
Well not quite Dawn of the Dead but I am reminded of that great horror movie whenever I see this situation. These days it does not take too long to see some tragedy or other on the evening news. From the Oklahoma City bombing, the Station fire in my state of Rhode Island and of course the WTC tragedy wherever there is some tragic event there are grief counselors. You hear of some unfortunate event in a school such as a shooting to a student's death by accident and grief counselors descend on the students so that they can process their grief. You know this because you may see the very same grief counselors on the 11 O'clock news telling the public how the children feel. I am sure it does not escape the children's' notice that their confidentiality has been compromised.
Somewhere psychotherapists developed the notion that whenever there is a traumatic event of almost any kind, all who experienced it will suffer all kinds of mental health problems if they are not immediately given grief counseling. This is of course that despite the fact that for untold thousands of years human being experienced all kinds of catastrophic events and have grieved successfully with out the aid of a grief counselor.
Now of course some people will have more trouble than others and professional help is warranted for some. But, the concept that grief counseling or "Critical incident Debriefing" simply is standard for all is not supported by the research.[1] When Dr Scott Miller of The Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change (ISTC) was a guest on my radio show, The Labyrinth, we discussed his famous and comprehensive "baloney section". Grief counseling was mentioned. He summarized the section on http://www.talkingcure.com , where he said, "Research indicates that those who lose a loved one (not through unnatural or traumatic circumstances) may be depressed for up to three years. More than half may show no obvious signs of grief, however. While judged by some as dysfunctional, the research clearly indicates that those who focus less on the loss and grief, end up healthier over time. What's more, forcing these folks to dwell on the loss may actually retard the grieving process".[2]
Clearly there is a role for therapists to act as grief counselors and to help some people deal with loss or trauma. But the best analogy that comes to mind is that such a therapist is like a lifeguard at a beach. One is present and vigilant but a lifeguard does not jump in every time they see someone splash. Some people are splashing for all kinds of reasons. Splashing in water is normal. Grieving after loss is normal. Sometimes people need to struggle and splash around to learn to swim. ONLY when it is clear that the person is in trouble and can't get to shore by themselves will a good lifeguard jump in and pull them out. Good Grief therapists and good lifeguards have much in common.
[1] See http://www.talkingcure.com/baloney2.htm [2] See also Campbell, S. (2002). Does therapy prolong the agony? Psychology Today, 35(4), 28.
Have you noticed the recent up-trend of trauma as pop culture?
Quickly, I can point to two examples on television: "Rescue Me" is a Fox Network show about a NYC firefighter who lost his brother in the WTC disaster. It stars Denis Leary and is, while relatively inconsistent, one of the better series on tv. One of its main plot arcs is the ptsd symptoms of Leary's character (and of other characters, most of whom are either fellow firefighters or their family members). I think it does it well.
The other one is a new series called "The Nine," which, based on its trailers, follows the fate of 9 survivors of a bank robbery gone wrong. Based only on the trailers, which have been airing regularly, the cast seems to be running through the typical ptsd reactions - guilt, fear, etc.
A contradiction in my own therapy (as a witness/survivor of 9/11) that I cant get past is when the docs tell me that what I'm feeling is "normal." My reaction is: if what I'm feeling is normal, why am I in therapy?
I think the analogy of swimming and splashing is a good one. To add to it, I think we have to consider that, prior to being thrown into the water of some traumatic event, each person is already carrying (well, what did you expect?) baggage on their person. This can weigh them down, or sometimes provide floatation devices. It depends on what baggage they had at the dock and how familiar they are with that which they carry with them into the water. In this regard, doctors can help not only with teaching patients how to swim, but how to use what they have, how to understand what they have, to both understand why they are unable to swim and how to take everything they have around them - the good and the bad - to make it to the next step.
This is an interesting debate, about how soon therapy can be effective or if therapy in and of itself is counterproductive to recovery. In either case, I think it's important for patients and potential patients to work with a highly skilled doctor. Applied to real-world situations, the victim of trauma is in some ways the last person who can comment on the kind of help they need, or whether they need help at all. Here, it's a skilled practioner who may bear the responsibility of advising people as well as tending to their care.
A current trend in post trauma treatment is to prevent consolidation of memories of the event. If the patient is completely sedated immediately after the trauma, some retrograde and anterograde amnesia can be induced. The idea is that the patient will be able to discuss the event intellectually in a therapy session, but the emotional details will be permanently missing. In that case, the ghouls will not have power. This is a controversial treatment because of a common belief that reliving the event in the psychotherapist's office leads to a healing catharsis.
I think there's research to show that Freud got this "catharsis" thing all wrong. Getting people to re-live and rehearse the trauma simply drives the pain home, deeper, so it becomes almost impossible to dislodge. Let nature take its course. Above all do no harm.
I think there's research to show that Freud got this "catharsis" thing all wrong. Getting people to re-live and rehearse the trauma simply drives the pain home, deeper, so it becomes almost impossible to dislodge. Let nature take its course. Above all do no harm.
I don't know about "catharsis" but I do benefit by working through memories to take the emotional impacts out of them. For instance, I recently broke up with my husband of five years (and companion of nearly 8). As the relationship was dying, I would occasionally hear a song that we danced to when we met. It would reduce me to tears. So I got a copy of the song, played it over and over, relived the night and the love and the ending and pain. It took about a week, but this is one of the easiest breakups I've had. Usually I just try to "get on with it", this time I was determined to "get over it."
This fits with B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning explanation of how catharsis works. The painful stimulus is repeated in non-reactive, non-punishing circumstances so that the conditioned response becomes extinguished.
But operant conditioning also explains how "grief counselling" makes pain worse and longer-lasting. The counselor actively rewards the sufferer by insisting on how bad their experience must have been, and repeats the punishment (even if it didn't happen that way). By that means the subject gets worse and the counselor gets paid more, the longer it goes on.
This fits with B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning explanation of how catharsis works. The painful stimulus is repeated in non-reactive, non-punishing circumstances so that the conditioned response becomes extinguished.
So that's where Hubbard got his "auditing". We just brushed over Skinner in Behavior when I was in a college--OMG--20 years ago. ::feels really old all of the sudden:: I don't remember reading about that, but it could be floating around in my sub-conscious somewhere. :)
Unfortunately, managed health care sets limits to psychotherapy in terms of number of sessions and TX method. In fact, part of the ethics of practice requires the psychotherapist to warn the client that the insurance company may stop paying even though there is more work to be done. This may promote the fast "cookie cutter" approach.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |