Quote:
Originally Posted by justafriend306
I am reading something quite different. I felt the article paid great attention to the failures of the clients to participate fully in the therapy.
"Yet the therapists also reported that from the very beginning there was a sense the clients were somehow removed. This was the first inkling of what Werbart’s team found to be a key theme, of “having half of the patient in therapy”."
|
I got a different picture. Yes, the therapists reported that there seemed to be just "half the patient" in therapy. Which in my view isn't the patient's fault. It's simply a description of their problems. And the therapists failed to notice the complexity of the patient's problems, which is clearly stated in the discussion section of the article:
Quote:
|
The split picture described above can be interpreted as a sign of a pseudo-process emerging when the therapist one-sidedly allies herself with the patient’s more capable and seemingly well-functioning parts. Our interpretation is that emotionally laden subjects were hard for the patients to approach and bring up, and the therapists, despite their attempts, did not manage to help them do so. Dissociation of emotionally laden subjects seems to have been the core problem of these patients. Thus, the therapists of nonimproved patients seem to have overestimated the patients’ functioning and underestimated the scope of their problems.
|
To me the intent of the article seemed to try to paint a picture. of what is happening if a patient is not improving in therapy. It's not so much about putting blame on one side or the other. But more about trying to understand. And trying to find reasons behind those processes and to understand those reasons better. In order to create awareness for the dynamics in the therapy room. So that therapists (and patients...) might be able to navigate around those pitfalls.