Tavistock Center London

Divine

New Here
Thanks for writing, I've been in and out of therapy for 4 years since my assault from my abusive and break down (I was litterally too scared to leave the house for weeks) Since then I've seen 2 mental health nurses, and 8 therapists, I've tried talking therapises on the NHS and EDMR privately. I'm very aware of my mental health but I am overwhelmed and not getting better, since my rape as a teen I've seen more therapists earlier, before the abusive relationship. I break down monthly, I have lots of amazing friend but no primary care giver really as my mother and I aren't talking since she refused to help me find a therapist when I got sicked out of one therapists for being suicidal and they outed me as seeing them to my Drs putting my long term therapy at the tavistock at risk as I'd been seeing a private therapist. As my mother is no longer taking my mental health seriously I don't really have a primary care giver. My romantic relationships don't work, it seems like they are either scared off by my mental health (despite me taking care of myself) or were just messing me around, playing the white knight until it got too real. So I do what I can, and I am exausted and I need this to work. Thank you for your kind words. I do have lovely friends and one of my closest has BPD so really gets it, so that's as close as I get for an outside support. I really appreicate what you say about us being able to know when its our sympoms flairing up and others misreading things are part of us.
 

joeylittle

Administrator
I think Im just gonna have to lay down the law and use the break down of an example of the fact I need basic politeness during sessions + wind downs otherwise I'm just being sent out into the world half way though dissasociating which is unsafe and unfair. The reason I was trying to see if any other people here had been seen by the Tavi was to see if any one knew whether they were likely to be adaptive or whether this is just gonna get me treated like a problem paitent for even asking for things which is how it seems to be.
I don't know if this will help...

I've found it useful, in talking with clinicians, to use 'we'-type questions along with requests.

Such as - "I'd like to implement a consistent wind-down/'return to the present' towards the ends of our sessions, to help in my transitioning out of therapy headspace and back into the flow of my life. How would we go about doing that?"

It establishes what you want to accomplish, and why it would be valuable for you. Then, it assumes that they also see the value, and moves directly into asking how it would work, in a 'we' framework.

If you go into a conversation like this believing you will have to prove your point - that they'll disagree, and you'll need to lay down the law - it takes a more talented therapist to see the client doing this and re-direct the conversation to a solution. If you just start from a solution-oriented, collaborative stance - you improve your chances of getting the result you want.

I guess - it's less to do with assuming the therapist will be entrenched, and more to do with assuming that they are an average human being with average skills, and typical personal pitfalls, just like anyone else.

Dunno if that makes any sense....
 

grit

MyPTSD Pro
I guess - it's less to do with assuming the therapist will be entrenched, and more to do with assuming that they are an average human being with average skills, and typical personal pitfalls, just like anyone else.
I so vehemently disagree with this. Therapy is a job that requires specialized skills, continues education, competency, ethics and regulation both legally and personally. it is disadvantageous for clients to assume anything other than the therapist is professional, educated, and able to adapt to the situation at hand rather than average out humans. Being human is basics for all of us. Being therapy is special kind of job. As long there is no abuse, no threat, no violence, dealing with trauma requires even more specialized training and competencies and I got your intention but it is not the client's job to gauge the humanity of therapist - it is the therapist job to actually do that.

Just humble disagreement.
 

Divine

New Here
I don't know if this will help...

I've found it useful, in talking with clinicians, to use 'we'-type questions along with requests.

Such as - "I'd like to implement a consistent wind-down/'return to the present' towards the ends of our sessions, to help in my transitioning out of therapy headspace and back into the flow of my life. How would we go about doing that?"

It establishes what you want to accomplish, and why it would be valuable for you. Then, it assumes that they also see the value, and moves directly into asking how it would work, in a 'we' framework.

If you go into a conversation like this believing you will have to prove your point - that they'll disagree, and you'll need to lay down the law - it takes a more talented therapist to see the client doing this and re-direct the conversation to a solution. If you just start from a solution-oriented, collaborative stance - you improve your chances of getting the result you want.

I guess - it's less to do with assuming the therapist will be entrenched, and more to do with assuming that they are an average human being with average skills, and typical personal pitfalls, just like anyone else.

Dunno if that makes any sense....
Thank you I think that approach of how to frame the request is really good thank you
 

joeylittle

Administrator
Being therapy is special kind of job. As long there is no abuse, no threat, no violence, dealing with trauma requires even more specialized training and competencies and I got your intention but it is not the client's job to gauge the humanity of therapist - it is the therapist job to actually do that.
That's a totally fine disagreement, I've got no quibble with it.

In my experience - and this is with all specialists, not just mental health clinicians - but with doctors, lawyers, builders, teachers....all the regulations in the world won't make up for innate talent, which bolsters skill, creates the ability to learn and improve, and places them among the top practitioners of their fields.

I've worked with a very talented therapist. I've also worked with a moderately talented therapist - I didn't realize it was an issue of ability until quite awhile after I left her practice and met someone who used the exact same modality, but to much greater effect.

Not everyone is equally good at what they do. And certainly, not everyone is great at what they have chosen to do. The bar to accomplish licensure lies somewhere between the heights of "good" and "good enough".

There's no way to license for greatness.

So. -when you're working with a specialist, and you don't yet know what you think of their ability - maybe because you don't have enough experience in what they do, maybe because you're just not in a place to evaluate what they do - the best place to operate from is that they are a person, and they do a specialized job. Figure out what you DO understand about their job, and talk with them in collaborative language using those terms.

With most specializations? What they are doing, at a base level, is problem-solving. It's very human, to have to solve problems. So -a non-specialist can feel confident in talking with the specialist using language they both can understand, about solving the problem at hand.
 

grit

MyPTSD Pro
That's a totally fine disagreement, I've got no quibble with it.

In my experience - and this is with all specialists, not just mental health clinicians - but with doctors, lawyers, builders, teachers....all the regulations in the world won't make up for innate talent, which bolsters skill, creates the ability to learn and improve, and places them among the top practitioners of their fields.

I've worked with a very talented therapist. I've also worked with a moderately talented therapist - I didn't realize it was an issue of ability until quite awhile after I left her practice and met someone who used the exact same modality, but to much greater effect.

Not everyone is equally good at what they do. And certainly, not everyone is great at what they have chosen to do. The bar to accomplish licensure lies somewhere between the heights of "good" and "good enough".

There's no way to license for greatness.

So. -when you're working with a specialist, and you don't yet know what you think of their ability - maybe because you don't have enough experience in what they do, maybe because you're just not in a place to evaluate what they do - the best place to operate from is that they are a person, and they do a specialized job. Figure out what you DO understand about their job, and talk with them in collaborative language using those terms.

With most specializations? What they are doing, at a base level, is problem-solving. It's very human, to have to solve problems. So -a non-specialist can feel confident in talking with the specialist using language they both can understand, about solving the problem at hand.
Thanks for the nuance in your response.
 
Top