Quote:
Originally Posted by BudFox
Having done just that -- try again with another therapist (actually several) -- I cannot recommend it. Made things worse.
The assumption is that the problem was with the particular therapy relationship, rather than with the system, which seems specious. So a client who has endured some degree of recapitulation of early attachment trauma (or any significant negative outcome), and is now in an even more vulnerable state, is encouraged to play another round of russian roulette with a total stranger whose own emotional and psychological health is unknown, whose methods will likely be undeclared, who might have trouble properly acknowledging the harm done by the previous therapist thus subtly invalidating said harm, and who is effectively taking the client's money to clean up the mess made by the previous therapist.
No matter what happens in therapy, seems the advice is always… more therapy. What if there is a second round of wounding in therapy? Should the client seek yet another therapist? Can you imagine that conversation?
client: "Yeah, hi, I need help sorting out two levels of therapy retraumatizing, plus the original trauma and some other issues.
therapist: "I see. Well you can trust me. I estimate you will need a minimum of 20 years of therapy."
Maybe the sensible thing to ask is -- was therapy a good idea in the first place?
|
I can't remember who it was but someone on here a while back was organizing a sort of activism page for therapy abuse, collecting people's stories so that they could be put online and act as a counterweight to therapist agenda.
Maybe activism of some sort like that would help bring you some peace???
I guess I personally don't see it as very significantly different from.medical practice. There will be some surgeons who seriously screw up creating permanent harm. I don't think anyone would argue that ALL surgeons are bad but we do know they make some bad mistakes. Of course you can die without a surgeon but there are people on here who feel.they would have died without their T's also.
The difference and part of what seems to bother you is that is a surgeon screws up you can take the evidence to the hospital/lawyer etc and say "look they screwed up. They cut off my leg Instead of talking out my gallbladder" and there will usually eventually be some kind kd recompense amd the potential for the doctor to be suspended or disciplined either by the hospital or the medical board.
With T, how does one PROVE harm when the assumption is that those of us seeking T are messed up to begin with??? How do you find justice? You can bring a case to the state board but the difficulty in proving harm makes it hard even with egregious abuse like having sex with a client.
Activism could change that if enough people pushed for further oversight. It used to be that every doctor gas a little town office---now all of those offices are associated with hospital groups which helps manage risk by having each case reviewed by more people . its not impossible to see Ts moving towards being required to provide multi tiered protection of a client
I just wonder if pursuing something like that might help and I know someone on here was collecting stories at one time.