Paula, I didn't read all the responses before I posted yesterday; going back and reading them, I saw that no one mentioned something that may be relevant to this situation.
I've heard of this and experienced it myself in psychoanalytic circles. It's often referred to an "evaluation and referral" (E&R) process. Or something like that. After the 3 sessions, the therapist decides if they would be a good fit for you; if not, they would find colleagues who would be better matches. It's a good thing, in my experience--and it's mean to guide a patient to the best practitioner for him/her.
I don't know if this is what your T was thinking, but you said you "just counted on that she knew she would be available if I choose to begin therapy". You were making assumptions, no? It's also my experience that Ts don't explain the process and what they are going to do. In all the therapists I've seen, this happens more time than not. So she may have not explained this evaluation and referral process to you. I know it was confusing for me when I went through something similar.
And about the appointment issue - some do keep semi-permanent slots open during the week for existing patients emergency appointments or for if they request a 2nd session. So yes, those can change by the week. Not sure if that is what happened here, but I have also seen that in psychoanalytic circles.
I'm confused about the negative transference statement, especially about why should would say that instead of saying she's not a good match for you. Or maybe she did, and you wanted to know why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulaS
The thing here is that she let me see her for three evaluation sessions and as I talked positively about her and the sessions I just counted on that she also knew she would be available if I choose to begin therapy. Iīve had the evaluation sessions during three weeks, one session a week and as she every time told me about the same available slots, I thought I could count on that.
I found her behaviour quite strange because who lets a potential client into evaluation sessions without even knowing for sure thereīll be available slots when the evaluation is over? It was just plain "luck" that the only time on Wednesdays hadnīt been scheduled, it could just as well have been and then I hadnīt even had the opportunity to choose.
The other thing was, if she noticed that she got many enquiries and she noticed there were almost no slots left for me - why didnīt she tell me? Why did she let me continue in evaluation?
I e-mailed this potential T about this, she wanted me to e-mail her, not call her and I first got the answer that she believed I should see another T. She said believed and I both e-mailed her saying that I was still interested in seeing her even if I asked her about this thing about the available sessions.
I then also called her and left her a message in her voicemail and just said I wanted to talk to her about the whole thing and I left her my phone number.
Now, just half an hour ago or so, she sends me another e-mail and says her offer about therapy is no longer available. Of course she blamed me, she talked about negative transference!
Wouldnīt every potential client who sees a potential T expect the T to have available slots if you decide to proceed into therapy? How can this be negative transference?
As we several times talked about available slots - how can this be a reason for her to deny me to continue? I donīt understand any of this. Perhaps someone here at PC understands...
|