At issue is whether states can ban the therapy on minors and whether counselors who conduct the therapy can be held liable for consumer fraud.
By ALICIA GALLEGOS
amednews.com
Posted Jan. 21, 2013
The patient’s anguish was clearly visible to psychiatrist Jack Drescher, MD, as the man spoke about his experience undergoing so-called gay conversion therapy.
Such therapy often is rooted in the claim that poor parenting is the cause of same-sex attractions, and that patients can change if they truly wish to be heterosexual. Methods of “repairing” patients can include instructing them to beat effigies of their mothers, touch themselves while naked in front of counselors and be subjected to mock locker room scenarios in which therapists scream anti-gay epithets at them.
After attending a religious-based therapy six times a week and experiencing no change in his sexuality, the patient was left feeling ashamed, depressed and suicidal, Dr. Drescher said.
“I felt sad[ness] and also anger, because sometimes a therapist would say things that were very hurtful to the patient,” said Dr. Drescher, an author and medical expert on gay conversion therapy. He also is president of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, a think tank that analyzes issues in the field of psychiatry. “It’s distressing when you see professionals, regardless if they are well-meaning or otherwise, deliver intentional or inadvertent harm to a patient.”
Physicians and health professionals across the country have reported treating patients for the problems they have after conversion therapy. In recent years, physician organizations including the American Medical Association have developed policy opposing the use of “reparative” or “conversion” therapy that the AMA describes as “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or … that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.” The potential serious risks of reparative therapy include depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, said an American Psychiatric Assn. position statement.
The entire story is here.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Why We Should Talk About the Football Coach's Salary When Faculty are Let Go Read
by John Warner
Inside HigherEd - Blog - Just Visiting
Originally published January 23, 2013
Bowling Green State University recently announced that it would be cutting 100 faculty positions for next fall, more than 10% of the total number of full-time faculty.
I found out this news via Facebook, which really does seem to be the source (along with Twitter) of the majority of news and information that crosses my mental desk on any given day. A debate/discussion cropped up underneath the posting, and as happens someone invoked the salaries of football coaches, and how it seems unfair that 100 teachers will lose their jobs when coaches are making so much.
There was a debate/discussion about this, and it was generally agreed that maybe it was too simplistic or counterproductive to lament these imbalances as they are a fact of the way universities operate. Academics and athletics are separate, football programs bring in money that they get to use for themselves, and in the end, these realities are just a reflection of society’s values.
I agree that the situation at BGSU is a reflection of society’s values, which is why I think we need to bring up football and athletic departments every time faculty are cut, or furloughed, or denied raises for years on end, or we’re told that the treatment of adjunct faculty is “unlikely to change.”
The entire story is here.
Inside HigherEd - Blog - Just Visiting
Originally published January 23, 2013
Bowling Green State University recently announced that it would be cutting 100 faculty positions for next fall, more than 10% of the total number of full-time faculty.
I found out this news via Facebook, which really does seem to be the source (along with Twitter) of the majority of news and information that crosses my mental desk on any given day. A debate/discussion cropped up underneath the posting, and as happens someone invoked the salaries of football coaches, and how it seems unfair that 100 teachers will lose their jobs when coaches are making so much.
There was a debate/discussion about this, and it was generally agreed that maybe it was too simplistic or counterproductive to lament these imbalances as they are a fact of the way universities operate. Academics and athletics are separate, football programs bring in money that they get to use for themselves, and in the end, these realities are just a reflection of society’s values.
I agree that the situation at BGSU is a reflection of society’s values, which is why I think we need to bring up football and athletic departments every time faculty are cut, or furloughed, or denied raises for years on end, or we’re told that the treatment of adjunct faculty is “unlikely to change.”
The entire story is here.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Physician Study Finds Similar Outcomes From In-Person, Telehealth Consultations
By Jonathan Field
Managing Editor - The Institute for HealthCare Consumerism
Thanks to health care reform and technological innovations in the private sector, the telehealth market is booming. And it is having a direct impact on the physician-patient relationship and on the health costs associated with an employer-sponsored health plan.
The industry predicts continued, strong growth. According to a recent market analysis by IMS Research, the telehealth market will grow by 55 percent in 2013 after growing only 5 percent from 2010 to 2011 and 18 percent from 2011 to 2012. And a 2012 report by BCC Research, the Wellesley, Mass.-based market research firm, predicted that the global telehealth market was expected to double from $11.6 billion in 2011 to over $27 billion in 2016.
InMedica, leading independent provider of market research and consultancy to the global medical electronics industry, predicts that in by 2017 the telehealth market will reach 1.8 million patients -- up from 300,000 in last year. The research firm attributes growth to four sectors of demand: federal, provider, payer and patient. For more details on the projected growth of telehealth market, view InMedica's new report The World Market for Telehealth – An Analysis of Demand Dynamics – 2012.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
High court rules online posts didn't defame doctor
The closely watched case tested the boundaries of First Amendment rights vs. reputation.
By ABBY SIMONS
Star Tribune
Originally posted January 30, 2013
Dennis Laurion fired off his screed on a few rate-your-doctor websites in April 2010, along with some letters about what he saw as poor bedside manner by his father's neurologist. He expected at most what he calls a "non-apology apology."
"I really thought I'd receive something within a few days along the lines of 'I'm sorry you thought I was rude, that was not my intent' and that would be the end of it," the 66-year-old Duluth retiree said. "I certainly did not expect to be sued."
He was. Dr. David McKee's defamation lawsuit was the beginning of a four-year legal battle that ended Wednesday when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the doctor had no legal claim against Laurion because there was no proof that his comments were false or were capable of harming the doctor's reputation.
The unanimous ruling reverses an earlier Appeals Court decision and brings to an end the closely watched case that brought to the forefront a First Amendment debate over the limits of free speech online.
It's a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he's spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him -- likely from people who never met him. He hasn't ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.
"The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won't notice the money I spent on this," he said. "It's been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress."
He said he offered to settle the case at no cost after the Supreme Court hearing. Laurion contends they couldn't agree on the terms of the settlement, and said he not only deleted his initial postings after he was initially served, but had nothing to do with subsequent online statements about McKee.
Opinion vs. reputation
The lawsuit followed the hospitalization of Laurion's father, Kenneth, for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth. Laurion, his mother and his wife were also in the room when McKee examined the father and made the statements that Laurion interpreted as rude.
After his father was discharged, he wrote the reviews and sent the letters.
On at least two sites, Laurion wrote that McKee said that "44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option," and that "It doesn't matter that the patient's gown did not cover his backside."
Laurion also wrote: "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!'"
McKee sued after he learned of the postings from another patient. A St. Louis County judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying Laurion's statements were either protected opinion, substantially true or too vague to convey a defamatory meaning. The Appeals Court reversed that ruling regarding six of Laurion's statements, reasoning that they were factual assertions and not opinions, that they harmed McKee's reputation and that they could be proven as false.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing the opinion, Justice Alan Page noted that McKee acknowledged that the gist of some of the statements were true, even if they were misinterpreted.
Page added that the "tool" statements also didn't pass the test of defaming McKee's character. He dismissed an argument by McKee's attorney, Marshall Tanick, that the "tool" comment was fabricated by Laurion and that the nurse never existed.
Whether it was fabricated or not was irrelevant, the court ruled.
"Referring to someone as 'a real tool' falls into the category of pure opinion because the term 'real tool' cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false," Page wrote.
The entire story is here.
By ABBY SIMONS
Star Tribune
Originally posted January 30, 2013
Dennis Laurion fired off his screed on a few rate-your-doctor websites in April 2010, along with some letters about what he saw as poor bedside manner by his father's neurologist. He expected at most what he calls a "non-apology apology."
"I really thought I'd receive something within a few days along the lines of 'I'm sorry you thought I was rude, that was not my intent' and that would be the end of it," the 66-year-old Duluth retiree said. "I certainly did not expect to be sued."
He was. Dr. David McKee's defamation lawsuit was the beginning of a four-year legal battle that ended Wednesday when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the doctor had no legal claim against Laurion because there was no proof that his comments were false or were capable of harming the doctor's reputation.
The unanimous ruling reverses an earlier Appeals Court decision and brings to an end the closely watched case that brought to the forefront a First Amendment debate over the limits of free speech online.
It's a frustrating end for McKee, 51, who said he's spent at least $50,000 in legal fees and another $11,000 to clear his name online after the story went viral, resulting in hundreds more negative postings about him -- likely from people who never met him. He hasn't ruled out a second lawsuit stemming from those posts.
"The financial costs are significant, but money is money and five years from now I won't notice the money I spent on this," he said. "It's been the harm to my reputation through the repeated publicity and the stress."
He said he offered to settle the case at no cost after the Supreme Court hearing. Laurion contends they couldn't agree on the terms of the settlement, and said he not only deleted his initial postings after he was initially served, but had nothing to do with subsequent online statements about McKee.
Opinion vs. reputation
The lawsuit followed the hospitalization of Laurion's father, Kenneth, for a hemorrhagic stroke at St. Luke's Hospital in Duluth. Laurion, his mother and his wife were also in the room when McKee examined the father and made the statements that Laurion interpreted as rude.
After his father was discharged, he wrote the reviews and sent the letters.
On at least two sites, Laurion wrote that McKee said that "44 percent of hemorrhagic strokes die within 30 days. I guess this is the better option," and that "It doesn't matter that the patient's gown did not cover his backside."
Laurion also wrote: "When I mentioned Dr. McKee's name to a friend who is a nurse, she said, 'Dr. McKee is a real tool!'"
McKee sued after he learned of the postings from another patient. A St. Louis County judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying Laurion's statements were either protected opinion, substantially true or too vague to convey a defamatory meaning. The Appeals Court reversed that ruling regarding six of Laurion's statements, reasoning that they were factual assertions and not opinions, that they harmed McKee's reputation and that they could be proven as false.
The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing the opinion, Justice Alan Page noted that McKee acknowledged that the gist of some of the statements were true, even if they were misinterpreted.
Page added that the "tool" statements also didn't pass the test of defaming McKee's character. He dismissed an argument by McKee's attorney, Marshall Tanick, that the "tool" comment was fabricated by Laurion and that the nurse never existed.
Whether it was fabricated or not was irrelevant, the court ruled.
"Referring to someone as 'a real tool' falls into the category of pure opinion because the term 'real tool' cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating a fact and it cannot be proven true or false," Page wrote.
The entire story is here.
Diagnosis of ADHD on the Rise in this Study
Recent Trends in Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Darios Getahun, MD, PhD; Steven J. Jacobsen, MD, PhD; Michael J. Fassett, MD; Wansu Chen, MS; Kitaw Demissie, MD, PhD; George G. Rhoads, MD, MPH
JAMA Pediatr. 2013;():1-7. doi:10.1001/2013.jamapediatrics.401.
Objective
To examine trends in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and median household income.
Design
An ecologic study of trends in the diagnosis of ADHD using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) health plan medical records. Rates of ADHD diagnosis were derived using Poisson regression analyses after adjustments for potential confounders.
Setting
Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Participants
All children who received care at the KPSC from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2010 (n = 842 830).
Main Exposure
Period of ADHD diagnosis (in years).
Main Outcome Measures
Incidence of physician-diagnosed ADHD in children aged 5 to 11 years.
Results
Rates of ADHD diagnosis were 2.5% in 2001 and 3.1% in 2010, a relative increase of 24%. From 2001 to 2010, the rate increased among whites (4.7%-5.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4), blacks (2.6%- 4.1%; RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-1.9), and Hispanics (1.7%-2.5%; RR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.5-1.7). Rates for Asian/Pacific Islander and other racial groups remained unchanged over time. The increase in ADHD diagnosis among blacks was largely driven by an increase in females (RR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.3). Although boys were more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD than girls, results suggest the sex gap for blacks may be closing over time. Children living in high-income households were at increased risk of diagnosis.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that the rate of ADHD diagnosis among children in the health plan notably has increased over time. We observed disproportionately high ADHD diagnosis rates among white children and notable increases among black girls.
The entire study can be found here.
Darios Getahun, MD, PhD; Steven J. Jacobsen, MD, PhD; Michael J. Fassett, MD; Wansu Chen, MS; Kitaw Demissie, MD, PhD; George G. Rhoads, MD, MPH
JAMA Pediatr. 2013;():1-7. doi:10.1001/2013.jamapediatrics.401.
Objective
To examine trends in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and median household income.
Design
An ecologic study of trends in the diagnosis of ADHD using the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) health plan medical records. Rates of ADHD diagnosis were derived using Poisson regression analyses after adjustments for potential confounders.
Setting
Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Participants
All children who received care at the KPSC from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2010 (n = 842 830).
Main Exposure
Period of ADHD diagnosis (in years).
Main Outcome Measures
Incidence of physician-diagnosed ADHD in children aged 5 to 11 years.
Results
Rates of ADHD diagnosis were 2.5% in 2001 and 3.1% in 2010, a relative increase of 24%. From 2001 to 2010, the rate increased among whites (4.7%-5.6%; relative risk [RR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4), blacks (2.6%- 4.1%; RR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-1.9), and Hispanics (1.7%-2.5%; RR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.5-1.7). Rates for Asian/Pacific Islander and other racial groups remained unchanged over time. The increase in ADHD diagnosis among blacks was largely driven by an increase in females (RR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.3). Although boys were more likely to be diagnosed as having ADHD than girls, results suggest the sex gap for blacks may be closing over time. Children living in high-income households were at increased risk of diagnosis.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that the rate of ADHD diagnosis among children in the health plan notably has increased over time. We observed disproportionately high ADHD diagnosis rates among white children and notable increases among black girls.
The entire study can be found here.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
HHS Releases Final HIPAA Privacy and Security Update Final Rule
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved forward today to strengthen the privacy and security protections for health information established under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
The final omnibus rule greatly enhances a patient’s privacy protections, provides individuals new rights to their health information, and strengthens the government’s ability to enforce the law.
“Much has changed in health care since HIPAA was enacted over fifteen years ago,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “The new rule will help protect patient privacy and safeguard patients’ health information in an ever expanding digital age.”
The changes in the final rulemaking provide the public with increased protection and control of personal health information. The HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules have focused on health care providers, health plans and other entities that process health insurance claims. The changes announced today expand many of the requirements to business associates of these entities that receive protected health information, such as contractors and subcontractors. Some of the largest breaches reported to HHS have involved business associates. Penalties are increased for noncompliance based on the level of negligence with a maximum penalty of $1.5 million per violation. The changes also strengthen the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Breach Notification requirements by clarifying when breaches of unsecured health information must be reported to HHS.
Individual rights are expanded in important ways. Patients can ask for a copy of their electronic medical record in an electronic form. When individuals pay by cash they can instruct their provider not to share information about their treatment with their health plan. The final omnibus rule sets new limits on how information is used and disclosed for marketing and fundraising purposes and prohibits the sale of an individuals’ health information without their permission.
“This final omnibus rule marks the most sweeping changes to the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules since they were first implemented,” said HHS Office of Civil Rights Director Leon Rodriguez. “These changes not only greatly enhance a patient’s privacy rights and protections, but also strengthen the ability of my office to vigorously enforce the HIPAA privacy and security protections, regardless of whether the information is being held by a health plan, a health care provider, or one of their business associates.”
The final rule also reduces burden by streamlining individuals’ ability to authorize the use of their health information for research purposes. The rule makes it easier for parents and others to give permission to share proof of a child’s immunization with a school and gives covered entities and business associates up to one year after the 180-day compliance date to modify contracts to comply with the rule.
The final omnibus rule is based on statutory changes under the HITECH Act, enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) which clarifies that genetic information is protected under the HIPAA Privacy Rule and prohibits most health plans from using or disclosing genetic information for underwriting purposes.
The Rulemaking announced today may be viewed in the Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection.
The final document is here.
More Using Electronics to Track Their Health
By MILT FREUDENHEIM
The New York Times
Published: January 27, 2013
Whether they have chronic ailments like diabetes or just want to watch their weight, Americans are increasingly tracking their health using smartphone applications and other devices that collect personal data automatically, according to health industry researchers.
“The explosion of mobile devices means that more Americans have an opportunity to start tracking health data in an organized way,” said Susannah Fox, an associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, which was to release the national study on Monday. Many of the people surveyed said the experience had changed their overall approach to health.
More than 500 companies were making or developing self-management tools by last fall, up 35 percent from January 2012, said Matthew Holt, co-chairman of Health 2.0, a market intelligence project that keeps a database of health technology companies. Nearly 13,000 health and fitness apps are now available, he said.
The Pew study said 21 percent of people who track their health use some form of technology.
They are people like Steven Jonas of Portland, Ore., who uses an electronic monitor to check his heart rate when he feels stressed. Then he breathes deeply for a few minutes and watches the monitor on his laptop as his heart slows down.
“It’s incredibly effective in a weird way,” he said.
Mr. Jonas said he also used electronic means to track his mood, weight, mental sharpness, sleep and memory.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Published: January 27, 2013
Whether they have chronic ailments like diabetes or just want to watch their weight, Americans are increasingly tracking their health using smartphone applications and other devices that collect personal data automatically, according to health industry researchers.
“The explosion of mobile devices means that more Americans have an opportunity to start tracking health data in an organized way,” said Susannah Fox, an associate director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, which was to release the national study on Monday. Many of the people surveyed said the experience had changed their overall approach to health.
More than 500 companies were making or developing self-management tools by last fall, up 35 percent from January 2012, said Matthew Holt, co-chairman of Health 2.0, a market intelligence project that keeps a database of health technology companies. Nearly 13,000 health and fitness apps are now available, he said.
The Pew study said 21 percent of people who track their health use some form of technology.
They are people like Steven Jonas of Portland, Ore., who uses an electronic monitor to check his heart rate when he feels stressed. Then he breathes deeply for a few minutes and watches the monitor on his laptop as his heart slows down.
“It’s incredibly effective in a weird way,” he said.
Mr. Jonas said he also used electronic means to track his mood, weight, mental sharpness, sleep and memory.
The entire story is here.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Clinical Psychologists’ Firearm Risk Management Perceptions and Practices
Andrea Traylor, James H. Price, Susan K. Telljohann, Keith King, and Amy Thompson
J Community Health. 2010 February; 35(1): 60–67.
Published online 2010 January 22.
doi: 10.1007/s10900-009-9200-6
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the current perceptions and practices of discussing firearm risk management with patients diagnosed with selected mental health problems. A three-wave survey was mailed to a national random sample of clinical psychologists and 339 responded (62%). The majority (78.5%) believed firearm safety issues were greater among those with mental health problems. However, the majority of clinical psychologists did not have a routine system for identifying patients with access to firearms (78.2%). Additionally, the majority (78.8%) reported they did not routinely chart or keep a record of whether patients owned or had access to firearms. About one-half (51.6%) of the clinical psychologists reported they would initiate firearm safety counseling if the patients were assessed as at risk for self-harm or harm to others. Almost half (46%) of clinical psychologists reported not receiving any information on firearm safety issues. Thus, the findings of this study suggest that a more formal role regarding anticipatory guidance on firearms is needed in the professional training of clinical psychologists.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Dan Warner for this article.
J Community Health. 2010 February; 35(1): 60–67.
Published online 2010 January 22.
doi: 10.1007/s10900-009-9200-6
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the current perceptions and practices of discussing firearm risk management with patients diagnosed with selected mental health problems. A three-wave survey was mailed to a national random sample of clinical psychologists and 339 responded (62%). The majority (78.5%) believed firearm safety issues were greater among those with mental health problems. However, the majority of clinical psychologists did not have a routine system for identifying patients with access to firearms (78.2%). Additionally, the majority (78.8%) reported they did not routinely chart or keep a record of whether patients owned or had access to firearms. About one-half (51.6%) of the clinical psychologists reported they would initiate firearm safety counseling if the patients were assessed as at risk for self-harm or harm to others. Almost half (46%) of clinical psychologists reported not receiving any information on firearm safety issues. Thus, the findings of this study suggest that a more formal role regarding anticipatory guidance on firearms is needed in the professional training of clinical psychologists.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Dan Warner for this article.
Should Therapists Play Cupid?
By Richard A. Friedman
The New York Times Sunday Review
Originally published January 19, 2013
IF you are in psychotherapy, there’s a good chance your therapist knows more about your inner thoughts and secret desires than anyone else.
So, if you’re looking for a mate, wouldn’t your therapist be a more reliable matchmaker than eHarmony and Match.com and other sites that rely on impersonal algorithms?
The idea that therapists might play Cupid with patients tantalizes patients and therapists. An anecdotal survey of my psychiatrist colleagues suggests that the matchmaking impulse is very common.
A senior colleague, for example, tells me he was treating a young man who was struggling to find a partner. My colleague said he knew someone who was perfect for his patient and wanted to set them up on a date, but didn’t because he was afraid — there were too many ways even the most well-intentioned therapist fix-up could go wrong.
Why? Psychotherapy, especially insight-oriented therapy, is designed to conjure intense feelings — on the part of the patient and therapist. Much of what patients feel toward their therapists, the so-called transference, are unconscious feelings that are redirected from important early figures in their lives — parents, family members and teachers. Your therapist mirrors this phenomenon with his own countertransference.
One of psychotherapy’s aims is to use the patient-therapist relationship to better understand the patient’s relationships with others and to remedy problems in the little lab that is the therapeutic connection.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times Sunday Review
Originally published January 19, 2013
IF you are in psychotherapy, there’s a good chance your therapist knows more about your inner thoughts and secret desires than anyone else.
So, if you’re looking for a mate, wouldn’t your therapist be a more reliable matchmaker than eHarmony and Match.com and other sites that rely on impersonal algorithms?
The idea that therapists might play Cupid with patients tantalizes patients and therapists. An anecdotal survey of my psychiatrist colleagues suggests that the matchmaking impulse is very common.
A senior colleague, for example, tells me he was treating a young man who was struggling to find a partner. My colleague said he knew someone who was perfect for his patient and wanted to set them up on a date, but didn’t because he was afraid — there were too many ways even the most well-intentioned therapist fix-up could go wrong.
Why? Psychotherapy, especially insight-oriented therapy, is designed to conjure intense feelings — on the part of the patient and therapist. Much of what patients feel toward their therapists, the so-called transference, are unconscious feelings that are redirected from important early figures in their lives — parents, family members and teachers. Your therapist mirrors this phenomenon with his own countertransference.
One of psychotherapy’s aims is to use the patient-therapist relationship to better understand the patient’s relationships with others and to remedy problems in the little lab that is the therapeutic connection.
The entire story is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)