Signs of a bad therapist

My T literally said, as a condition of termination, "my door is always open to old clients". She meant after working with another T or otherwise processing things more. Later she changed her mind. Door closed. Very destructive.

I think it is really unprofessional to tell a client the door is always open. It is just wrong.

For me it was not respecting my time. Being late or no showing. It ultimately led to therapy ending in what was a very shaming traumatic way for me. I stayed beyond the time I should have (Issues started in the spring, I stayed until August) Now I would encourage everyone to empower themselves and stand up if something feels wrong. I cared too much and was too involved to think or see clearly.

Hi again BayBrony, I would still be of the opinion that this is an unhealthy exchange in therapy.

Your T clearly means well but in this example, she's encouraging you to acquiesce to her own analysis rather than giving you the space to identify independently for yourself why you have this belief in the first place, what the unconscious motive is.

Actually, this is harmful because she's setting herself up as the good parent that can fix the past. She's rewarding you for testing her with your negative beliefs by proving that she is willing to correct them. This creates dependency because it doesn't change the underlying beliefs, it just meets them in a different way (self-effacement to earn T's affection vs. starving to earn mother's affection)

And then if therapy comes to an unforeseen end, it would end up feeling like maternal abandonment as T has taken responsibility for your dependency needs.

Now interestingly, if you think about it, I ended up doing the same thing as your T, because the way you responded to my post invited me to do this. You tested my statement, offering your personal experience as a counterpoint, and then I sensed my opinion was being challenged, so I offered you my own analysis of the situation simply to assert that my opinion was still correct, which is my own narcissistic needs. Perhaps those are the needs that T is covertly encouraging you to meet. To me, it feels as if you are defending your T, but, I don't know her, so why does she need defending?

Yes, that is a really painful thing to experience.

Me also. Therapy was like a powerful drug that clouded my thinking. When the effects wore off T was gone.

I was sooo naive....no one had ever told me it was wrong. It was even criminal in that state, but I honestly didn't know.
I found out later.

Per the other current anti-t thread's list of steps, it went from dependence and infantilization to something else that was NOT therapy. There has to be a safe space created there at that point. Even tho there is dependence, there should be trust between "equals".

I'm sorry, unaluna, I don't understand what you're saying? Which other thread?
I'm probably just tired.

It is disgusting and despicable to think the very people who accredit these wacky ts are the very people we complain to, that in itself is a conflict of interest.
These accreditation boards are hardly going to turn around and say "oh yes, we made a mistake with this t and they should have never been accredited or allowed to practise. Complaints should be put to a committee who have nothing to do with counselling/ psychotherapy because all of these board members know each other and vouch for one another with no consideration to the impact it has on clients, the very people they vow to help and go no harm to. I am sorry you were treated so badly jay bird and I hope that you can eventually get some satisfaction out of the way your physician treated you to aid her own benefits. It makes me sick to my stomach how they get away with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, this may not be unhealthy at all. Maybe for you, but not for someone else. Keep in lin that we all don't interpret thing the same way. Many people would not internalize this T as a maternal object, and some people do very well when someone challenges their thought patterns. If you've never had an eating disorder then you won't understand this, but validating the irrational thoughts that accompany an ED is harmful, not the reverse. It's possible that just as their are many crappy therapists, maybe there are some people who just aren't a good fit for therapy. Having a T directly challenge me when I say things is the most helpful thing for me that I've come across. What is a great method for one may not be for another.

Direct challenging is not for me - but I think if someone is okay with it - then why would I care? Any number of the descriptions of the interactions between clients and their therapists are not the way I would ever engage with one those people -but if it is working for them then good. Any number of people would not do it the way I do it (and have criticized me for it) but it seems to be doing something I find useful. I think a problem can be, with both therapists who believe their way is the only way and clients who believe that what works for them is the only way for things to work or that something that does not work for them cannot ever work for someone else - is that it is just not something someone else can know.

This is what stopped me from filing a complaint recently.

I think this is a HUGE issue for people in general. Its really hard to come outside yourself and realize that other people can and do think very differently than how you do, and to accept that.

It took my mom until I was 30 or so to realize that we actually don't think the same way, and for her to back the eff off. But its hard when you think your way is so right, and to see something so opposite be right for someone else.

But I agree with you SD, it can be a problem for T's and for client's...and for people in general.

I understand this totally. I waited for awhile because I think the process is so messed up, but I did eventually and I am SO glad I did. Writing everything down helped me see how unethical my ex-therapist was and how damaging therapy is in general.

If in need of a therapist I shall show them the list so they can know what I as a client is looking out for, and she can clean up her act while seeing me. Therapist just like clients are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I'm screwed! I'm so glad there is no one shoe fits all in therapy...

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Not sure what list you are talking about.

I know that licensing boards have members of the community, non-therapists, that serve positions as members of the board. Also licensing boards are required by law to publish complaints / board actions against licensees.

I disagree and I don't feel that you understood my post. Nowhere did I say validating the behaviors is helpful. And actually, challenging a behavior has the same effect as validating it. Acting against emotions is every bit as harmful as acting on them and creates a precedent for the client to earn T's approval and affection with certain behaviors which is exactly the type of thing a T is supposed to not encourage. In my opinion, you are absolutely wrong and you are only blurring the issue because it's easier to disagree in general than to have to be able to articulate specifically why and how you disagree with me.

It's not validating a behavior to recognize that as adults, we have a choice in the way we live our lives and the actions we take. We all have the burden of deciding what is serving our needs and we can only make the best decisions when we are able to slow down and consciously know our needs in the first place.

To tell or imply to a client how it's right to behave is to completely miss the point of therapy and it's just one way in which therapists consistently abuse their role. It leaves them vulnerable to boundary transgressions when a specific type of client comes along and meets the T's underlying need that causes them to act that way. The need for consensus is still a need.

I suffered from EDs for most of my life, by the way, until just about a year ago, and I don't appreciate your assumptions about that, if you were assuming.

I agree a therapist shouldn't tell a client how to live. But I also think it's different when the behavior is physically dangerous and has the opportunity to become life-threatening. There's a world of difference between urging a client to, say, stop attending a place of worship, and challenging a client to stop the thoughts that can lead her to severe physical risk.

My therapist keeps saying she wants me to take care of myself and make decisions to keep myself safe. But she also said her priority is always to keep me physically safe and not in damger. I was grateful she and my pdoc stepped in recently. I was hurt at the time, but I realize now that I was seriously in danger (i have had lasting nerve damage). In cases like mine or something with a high fatality rate like an eating disorder, i think challenging those thoughts is really important. Sometimes it's what we desperately need.

I agree with this statement in regards to that list. Like you, challenging my thinking and even my behaviors was a vital part of my healing and recovery. I made terrific progress and growth with several of those items occurring. Those may be problems for some clients, while for others they are virtual non-issues because we are all very much individuals with our own needs, personalities, etc.

I do believe a skilled therapist knows when they can/cannot do take certain approaches with certain clients. That ability to discern those occasions and approaches is, as far as I view it, the most important ability in a truly skilled and effective therapist.

Protecting a client's life is one thing, but when a therapist is genuinely ethical from day one, therapy doesn't drive a client to increasingly harmful behaviors in the first place.

It is not and cannot be a therapist's job to protect (an adult) client from themselves. If a client already wants to die, or starve, or whatever, that doesn't suddenly become the burden of the client's therapist as soon as the client steps foot in their office for the very first time. A legal burden to report, maybe, but not the actual burden of the client's life. It's an unreasonable burden and it's unreasonable for a T to act like they can bear that responsibility--they can't, they aren't god, they aren't the client's parent, it's simply unrealistic, but to the extent that Ts do try to become responsible, they badly damage their clients by creating unhealthy dependencies on a professional who simply cannot and should not have to promise to be there for the long haul. It's a promise that's well intentioned but completely unreliable and irresponsible and comes from forging a half-hearted enmeshment, an identification with the client's transferences instead of offering insight into them.

What I'm saying is this whole dependency principle is wrong and it creates a cycle of abusive therapy and therapy-dependent victims of therapy. A therapist should NOT be in a position of implicit trust or authority, they cannot be accountable for the client's behavior, they cannot guarantee the effectiveness or soundness of their advice, and they should never identify as being able to.

You may think it's appropriate to intervene in this way, but then what happens is the therapist creates the precedent and expectation in the client for the therapist's intervention, the projections of the transference become an actual reality, the client becomes dependent, the therapy is terminated unexpectedly, and suddenly the client is alone with all the life-threatening behaviors, plus has now been abandoned by the person that misguidedly became responsible for their emotional stability.

If a client genuinely wants to harm themselves, they will do it, but if they start to believe that their own wellbeing is a thread they can pull on to regulate the behavior of the therapist, then they ultimately will do it even more and more severely when the therapist can no longer meet the client's needs.

It's difficult enough to work with a vulnerable population, but it's far worse to exploit them by fostering further vulnerability. Not only is it harmful in its own right but it's completely unnecessary and severely hinders or prolongs the actual aims of the treatment.

I have suffered from EDs for much of my life as well and I'm sorry if I assumed anything about you. I've also worked in a treatment fascility with a fairly high success rate. It didn't work for every client, no treatment ever does. If they need something else, they seek it out and it it works, that is great. How is telling a consumer of therapy exactly what kind of conversational exchange is right or wrong (barring sexual innuendo or other obvious transgressions) any different from the "all knowing" T telling client what is right or wrong? If somebody says this type of exchange is helpful, then it likely is and its not our place to try to convince them otherwise. You might hate my therapy and I might hate yours, that's why there are so many different modalities available. We can say that a style isn't for us, that is offering an opinion. To say that one doesn't understand the point of therapy is not so much an opinion but rather an attack on their self awareness and possibly even intelligence.

I liked your post, I think I agree with your views on therapy, I don't want a therapist who suggests how I might behave. I also think that it is probably impossible for a therapist to be neutral and entirely non-directive. I read that Carl Rogers used to use the term non-directive, but then some researchers analysed some of his taped sessions with clients. The researchers showed him that in subtle ways he gave approval to some of the clients behaviours and disapproval to others. Carl Rogers subsequently stopped using the term non-directive. Maybe it's also hard for a therapist to be genuine if they don't express their views in some way - I also want a therapist who speaks her thoughts out loud at times?

I am doing and did do the same thing BayBrony's T did, but the distinction is that I am not BayBrony's T, he doesn't pay me and there is no expectation created that my opinion is reliable professional advice. I said my opinion, he has a choice to listen to and interpret it as he wishes, that's the way it works in the real world, everyone has to formulate their own conclusions and is responsible for their behavior, and that's what T's should be guiding clients toward understanding and developing the ability to do.

It's also not necessary for me to tell you you're wrong, but I didn't do it out of necessity, I did it because you shared your opinion with me, so I shared my opinion with you in return.

See, it's interesting to me that you think I have to agree with you. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me, because people don't always agree, it's just how people are. It doesn't mean I dislike you or anything, I just don't agree with you, and even if you keep explaining why you think I should agree with you, I'm pretty clear on my opinion, so it's not going to make me agree, and it's not going to make me pretend I don't have an opinion either. You're not being attacked, and you are responsible for having made the assumption that you are being attacked just because I expressed my opinion.

Maybe "attacked" is too strong a word. I also in no way think that you should agree with me and never implied you shouldn't have an opinion. I think I said everyone has their opinion and style. That's not the same as saying someone else's therapy is wrong in absolutes or that one doesn't understand the point of their own therapy. That's a little too personal a statement to be written off as a mere opinion and that might be why it initially felt like an attack. You have every right to your opinion of course, but in conversation, semantics do matter.