advertisement
Question
Posted by: D | 2010/09/13

re Therapist

Hi CS

I don''t know the finer details of what constitutes professional misconduct or as HPCSA put it " unprofessional conduct becoming of..." . I didn''t really investigate it any further as I did not have the heart to take it to the HPCSA. I did discuss it with a legal colleague who was flabbergasted by all the emails and felt that it could go even further than the HPCSA. However none of the emails were " sexually"  explicit and in my complaint I did not allege countertransference, only mismanagement. I only outlined all the incidents that led to the traumatic end. Many of the psychiatrists that I have consulted felt that it should go to the HPCSA but I have given my word and am trying to hang onto the fact that his intentions were sincere. When SASOP came back - they based their actions on a detailed report given by the senior therapist that they appointed. The senior therapist claimed that based only on my evidence " without any explanation or opinion elicited by Dr X"  (I suppose thereby intimating that he had either fully confessed or that they fully believed me), they could not find evidence of professional misconduct but Dr X would be required to undergo his own depth therapy process with this senior therapist. I don''t know, perhaps there is a difference between boundary blurring and boundary violation?

The other aspect that I suppose makes me doubt myself is that if it is so obvious to everyone else, why was it not obvious to Dr X. There is no disputing his superior intelligence - what happened to his judgement?

Thanks CS

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

The sincerity of his intentions is NOT a fact. It is a supposition, a theory which you quite understandably choose to hold.
I don't know why some people seem entranced by the issue of whether the e-mails were sexually explicit - they were wentirely as wrong and unethical whether or not their content was sexually explicitt. Anyone who misunderstands that doesn't understand the ethical isues involved.
SASOP is a largely self-serving organization run by a really small number of shrinks in a self-perpetuating clique, and most other shrinks are too busy in practice to want to get involved in organizational politics. They as a structure have NO basis for claiming any expertise in ethical matters and no organizational ability to examine and pronounce on such issues.
There is no relevant difference here between boudnary violations and boundary blurring.
Intelligence has absoluely nothing to do with it. I have known many senior academics ( especially in SA where such appointments are usually made on Political and political grounds, unrelated to genuine intelletual and academic abilities ) who are of dismal intelligence. But even intelligent people do stupid things when they allow their hormones and other anatomical priorities to rule.
I don't know who Dr X is, but can't think of anyone who I would consider of indisputable "superior intelligence" in this local community. Some senior shrinks are brilliant at self-promotion, at developing pseudo-research ( whatever is fundable, usually by drug companies, who often do most of the actual work involved so as to make sure the results match their needs ), and at discouraging genuinely intelligent and able juniors who could soon outshine them, preferring toadies and ego-massagers.
We have no good evidence that he ever had particularly impressive "judgement" ; and in a situation where he wanted to flirt and had many reasons to expect to be able to get away with it, he probably didn't get round to applying whatever judgement he might have.
What should have concerned those who looked into this case is an issue I['m sure you are well familiar with in law - where someone with power and position is almost accidentally discovered doing something really wrong ( and it is largely a matter of chance that he in this instance did this with someone of your intelligence, persistance and actual intellectual and ethical concerns ) - one must wonder whether he may have done similar things on other occasions, and had grown used to getting away with it. Nothing encourages improper conduct so effectively as discovering that you can get away with it.


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.

4
Our users say:
Posted by: anon | 2010/09/13

This seems so wrong. You kinda go to therapy to get better don''t ya? I think that you have been very kind to the Dr - are you sure this is for the best?

Hang in there.

Reply to anon
Posted by: Nick | 2010/09/13

His judgement was being dictated to by his little head, not the big one. Sad to say.

Reply to Nick
Posted by: Maria | 2010/09/13

Sadly D, high intelligence is no indicator of good judgement.

Reply to Maria
Posted by: cybershrink | 2010/09/13

The sincerity of his intentions is NOT a fact. It is a supposition, a theory which you quite understandably choose to hold.
I don't know why some people seem entranced by the issue of whether the e-mails were sexually explicit - they were wentirely as wrong and unethical whether or not their content was sexually explicitt. Anyone who misunderstands that doesn't understand the ethical isues involved.
SASOP is a largely self-serving organization run by a really small number of shrinks in a self-perpetuating clique, and most other shrinks are too busy in practice to want to get involved in organizational politics. They as a structure have NO basis for claiming any expertise in ethical matters and no organizational ability to examine and pronounce on such issues.
There is no relevant difference here between boudnary violations and boundary blurring.
Intelligence has absoluely nothing to do with it. I have known many senior academics ( especially in SA where such appointments are usually made on Political and political grounds, unrelated to genuine intelletual and academic abilities ) who are of dismal intelligence. But even intelligent people do stupid things when they allow their hormones and other anatomical priorities to rule.
I don't know who Dr X is, but can't think of anyone who I would consider of indisputable "superior intelligence" in this local community. Some senior shrinks are brilliant at self-promotion, at developing pseudo-research ( whatever is fundable, usually by drug companies, who often do most of the actual work involved so as to make sure the results match their needs ), and at discouraging genuinely intelligent and able juniors who could soon outshine them, preferring toadies and ego-massagers.
We have no good evidence that he ever had particularly impressive "judgement" ; and in a situation where he wanted to flirt and had many reasons to expect to be able to get away with it, he probably didn't get round to applying whatever judgement he might have.
What should have concerned those who looked into this case is an issue I['m sure you are well familiar with in law - where someone with power and position is almost accidentally discovered doing something really wrong ( and it is largely a matter of chance that he in this instance did this with someone of your intelligence, persistance and actual intellectual and ethical concerns ) - one must wonder whether he may have done similar things on other occasions, and had grown used to getting away with it. Nothing encourages improper conduct so effectively as discovering that you can get away with it.


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