![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 26 to 50 of 91. Go back in thread:
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 26, 2004, at 20:27:50
In reply to Getting involved mutally isn't therapy. It's abuse, posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 20:20:05
No jumping on you lol but some people after the 2 year waiting period for a psychologist have married their T, so I personally do not agree. I do not see things in black and white I see a lot of gray in this area..Just my opinion
Posted by toomuchpain on April 26, 2004, at 21:30:48
In reply to Getting involved mutally isn't therapy. It's abuse, posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 20:20:05
i cant say i agree totally ... therapist are normal people too ... u can not say it is abuse .. i have just been through alot of stuff with my former t and i still would not call it abuse ... i mean ..yes it is wrong if they do it over and ver again but a one time thing soemtimes people make mistakes ... that is just my opinion ... but i would have to say i dont agree with u ...
Posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 22:03:30
In reply to Re: Getting involved mutally isn't therapy. It's abuse, posted by toomuchpain on April 26, 2004, at 21:30:48
How would you define crossing boundaries in therapy?
Posted by joslynn on April 27, 2004, at 8:17:36
In reply to Re: I think this is a good topic, posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 22:03:30
I am glad you said something, I agree but could not find the words that you did to express it.
(Also, my understanding of the 2-year waiting period does not mean that you have an affair with a patient while seeing them, but wait 2 years to marry them. I thought it meant, you have to wait 2 years to even date, and even then, it's questionable.)
Pdocs can never get involved with patients according to the American Psychiatric Association and I do not know the rules for social workers.
It is to protect us. It is not about them.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 10:06:15
In reply to Shadow, I agree w/ you, posted by joslynn on April 27, 2004, at 8:17:36
I did state in my post above AFTER the two year waiting period. Its less restrictive for social workers....Also some, many do go on to marry a client....either after that time or post job...they are human and where you meet cannot always be predicted. I respect all opinions I just do not agree wirh this one
> I am glad you said something, I agree but could not find the words that you did to express it.
>
> (Also, my understanding of the 2-year waiting period does not mean that you have an affair with a patient while seeing them, but wait 2 years to marry them. I thought it meant, you have to wait 2 years to even date, and even then, it's questionable.)
>
> Pdocs can never get involved with patients according to the American Psychiatric Association and I do not know the rules for social workers.
>
> It is to protect us. It is not about them.
Posted by shadows721 on April 27, 2004, at 18:49:30
In reply to Shadow, I agree w/ you, posted by joslynn on April 27, 2004, at 8:17:36
As I thought, my t stated that it is not ethical for a therapist to start having a relationship with the client. Also, they stated in school they were informed that it is something that some people feel in therapy. When they do, they need to discuss it openly with the t. Their issues may get addressed if this keeps going on in their mind. In addition, if a t starts to have feelings for the client and wants a relationship, they need to transfer the client to another therapist. End result, the client has the most to loose in this situation.
The very reason that we go into therapy is because we have issues that need to be addressed. The t is in power position and can in this case take advantage of the client.
It is no coincidence that my post of about boundary issues wasn't answered. Effective therapy is based around healthy boundaries. I have met people in my life who were so abused by their families of origin that they couldn't even define their own boundaries. Boundaries are also about empowerment.
I didn't write this to condemn. I wrote it out of caring. I can't stand for people to get hurt.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:26:38
In reply to I got info on this from my t today, posted by shadows721 on April 27, 2004, at 18:49:30
Shadow I did not reply to you on boundaries because that is what they are....boundaries set up by one or both of you...IF both of you agree and its mutual then it THAT boundary or line drawn and that boundary could have a wide circle...I see what you posted on what your T said and that IS true however it is also true that they CAN date you..or marry you 2 plus years AFTER therapy ends...so I didnt reply as not to continue to debate a issues we made our collective points on.
> As I thought, my t stated that it is not ethical for a therapist to start having a relationship with the client. Also, they stated in school they were informed that it is something that some people feel in therapy. When they do, they need to discuss it openly with the t. Their issues may get addressed if this keeps going on in their mind. In addition, if a t starts to have feelings for the client and wants a relationship, they need to transfer the client to another therapist. End result, the client has the most to loose in this situation.
>
> The very reason that we go into therapy is because we have issues that need to be addressed. The t is in power position and can in this case take advantage of the client.
>
> It is no coincidence that my post of about boundary issues wasn't answered. Effective therapy is based around healthy boundaries. I have met people in my life who were so abused by their families of origin that they couldn't even define their own boundaries. Boundaries are also about empowerment.
>
> I didn't write this to condemn. I wrote it out of caring. I can't stand for people to get hurt.
>
>
Posted by pinkeye on April 27, 2004, at 20:10:57
In reply to Re: I got info on this from my t today, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 19:26:38
Hi Fallsfall,
I really appreciate your standing. Though, however there is something I need to caution you about. I was just like you, thinking that I would be willing to develop a relationship with my therapist after a few years, but now I am rethinking my stand. Mainly because, the relationship is truly a major power imbalanace.When I think what I really like about him, it is mostly about how much he cares for me. But in reality that will not be the case. In reality, he cannot care as much as he does in the therapy room. And frankly it is a quite selfish of me to try to say I love my therapist, when I don't know anything about him - All I am saying really when I say I love him is that I love his caring.
For real love, there needs to be selfless caring on both ends and I believe cannot develop when there is a major power imbalance. Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before the power imbalance strikes you.
And howmuchever you try, it is not going to be an equal relationship. And it is bad for both of you. You will most likely get hurt.. and your therpaist will too. Of course it is still ok to enter into a relationship knowing this fully, but I am just warning you the risks of it breaking are way too high.
Pinkeye.
Posted by joslynn on April 28, 2004, at 13:01:45
In reply to Re: Fallsfall, posted by pinkeye on April 27, 2004, at 20:10:57
I think that a lot of us come to therapy partly because we have not definied healthy boundaries between ourselves and other people, or even between ourselves and our thoughts, if that makes sense. So, I feel like in the professional relationship, we come there with a vulnerability about boundaries, even if we don't see it. I think it is the T's job to see our vulnerabilities and protect them.
Posted by shadows721 on April 28, 2004, at 17:39:51
In reply to Boundaries, posted by joslynn on April 28, 2004, at 13:01:45
I agree with you about the boundary issues. I believe that as clients we are very vunerable. We have usually been a victim of something or someone. We reply that old pain over and over again with new people and new situations. It's leads to the same pain over and over again. That's what therapy is for. It helps us see what we are doing to ourselves. For example, choosing someone unconsciously that will replay that old pain. It's familiar territory, but familiar is not good. It's keeps us from learning and having freedom from our old pain. How can we learn if we keep allowing someone to abuse us, abuse ourselves, or abusing others?
We don't choose people in our lives consciously. Most so called "attractions" are really a bound with a past pain. If we take a chance to change, we can look deeply into our relationships and ask how are they resembling my past pain? What is there in this for me to really see about myself? After all, all that is in front of me in my life is of my choosing. No one put me here but me. Am I attracted to unavailable people to perpetuate more pain, because I feel I really deserve no true love? Am I starting to like myself or am I still stuck in the pain?
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 8:45:04
In reply to Is the attraction mutual?, posted by BigFish on April 13, 2004, at 17:30:22
Hi. I'm jumping in very late and I have to admit I haven't read this whole thread yet.
I got the feeling for awhile that the attraction to my T might be mutual, from her flirting, from stuff she said. When I finally brought up that I was wondering about it, she admitted to me that it was.
I'm not sure if that was a good idea. It's been hard for me. It's very frustrating and tantalizing, and I think it may also inhibit me from talking openly about some stuff, but on the other hand, I respected her honesty, and since I was already aware of it, it was validating for me to hear it. I was also so happy at the time to know it, although I think I actually got depressed afterwards. Sounds paradoxical/illogical, I know. How can you be happy and depressed at the same time.
Posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 20:53:17
In reply to Getting involved mutally isn't therapy. It's abuse, posted by shadows721 on April 26, 2004, at 20:20:05
I agree with you, Shadows. The therapy relationship is imbalanced and therapists need to not use that imbalance to take advantage of the client. It is a huge responsibility.
Some therapists may not realize they are being abusive. They might genuinely feel attracted or feel love. But it is their responsibility to keep to the boundaries and not say or do anything that puts clients at risk. We are vulnerable. There is so much potential for harm if our therapists cross the line.
If clients test the line, which is understandable because of the feelings that can come up in therapy, it is the therapist that needs to re-establish the line. If it's hard to do, they need to talk to another therapist or a supervisor or a consultant or whatever to figure out how to keep the therapy relationship professional and in the client's best interest.
Posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
In reply to Re: Shadow, I agree w/ you/ I DO NOT, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 27, 2004, at 10:06:15
>Pdocs can never get involved with patients according to the American Psychiatric Association and I do not know the rules for social workers.
>Its less restrictive for social workers
OK, so I was curious and went and looked up some info on this. I've cited from 3 codes of ethics below. As for legal restrictions, these probably vary by state as most things do. But the ethics codes are by prof. organization. These below are the american ones.
Psychologists: APA Code of Ethics
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#10_08[ my comment: The 2-year period is only the first part of the rule. Read the second part--it is very important. I would bet that by "most unusual circumstances" they are talking about people who live in really remote places with very small populations and situations like that]
10.08 Sexual Intimacies With Former Therapy Clients/Patients
(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)
Social Workers: NASW Code of Ethics
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp[my comment: No time limit. Note the "extraordinary circumstances" part in section C--see my comment above]
1.09 Sexual Relationships
(a) Social workers should under no circumstances engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with current clients, whether such contact is consensual or forced.(b) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a close personal relationship when there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. Sexual activity or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a personal relationship has the potential to be harmful to the client and may make it difficult for the social worker and client to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Social workers--not their clients, their clients' relatives, or other individuals with whom the client maintains a personal relationship--assume the full burden for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries.
(c) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with former clients because of the potential for harm to the client. If social workers engage in conduct contrary to this prohibition or claim that an exception to this prohibition is warranted because of extraordinary circumstances, it is social workers--not their clients--who assume the full burden of demonstrating that the former client has not been exploited, coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally.
(d) Social workers should not provide clinical services to individuals with whom they have had a prior sexual relationship. Providing clinical services to a former sexual partner has the potential to be harmful to the individual and is likely to make it difficult for the social worker and individual to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
Psychiatrists: Am. Psychiatric Assoc. code of ethics
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/medicalethics2001_42001.cfm[my comment: No time limit. And, the wording here speaks to the issues we've been talking about]
The requirement that the physician conduct himself/herself with propriety in his/her profession and in all the actions of his/her life is especially important in the case of the psychiatrist because the patient tends to model his/her behavior after that of his/her psychiatrist by identification. Further, the necessary intensity of the treatment relationship may tend to activate sexual and other needs and fantasies on the part of both patient and psychiatrist, while weakening the objectivity necessary for control. Additionally, the inherent inequality in the doctorpatient relationship may lead to exploitation of the patient. Sexual activity with a current or former patient is unethical.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:40:24
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
Gosh, that's depressing.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
In reply to Re: the rules, posted by noa on April 29, 2004, at 21:31:57
I do not dispute anything you posted I have been to the site,,,and know the code and revisions on it.....and see the last part...I copied you on..it IS done,,,,and some have married their psychologist...Just know, it is and has been done..Now I dont want anyone waiting on that to happen but.,....tis been done and they KNOW how to do it..as I posted somewhere before I know a couple of cases and I saw a post by another poster a while back saying her old T she found out he married a former client..SO IT IS DONE AND AS IT SEZ....they check to make sure no exploitation...Nobody HAS to do it...it is just a case of it IS possible :) I am also sure they could write it all up to fit all the critera if need be and they were bottom feeders but it happens and can end happy
<<(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships.)>>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:44:55
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:40:24
>
> Gosh, that's depressing.AND SEE MY POST
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:45:22
In reply to Re: the rules » noa, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:41:48
that makes me feel a teensy bit better.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:48:49
In reply to Re: the rules/:: (((crushed )) why? » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:44:55
I did, thanks Fallen.I'm just depressed because I want so badly to believe it *can* happen with my T someday (even if it's highly unlikely). I guess the unlikelihood is pretty dang depressing to me right now, too, though.
I feel really, really bad.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:51:52
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:45:22
>
> that makes me feel a teensy bit better.I figured it would :) and I would post more but can't on this in here but KNOW it does happen :)
NOW...THAT DOESNT MEAN DO IT,,,Just that it can be done
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:41
In reply to Re: the rules/:: (((crushed )) why? » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:48:49
(((((((( crushed ))))))) I wish you didnt feel so badly :( AND that I could take some of that pain away....PLEASE read between the lines in my last post and it may perk you more...though I am not saying do it or its good...but some Ts plan for a while to set records up ahead....and they KNOW it wont mess with that client and stuff long term....its not always a good thing please know that...but in some cases... :D My dog snorted hello btw lol
> I did, thanks Fallen.
>
> I'm just depressed because I want so badly to believe it *can* happen with my T someday (even if it's highly unlikely). I guess the unlikelihood is pretty dang depressing to me right now, too, though.
>
> I feel really, really bad.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:51
In reply to Re: the rules » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:51:52
I really don't think my T will do it, anyway. I feel like hell. :(> >
> > that makes me feel a teensy bit better.
>
> I figured it would :) and I would post more but can't on this in here but KNOW it does happen :)
> NOW...THAT DOESNT MEAN DO IT,,,Just that it can be done
>
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:58:22
In reply to Re: the rules » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 21:55:51
YOU feel like HECK YOU MEAN RIGHT? Why so down tonight hon?? I AM ON FOR A WHILE....I'LL CHAT WITH YOU IN HERE...You done with her...staying ??
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 22:34:15
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 21:58:22
yeah, heck, did i violate the rules? sorry dr. bob, if i did.i guess i'm staying with her, at least for now. things have gotten better since she woke up and smelled her client leaving.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 23:48:33
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » Fallen4MyT, posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 22:34:15
Sorry I didnt see this sooner..well good if shes being ok with you....she best not mess with you I dont wanna hurt her :P BUT YES...THERE IS HOPE...I am going to bed soon but...wanted to send you to bed with that
hugs and see you tomorrow or so?
>
> yeah, heck, did i violate the rules? sorry dr. bob, if i did.
>
> i guess i'm staying with her, at least for now. things have gotten better since she woke up and smelled her client leaving.
Posted by crushedout on April 29, 2004, at 23:53:05
In reply to Re: the rules CRUSHED » crushedout, posted by Fallen4MyT on April 29, 2004, at 23:48:33
thank you fallen. yes you will see me around a lot i bet.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.