Quote:
Originally Posted by Elio
Back to this situation, I feel the biggest issue is in the unilateral decision to stop replying with what seems to be me an indirect explanation. The only 2 explanations I can see as valid is that the T no longer has the ability to consistently respond (emotionally or time wise) or therapeutic (the T does not see their response being helpful to the treatment). Several of the explanations I've read/understood indicates that the T made the change due to the therapeutic helpfulness stance. I do not believe this stance should ever be a unilateral decision. I believe it should be discussed in terms of how do you see this as being helpful, do you see ways where it could be impeding our progress. what would it be like if I did x, how do we know if this change is being more helpful, what might be a more helpful approach given y observation..
|
My T has apologized for the way he handled abruptly stopping the emails and not including me in the decision which I guess helps a bit. His reason was that he didn’t think it was helping and he even said he sometimes wants to respond. As I look back, I can acknowledge that maybe he’s right that it wasn’t helping, but it still pisses me off sometimes and wish he hadn’t decided to stop replying 100% of the time. I still think there are some emails that merit even just a brief response. I understand not wanting to email with significant content. But he says it’s too complicated to decide which ones deserve a response and which do not. In an ideal world I think he should be able to figure that out or at least take the risk of trying to figure it out. I’m glad your T (and others on this forum) do a good job responding.