![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:44:42
In reply to Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by zazenduckie on February 1, 2007, at 9:04:19
I'm sorry Zazenduckie, it seems that I have hijacked your thread. You've been silent since your first post.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:00:17
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
"If clinicians are able to diagnose patients, why can they not diagnose each other? "
Theyaren't diagnosing each other because they aren't doing therapy on each other.
"Again, why aren't they screened out" - the supervision isn't that long & problems show up much later - this guy was 64.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:02:08
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
"If they were accountants standing around saying they had no idea Bob was an embezzler, I could maybe understand that. They are accountants. They are trained to know numbers. But these are psychiatric professionals. They are supposedly trained to know people's mental health status."
This idea only works if they are working together on a case. Otherwise it doesn't - it's like saying if you're an accountant how come you didn't see enron coming? You don't work at enron so you couldn't possibly know.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:32:43
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:00:17
> Theyaren't diagnosing each other because they aren't doing therapy on each other.Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes. My point is that if they have the skills to assess patients, why do they not have the skills to assess each other? And don't they have a moral duty to?
> "Again, why aren't they screened out" - the supervision isn't that long & problems show up much later - this guy was 64.But it takes YEARS to earn a doctorate and even after you are granted your degree, you have another year of supervised practice (at least in my country).
When you say "this guy was 64" do you mean that you think he practiced for thirty some odd years without any ethical lapses and suddenly something changed and he thought completely out of the blue it was fine to treat his patients like dogs? Tyrell used his patients as sexual slaves for more than twenty years.
I think whatever character flaw allows a person to do these kinds of sick things to other vulnerable human beings is present their whole life. I think it would have been present during their training. (Although there are people who undergo personality changes after head injuries or brain tumors. I don't think that's the case here).
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:43:25
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:02:08
> This idea only works if they are working together on a case. Otherwise it doesn't - it's like saying if you're an accountant how come you didn't see enron coming? You don't work at enron so you couldn't possibly know.
Of course. I certainly don't expect other clinicians who have had absolutely no contact or interactions with a doctor to know if he is abusive.
(I just realized in my last posts I wrote Tyrell but meant to write Tyhurst)
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:48:19
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:32:43
Life isn't perfect and bad professionals get into every profession and create havoc. I've said that and am saying it again.
By also stand by the prior things I've said & will leave it at that.
"Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes."
This is not true and somewhat provocative - not everyone has had the same terrible experiences as you have. Good practioners are out there & will not diagnose only after a few hours. Forensic pdocs do not diagnosis - they are called into observe.
I feel you are making alot of generalizations and assumptions.
People generally want to help and not hurt people further. I don't believe that most people would turn a blind eye to a bad professional. Does it happen yes.But do I think it's instutionalized as you imply? Absolutley not.
I'm sorry you have had some bad experiences, but don't translate that to mean *everyone*.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 10:06:00
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:48:19
> This is not true and somewhat provocativeBut it absolutely is true. What do you think I am lying about? Clinicians are hired to assess people for courts and testify about their ability to parent or whether they were truly injured in a car accident or whether they are responsible for their actions in criminal cases after spending only hours with them. Psychiatrists can and do lock people up and drug them after talking to them for less than an hour.
>not everyone has had the same terrible experiences as you have.I have never said that everybody has. But isn't it awful that these things happened to me. Why do you seem to find my expressing my experiences so offensive? The fact that I was abused does not mean that there are no "good practitioners out there" but it does mean there is a problem that needs to be recognized and addressed.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 10:06:00
>>"t it absolutely is true. What do you think I am lying about? Clinicians are hired to assess people for courts and testify about their ability to parent or whether they were truly injured in a car accident or whether they are responsible for their actions in criminal cases after spending only hours with them. Psychiatrists can and do lock people up and drug them after talking to them for less than an hour."
Assess is the KEY word. Assessing is not diagnosing. You are assessed in an ER but you are not diagnosed. Same thing with courts. They are not the same thing.
I never said you were lying either. I said I do not agree with with you and that the assumptions and generalizations are not true. Please do not make assumptions about my statements.
The problem does need to be recognized and addressed; I never said it didn't need to be - i also said multiple times it is good practice to do research - the woman was wearing a dog collar was not in the ER - she was in long term therapy - for which it would be good as a patient to be informed as to practices as I stated multiple times before.
>>"I have never said that everybody has. But isn't it awful that these things happened to me. Why do you seem to find my expressing my experiences so offensive? "
??? I'm not offended & have never said I was so please don't put words in my mouth.
I said I do not agree with your assumptions and generalizations because you aren't talking just about *your* experience - you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
That's not fair.
Sorry you have had bad experiences but if you are going to talk about you and your experience, than do so - but again, please don't generalize.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:02:03
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
> Assess is the KEY word. Assessing is not diagnosing. You are assessed in an ER but you are not diagnosed. Same thing with courts. They are not the same thing.Yes, I am being vague and using assess and diagnose interchangeably. But my point remains the same - that clinicians should be assessing/diagnosing each other for pathology before they are granted degrees and admission into professional associations.
> I never said you were lying either. I said I do not agree with with youYou actually wrote "this is not true" not I disagree with this point.
>Please do not make assumptions about my statements.I am trying not to. But can't you see how you are making many many assumptions about mine. That I'm somehow saying that there are no good therapists???? Or saying that everyone has had bad therapy experiences???? What generalizations exactly am I making? I don't believe I am making any. I think you are assuming generalizations where I'm not making any. If you could point them out to me, perhaps I can clarify.
> The problem does need to be recognized and addressed; I never said it didn't need to be - i also said multiple times it is good practice to do research - the woman was wearing a dog collar was not in the ER - she was in long term therapy - for which it would be good as a patient to be informed as to practices as I stated multiple times before.
See, the way I am reading your posts is that it is the patient who is responsible for not entering into abusive therapeutic relationships. When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.
> ??? I'm not offended & have never said I was so please don't put words in my mouth.No, you never did say you were offended. I didn't put words in your mouth. I said that you "seemed" to be, by the tone of your posts, but that could easily be the way that I am reading them. Posts lack facial expression and tone of voice, all the nonverbal cues that help someone determine the intent behind the words. That is why people can get so quickly upset by emails. They can't "hear" what is being said.
>you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
Um. I don't understand your point exactly. Are you upset that I am saying ALL training programs should be more closely screening ALL their trainees?
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:02:03
these are very big generalization in my opinion.
>>>>Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes.
These are big assumptions in my opinion
>>>they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?”“>>>When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.”
You have assumed I thought something which I did not.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:29:55
In reply to assumptions and generalizations, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
& definitions
assumption -1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
generalizing1. to infer (a general principle, trend, etc.) from particular facts, statistics, or the like.
2. to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.
3. to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to.
4. to make general; bring into general use or knowledge.Just to be clear.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:45:32
In reply to assumptions and generalizations, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
> these are very big generalization in my opinion.
>
> >>>>Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes.
To discuss this issue, it is necessary to make some generalizations, meaning "a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class." It is impossible to discuss any large issue otherwise. I could understand your taking offense if I was making untrue statements like "all psychiatrists are abusive" but I'm not.I don't understand your objections to the above paragraph. Society does grant psychiatrists powers that are not afforded to someone in the general public. That is a generalization that is absolutely true. Their opinion holds a great deal of weight because they have been trained to assess people's mental status. So, in divorce cases, the judge will listen to a clinician's opinion about who should be granted custody, an opinion they have reached after spending only a few hours with the parent(s) because society believes that doctor has special knowledge. Or in criminal cases, the judge asks the psychiatrist's opinion about the person's ability to know right from wrong. And psychiatrists can and do commit people. Society lets them do these things because it believes psychiatrists are able to make assessments about people's mental status. My point was they testify in court and commit people after spending a very short time amount of time with patients in comparison to the years they spend with each other in training. I don't understand your objection to these points or how you view them as untrue or unfair generalizations.
> These are big assumptions in my opinion
> >>>they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?”You left off the "if" This is not an assumption. It is logical problem I am struggling to comprehend. I am asking a question.
>
> “>>>When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.”
>
> You have assumed I thought something which I did not.Again, it is a question. I wrote clearly "I interpret you to mean." I am asking you to clarify or correct me if I am interpreting you wrongly.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 12:18:41
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
> you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
And you are as well. When you write...
People generally want to help and not hurt people further. I don't believe that most people would turn a blind eye to a bad professional
those are generalizations. "Most people" is a generalization. That is a belief you hold. It is an essential part of having a conversation about a large issue because it is impossible to talk about specific incidents only. The fact that you are making a generalization does not make what you've said necessarily inaccurate or "not fair"
Posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:05:37
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:09:03
I can't agree with you. I was treated by just such a psychiatrist - respected, retired Head of Department of a well-known university and three hospitals that fall under it. He used the excuse that he needed to give me meds via intramuscular injection to strip me, fondle me and rape me. He died in his bed several years later, still respected and revered. His community never said a word. I am sure I was not his only victim, just one of the last of a sordid string of unhappy women. I never had the courage to say anything, believing it was my fault that I had been so sexually provocative that he was forced to respond. I am sure that the others before me believed the same thing. I hope that at some point they were able to see the truth.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 13:10:53
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:05:37
I am really sorry to hear that - did other people know of the abuse? Or they just assumed he was joe good guy - people in respected positions do abuse others - I'd be shocked to find out other people knew it was going on and did nothing.
But I am sorry this happened to you.
Posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:21:17
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
>>But people who are more seriously mentally ill are not in a position where they are able to do this. It is unreasonable to expect them to >>be able to. Someone who is seriously depressed can barely get out of bed, let alone research therapy practice standards.<<
I just want to add to this. There is so much secrecy around the profession, because of Freudian concepts of the therapist being a "blank slate" that it is very difficult to know anything about them at all. Usually you are lucky if you have a referral from another trusted professional. As for the client being able to judge them, it is simply impossible. They cannot be scrutinised.
If it is difficult with a heart specialist, it is almost impossible with a mental health specialist. Apart from the self-deprecating, depressed, even perhaps delusional state of the mental health user.
I think the boards need to take much more responsability, and need to enforce mandatory supervision for all professionals. Far too many are slipping through the cracks and abusing clients.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 14:02:10
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:05:37
> I never had the courage to say anything, believing it was my fault
Hi vwoolf,
I'm so sorry that this happened to you. It is hard, isn't it, to speak out. There is so much stigma attached to being mentally ill that we make almost perfect prey. Who is going to believe your word over the word of a respected psychiatrist. Your interpretation of reality is immediately rendered questionable by the fact that you are in therapy.
Thank you so much for posting. I don't know if you've shared your experience with anyone. I haven't - except with my current therapist. It makes me feel less alone to read your post and be able to talk to a real person who has experienced similar abuses. I guess that is why this board can be so helpful to some posters. How else do you connect with others around topics that are generally taboo in public?
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 14:15:04
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:21:17
> I just want to add to this. There is so much secrecy around the profession, because of Freudian concepts of the therapist being a "blank slate" that it is very difficult to know anything about them at all. Usually you are lucky if you have a referral from another trusted professional. As for the client being able to judge them, it is simply impossible. They cannot be scrutinised.
Yes. I find the threads where posters confess they've googled their therapists and feel guilty about it so interesting. Some wrote that their therapists have been angry that their patients researched them on the internet. Patients are not allowed to know anything about their therapists. You generally can find out what degree they have and where they went to school and what type of therapy they practice but any information after that is whatever they feel like sharing.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 14:26:34
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 13:10:53
> I'd be shocked to find out other people knew it was going on and did nothing.
Why do you find this idea so shocking? History is filled with examples of people looking the other way. Think about the holocaust.More currently, the newspapers have been writing about the controversy within the Catholic church over their sheltering of pedophilic priests for years and years.
Not all people do nothing. But there are people who are very aware of gross abuses and who choose to be silent.
Posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 14:46:47
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » vwoolf, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 14:02:10
No I haven't shared it before with anyone except my current therapist, and it took me a long time to confess to her what I had done. It took her even longer to persuade me that I hadn't done anything - that it was all his responsability, that he was abusive.
It felt very empowering tonight to write this. It's the first time I've actually come out and publicly put the blame onto him.
This forum can be a powerful place.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 15:13:33
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » toojane, posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 14:46:47
> No I haven't shared it before with anyone except my current therapist, and it took me a long time to confess to her what I had done. It took her even longer to persuade me that I hadn't done anything - that it was all his responsability, that he was abusive.
Mine is still working on persuading me. I can agree intellectually sometimes but emotionally...it is harder to not feel tremendous blame.
> It felt very empowering tonight to write this. It's the first time I've actually come out and publicly put the blame onto him.
I'm very glad you posted then. What an important step!I've found having the opportunity to express my point of view on this thread very empowering too. I feel very ashamed about having PTSD and about having been in a psychiatric hospital. So, other than in therapy, I don't have anywhere to talk about these kinds of things. It has taken me sooooo long to find the courage to start posting here even though here I'm completely anonymous. Talking in person with people who may judge me and dismiss me because I'm mentally ill feels too threatening.
Posted by vwoolf on February 3, 2007, at 8:51:42
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » vwoolf, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 15:13:33
I have also spent time in psychiatric hospitals, so I know the shame you are talking about. Worse than the shame though is the sense that I am crazy, both because my thoughts and obsessions feel crazy at times and because it was confirmed by being hospitalised - sort of like getting the certificate.
I don't really have a diagnosis apart from depression and anxiety. I struggle to accept PTSD as a diagnosis because it feels like all the blame is being placed on the traumatic situation and doesn't explain the feelings of madness inside me. My therapist insists that it is all to do with poor attachment and csa, but there is a part of this thing, and I don't know what to call it, this madness thing, that I have colluded with and that is part of me. To get better I will need to change a part of me.
Posted by toojane on February 3, 2007, at 11:08:09
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by vwoolf on February 3, 2007, at 8:51:42
> I have also spent time in psychiatric hospitals, so I know the shame you are talking about.
Vwoolf, we seem to have a lot of unfortunate things in common. It is so wonderful to be able to connect with you. Other than the people I was hospitalized with at the time, I have never talked with anyone else who has spent time in a psychiatric hospital.
>Worse than the shame though is the sense that I am crazy, both because my thoughts and obsessions feel crazy at times and because it was confirmed by being hospitalised - sort of like getting the certificate.
I totally get what you mean by the "certificate" both literally and figuratively. I had a stack of them because they kept committing me. After one committal ran out, they'd commit me again and hand me a piece of paper to make it official.My therapist insists that I'm not crazy and I'm like, okay, if I'm not crazy, how come they locked me up in a hospital for crazy people.
> I don't really have a diagnosis apart from depression and anxiety. I struggle to accept PTSD as a diagnosis because it feels like all the blame is being placed on the traumatic situation and doesn't explain the feelings of madness inside me.
Since 9/11, with PTSD being in the news so much and everybody claiming to have it, I think it may be the least stigmatizing of the mental illnesses to have. Maybe?? For exactly that reason you state. Because the blame can be placed on the traumatic situation instead of on some flaw inside the person.There is so much prejudice against the mentally ill. I once listened to someone making disparaging comments about a person because they'd admitted they went to therapy for help with everyday normal problems. I remember thinking wow, if they only knew I'd been locked up on a psych ward.
>My therapist insists that it is all to do with poor attachment and csa, but there is a part of this thing, and I don't know what to call it, this madness thing, that I have colluded with and that is part of me. To get better I will need to change a part of me.I think I understand what you mean by "this madness thing" but I'm not sure what you mean by "colluded" with it. Do you mean you think you welcomed or invited the madness into you or that you deliberately do things that perpetuate it?
(This thread has grown so long and we are talking about a different topic now. I don't know if this is kosher, but I hope it is okay with you if I start another thread and move this post there? I hope this isn't against board etiquette. I'll call it Hospitalization. Maybe you could answer this post there, if you still want to continue this conversation?)
Posted by Declan on February 3, 2007, at 16:35:09
In reply to Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by zazenduckie on February 1, 2007, at 9:04:19
"He said he thought forcing the woman to wear a dog collar and call him master would build a more trusting relationship.
He said such treatment was allowed by the Australian Psychological Society. "It is right within the ethical guidelines," Beaton told the court."My back will not permit full reading of this promising thread, but I am very impressed that a Western Australian psychologist(?) can be so absolutely shameless in court.
Posted by one woman cine on February 5, 2007, at 9:58:49
In reply to Re: assumptions and generalizations » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:45:32
The only reason why I posted on the below thread was because you paraphrased something I said here. See below
>
>>>> I tend to find that if I say something bad happened to me, the general response often is "I'm sorry that happened to you but just because it did doesn't mean that it happens to everybody" which is very invalidating and a way of silencing me.
>I have no desire to silence you - & I'm not sure of what response you want from me - I said abuses occur and it's unfortunate, but it happens. I don't know how to talk about this with you.
I do feel it's being discussed in a general way - & you have said yourself, correct me if I'm wrong - that you are using words generally and vaguely as well (ie. the interchangeability of assess and diagnosis.) I do not wish to engage in war of semantics - & I don't want to negate *your* experience either, but you have stated that I thought you were lying as to events that occurred to you.
I never said you were lying & you did assume that.
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.