Quote:
Originally Posted by feralkittymom
The dissertation is there, I just have no interest in reading it all. I've read a lot of Gabbard's and Pope's works who also have treated offending Ts. What becomes clear is that the psychological basis for why and how some Ts offend is far more complex than any logistical conditions of their practices. What still puzzles me is the "link" you refer to. It is exactly that "link" that I find to be misleading. And that's because I think it supports a false sense of security that draws attention away from a number of other issues clients should be more aware of as consumers. There is a progression of behaviors ( behaviors being the manifestations of causative conditions) that has been cited in the research that constitutes red flags for abuse, and they happen regardless of whether a T practices alone or in a group setting.
|
I fully understand that this is a complex issue which can't be fully discussed in this context. An offender is probably going to offend regardless of the office they work in. The practice type alone is not protection.
My intent wasn't to imply that solo practice should be considered a "red flag". It's most definitely not. Solo practice doesn't turn Ts into abusers, Ts who are abusers are just more likely to prefer working solo. I said nothing about assuming the safety of a T no matter what setting they work in - an unethical therapist is probably going to be that way whether they work in a hospital or out of their home. And it's important to note that most therapists are by and large ethical, so we are talking about a small percentage here anyway.
My point was to support the OPs original theory that solo practice may provide an ideal setting for offenders to offend and I still agree that it does. Maybe I'm unjustified in feeling this way, but to me its just logical. It's a minor piece of the puzzle, I get that, but it's still a piece.