Quote:
Originally Posted by ruh roh
My therapist has said she only wants me to be the therapy person, that others are welcome but that I have to speak for them. I said fine, it's all me anyway, so let's just forget the DID. She said it doesn't work that way, but the way she wants to go about it--which she said is different than say, 20 years ago when she did interact with clients' alters--is supposed to make the process go more quickly. All it does, though, is hurt.
We keep going over it and she keeps saying she's not denying anyone or not allowing them in therapy, but then she follows that by saying it has to be a team where I am leading and speaking for everyone.
I understand the approach, but it is hurtful. I am wondering if others in therapy have a therapist who takes this approach? She says it's a more recent thing, that while it's not fast, it's a bit faster. It feels kind of damaging inside, but I don't have another choice except to leave therapy, which at this stage is like exiting surgery in the middle of a procedure. She has accused me of sabotaging therapy, but this seems like a much more sure fire way to force an end.
|
No, my therapist does not do this. If she did, she would not be our therapist. Personally, I reject this experiment - and frankly, that's what it is - someone had a theory about how to proceed with DID patients and some are trying it out. Slightly faster (assuming that they're correct in that assertion) isn't worth it if it causes unnecessary discomfort for an individual who has a condition brought on by severe trauma. We've suffered enough.
What happened to patient centered? Or trauma informed? And I've got to tell you, accusing you of 'sabotaging therapy' sounds frightening like an abusive spouse (parent/significant other/etc) blaming the victim for not liking what they are doing to them.