B
BF-DR
This has been a fascinating discussion to read. Reminds me of the old joke: "Q: What do you call the medical student who came last in his graduating class? A: Doctor"
Actually, my point is the opposite of that joke. I agree with most of the posts so far - on both sides of the argument - and I would guess this is a common question that has probably been answered many times.
I would imagine that every MH training and accreditation body, and every service provider, has rules and guidelines around this. I'd be interested to know what those are for various organizations &/or training/accreditation paths. At that point, anyone interested in going into this field could investigate what specifically makes them officially qualified or unqualified to proceed and take steps to have themselves impartially evaluated.
That said, I totally agree that the first rule should be "Do No Harm" - although I don't believe I've ever seen that expression applied to MH professionals. Neither do I believe it applies to medical professionals, with the exception of doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath (but would appreciate some confirmation either way, if anyone knows). I've certainly seen and worked with more than my share of medical professionals, including doctors and surgeons, for whom that was at best a 'tick-box' item in their licensing. And healthcare policy-makers for whom the complete opposite was true. So it's not just up to the professional themselves, but to their employers and governing bodies, to ensure the proper and appropriate checks and balances are in place. Which, or so it seems to me, they are not, regardless of whether or not the treatment provider is a declared survivor. I've seen just as much damage inflicted by nice and well-meaning professionals who are unable to look violence and predation in the face without deflecting or projecting on to their clients to defend themselves emotionally.
For me, the issue of 'Do no harm' applies as much to skill and self-awareness as it does to anything else. If someone is unhealed from trauma, that is most definitely a problem. But I would say the same applies to anyone who is unprepared to 'meet trauma and violence where it lives', and I would hazard that that is MORE true of non-survivors than it is of survivors who have done their work. Not to mention the high degree of patient 'othering' that too often goes on amongst non-survivor professionals.
As for the 'bright line' of treatment provider vs. non-treatment provider, what I would say to that is a surgeon is not a surgeon is not a surgeon. Not every surgeon is a cardiac, or brain, or pediatric specialist. Some are teachers and trainers, some do minor procedures, like sutures. Some consult. Some go into healthcare administration as executives. Even if one has a tremour, there are many options. Just because someone has a limitation doesn't close all doors, as long as that limitation has been properly and appropriately mitigated.
Where I do agree with Ms. Spock is the importance in distinguishing between valid criticism and critique (which should lead one to effective solutions which correct actual problems), vs. overly-optimistic, blind or misguided encouragement which can sometimes obscure them. The latter, in my opinion, actually diminishes potential.
I think LionHeart would be better served by an impartial accounting of what the guidelines and recommendations are for various positions and training, and then an impartial evaluation as to whether or not that has been achieved or is possible for him or her. The goalposts should be visible and commonly understood by everyone. Once they are understood, only Lionheart knows whether or not he or she is capable of getting there.
Also, never underestimate the value of an ambitious goal to help people move their own healing forward.
Actually, my point is the opposite of that joke. I agree with most of the posts so far - on both sides of the argument - and I would guess this is a common question that has probably been answered many times.
I would imagine that every MH training and accreditation body, and every service provider, has rules and guidelines around this. I'd be interested to know what those are for various organizations &/or training/accreditation paths. At that point, anyone interested in going into this field could investigate what specifically makes them officially qualified or unqualified to proceed and take steps to have themselves impartially evaluated.
That said, I totally agree that the first rule should be "Do No Harm" - although I don't believe I've ever seen that expression applied to MH professionals. Neither do I believe it applies to medical professionals, with the exception of doctors who take the Hippocratic Oath (but would appreciate some confirmation either way, if anyone knows). I've certainly seen and worked with more than my share of medical professionals, including doctors and surgeons, for whom that was at best a 'tick-box' item in their licensing. And healthcare policy-makers for whom the complete opposite was true. So it's not just up to the professional themselves, but to their employers and governing bodies, to ensure the proper and appropriate checks and balances are in place. Which, or so it seems to me, they are not, regardless of whether or not the treatment provider is a declared survivor. I've seen just as much damage inflicted by nice and well-meaning professionals who are unable to look violence and predation in the face without deflecting or projecting on to their clients to defend themselves emotionally.
For me, the issue of 'Do no harm' applies as much to skill and self-awareness as it does to anything else. If someone is unhealed from trauma, that is most definitely a problem. But I would say the same applies to anyone who is unprepared to 'meet trauma and violence where it lives', and I would hazard that that is MORE true of non-survivors than it is of survivors who have done their work. Not to mention the high degree of patient 'othering' that too often goes on amongst non-survivor professionals.
As for the 'bright line' of treatment provider vs. non-treatment provider, what I would say to that is a surgeon is not a surgeon is not a surgeon. Not every surgeon is a cardiac, or brain, or pediatric specialist. Some are teachers and trainers, some do minor procedures, like sutures. Some consult. Some go into healthcare administration as executives. Even if one has a tremour, there are many options. Just because someone has a limitation doesn't close all doors, as long as that limitation has been properly and appropriately mitigated.
Where I do agree with Ms. Spock is the importance in distinguishing between valid criticism and critique (which should lead one to effective solutions which correct actual problems), vs. overly-optimistic, blind or misguided encouragement which can sometimes obscure them. The latter, in my opinion, actually diminishes potential.
I think LionHeart would be better served by an impartial accounting of what the guidelines and recommendations are for various positions and training, and then an impartial evaluation as to whether or not that has been achieved or is possible for him or her. The goalposts should be visible and commonly understood by everyone. Once they are understood, only Lionheart knows whether or not he or she is capable of getting there.
Also, never underestimate the value of an ambitious goal to help people move their own healing forward.
