ATAT: That is close to my interpretation, and the reason for my post. The actual ethics codes don't say much. To me the article is an elaboration of the thinking behind the cryptic and vague codes, and a glimpse at priorities. Therapist first, client second. Ethics in this context is more about risk management than concern for the client.

Ok to pass on a client in distress… that's the other reason I posted this. Once my T decided we were done, my input was shoved aside. The priority was to maintain the appearance of authority and to avoid breaking the rules, even if it meant I went into total crisis. In the language of the article my T chose to "discontinue treatment and refer me to another clinician with the appropriate skills". She actually spoke like that at one point. It sounds very formal and controlled, but in reality it was just a list of names and an easy escape for her. Smoke and mirrors. Convince me that salvation lay with the hypothetical "next therapist". In plain English it was still abandonment.