Justmehere
Sponsor
I can kind of relate to your situation a bit. I get annoyed with cookie cutter therapy, generally struggle more with therapists who are part of large systems, and I have professional and personal reasons (that I will not get into here at all) as to why a welfare check by first responders in town is very problematic for me, more so than for the typical trauma client.
That being said, I see a therapist who is not part of a system, and even she says “this is part of the procedure" or "this is part of the process." For her, she's trying to explain, there is a bigger picture, she's trying to guide me through it, tell me to hang on, etc. I'm not sure that's what your therapist means or not, but it's possible. He is also beholden to processes and procedures for his practice - some of which would be the case even if he wasn't in a large system.
I'm going to gently push back a little. He asked you to consider a request. Asking for consideration of a request to release info to friends as an alternative to a welfare check isn't actually a violation of anything out of bounds. It actually sounds like he is trying to tailor things to your needs the best way he knows how, and still stay within the bounds of a good practice.
You may feel violated, and that feeling is important, and it's worth considering if there is actually a violation. Right now, all he has done is ask. The fact that he asked for written consent is a good sign. If you choose to provide consent, could be extremely limited and well defined consent. As in, "I only consent if xyz conditions exist." And you could limit the info that would be released very specifically.
You actually can say no too.
My therapist asks all kinds of stuff all the time. I say no all the time. Is some of it resistance? Sure. My therapist says,” thanks for letting me know." She knows I'm not resisting for kicks and giggles, but that every “no” is a sign of someone trying to manage the best I know how. I've even said, "I've thought about it a lot, and this is a hard ‘no’ with me right now. I'll keep thinking about it, but right now, I'm not willing to discuss it further." She’ll drop it.
You have the power to say no to him as well. You have the choice. Don't lose sight of that. This might be a chance to say “no thanks” and see how he handles it. Maybe you and him can come up with an alternative safety plan where you commit to contacting a friend yourself before doing something permanent.
Can friends assess safety? Eh. That's mixed. They can't put someone on a hold for good cause, but they could contact someone who could do that.
There is other support they can provide - I personally have an agreement with my therapist I will go sit in public or be with a friend in a crisis, even if they have no clue what is going on, if I can't be safe on my own and I'm unwilling to risk professional support. I have even sat in the waiting room of an ER. Not to check in, but because it was the only safe public space open at 3am.
Because I don't want my friends to know what is up, if I contact them, it means I just say I’m having a “crappy day" to them, and I make it clear, talking about it will make it worse. Just need to hang with someone. It also means it's on me to catch a crisis before it's a severe emergency and go take action earlier.
Also, as someone who can relate to complex reasons as to why first responder intervention is extra risky, it has happened in my life. I've had someone with a conflict of interest of sorts check on me. People are required to keep confidentiality or get sued. If it's a matter of saving your life, which is what a welfare check is really about, it might be worth the risk. If you are dead, I mean, it won't matter. But again, I understand about having cause to tread very reluctantly.
I'd be weirded out a bit too, based on the things you have described, but I don't see huge red flags about him. It might not be the right fit of a therapist, but I do think you are on track to really give this a try, as you are doing. Kudos to you for that. I also don't think trust is entirely required for therapy to be helpful. It does help, A LOT, but it's not required. One can still learn and do good work without 100 percent trust.
One therapist told me once that the person in the room with the most power to make therapy go well, or not, is actually the client. I'm not sure what I think about that myself, but they had a point. This trauma therapist was trying to give me my sense of control and power back. I don't like how therapy is presented like it's this good helper figure and I'm just there to do what they say. It works better for me when it's a partnership, and I'm able to say no - with all the responsibility and benefit that this brings to the process.
Argh. That stinks! Some practices will do what is called a "single case agreement" to still bill an insurance for an established client even if they won't take new clients with that insurance. Before you begin the search for someone new, you might want to see if they are willing to do that. The fact that they didn't contact you directly about it (yet) might be a sign that they still plan on taking the insurance for established clients.
Last edited:
