Posted by gazo on April 8, 2007, at 17:10:03
i see my T tomorrow. Two weeks is hard.. it gives me enough time between sessions to work myself into a bind. i don't know that we'll ever get to anything bigger.
so i am all ticked off. i have been reading up on therapy and it has made me really mad. i have to watch how i say this because i don't want to be uncivil.. it's a tough line. i have just been seeing so much stuff out there that really shows the underbelly of therapy. Like one discipline basically ridiculing the other. Hello? Do you guys not know you're arguing in front of the kids? We can hear you! D*mn.
it got worse from there. i read one site, meant for T's which was about DBT... and it said that once a therapeutic alliance was solid the T should "announce" that if the client didn't make significant progress then the T would terminate....WTF?!?
in another they said that clients should go off of meds because they couldn't experience and challenge their emotions. i'm not joking. It wasn't even qualified by saying in what situations or anything.. it was a blanket statement. It *implied* that meds were inhibiting the true cure - therapy. Good luck to the therapist who thinks they can "cure" a bipolar through talk therapy alone.
then there were the things like calling clients "treatment failures" or "difficult." It was phrased without any possibility of the theory or approach being mismatched for the client. Nope. If you tried CBT and it didn't help you then YOU are the problem. Never anywhere did they talk about treatments being inadequate or T's being just crappy at their job. My god. Do you know any profession in which the workers get their job right 100% of the time?
and the individual schools of thought all seem to think they have THE answer. None of them seem to look at the whole person. "it's his cognitions" "it's her emotions" "it's his childhood" and so on.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
it's really awful. All the literature meant for T's seems to categorize us as objects. None of it referred to us as people. "The subject."
Then there are the studies and papers that glow over the 55% success rate of whatever treatment. Um... what about the 45% who are still in misery?
i found the whole thing dehumanizing.
Then of course i discover stuff about CBT, etc and learn that my old T wasn't playing fair. i have to save that for another time because i am ***really*** upset about it.
i don't know that i will ever be able to make this work with the new T. He seems great as a person.. but it sticks in me that i have to pay him to give a rat's fanny. It bothers me that therapy has been so quantified instead of qualified. It's objective vs subjective even though our side has to be subjective.
i want this to work. i do. i am going to tell him exactly what i said here. But i know that nothing he can say will *make* me trust him, that part is on me. i don't know that i am able to.
why does the field of psychology have to be this way?
poster:gazo
thread:748171
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070406/msgs/748171.html