In People v. Barber (114 Misc 2d 409 [Sup Ct, Erie County 1982]), the court found that inculpatory statements made by the defendant during a pretrial psychiatric examination could be used for impeachment purposes as prior inconsistent statements, if the defendant chose to testify, and even though he had abandoned his defense of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. The Court found, despite the language of CPL 60.55 (2) which provides statements to the psychiatrist or psychologist "shall be inadmissible ... on any issue" other than that of such defense. The question, said the court, is one of interpretation of the Legislature's intent. "To construe the word issue in a manner tending to sacrifice or prejudice the public interests in maintaining judicial process as a truth-finding mechanism is to be avoided unless it clearly appears that the Legislature intended such a result (see McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, 152)." (Supra, at 410.)