[stopdog]

This might help some who wonder if therapists can be affected by clients.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...nt-alive/?_r=0

Originally Posted by stopdog

This might help some who wonder if therapists can be affected by clients.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...nt-alive/?_r=0

Thank you for this, stopdog. I was very moved by it.

[Restin]

Thank you, Stopdog! I really needed to read that. Wow!

[vanilla_cake]

Thank you for posting this, very moving article!

Thanks sd, that was quite a moving article.

[stopdog]

Granted I was more focused on the part where the therapist noted the client rejected her interpretations - like it was a surprise. Do they really think clients find their interpretations super dooper?
But I thought some might like the part where she cried (after having dismissed him)

Reminds me of all the stuff I've written before, during and after therapy. Stuff I've been told time and time again I better record in a book once and for all before it starts escaping me.

One poem in particular comes to mind and I can't help but chuckle at the reaction the therapist had upon reading it.

You'd've thought she'd picked up a hot potato and didn't know whether to @#$%!, run or go blind before putting it down.

She asked me what I thought it meant and I replied, truthfully, that it just popped into my head upon waking one morning and I scribbled it down before I forgot it.

The poem was pretty direct, self explanatory, and there was really no need for further elaboration on the subject matter.

Come to think of it, that might quite possibly be the only time I wasn't the one squirming in discomfort during a therapy session!

[unaluna]

I feel my t and i relate like this thru comedy, so i looked up the quote "Dying is easy; comedy is hard." Attributed to Edmund Kean. I have had a pathetic education.

Originally Posted by hankster

I feel my t and i relate like this thru comedy, so i looked up the quote "Dying is easy; comedy is hard." Attributed to Edmund Kean. I have had a pathetic education.

You are always making me laugh. I am going to miss your humor.

[Perna]

Good article, thanks stopdog.

[ToeJam]

Originally Posted by hankster

I feel my t and i relate like this thru comedy, so i looked up the quote "Dying is easy; comedy is hard." Attributed to Edmund Kean. I have had a pathetic education.

That reminded me of a couple of Monty Python songs:

On topic, that was a very moving article. My T has mentioned that it has been horrendous when she has lost a client and usually implies this as a nudge to use the resources open to me when she's concerned.

T's are human and will build connections with the clients they see over time... my own does utilise annual holidays to prevent burn out and I can fully appreciate the reason for it, since despite training and professionalism... I'd say it's a hard job.

[Gavinandnikki]

Yes, there are therapists that work hard to meet their client/patient wherever they need to go.
The good ones. The author of this article sounds like she might be a good therapist.

For some.

[ruh roh]

Interesting. I didn't think she was very respectful of Steve, referring to him as difficult (for being dehydrated and disoriented and needing to be hospitalized) and that, "weary of his antics," she rebuffed his despair the very last time she was to see him. She seemed more self-congratulatory than anything. In spite of her little digs, though, Steve somehow managed to reach out from the grave--with his poetry--to make sure she didn't have the last say about him.

It's good that he affected her, though. Maybe it has made her a little more open minded for others.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by ruh roh

Interesting. I didn't think she was very respectful of Steve, referring to him as difficult (for being dehydrated and disoriented and needing to be hospitalized) and that, "weary of his antics," she rebuffed his despair the very last time she was to see him. She seemed more self-congratulatory than anything. In spite of her little digs, though, Steve somehow managed to reach out from the grave--with his poetry--to make sure she didn't have the last say about him.

It's good that he affected her, though. Maybe it has made her a little more open minded for others.

I felt like this too. I thought it was good he managed to withstand her attempts to get him to do what she wanted and instead did what he wanted.

[brillskep]

Originally Posted by stopdog

Granted I was more focused on the part where the therapist noted the client rejected her interpretations - like it was a surprise. Do they really think clients find their interpretations super dooper?

Originally Posted by stopdog

But I thought some might like the part where she cried (after having dismissed him)

Some clients actually find interpretations useful. But I think it depends on the therapist truly listening and offering good, useful answers. For example, my therapist doesn't normally give interpretations, but when he does they're usually quite insightful. Not always, but usually. If I saw a therapist who gave inappropriate interpretations that just didn't have anything to do with me, then I'd dismiss those.

I was mostly interested in how the therapist and client related and worked together, and at the end about the therapist's reaction to the news (what it meant to her, how she handled the news, what she did). I found it interesting that she posted fragments of his poetry in the article.

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by brillskep

[INDENT]

Some clients actually find interpretations useful. But I think it depends on the therapist truly listening and offering good, useful answers. For example, my therapist doesn't normally give interpretations, but when he does they're usually quite insightful. Not always, but usually. If I saw a therapist who gave inappropriate interpretations that just didn't have anything to do with me, then I'd dismiss those.

I was mostly interested in how the therapist and client related and worked together, and at the end about the therapist's reaction to the news (what it meant to her, how she handled the news, what she did). I found it interesting that she posted fragments of his poetry in the article.

I thought it interesting that she even mentioned he rejected her interpretations. I found it snotty that she started off by saying he "fancied himself" rather than he was a poet.
I don't know the difference between the woman giving interpretations and just generally talking - when is it considered an interpretation rather than just an opinion?
I expected the part you found interesting to be the main focus for some people.

I think it is deeply unsettling that the therapist wrote about a patient without his consent, even quoting his poetry. I know that ethical guidelines concerning confidentiality are more lax in the US than they are in my country, but I don't see how this could ever be acceptable, anywyere.

Originally Posted by ruh roh

Interesting. I didn't think she was very respectful of Steve, referring to him as difficult (for being dehydrated and disoriented and needing to be hospitalized) and that, "weary of his antics," she rebuffed his despair the very last time she was to see him. She seemed more self-congratulatory than anything. In spite of her little digs, though, Steve somehow managed to reach out from the grave--with his poetry--to make sure she didn't have the last say about him.

It's good that he affected her, though. Maybe it has made her a little more open minded for others.

I agree with this. I thought the attitude toward him was disgusting.

[nervous puppy]

Thanks for sharing. It was interesting to me because I have a difficult time trying to imagine what it might be like for T's. Considering the situation was the reverse for me, I often wonder how my T felt about her clients.

[stopdog]

I did really think that those who want a therapist to care might like seeing that at least the one who wrote the article seemed to do so in some way.

Originally Posted by stopdog

I did really think that those who want a therapist to care might like seeing that at least the one who wrote the article seemed to do so in some way.

Well, yes, it did strengthen my belief that some therapists care about some of their clients to some extent, some of the time.

[musinglizzy]

That was a great article. There is no doubt in my mind, despite our differences, my T cares for me a great deal. She has said it, but I also actually believe it.

[brillskep]

Originally Posted by Mastodon

I think it is deeply unsettling that the therapist wrote about a patient without his consent, even quoting his poetry. I know that ethical guidelines concerning confidentiality are more lax in the US than they are in my country, but I don't see how this could ever be acceptable, anywyere.

I thought of that too. The details were changed and I see that it's common practice among some therapists to write about clients like that, hiding and changing details. What concerns me is the poetry though - even though personally I found the article interesting, I also write poetry and give it to my therapist, and my poetry is also published on my blog and other websites. People could recognize me based on my poetry - at least people who know I write such as family, friends and many colleagues. I was wondering if "Steve" hadn't published his poetry as well, or shared it with others. That would make his poetry very much an identifiable aspect.

[Perna]

Originally Posted by stopdog

I found it snotty that she started off by saying he "fancied himself" rather than he was a poet.

I think she repeatedly said what a good poet he was, fancying one's self something can just mean, "to like the idea of being something". He never tried to publish or present his poetry to a wider audience, didn't "work" at it. He had no education, training, or audience. Yes, he was a poet by the simple fact he wrote poetry but that was not what was important to him; the "lecturing" and meaning and discussion of the poetry, "as if" he were a professor or published poet seemed to interest him more.

I think you would be annoyed, as a lawyer, if you had a client that only discussed the personal aspects of their case and refused to addressed the legal parts? A woman who did nothing but cry and go on about what a louse her soon-to-be ex-husband was and what is she going to do about finding a job and and a babysitter for the children; wailing, "How could he do this to me?" over and over and wouldn't attend to the questions you were asking her and information you were giving? Or a person who ignored court dates, couldn't be bothered being on time, etc.?

A therapist is not a poet, does not study or want to be a poetry critic and over time, I would think a therapist could be forgiven for being bored or annoyed or whatever given that not only is the client not using the therapist and therapy as it is set up to be used but refuses to even try to adapt to the therapist and therapy as it is designed. There are limits and structure and he ignored all of them.

I imagine some would say it was "his money" and he should be able to hire the therapist to be a "friend" or whatever he wants, it's his therapy but the therapist does not have to take on everyone, just because someone wants to hire them. Therapists take on clients that interest them and whom they think they can help, those they think they can work with. This poor guy was not too much about "with" and probably did not belong in therapy at all, just as he belonged in the group home because he wasn't able to care for himself adequately (and sounds like that group home was not, either; I was appalled they didn't know he was in his room and had never left and had died).

[stopdog]

Originally Posted by Perna

I think she repeatedly said what a good poet he was, fancying one's self something can just mean, "to like the idea of being something". He never tried to publish or present his poetry to a wider audience, didn't "work" at it. He had no education, training, or audience. Yes, he was a poet by the simple fact he wrote poetry but that was not what was important to him; the "lecturing" and meaning and discussion of the poetry, "as if" he were a professor or published poet seemed to interest him more.

I think you would be annoyed, as a lawyer, if you had a client that only discussed the personal aspects of their case and refused to addressed the legal parts? A woman who did nothing but cry and go on about what a louse her soon-to-be ex-husband was and what is she going to do about finding a job and and a babysitter for the children; wailing, "How could he do this to me?" over and over and wouldn't attend to the questions you were asking her and information you were giving? Or a person who ignored court dates, couldn't be bothered being on time, etc.?

A therapist is not a poet, does not study or want to be a poetry critic and over time, I would think a therapist could be forgiven for being bored or annoyed or whatever given that not only is the client not using the therapist and therapy as it is set up to be used but refuses to even try to adapt to the therapist and therapy as it is designed. There are limits and structure and he ignored all of them.

I imagine some would say it was "his money" and he should be able to hire the therapist to be a "friend" or whatever he wants, it's his therapy but the therapist does not have to take on everyone, just because someone wants to hire them. Therapists take on clients that interest them and whom they think they can help, those they think they can work with. This poor guy was not too much about "with" and probably did not belong in therapy at all, just as he belonged in the group home because he wasn't able to care for himself adequately (and sounds like that group home was not, either; I was appalled they didn't know he was in his room and had never left and had died).

I applaud his ignoring the limits and structure and doing what he wanted. I think if he found a use for him - then great. Why would he have to use therapy a certain way regardless of someone else's idea of how it was to be used or set up? I have no sympathy for the therapist. I find her language at him - including the parts quoted by you - to be snotty and condescending.

Clients do what you describe to lawyers all the time. Sometimes I tell clients it would be cheaper to talk to a therapist than me.