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

Therapist

Thanks CS. I wish there were indeed more clarity on the issue of professional misconduct. SASOP actually volunteered that in some cases emails (not mine but in theory) were acceptable. I have yet to find anybody in the psych profession who agrees with this viewpoint. I do feel however that his initial intentions re the emails (and I believe these are sometimes referred to as " boundary crossings"  where exceptions are made in the interests of the patient) were to afford me an avenue to verbaise my feelins (something I really struggle with when it comes to my feelings). I guess it degenerated into a familiarity and chattiness that was not quite therapy.

What nearly destroyed me altogether is that after he denied " his feelings" , he sent me an SMS stating: " D, you need to understand that you are where you are of your own making" . No doubt the fact that I played passive agressive and threw his feelings back at him, was what he was referring to - the professional risk was now too immense - he no longer had control of the situation. Had I the ability to understand what was at stake, he might well have been correct but I had absolutely no idea, I trusted him implicitly.

By sending me that SMS, he cashed in on my greatest vulnerability, my automatic tendency to take responsibility for other peoples feelings - I cannot even begin to explain to you what this did to me.

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

Its a bit like the old theological debates about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

And overlooking the prime issue of exploitation to debate specific sexual content, is like debating - not whether eating people is wrong, but whether or not it is permissable to use condiments.
I don't see how intimate and fliratious e-mails can be disguised as "boundary crossings" ( sounds like he should have got a stamp in his passport ? ) could be in the interests of any patient - if there were issues that could be beneficial, they need to be discussed in a therapy session, not external to it. Again, what I find despicable is this sense of blaming the victim, and pretending that ANY of what he did was somehow for your benefit. It is precisely this issue of KNOWING your points of vulnerability and cynically using them for his own purposes, that is entirely sleazy.
I continue to be concerned at "what this did to you" - and disappointed that those who pretended to be Wise Men when pronouncing on the matter, don't seem to have taken this into account. The mere fact that someone like you, with so many better things to do and enjoy in life, has been left still brooding, worrying, and feeling at fault, proves why such behaviour as his is reprehensible. By handling him so gently, they may have prevented him from fully understanding or making the necessary changes.

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.

2
Our users say:
Posted by: M | 2010-09-13

Shocking! How can any organisation that is supposed to protect the goodness of the profession, protect someone like this? What exactly is their function?

Reply to M
Posted by: cybershrink | 2010-09-13

Its a bit like the old theological debates about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.

And overlooking the prime issue of exploitation to debate specific sexual content, is like debating - not whether eating people is wrong, but whether or not it is permissable to use condiments.
I don't see how intimate and fliratious e-mails can be disguised as "boundary crossings" ( sounds like he should have got a stamp in his passport ? ) could be in the interests of any patient - if there were issues that could be beneficial, they need to be discussed in a therapy session, not external to it. Again, what I find despicable is this sense of blaming the victim, and pretending that ANY of what he did was somehow for your benefit. It is precisely this issue of KNOWING your points of vulnerability and cynically using them for his own purposes, that is entirely sleazy.
I continue to be concerned at "what this did to you" - and disappointed that those who pretended to be Wise Men when pronouncing on the matter, don't seem to have taken this into account. The mere fact that someone like you, with so many better things to do and enjoy in life, has been left still brooding, worrying, and feeling at fault, proves why such behaviour as his is reprehensible. By handling him so gently, they may have prevented him from fully understanding or making the necessary changes.

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