Quote:
Originally Posted by here today
Yes, It's in the one-on-one situations in the consulting room that the therapist's presumed authority might --in my experience, often does --become a detrimental factor. Though the authority in group therapy, too can be detrimental.
That then gets into the perhaps more general questions about power imbalance, etc., in therapy.
I think It's likely that reducing harm in therapy may come more from looking at the potential for harm that the structure sets up, and changing that, rather than focusing on individual therapist misbehavior. Though certainly in some cases we've heard about on this forum therapist misbehavior has been gross and inexcusable and probably not the effect of context, although the context may have contributed to it happening.
|
I understand your point but don’t agree with the premise. I see it as any set up and context creates potential for abuse. I don’t see how set up could be changed either (cameras in the room? more supervision?) and why.
Actually the one thing I do agree that needs to be changed is endless therapy with no goal and no results as it’s potentially creating an issue. I see even on this forum how people go to therapy forever and nothing gets accomplished or improved and main reason for them to keep going is being sexually or romantically attached to a therapist who is either clueless or is messed up and enjoys the set up hence potentially harms said client.
I think if a client pays out of their pocket it’s fine but if state (and taxpayers) pays for it I see this endless and goalless therapy (often wrapped up in romantic attachments) as an issue. As a taxpayer Id rather not pay for people to indulge in such things. So I’d probably want to change how therapy and it’s success is evaluated, how often etc But that’s not topic of this thread so I digress