problem with psychoanalysis is that although there is some evidence for dynamic therapies in various psychiatric conditions including personality disorders (though it probably works better if you don't have a psychiatric disorder at all), the theoretical basis is completely unfalsifiable and unverifiable. some dynamic theories do have correlates with more positivistic theories from ethology, developmental psychopathology, cognitive psychology, developmental neuroscience and so on, but psychoanalytic theories are wide-ranging and anti-positivistic focusing instead on the uniqueness of human experience.
The most commonly regarded mechanism of change by analysis is the "mutatative interpretation", an interpretation within the transference that is so emotionally powerful that it leads to an "a-ha" moment in the patient. More recently the idea of non-interpretative mechanisms is being explored and the most accepted mechanism is something called "implicit relational knowing", those moments of meeting between therapist and patient in the therapeutic relationship. Obviously most of the power of psychotherapies is attributed to "common factors" but we cannot justify the practice of psychoanalytic therapies based on those factors which are common to all therapies.
The validity question is an important one even if we regard these therapies as having utility. For example, most allopathic people will accept that homoeopathy is not scientifically valid because the theoretical basis is ludicrously anti-science, such that its use constitutes a fraud. But some homoeopathic treatments appear to be beneficial for some ailments in some patients. Thus they have some utility. But many would argue that to use a treatment that constitutes a deception undermines the doctor-patient relationship, and makes a mockery of clinical practice. The same could be said for using psychoanalytic treatments.
Like I said, the problem is psychiatry in general is based on a shaky epistemological ground and the basic structure (diagnosis based) is also not valid. Except for the dementias, none of the DSM diagnoses are valid and even the reliability of most DSM diagnoses is woeful!
One thing I will say is that the basic premises of psychoanalytic theory are true and most people would agree with them. The problem is these basic premises (such as being less aware of our motivations for behavior than we like to think, our past experiences shaping our response to future experiences, the unique value of subjectivity and our inner psychic world, our use of defensive maneuvers to avoid confrontations with painful aspects of reality, and our tendency for our current relationships to be influenced by past relationships) are not really psychoanalytic insights and were popularized rather than discovered by psychoanalysts.
Hans Eysenck (one of the most ardent critics of psychoanalysis) sums it up: "what is true about psychoanalysis is not new, and what is new about psychoanalysis is not true".