Could therapy be harmful

I...thought...at the time I had two very good alliances. I still view one of them as caring and sincere. However my so-called treatments were empty rituals, make work exercises with no more validity than faith healing.

Had I not had the bully therapists, perhaps I wouldn't have examined the other ones.

I've been exploited, used and abused by a therapist for years. I don't understand why he would do it to me. How could anyone be so cruel, never mind a therapist? I've been looking for help but it seems to be a waste of time.

I've been reading this post, but have held back a reply until now. YES, therapy can definitely be harmful instead of helpful. I know, because that has been my experience. Although for me, I have not quite given up yet, but I've come pretty close. Most people in my life have stated (whether they know my therapy experience or not, most don't) that I have changed from who I used to be. I've noticed it myself. I am a very different person than I was three years ago. I've continued with therapy in the hopes of having guidance with getting that person back, but so far I've had no luck. My primary therapist knows that my therapy experience with her has been extremely damaging, she admits it. Aside from the original therapist, I also have another regular therapist, and a 3rd who knows my situation who I can see on an as-needed basis. Thanks to my therapy experience, I am also now under the supervision of an addiction doctor, and one of my therapists works at that addiction clinic. The addiction itself nearly ruined my life, and I'm not "in the clear" yet, in fact it's a daily struggle. I went from a confident-enough person who had value in my life, loved my job of several years, had friends and a social life when I wanted one, etc. to no confidence or value, I quit my job and have not been employed for over a year now, filing or disability, and no social life because I pretty much pushed my friends away. This has been my experience, and something that is still unfolding, and I would probably not see a therapist who does not think therapy itself can be damaging. My therapist has been a psychologist for over two decades. And has never had someone who got worse due to therapy...until me. I ended up with a lot more issues because of therapy than I was really dealing with before therapy.

(hey, I'm curious how someone can post anonymously?)

I found much more growth outside therapy than in. So I don't see needing to leave as quitting or giving up.

When an account is closed the username turns to anonymous.

I don't believe that for a second. I'd wager my life savings that every therapist leaves a trail of casualties (some subtle), but either can't or won't see it. My guess is many of them get very little honest feedback and are dangerously out of touch with the real-world impact of their work, particularly with regard to endings, which seem to create lasting distress in some people.

I am sure therapy could be harmful yes. But I do know so many people irl who are/were in therapy and none of them are harmed let alone abused by therapists or therapy. Reading a forum like this easily gives another picture. I guess many search outlets when there is a problem and write about it. Don't get me wrong, it is awesome there is a place to share bad experiences, but I think by far the most common experience is that therapy is helpful and one "comes out" feeling better. It might just be that people having a regular, healing experience might not be so verbal about it or even go to forums discussing it.

I understand the theory, that some of you referenced, on how when maladaptive defenses are broken anxiety and depression set in. And it's a therapists job to help a patient develop more mature/healthy defenses and address the underlying conflicts that the primitive defenses once provided.

In the meantime, patients can undergo months or years of being completely defenseless and/or undergoing regressions that negatively impact their relationships/job/career aspirations.

I wonder how that is justified. How do you know your T is capable of putting you back together? How does the profession ensure that the T's they "produce" are capable of doing so? Who are T's accountable to?

I find the way that therapy is conducted, with one person holding a lot of power(just by their title/license and their position of authority)over another person(who is often very vulnerable)who is putting their trust and their life into another person's hands very troubling. No one is watching. The patient is labeled "crazy" therefore rendering them unreliable.

Some of you mentioned "as long as you have a good T". What does that even mean? That as long as they are ethical and have proper boundaries? Is that enough? How does one assess a T's competence?

Therapists are human and therefore limited. They are impacted just as much by their patients which influence the way they treat their patient and the level of care they provide? Many of them, after tearing apart their patients defenses, go home, back to their lives, while their patients must fend with the residual wounds they they opened up. And then they are not even allowed to contact their therapists in between their sessions when they are struggling.

How is that okay?

I don't think this is really what happens. Through therapy I realize some defenses are maladaptive, meaning they don't work for me anymore or they're a problem in some situations. That doesn't mean they're gone, I can still use them if I need to, or I can do something different if that's better. It means having a choice about whether to obey that reflex or not.

I think therapy brings emotions, memories, etc. closer to the surface, but that doesn't mean you have no control whatsoever, at least not necessarily. It depends on the person.

I also don't buy this image of the all-powerful therapist but that's a separate discussion.

I guess this is largely a response to what I wrote.

My regression indeed impacted my ability to work quite negatively. I was faking work for about a year. Or at least that's how I felt. Anyway, I was successful in faking because somehow I managed to write up my PhD dissertation at that time. However, if I compare my ability to work during that period with my ability to work previously, when working was one of my defences then there was a huge difference. Now when this deep regression is over I can work much more productively again but this time it is not because of defences anymore. Now I am able to enjoy my work much more and my thinking is much more free and although going through this regression was extremely difficult I appreciate it. I gave up something in order to get something better. For me it was totally worth it.

For me someone being a good T means quite simple things: the first criterion for me is that the T must be a psychoanalyst because this title comes with a high probability that the T knows his own sh... I would never see just a random psychologist or counsellor who has not successfully gone through their own deep therapy. Secondly, I have to have a good feeling about the T just right from the start. It's a gut feeling and hard to define exactly but I'm quite sure that most people are able to tell, even if it is very vague, whether there is something bothering with that person or not, even though when on the surface everything looks ok. I would not see a T about whom I wouldn't have a good feeling or there would be something that bothers me about this person. I personally would not compromise - either everything feels good or I would fire this person.

These are my two criteria. I have chosen two T-s according to them and both of those Ts have been excellent.

I guess I didn't have the judgment or knowledge to look for someone according to criterion #1. And I definitely did not have enough gut feeling or intuition or whatever it is that is hard to define for criterion #2.

So -- I think I have some of that now, but it's kind of too late. I'm almost 70 and not looking for a "good T" anymore. Just trying to put the pieces back myself somewhat, before my time is gone. The support from PC helps, also some support groups IRL. But overall I think the therapy industry sucks, and is uninterested and non-responsive to people for whom this has been true.

Therapy CAN be harmful, and it needs warning labels, like cigarettes in my opinion.

It sounds like you are very knowledgeable about psychoanalytic theory/treatment which I am sure helped you in finding and knowing a good T when you saw one. Most people don't have that informed intuition.

I am glad to hear it worked for you. I am just curious, did your T's allow in between session contact?

I wasn't knowledgeable at all when I started. Then I just looked for someone who wouldn't do CBT and who wouldn't offer concrete solutions because I knew that something was wrong with me but had no idea what it is. Searching around in the internet and reading about "evidence-based therapy" and the like I figured that psychoanalytic has the most potential for me because it doesn't pretend to know how to work towards concrete goals which I didn't have anyway. Thankfully, I also knew I can use and trust my intuition and I was determined not to accept someone who would be just more or less okayish- I was determined to find someone I'm certain is good or not find anyone at all.

My both T-s have allowed between session contact, even when I see my T four times a week. This horrible regression period started to get better when I figured that I need to call him in the afternoon when I find myself unable to do anything. We agreed that I can call every day if needed (or email if that feels better) and although I never actually needed to call every day, knowing that I could do it made everything so much easier. I still sometimes call him when I need to, for instance when I experience an unexpected emotional flashback. Sometimes I email when I feel I have something important to say that can't wait the next session.

I just realised that maybe my experience is what it is because I have been diagnosed with schizoid personality disorder. For instance, my T basically never responds to my emails, although he is ok with me writing as often as I see fit, and it doesn't bother me at all. Perhaps I would even feel intruded upon when he would very emotionally respond to my emails. I have never wanted to be friend with my T and although I have been very much obsessed with him and have thought about him all days long, I have always had the need to keep distance. When he comes emotionally too close to me then things switch - I start feeling that he is somehow disgusting and I need to push him back in order to sort of fall in love with him again. Maybe this is all very irrelevant to the current discussion but it suddenly occurred to me that it could be somehow related.

Yeah, these are anyway only my personal criterions and I'm not imposing these on anyone else. I'm sure everyone has their own according to their own best judgement. Considering therapy too harmful or ineffective could be someone's personal criterion for deciding not to look for a therapist at all as well.

From session one, my therapy has helped me feel better. The fact that you feel worse concerns me. Also my tdoc allows in between session communication.

or perhaps it might just be that those people who have good experiences with therapy and have not been harmed are not dealing with as severe of issues as those who have had negative or harmful experiences???

from what i have noticed by reading these stories over and over again, is that many of the clients who have had adverse experiences tend to struggle more with very early childhood traumas, including cPTSD, developmental truama, sexual abuse, and attachment/abandonment issues. for me, this makes me question whether it has more to do with incompetency, Ts who are severely lacking in an extensive training and understanding to both the physiological and developmental damage that such early trauma can inflict upon young and developing brains. because of this lack of knowledge, these Ts are most likely (inadvertently and/ or ignorantly) causing more damage than good.

I think it's both. I guess it is pretty clear that people with early traumas need far more from a therapist than those that have solid base and deal with issues that started later. Probably the "simpler" patient group is larger though and I suspect that most therapists are trained to treat them. It might sound surprising when someone who has practised for 20 years haven't treated anyone with early traumas and very intense transference before but it might be actually quite probable that you can work your full career without ever seeing a really complex case.

My T has also practiced for more than 20 years and more than 10 years as a psychoanalyst and he has admitted to me that he has never had such an analysis before that he has with me, meaning that never before has any patient stirred up so strong feelings in him. However, I guess that stirring up strong feelings in T is a pretty good symptom of early trauma because all these unprocessed young and very intense feelings are awoken and also projected on the T.

When I read in this forum I'm partly amazed that most therapists really seem to be that bad. On the other hand I'm not surprised at all because I guess they are just a slice from the whole humankind. I just feel so sorry for all these people who would need a good T and just don't seem to find one, even though good Ts are not unicorns and actually exist in this world.

Maybe that's not what happens with you, but it happens with a good deal of us with trauma, particularly preverbal trauma.

I was only talking about unconscious defenses. Trauma changes the way your brain works. Therapy can restructure those cognitive processes, but I think seeing a therapist 4 times a week is going to allow you to build ego strength while seeing a therapist only once a week can be harmful. It does take a competent therapist to help transform maladaptive defense into the healthy ones-but that takes years and I think this is extremely difficult to do with clients who have preverbal trauma or C-PTSD.

But for the same clients seeing the therapist once a week can leave the client in preverbal chaos-body memories and flashbacks can assault your conscious over and over, and it feels like you are living in the past, full trauma feelings and all, even though you know you are not. It's overwhelming to the consciousness, so the ego cannot regulate them and it's not a mere choice whether or not to 'obey' them.

For coping, the more conscious actions, many with trauma don't have the ability to self-sooth, which comes from being soothed by the original caregiver. Seeing the therapist 4 times a week can allow the client the introject the soothing mechanism of the therapist. But those who cannot see the therapist more than once a week may be continually exposed to anxieties/fight or flight, trauma related feelings, and flashbacks which can cause repeated blasts of stress hormones and wear down the brain and body, leading to depression.

I agree it has to do with competency; this is notably the personality of the the therapist, which is the primary factor of competency in my opinion. Personality/sense of self and character affects clients more than training, that's why it's essential for a therapist who works with the developmental/preverbal client population to have years of their own depth therapy.

Otherwise, the therapist gets enmeshed with the client, uses projection, has thick (counter) transferences that end up being harmful to the client, etc. Those of us who are well read about therapy or who have been in therapy with a competent therapist can see the red flags and avoid such therapists, but I and perhaps others, did not know this potential the first time around. In fact, I took the initiative to teach myself about therapy only AFTER being harmed by one. I was thrown completely off guard, never expecting that simply talking to a therapist could initiate all the repressed/dissociated trauma content that flooded my conscious.

Luckily, I have a competent therapist now; one who has done a few years of intense psychoanalysis on top of all his training, including Phd.

I think the session frequency factor is quite important. I have preverbal trauma and I have been able to work with it in therapy but I think that the fact that I actually do go 4 times a week is very important factor that these things can be worked with. I can't truly imagine doing it going once a week, I would have probably gone crazy or I don't know.

At the same time, even if people would be able to afford going as often how many would still do it? The mainstream opinion is that so frequent sessions and years long therapy is only for the therapist financial benefit while I think (and have experienced) that this kind of setting might a prerequisite of successfully working with such difficult material.

I've seen no professional literature speculating, much less proving, classes of clients harmed by therapy. Nor am I aware of any screenings for such clients.

My harm wasn't about releasing trauma but rather as encouraging my self-pity and self-involvement. It habituated my enfeeblement, entitlement and magical thinking.

The only credible sources of info on real therapy outcomes, that I'm aware of, are forums like the one. And when I read the forums I see a lot of troubling stuff, and not many cases of clients walking out of therapy and into the light. If there is some other way to judge the effects of therapy, I'd like to know what it is.

I think nobody knows how often therapy is damaging, and precisely how, because nobody cares, unless something happens that is too terrible to ignore. Everything else is simply ignored, or is explained away by endless excuses and rationalizations -- client has too many issues, client is resistant, it's a "process", gets worse before it gets better ... ad nauseam. Harm is never really harm. It's an opportunity for growth or some such manipulative drivel.

I don't think they can justify any of this. What they do instead is avoid confronting most of it, and stick to their slogans and mantras. It's quite like a religion. Facts aren't so important. Faith is the main thing. If people are being traumatized or just simply having great piles of cash and energy drained away, well that is secondary to keeping the faith. And of course it's a business and that comes before clients also. Also many therapists are probably using therapy for their own "emotional sustenance", so that also gets in the way of seeing what is happening to clients.

My therapist denied all harm, attributing my injury to transference and projection. He described me as disconnected to reality, unable to distinguish between him and my parents. Apparently his peers believed him --I lost my grievance against him.

If a client's voice is scorned as invalid, if client reporting is illegitimate, then psych professionals have no need to consider the harm they might have caused. It simply doesn't exist. That's how it was treated in my case.

agreed...

and when i pointed this specific forum out to my ex-T many years ago, suggesting that he should take a look at it and see what clients are really saying about therapy behind the shield of anonymity (because perhaps many are too intimidated or scared to be this forthcoming with their own Ts) and after he took a brief look, he easily dismissed many of the 'disgruntled' clients with excuses (similar to the ones you listed above) that most likely were meant to pacify his own discomfort with the harsh truths being presented and challenging the status quo of therapy.