advertisement
Question
Posted by: Anon/D | 2010/07/18

Re 1036

Hi CS. I know that I may have caused some hassles for you via your editor but this was done inadvertantly as I was very traumatised at the time and I guess being called an analyst because I was trying to understand what I was going through, only added to the trauma. I actually had a go (unfairly) at the organisation (CTSPP) thus the comeback. So I apologise if I caused undue trouble, it was certainly not my intention. I stand by the fact that it is perhaps more the inexperience of the individual rather than an inherent flaw in the method. I can say that through this very painful process I have had to deal with many psychiatric opinions in deciding on the way forward. In some cases I encountered a closed shop - sadly SASOP (although sending him back for his own depth therapy with a senior therapist which they appointed) actually asked me for my assurances that I take the matter no further (to HPCSA) which I find unacceptable. I had no intention of taking it to HPCSA, if only because part of me believes that his intentions were sincere. Their constitution clearly states that they have to balance the patient''s interests with those of the therapist in upholding the sanctity of the profession. Had I not managed to retrieve all the emails in my archives, I might actually be sitting with the scenario that nobody believed me and a very fractured sense of reality. Given the history of CSA, you can imagine how traumatic that is. What amazes me is that I am an attorney by profession (so yes, I do tend to over-analyse) and yet I was unable to see the trees for the woods during my therapy - I had no idea what was at stake, but I guess that was not my responsibility. Luckily the emails spoke for themselves and the psychiatrists I have consulted have not been able to find any mitigating circumstances for this therapist - apparently he was wholly in the wrong and guilty of a number of transgressions which I did not even realise. Sadly, even now I still miss him and unfortunately I still have times that I basically obsess about what really happened (even though it seems so obvious to everyone else).

So I want to thank you for having the moral courage to state your opinion in the face of criticism and censure, for not hiding behind collegial loyalty and for being such an advocate of the rights of the patient. I might not agree with everything you say but I can only admire the integrity with which it is asserted. Please tell your editor that I find it quite refreshing and heartening that there are still people willing to take such a stand. We are truly blessed to have such a person at the end of our fingertips!

Keep well CS and thank you.

Not what you were looking for? Try searching again, or ask your own question
Our expert says:
Expert ImageCyberShrink

Sorry, of course, if you were inadvertently upset at the time. You constructed the conversation in such an intellectual fashion, that I responded in like fashion, as although it may have reflected a degree of the traumatization you received at the hands of Dr X, you did not ask us to discuss that, rather than more theoretical and scientifically relevant questions.
I understand that what was happening, at a level below the apparent discourse, was, for instance, perhaps wanting to assure yourself of your worthiness for genuine affection, by wanting to see his affections and your own responses, as entirely natural and genuine.
The idea that the very therapeutic setting and analytic-type process itself tends to produce such elements often, which need to be recognized as by-products of the process and rarely as natural as they may feel, isn't necessarily pleasant or welcome. Its a bit like doing surgery under a necessary anaesthetic - one needs to be cautious in extrapolating from whatever happens or is possible under the anaesthetic to what might have happened without it.
And within serious therapy, the therapist needs to be cautious not to let the process become ABOUT that relationship alone, rather than about broader issues and other lastingly important relationships, including one's own relationship with oneself.
You are worthy of affection and friendship in your own right, and shouldn't be encouraged to feel that you need the validation of a therapist's affection in order to be worthy. These are themes which a genuinely skilled therapist would recognize and include in the therapy process.
I didn't know that you were having any problem with the CTSPP itself, or that they would in any way try to make trouble for me, apparently blaming me with whatever issues you were having with them. I don't know whether Dr X was or was not a member of that group. I didn't think you would have been trying to cause such problems, even when they arose. But I don't know whether the CTSPP faierly represented the situation when writing to my editor - I suspected they gave a misleading impression.
As for the original problem with Dr X, I hope I didn't give the impression that this was a basic flaw in the method and somehow inevitable. It is a basic and instrinsic RISK within any intensive and detailed psychotherapy, which most well-trained therapists recognize, look out for, and deal with professionally and indeed some analysts believe it is valuable ( when dealt with properly, of course ) and part of the process. But one of the reasons many analysts believe analysis of the analyst is important, is just so that they can recognize personal issues which could interfere with such situations arise, and deal with them analytically rather than personally.
Taking such a matter to the HPCSA or not doing so should surely be entirely your decision, and I'm sad to hear it if SASOP or someone there, leaned on you not to do so. It is NOT their professional or ethical role or function to prevent reasonable concerns like that from going to the HPCSA. Similarly, it should not be up to you to spot the transgressions - it was his task to recognize the potential transgressions and prevent them from occurring. And when you speak ot a whole file full of improper e-mails, this is not a single event on one day when he may have been careless or distracted, but apparently a consistent pattern over an extended period.
And of course it is the therapist's responsibility to see both wood and trees during the therapy, not yours.
That you still at times miss him is not unusual - it takes a while to recover and to move beyond such eperiences.
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments at the end of this message. I long ago decided that I should be frank and honest in such communicatons - there are already far too many people prepared to say nothing except what you would enjoy and accept, regardless of whether they are true or useful. I would not have got involved in the dangerous work as an expert witness in major human rights cases, except that I found hardly any other shrink or doctor had the integrity and chutzpah to do what was obviously both necessary and a professional ethical duty.
I would not expect you to agree with everything I said about analysis or the ethical dimension of your bad experiences - if I said nothing except what you already knew and agreed with, you would have gained nothing, and even irritatingly disagreeable opinions can be useful, like a knife-sharpener, in honing your own views and conclusions.
As you will perhaps have noticed, some other readers had met some similar experiences, and will have found our discussions useful.
I hope you will feel free to continue to visit the forum, as lurker or commentator. What I liked about the format, way back when I began it, was that it is genuinely interactive, and gained from the input of readers as well as the Experts themselves.


The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.

1
Our users say:
Posted by: cybershrink | 2010/07/18

Sorry, of course, if you were inadvertently upset at the time. You constructed the conversation in such an intellectual fashion, that I responded in like fashion, as although it may have reflected a degree of the traumatization you received at the hands of Dr X, you did not ask us to discuss that, rather than more theoretical and scientifically relevant questions.
I understand that what was happening, at a level below the apparent discourse, was, for instance, perhaps wanting to assure yourself of your worthiness for genuine affection, by wanting to see his affections and your own responses, as entirely natural and genuine.
The idea that the very therapeutic setting and analytic-type process itself tends to produce such elements often, which need to be recognized as by-products of the process and rarely as natural as they may feel, isn't necessarily pleasant or welcome. Its a bit like doing surgery under a necessary anaesthetic - one needs to be cautious in extrapolating from whatever happens or is possible under the anaesthetic to what might have happened without it.
And within serious therapy, the therapist needs to be cautious not to let the process become ABOUT that relationship alone, rather than about broader issues and other lastingly important relationships, including one's own relationship with oneself.
You are worthy of affection and friendship in your own right, and shouldn't be encouraged to feel that you need the validation of a therapist's affection in order to be worthy. These are themes which a genuinely skilled therapist would recognize and include in the therapy process.
I didn't know that you were having any problem with the CTSPP itself, or that they would in any way try to make trouble for me, apparently blaming me with whatever issues you were having with them. I don't know whether Dr X was or was not a member of that group. I didn't think you would have been trying to cause such problems, even when they arose. But I don't know whether the CTSPP faierly represented the situation when writing to my editor - I suspected they gave a misleading impression.
As for the original problem with Dr X, I hope I didn't give the impression that this was a basic flaw in the method and somehow inevitable. It is a basic and instrinsic RISK within any intensive and detailed psychotherapy, which most well-trained therapists recognize, look out for, and deal with professionally and indeed some analysts believe it is valuable ( when dealt with properly, of course ) and part of the process. But one of the reasons many analysts believe analysis of the analyst is important, is just so that they can recognize personal issues which could interfere with such situations arise, and deal with them analytically rather than personally.
Taking such a matter to the HPCSA or not doing so should surely be entirely your decision, and I'm sad to hear it if SASOP or someone there, leaned on you not to do so. It is NOT their professional or ethical role or function to prevent reasonable concerns like that from going to the HPCSA. Similarly, it should not be up to you to spot the transgressions - it was his task to recognize the potential transgressions and prevent them from occurring. And when you speak ot a whole file full of improper e-mails, this is not a single event on one day when he may have been careless or distracted, but apparently a consistent pattern over an extended period.
And of course it is the therapist's responsibility to see both wood and trees during the therapy, not yours.
That you still at times miss him is not unusual - it takes a while to recover and to move beyond such eperiences.
Thank you for your kind and encouraging comments at the end of this message. I long ago decided that I should be frank and honest in such communicatons - there are already far too many people prepared to say nothing except what you would enjoy and accept, regardless of whether they are true or useful. I would not have got involved in the dangerous work as an expert witness in major human rights cases, except that I found hardly any other shrink or doctor had the integrity and chutzpah to do what was obviously both necessary and a professional ethical duty.
I would not expect you to agree with everything I said about analysis or the ethical dimension of your bad experiences - if I said nothing except what you already knew and agreed with, you would have gained nothing, and even irritatingly disagreeable opinions can be useful, like a knife-sharpener, in honing your own views and conclusions.
As you will perhaps have noticed, some other readers had met some similar experiences, and will have found our discussions useful.
I hope you will feel free to continue to visit the forum, as lurker or commentator. What I liked about the format, way back when I began it, was that it is genuinely interactive, and gained from the input of readers as well as the Experts themselves.


Reply to cybershrink

Have your say

Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly.
Thanks for commenting! Your comment will appear on the site shortly.
advertisement