Posted by lucie lu on September 18, 2008, at 19:30:35
In reply to Re: dual relationship with therapist?, posted by lemonaide on September 18, 2008, at 18:44:32
The article was not suggesting those sorts of dual relationships. The author was including things like living in a small community (does the T stop going to church if it's the only one in town and his patients also go?), being in the military (ditto), a professional relationship (supervision?), and other settings (gay communities, sports communities) where extra-therapeutic contact is unavoidable. In some settings, eg police, apparently it is even mandated.
The author correctly points out the distinction betwen boundary crossings and boundary violations. Lemonaide, your T was guilty of numerous boundary violations, from what I remember. That is very different from boundary crossings, which can include very healing things like accompanying a patient to an appt or somewhere else where they should go, but can't without help from their T, taking a walk with a depressesd patient, etc. Is that wrong or untherapeutic?
I would be among the first to condemn any exploitative relationship (including some that have been discussed on this board). But I have to agree with this author on most points, which seem to be presented responsibly, including:
"There is a prevalent erroneous and unfounded belief about the 'slippery slope' that claims that minor boundary crossings **inevitably** lead to boundary violations and sexual relationships. This somewhat paranoid approach is based on the 'snow ball' effect. It predicts that the giving of a simple gift likely ends up in a business relationship. A therapist's self disclosure becomes an intricate social relationship. A non-sexual hug turns into a sexual relationship.
A rigid attitude towards boundary crossings stems, in part, from what has been called 'sexualizing boundaries." This is another distorted view that sees *all* boundary crossings as sexual in nature."Note - boundary crossings, not violations.
I have to say, and many of you who also share a *good, caring, and health-promoting* relationship with your Ts -- the giving of a small gift, one (or more) non-sexual hug(s) when the occassion called for it, or a few (solicited) items of self-disclosure -- were these in any way exploitative? Or were they therapeutic, and done with only your best interests in mind? Those are examples of boundary crossings.
This paper condemns in no uncertain terms ALL sexual and exploitative relationships between Ts and patients. So I don't see what is objectionable about what this author has written. It seems very thoughtful and responsible to me. I think that, especially with our histories where it might be a temptation, we need to take care to avoid knee-jerk reactions without looking carefully at the facts.
Lucie
poster:lucie lu
thread:852711
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20080906/msgs/852752.html