Posted by Tamar on June 18, 2006, at 17:32:43
In reply to As could be expected., posted by Dinah on June 18, 2006, at 12:28:23
> He said it wasn't a job. Just a two month assignment. He said it wasn't my business if he took a two month assignment, and I agreed but insisted it was my business to be informed of how said assignment would affect my therapy.
I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to… Job or assignment, you are right. What matters to you is how it affects your therapy. Surely he can understand that.
> He said it was my choice what to do about moving. I agreed but insisted that I had the right to all information when making my choice. And that it was very bad of him to decide for me that this wasn't important and not to tell me. Not just thoughtless or careless of my feelings and need for security as usual. But bad. I made a choice that was bad enough before, but now it was a choice made for nothing.
I think ‘bad’ is apt, because as you were making the decision he was assuring you that your therapy would be more stable.
> Thursday he told me he could only see clients at night and *maybe* at lunch. Today he said he was sure he could see me at lunch, so I was upset about nothing. It wouldn't be like last time. I suggested to him that if he was certain he could tell me each Sunday what day and time he could see me that week, that he back that up by promising to give me a free session if he couldn't make that time because of work. When he was silent, I noted that he was sure enough to risk my pain, but not sure enough to risk his money. I then declined the second appointment during the week, because I didn't want to be waiting for the phone to ring like a middle school girl waiting for a call from a guy. He said that I could make that choice if I wished.
Oh dear. He got that so wrong. And yet, it really does sound as if he hasn’t managed to organise things to guarantee that he can see you during the week. I would think that when he takes an ‘assignment’ he should make his existing clients part of the negotiations. He should be able to say, “I need to be able to offer a longstanding client a regular Wednesday lunchtime appointment,” and make sure his employers are willing to agree to that. It’s not a lot to ask.
> When I said that he encouraged me to stay, he replied that it wasn't because he wanted me to stay, but because I seemed upset at the thought of leaving. Wow. Thanks.
Grrrr. It seems to me that you were upset at the thought of leaving a relationship with him that you were both fighting to repair, and he encouraged you to stay by indicting that he was willing to do his part to repair it. But if he was misleading you, deliberately or unintentionally, he needs to take responsibility for that. It’s not as simple as saying you seemed upset at the thought of leaving.
> He wanted to know if I intended to continue therapy. I told him I'd like to continue to see him long enough to have my love and hate for him turn to indifference. He said he didn't know if he was willing to continue therapy under those circumstances. I told him that he had hurt me enough already. Was he going to hurt me more by abandoning and rejecting and terminating me while I still felt an attachment to him? Then I said some more things that I probably can't repeat here under Dr. Bob's rules.
Well, I suppose it’s a reasonable enough goal. Why shouldn’t you want to work with him on diminishing your attachment? What’s his problem with that? Why isn’t he willing to do therapy under those circumstances?
> As it stands now, I have an engagement next Sunday, so we have an appointment for two Sundays from now. I'll make sure to stay at my maximum Risperdal dose. And I'll try to make it work while staying at home with my husband and son. If I don't feel like I can do this, I'll have to consider what to do next.
>
> He has disappointed me greatly.Yes. Absolutely. He doesn’t like criticism much, does he? I suspect it’s because he knows you’re right. And yet, you say that eventually he’s usually prepared to admit that he might be wrong. I hope he gets to that point PDQ.
> All the time he kept everything in that neutral language. He didn't hurt me, I felt hurt. Stuff like that. Towards the end he said that he thought he had told me, that he believed me when I said he hadn't, and that if he hadn't told me as he thought he had then that was negligent and bad. After he repeated that a few times, I told him that since he believed me when I said we'd never discussed this, he should drop the conditional "if" and just say that not telling me was negligent and bad. And he did.
>
> I just don't know...I’m so sorry Dinah. I hope the next two weeks are bearable.
poster:Tamar
thread:657367
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060615/msgs/658413.html