![]() |
FAQ/Help |
Calendar |
Search |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There are clients as seen right here on PC who bypass security measures, finding roundabout ways to get into their therapist’s social media anyway. That’s not okay and really becomes stalkerish. It is ridiculously intrusive and I don’t buy the excuses of helplessness and excuses that we just can’t help ourselves so the therapist just should put up with it. If you behave, for whatever reason, in a manner that leaves a person, any person — client or therapist— feeling intruded upon and even victimized by boundary crossing, you — client or therapist— has the right to expect that behavior to stop and to dissolve that relationship if they no longer feel emotionally or physically safe because of that behavior. The person’s excuses, be they “professional” or due to mental/emotional state don’t change the fact that the person on the receiving end has been left feeling uncomfortable or unsafe. MM, if this has left you feeling unable to work with this therapist, you are perfectly within your rights to get another therapist. I still personally believe it is a double standard to condemn another person for behavior we display ourselves, but the bottom line is it bothers you. So, find a different therapist if you feel this is a red flag for you. |
![]() Rive., susannahsays
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I think the OPs concerns are quite valid based on the standards those guys set up.
__________________
Please NO @ Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. Oscar Wilde Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional. |
![]() LonesomeTonight, susannahsays
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I know they do this in some jurisdictions but I (and many others )have fought against it in mine. mds have to come to court just like every other litigant.
__________________
Please NO @ Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. Oscar Wilde Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History - Laurel Thatcher Ulrich Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Our facility hates going to court because frequently these are clients known to is from other admissions and we know it can effect the theraputic alliance.
__________________
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When the searching becomes more intensive and does get into another person's private life, however, that just becomes nosey. Respect for privacy, and even the ability to maintain one's own privacy with any surety, appears to be a thing of the past unfortunately. And some of us have been on the receiving end of serious electronic and physical privacy violations so this is not a minor issue for us. Once you've had someone invade your life to the point where you've felt unsafe, that experience rather changes your perspective. I suspect many therapists, themselves, have had those kinds of experiences and that can certainly drive how they react to any perceived boundary violations, electronic or otherwise. There is some crazy stuff that happens out there when people go a bit off-rocker with their intrusion into people's private lives. Been there myself. Not something I wish on anyone. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
The psychologists and psychiatrists that I knew were never THAT interested in the lives of their patients once they left the office. I remember that one of them would relax or watch tv or socialize once off the clock. He really wasn't that interested in their clients lives, and he was a very good clinician. After work, he didn't want to have to deal with anything work related. That even included looking up patients. He kept his work life COMPLETELY SEPERATE from his hours off.
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That and blaming the therapists for not having locked up their pages. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This was my understanding as well, because the T said she only googled the last name. |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
It doesn’t sound that she googled YOU. More like googled ethnic or geographical or what not origins of your last name. It’s not private info.
Of course coincidentally your family might be the only people on this planet with that name (like in my case) but I suspect therapist didn’t know that Of course you could still feel bothered by it. But still I don’t think it’s the same as looking you up |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
If it was just the last name, maybe she googles anyone with an unusual last name. But, normally people would just ask the person where they are from instead of going through all of that. My last name is short and unusual, so many people ask my ethnicity instead of googling me.
|
#63
|
||||
|
||||
I don't really see it as a moral issue, but it seems like bad therapy for a therapist to Google a client. The therapist is supposed to be working based on what the client presents with in therapy, not based on information gleaned from outside sources not introduced by the client. The only exceptions to this would be court mandated clients and minors, but even then it is acknowledged that having that sort exception is not ideal in therapy and has a negative effect.
It might feel weird to have a therapist learn things about you without your consent since many times, you provide official consent before your therapist will talk to someone about you. While your therapist doesn't technically have to get your consent to be on the receiving end of information (so long as they don't confirm you are a client in any way or say anything about you), I can't really think of any way therapists can initiate the receipt of information about clients other than the examples I mentioned that doesn't require client consent. Googling you sort of bypasses the issue since your therapist didn't have to identify you as her client - but I don't think what she did followed the spirit or intention of the rules regarding client consent for the release/exchange/receipt of information. I think it's weird she Googled where you're from instead of just asking you - especially since she apparently had no problem telling you she was curious about it. I think being interested is good, but not to the point that she can't wait to ask you something until she sees you. Just seems odd.
__________________
Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in your face. -David Gerrold |
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Confidentiality would make it even more difficult because you could actually get in trouble for sharing communication from the client if there was no imminent threat to you. In any case, taking out a restraining order seems like a massive overreaction to me. If you didn't feel threatened or unsafe until you found out they had Googled you, then odds are you are overreacting - unless you're treating someone convicted of violent offenses or something. For example, if you are a woman treating a serial home invasion rapist and you find out, you might be worried. Anyway, the courts are not going to restrict someone's individual freedoms based on feelings - there has to be a clear threat based on persistent actions.
__________________
Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in your face. -David Gerrold |
![]() LonesomeTonight, Xynesthesia2, ~Christina
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
If you have a client you know is a stalker, has antisocial personality disorder, a history of harrassing other therapists, violence and so on...the therapist has got good grounds to be worried for her safety. There are some very dangerous people seeking therapy. You wouldn't know it if its not you, but your psychiatrist and psychologist certainly know who they are.
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Hi Mindmechanic, I really like this topic. You have put a lot of thought into it, as have other members. In my opinion, no therapist should google their clients unless it is a matter of safety. The therapeutic relationship is inherently unsafe as it provides a power imbalance with zero accountability to a therapist. Perhaps some therapist can handle the impact that googling a client could have, but it certainly could create issues in the therapeutic alliance if those searches lead to any sort of counter-transference reaction. Considering how terrible and unethical the industry is when it comes to counter-transference, I would deem googling a client unethical and potentially dangerous. Thanks, HD7970ghz
__________________
"stand for those who are forgotten - sacrifice for those who forget" "roller coasters not only go up and down - they also go in circles" "the point of therapy - is to get out of therapy" "don't put all your eggs - in one basket" "promote pleasure - prevent pain" "with change - comes loss" |
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The client also was able to figure out the Doctors work schedule. I was asked to help find a picture of the patient for the office he works at (if in the chart or whatever or even online if there was anything. I found own on FB. We had discussions with the hospital lawyer and management to see if it was ethical to use the pictures. It was decided that based on the severity and nature of the threats it was important to have a picture for safety reason. It was not handled lightly though
__________________
|
![]() LonesomeTonight, SoAn
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Life is hard. Then you die. Then they throw dirt in your face. -David Gerrold |
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
The thing is this: if she googles you about something that she could have easily asked you, what if comes to something that is more invasive. Is she going to continue googling you?
I think if you are uncomfortable with her behavior, you should discuss it with her. If you don't find her helpful at all, I would just look for another therapist to work with. |
![]() LonesomeTonight, susannahsays
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
I think the T acknowledged she messed up and won't do it again. Is it to be (for therapists): one mistake and they are fired? Isn't anyone allowed a second chance?
What if clients make many such mistakes? Are they to be given chance after chance? There needs to be some perspective here. The T admitted what she did and held herself accountable. By all means, address the upset of T googling you if that is the case but yes, there needs to be some perspective. Is her blunder enough to get her fired? Or is she allowed to be human and as such, fallible |
![]() SlumberKitty, ~Christina
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Now take notice that I said IF she is overall not helpful than why even bother continuing. I never said to just let her go because she googled her. |
![]() LonesomeTonight
|
Reply |
|