Posted by spoc on April 23, 2004, at 13:10:43
In reply to Ts: Field choice *always* = caring? (from logic), posted by spoc on April 23, 2004, at 10:52:44
which party is benefitted by the firm, unencroachable rule that sessions be kept to 45 or 55 minutes? This is admittedly for the T's comfort, not ours, and I'm not sure it's a reasonable thing to "protect oneself" against if that person *really* cares. It sounds more like another industry perk to me. (I assume there are also patients who will say they wouldn't be able to stand going over the allotted time, and they are not who I refer to here.)
In particular, many many patients can't get a lucid or productive line of thought going until 20 minutes into each session (or unfortunately, just don't feel like talking that day). But by design they will often not be directed or assisted with direction during that time. At 20 minutes they may strike their rhythm and undeniably be getting somewhere, then "Sorry, time's up." And the last five minutes may routinely need to be reserved for addressing scheduling, medication or payment details, etc. So that means this patient is netting maybe 20 good minutes each time, then repeating this momentum build up at each successive appointment.
Under this pattern, why wouldn't it be reasonable for that patient to instead request sessions of full 60 minute to 90 minute length? If agreeing to this would be so horrific for the T to endure -- even with someone who barely speaks for the first 20 or 30 minutes -- I don't know to what extent it can be assumed that this is mostly about caring. I don't see how it could be denied that longer sessions would benefit at least many patients immensely, and even change their lives. But instead it is a grave "boundary" issue for Ts, even if compensated well. They wouldn't be willing to tolerate even that much "discomfort." And they'd be free to correspondingly schedule a longer break in between clients to decompress.
I just don't think there are as many disadvantages and sacrifices to choosing this field, or clear evidence that it is mostly about caring, as some seem to assume. The fact that they chose it at all *does* show that they are less likely than the average person to be turned off by, uninterested in, or 'damaged' in their own lives by subjecting themselves to what is often complicated, "negative" subject matter. So to me it seems more like a propensity for ideal working conditions than preservation of their own sanity for them to be so strict that, even when it would be extremely helpful to the party who really needs it, the curtain must always come down at 45 or 55 minutes. How much caring does that show, really? Any individual T could choose to be different on this count, but few do.
I hope I'm not making anyone mad. It doesn't always feel good to look at and rationalize things with this "realism," so I'm not exhibiting coldness, maybe conversely I care and am bothered too much by the way the world works. But am I really wrong in thinking this *is* the way the world works? Really??
(I do realize some Ts go over if they can, but I'm not referring to the exceptions, I'm referring to the rule, and standard procedure.)
poster:spoc
thread:339137
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040419/msgs/339174.html