If you've tried therapy, was it worth the $$$?

[Golem]

Oh dear. That is an actual excerpt from the actual Dear Abby column. From today. Yikes.

[YoungAD]

@FreshFluff, Sam often adds comments to old threads, some true, some not.

 

Sam’s comments often sound like something Avalon might say.

[LivingnLA]

Oh dear. That is an actual excerpt from the actual Dear Abby column. From today. Yikes.

 

Yup.

 

https://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/2018/10/14/mom-is-flustered-to-find-her

 

Abby's advice is spot on. That therapist is highly unprofessional and should be reported to any professional association he belongs to because he's violating professional ethics.

[+ FreshFluff]

You'd be surprised. Even in 2018, therapists flirt especially when they think they have plausible deniability.

[JayCeeKy]

I am licensed by two state Boards to provide therapy; each month I read the minutes of both Boards' meetings. Board minutes provide the name and violation of any provider who has been found guilty of violating state ethics codes - and the punishment. The quickest way to losing you license is by putting yourself in a "dual relationship" with a client. Some dual relationships are considered "boundary crossings" - often unintentional and usually harmless (hiring someone off Craiglists to paint your home and you discover it's a client). What gets you into trouble are "boundary violations" such as flirting or dating a client. And, if you have sex with a client, you might as well put your application in at UPS. And you can't just terminate therapy so you can date the client - most state Boards and professional associations (e.g. NASW) will bar you from engaging in "dual relationships for a certain time period (e.g. five years) and some codes prohibit a relationship ever.

 

As far as "plausible deniability" you'd be surprised at how many clients keep notes, emails, and logs of telephone calls about their therapists, and will almost ALWAYS report you to the state Board when the flirting/dating/relationship goes south. Fury hath no equal than a therapy client scorned.

[+ FreshFluff]

I am licensed by two state Boards to provide therapy; each month I read the minutes of both Boards' meetings. Board minutes provide the name and violation of any provider who has been found guilty of violating state ethics codes - and the punishment. The quickest way to losing you license is by putting yourself in a "dual relationship" with a client. Some dual relationships are considered "boundary crossings" - often unintentional and usually harmless (hiring someone off Craiglists to paint your home and you discover it's a client). What gets you into trouble are "boundary violations" such as flirting or dating a client. And, if you have sex with a client, you might as well put your application in at UPS. And you can't just terminate therapy so you can date the client - most state Boards and professional associations (e.g. NASW) will bar you from engaging in "dual relationships for a certain time period (e.g. five years) and some codes prohibit a relationship ever.

 

 

Some therapists add a clause like this to the HIPAA form that you sign: "I may disclose any information about you that is necessary to defend myself in a lawsuit/legal action brought against me involving your care."

[JayCeeKy]

Some therapists add a clause like this to the HIPAA form that you sign: "I may disclose any information about you that is necessary to defend myself in a lawsuit/legal action brought against me involving your care."

 

The Boards and Associations that I am familiar with will not process a complaint against a practitioner unless the complainant signs a Waiver of Confidentiality and for a Release of Records. Otherwise, the practitioner would likely be unable to defend himself/herself. This would especially be true in a lawsuit where there is a question of whether the practitioner was guilty of malpractice in regards to quality or standard of care.

 

There was a situation in which a third party filed a complaint against a therapist whom I supervised - the grandmother of the client complained that the therapist was rude to her over the phone and that the therapist would not take her advice regarding the client. In that case, the Board sent the complaint to the therapist who responded about the "rudeness" part. The therapist cited confidentiality for the "not following the granny's advice." The Board later sent a letter to granny stating that it found no merit in her complaint.

[+ Funguy]

Why are you calling her a slut? The therapist is the one who pursued her--repeatedly. He's the one taking advantage.

 

It's pretty natural to develop a crush on a therapist. Freud and others spilled a lot of ink on this point. The therapist is the one getting paid, and it's on him to maintain a professional relationship. If the doctor can't conduct himself professionally, he needs to refer the patient to someone else.

 

As for switching, there's a huge power advantage in the doctor/patient relationship, and even more so with therapist. It's awkward and difficult to switch.

 

Why is "unethical crush" necessarily a "her"?

[Golem]

You'd be surprised. Even in 2018, therapists flirt especially when they think they have plausible deniability.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like an awfully broad statement. What leads you to believe this is a common thing, rather than a rare one?

[LivingnLA]

Why is "unethical crush" necessarily a "her"?

 

Good question. The source material doesn't specify a gender. Perhaps he's being inclusive since her includes he too?

 

Those of us who try to use minimally sexist English tend toward "her" or "them," which is generally preferred now in gender-neutral writing. I really wish English had non-gendered pronouns.

[Golem]

("Her" or "them" or just avoid the pronouns in the first place. I enjoy the latter because of the awkward sentences it leads to -- as I find that tends to wake people up and make them realize how different things are when you don't assume one gender.)

[LivingnLA]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like an awfully broad statement. What leads you to believe this is a common thing, rather than a rare one?

 

Great point!

 

http://www.tennlegal.com/files/430/File/Statistics_of_Ethical_Violations.pdf

 

This data is ancient--from 1999--but it's what I found and it shows the APA back then had less than 0.10% of its members even being accused of ethical violations. Assuming that few victims report, let's say the reality is at least double: 0.20%. Based on the linked data, 29% of the reported ethical accusations involved sexual misconduct with an adult. So, 0.20% * 29% = 0.058%.

[+ FreshFluff]

Good question. The source material doesn't specify a gender. Perhaps he's being inclusive since her includes he too?

 

Those of us who try to use minimally sexist English tend toward "her" or "them," which is generally preferred now in gender-neutral writing. I really wish English had non-gendered pronouns.

 

"Slut" is usually a gendered insult, but you're right.

[LivingnLA]

"Slut" is usually a gendered insult, but you're right.

 

Only in a patriarchal mindset based on the original uses of the term going back a few centuries. Over the last fifty years or so, males absolutely can fit the definition of slut. It's used frequently playfully in the gay subculture and in heteronormative culture, males are frequently lauded for it because "real men have many notches in their belt."

[+ FreshFluff]

Only in a patriarchal mindset based on the original uses of the term going back a few centuries. Over the last fifty years or so, males absolutely can fit the definition of slut. It's used frequently playfully in the gay subculture and in heteronormative culture, males are frequently lauded for it because "real men have many notches in their belt."

 

Yeah, but the context in which Sam used the word in his (possibly satirical) post isn't consistent with either of the usages above.

Edited October 15, 2018 by FreshFluff

[+ FreshFluff]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but this sounds like an awfully broad statement. What leads you to believe this is a common thing, rather than a rare one?

 

I’m not assuming it’s common; I’d be surprised if it is. I probably should have phrased it as, “Ev n in 2018, there are therapists who..”

[samhexum]

 

[LivingnLA]

 

 

Too funny.

[Muscle Lover 2]

Hey Fresh, my personal experience with therapy has been incredibly good. I've gone twice, once when my partner and I were having some issues (about 8 years into the relationship). We will celebrate 23 years together in March. The 2nd time was when my father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. I needed help figuring out how to make peace with him before he was gone. My breakthrough came 1 week before he passed.

 

In addition, I am a family law attorney. Most of my clients are working with therapists or, if not, I strongly encourage them into doing so. While results can be mixed, I would say that, on balance, therapy works for a lot more folks than those that see no appreciable result.

 

I would say the best answer to your question can be found by looking at the famous Henry Ford quote in a different light. "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right." If you come into therapy open to it and committed to finding the right answers for yourself (and assuming a well qualified, caring therapist), I think it works the vast majority of the time. If you think it will not work and/or you refuse to do all the work the therapist recommends, not so much. Hope something in here helps you.

[samhexum]

Too funny.

http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/co/2019/co190203.jpg

[JayCeeKy]

Dr. John Gottman claims he can predict with 85-90% accuracy whether a couple (including gay/lesbian couples) will remain married or divorce - and he can do so just by observing their interaction for about 15 minutes. His conclusions are evidence-based after decades of research. Having provided marriage and family therapy for many years, I can attest that his observations are valid, IMHO. If you are interested, I encourage you to watch:

 

[samhexum]

http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/cl/2019/cl190820.gif

[samhexum]