There's still one aspect of Rita's question that remains a mystery. When we say that we "allow" the client to vent, are we implying that we've invited the person to engage in this activity, or are we talking about our reaction to the client when he or she decides to engage in this activity of his or her own volition? This, I think, is a crucial distinction. Inviting a client to vent seems like a pretty serious deviation from CT norms, and would require an equally serious reason to justify it. On the other hand, if a client starts venting in the middle of the session, that would seem to be a symptom of a poor therapuetic alliance, rather than a way of strengthening it. After all, how strong could the sense of collaboration be if the client feels free to break the agenda without discussing it with the therapist? The article linked to in the previous post was most informative, and I think there is a passage that relates to this situation: Third, take my concerns seriously. Don't minimize them, ignore my pain, or brush me off as a hysterical patient. If I bring a problem or idea up for discussion, don't dismiss it as unimportant. It is discouraging to get the impression that you think I am being silly or that I want to feel bad. If you brush me off, I may think you don't want to take the time to understand my problem and that you may not provide adequate treatment. Let's suppose that a client has begun venting in mid-session. How would you put the brakes on this activity in a way that's keeping with the above excerpt? I think it's pretty safe to assume that if a client has decided to vent in this way, he or she is already pretty emotionally excited, and a logical explanation of CT practice (sticking to the agenda, agreeing on session activities, etc.) would strike them as dismissive. You are the driver, what would you do? :)
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.