|
Jul 06, 2013, 01:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Member Since: Mar 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 1,486
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle25
I don't see that hoping the T will respond in a certain way is a "test". I think sometimes you just want him (or anyone for that matter) to care. For example, say you call your T and cancel because you have the flu. The next week, let's say you are so sick with a fever you forgot to cancel your appointment altogether with T. Wouldn't it be somewhat natural to hope that your T would think enough of you to call and see how you are? Some people might say, oh well I guess Doris is sick again. Let me see if I can get in some paperwork during her hour. No thought of calling Doris at all because she is just a filler between 2 - 3 pm. I don't see any "test" in that scenario, neither intentional or unintentional. It's just someone wanting their T to care. Maybe that is too much to ask for? IDK.
|
I don't think it's a matter of a dichotomy between being either just a 'filler' on the one hand and someone who's cared about as evidenced by a therapist calling to see how you're doing with the flu on the other --there's a lot in between. A therapist can most certainly care about you and not call you to see how your fever and chills are going; this really isn't therapy-related and is something more that a friend or family-member would do.
I think it would be very unusual for a therapist to call a patient under these circumstances and when such (I think unrealistic) expectations are held, one is bound to end up disappointed, which can lead some people to spiral quite a bit and/or accusing the therapist of abandoning in a time of need. Of course, if a therapist has already set up a pattern of calling when the patient is sick, and then doesn't this one time, that would be different, but I would think this is unusual nonetheless.
I'm not sure where 'testing' and unrealistic expectations meet, but I suspect they intersect somewhere in some cases.
|