Seeing Two Therapists At Once Without Them Knowing.

For me, two or more therapists simultaneously without a clear reason for using more than one and without disclosing that I was doing so would not work either. I actually don't think I could handle more than one a time for any reason.

What I was objecting to are the notions that a) one person's experience or perspective necessarily has any relevance to how things could or should work for others in their therapy and b) that a client has a moral imperative to disclose anything to their therapist(s) or limit how many they see.

It is one way of looking at things and carries no more and no less than the authority of one person's lived experience.

I also agree with the notion that therapy is a very individual experience and there is no general rule as to what is appropriate and will work with someone, except paying the T's fee. It is really better and more helpful to discuss personal experiences as personal experiences.

I did juggle two Ts for a while when I saw them occasionally, not on a regular basis. I was completely open to both about this. I don't think it hindered anything. I personally think it can be quite useful and healthy not to expect everything from one source, either by focus on different issues with them or just having two different views on the same. I don't see it much different from seeking a second opinion on medical issues. Even if a client really likes to focus on the relationship, we can have relationships with multiple people simultaneously and find them enriching. I personally always prefer to be open and transparent about this but I think it just depends. I think it is better to be upfront about it because definitely not everyone tolerates or is willing to engage in this way. But I also think it would be wrong from a T to suddenly terminate a client when they find out they are seeing someone else as well, unless they made this clear as their policy from start.

I disagree. It feels like you are looking for a loophole. Like maybe you forgot the t told you in the beginning it was important to be honest. Its not like getting a second opinion, its like getting treated for the same condition by two independent practitioners. Getting a kidney removed one day, and then oh look a kidney removed the next day?

There IS such a thing called therapy. It doesnt change based on your personal experience of it. Only the quality of it. It can be the Warriors vs the Cavs in the playoffs, or it can be a couple of kids playing in the driveway.

But there’s no general rule that requires a therapist to terminate a client who is seeing someone else, so why would there be any need for a loophole? And differences in therapy aren’t just about quality- there are vast differences in therapy by type of training, personality of the therapist, needs of the client, etc.

It's okay that we disagree. Based on this thread, I don't seem to be the only one with a similar view though. On the analogy of being treated by two different practitioners for the same condition - I don't think that people who use more than one T always use them for the same issue. Also, I think it can be quite useful to get different treatments for the same condition if one alone does not bring satisfying results. It's not always as drastic as removing an organ or not. For example, someone can get medication for pain and also benefit from physical therapy, increasing the quality of the outcome. Of course treatment plans can also clash and be mutually exclusive, in which case it is definitely a good idea that the whole "team" knows about the different approaches and recommendations.

I do think that a client using two Ts (or any two treatments) in parallel can sometimes be because they refuse to really engage in any one of them and follow the treatment. But I don't think this is always the case and sometimes it turns out during the course of the treatment that one practitioner does not have the expertise and skills to deal with something that comes up, but can still be quite useful for other things.

Theres no general rule that REQUIRES a therapist to terminate a client who is seeing someone else, but there are ethical principles that ALLOW a t to terminate a client who is seeing someone else.

And i maintain that therapy is still more than just our personal experience of it. Otherwise youve got the 5 blind men describing an elephant.

To the OP, in this situation it sounds like the idea is more a transition than using two Ts in parallel. I would maybe tell the old T why I am seeking a new one so that she is aware that she was not fully (or at all) providing what you needed. And maybe discussing it with the new one can also be useful, to let them know what was not working for you.

Actually, this is what Ts are required to do by the ethical standards, in my state for sure. It's not about individual policies. The ethical code here spells out clearly that a T is not supposed to work with a client who is currently seeing another T except by the mutual agreement with that T. Whether this is right or wrong is a different issue. I don't think it's right to set up such a rule for professionals, but it is what it is. I am just saying that this is the reality, not looking for a debate on whether this reality is right or wrong.

So, if you are in the state where such professional standard is implemented and if you honestly tell one of your Ts that you are also seeing another T, they'd be required to terminate the work with you unless they communicate with the other therapist and they both decide that they feel comfortable with you working with them both. Now, many Ts may disregard this rule, but just be aware that such rule exists.

Can you link us that information. How did you find that out?

I am a licensed therapist. Besides learning this in my academic training I also have to take the required CE training every two years to renew my license. Ethical and legal section is the part of the required CE that never changes meaning that I have to keep myself updated on the new laws and ethics regularly in order to keep my license active. So far that particular ethical standard about seeing more than one T at a time hasn't changed.

I can't give you a link to that information because it's on professional websites and only professional members have access to it, which sucks, I know. I believe, the public should have free access to that information but it is what it is.

Hmmm....interesting because I was seeing 2 T's for about 5 months. T1 encouraged me to find an EMDR T and the EMDR T that I found did not know about T1 but T1 never said to me that I need to tell him because it was unethical and might not see me if he knew.

I dont think EMDR T's "count" as "doing therapy". They are not doing psychotherapy, they are flashing lights and tapping your knees or whatever and "reprogramming" your brain that way. It doesnt even belong in the same conversation.

Now that is not true. In 6 months we have done EMDR about 3 times as he has been working on containment and parts integration and learning how to bring myself out of dissociation. Sometime we talk about what has been going on in life. so Therapy is happening.

Interesting, I certainly was not aware that this is part of formal regulations in some states. Both of mine were okay with seeing the other and I also told each that I interviewed that I might see another T as well. Maybe this regulation is not in effect in my state (NY), I have no clue. One of mine did say, when I started with him, that two Ts simultaneously is a big no for most in the profession.

So who counts as a "psychotheapist" then if, for example, EMDR Ts don't? How about someone using a brief CBT approach to work on a phobia? Or an addictions counselor?

Sorry. Yeah, thats probably on the outer ends of the bell curve, both the diagnosis and the treatment? But the curve has been been slow to catch up with what is happening IRL, IMO. Or like many new technologies, they keep reinventing the wheel.

Sure. As I said, many Ts may not take this rule seriously (as many others), which is fine, as long as they are not afraid to get in trouble. But I don't think, any client would be unhappy about them being ok with the client seeing another therapist and so they wouldn't get the T in trouble

Also, your state might not have that particular regulation.

Same here. I revealed to some of my Ts that I sought a second opinion and the all made a fuss about it immediately, even though a second opinion doesn't count as working with two Ts simultaneously. A client has the right to get a second opinion any time, but many Ts confuse it with doing the work on two fronts, which is total BS. I don't know how it can be confused. I think, they just take it personally when they hear that the client went for a second opinion. It's like a negative verdict on them personally.

EMDR is just one of the methods of psychotherapy (one of the most recent ones). EMDR therapist is also a licensed psychotherapist, which can be a licensed MFT, LCSW, LPC, PsyD, PdD or MD (psychiatrist). One is a "psychotherapist" when they have any of the above credentials and a license to practice. Any of them can get an additional training in EMDR or any other modality if they choose to do so but they don't have to. But no one without a psychotherapy license (any of the above licenses) can start training in EMDR. One does not get admitted for EMDR training if they don't have a psychotherapy license. So, yes. "EMDR therapist" is a psychotherapist.

Now, let's look at this issue from a perspective of working with different problems. Certainly, it would make sense for someone to want to do EMDR therapy for specific trauma and other type of therapy for other problems. But the ethical code allows it to happen. As I said, the only thing that is needed for someone to work with more than one therapist is for each therapist to be aware that the other therapist are for a different purpose and uses a different modality. If I get EMDR therapy and art therapy with someone else, this should not be a problem for any of the therapists. The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is when the regulation requires for both therapists to communicate in order to make sure that they don't step on each other's toes so to speak. I think. if the client informs each T that the other type of therapy is different or used for a different problem that should be enough for each to be content with the situation. No "verification" is necessary.

The same with medicine. The doctors, unlike Ts, generally don't care if you seek a second opinion, but if you are treating,let's say, an injured foot with the set of procedures and remedies prescribed by one doctor and then you tell them that you are also getting different procedures and remedies prescribed by the other doctor for the same problem, that doctor would refuse to continue to work with you because you are messing with their work by using other methods at the same time, which interferes in their prescribed treatment. One thing is to get a consultation from another professional, which is what a second opinion is. Another thing is to start working with them while working with another one. Both may or may not be okay with that depending on what exactly you are doing, which problems you are trying to resolve and what methods to use, which makes sense.

But that's exactly the thing. Many things are indeed psychotherapy though they may not be recognizable to you as such. It is absolutely 5 blind men describing an elephant.

Where I live brief evidence-based psychotherapy is by far the norm and hanging onto a therapist for years and year actually brings into question whether the therapist is an ethical practitioner. No joke, I have had two of my physicians give me the side eye when they hear that I've been in therapy for many years and express concern that I am getting fleeced, that it is cult-like etc. Insurance will pay for maximum 5-10 sessions a year.

In the context of brief psychotherapy it's totally ludicrous to think of consulting a second therapist as anything but completely reasonable. Also here therapy tends to be about A Thing: recovering from addiction, addressing a phobia, getting to where one no longer meets diagnostic criteria for major depression etc. So of course it would seem to make sense not to see the same person for your drinking problem as you see for your sexual abuse recovery.

There is a thing going on here about doing therapy The Right Way. There's almost a sense of superiority associated with doing therapy in a way that is wrenching, prolonged and chock full of painful transference. That somehow the crystal woo healing energy that goes on could get diluted if one chose to consult a second therapist? Come now people. This is like hanging out with people who feel smug about having had natural childbirth.* I think, at most, what we can say is "I have found a way that seems to work for me."

*Full disclosure: I've been known to be insufferable both about natural childbirth and about how enlightened I am for all the wretched time I've spent in therapy. But I try to remember to make fun of myself. Because life. It's too short.

I 100% disagree. In my experience there is WAY more tham the things you mention. My EMDR T is doing juat as much therapy as long term T.

Sorry, i DO have a chip on my shoulder re EMDR having had it touted to me from a couple different directions, neither of which i could support. I mean, they just did not make their cases to me at the time, which was i admit over ten years ago. And i don't know nuthin' 'bout birthin' babies!