Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahSweden
JD: The question you ask me, that is "would you have preferred no help" is central to this discussion. My view is that if the therapist knows, which they do, that there is a risk that the client won´t get proper treatment in 10 times, then he or she should recommend the client to seek other types of care. That is public healthcare where you can get the sessions paid for a longer time.
|
Okay I may have misunderstood.
The last sentence implied to me that rather than go for psychotherapy, OR after the 10 sessions are used, that there is public healthcare where you CAN go and get more sessions. Is that right?
That's why I was suggesting that perhaps your T has to recommend and request the additional sessions. But no, most insurance companies won't budge. That's a big reason why there's such an effort in the US to combat the insurance companies over their acting like psychologists and medical doctors (since they override the experts all the time.) It's bottom line is money and the problem has not been fixed by the bogus "affordable health care act".
But getting back to your original OP... why would it be unethical to offer someone in dire straits looking for support and possibly guidance their expert help, support and guidance? How did you feel during those sessions you had---was nothing conveyed that can help you going forward? (Just asking.)
What would you suggest a T do? Close their offices/practices because of the politics of insurance companies and poor health care plans, or do the best they can with what they are allowed/given?
Anyway... do try not to offend and act out on the T...it's out of their control... except if the T is able to take on a pro-bono case now and then (which means, for those unaware of the term, without charge as a public service (
Pro bono publico)).
See if she can offer some free sessions, and perhaps reduced fee ongoing for a while???