|
I can see your point, although perhaps this is where we part and disagree. Since the therapist answered the questions, and clearly was capable of not answering the question as she initially didn't, either the cl didn't breach the boundary, or the T was not clear about hte boundary.
I disagree -the logic seems to be that because she answered, no boundary was crossed. The therapist was inconsistent, yes, (and as someone else said, I think she may have just been taken by surprise and didn't think), but my point is that how the therapist responded has nothing to do with violating the original boundary/doesn't justify it. I don't think she was necessarily communicating that a boundary wasn't crossed by answering. This T has been crystal clear about not asking about her husband/family. Because she answered doesn't mean that that request has changed.
Although I agree with your last statement - if all those things are true, then the T should be addressing it. The client should haven't to worry about what is okay and not okay to say, ask, etc.
I don't think Rainbow has to worry about what is okay and not okay -it's been made clear. I think a goal here would be to not focus on can I or can't I in x situation, but consider the intent behind the boundary and honor that. If you consider why the boundary was put into place (and this was discussed, this is clear) then the client themselves can make informed decisions based on the intent, the reasoning behind the boundary. Eventually, hopefully, there won't be a need to worry about each and every situation that comes up, there will be the ability to honor the spirit, rather than the letter of the request. That's not happening yet, but it can be a goal.
|