Quote:
Originally Posted by mostlylurking
My biggest concern is that most therapists don't have proper respect for this strong state of dependence when considering things like maternity leave, retirement, moving, or flat termination of clients. In their code of ethics, under "Ethical Responsibilities to Clients," they talk about "continuation of services" as if referring a client to someone else constitutes a continuation. For clients in the midst of inner child attachment to the T, this is like a mother sending her own child off to live with some distant aunt in another state with no remaining contact (or almost none), and calling that "continuation of services" because the child is technically still being cared for. The very phrase "continuation of services" feels dehumanizing to both therapist and client, as if we are all cogs in a machine, replaceable parts.
|
Definitely agree most therapists do not seem to get the dependency thing, and the impact of extended absences and termination. Even the end of a session can cause a lot of dysregulation and many therapists seem oblivious. This begets the whole emailing/texting/googling syndrome, which usually prompts the boundary imposition, like erecting a fence to keep the now squirrely client from intruding, which misses the point entirely and just heaps blame on the client.
Oh the "continuation of services" and "referring out" thing. Yes dehumanizing. And also it is a pretense to something like medical treatment. Please. Therapists are emotional prostitutes and quasi-gurus and quasi-surrogate parents. Mine carried this out in a way that attempted to legitimize what was clearly a disaster, using formal language and pretending that she had initiated some controlled process and the next therapist would pick it up and continue "services". No, referring out is a euphemism for abandonment, as someone on this forum once so aptly put it.