More threads by David Baxter PhD

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
Where Can the Doctor Who?s Guided All the Others Go for Help?
By ELISSA ELY, M.D., New York Times Mind
June 23, 2009

Psychiatry is a relatively safe profession, but it has a hazard that is not apparent at first glance: if you are in it long enough, there may be no one to talk to about your own problems.

It is not that way when you start out. Most psychiatric residents spend a good deal of time in therapy with a senior psychiatrist, for a number of reasons ? not least, that it is the most intimate way to learn technical magic. Books teach the same thing to everyone who reads them. But no one forgets the crystalline remark their therapist made just to them, and how they viewed themselves differently ever after.

At a certain point, though, you stop being the student and become the teacher. You settle into the details of a career ? hospital, research, private practice. Roots go down, time passes. Eventually, younger psychiatrists begin to approach you. Now you are the generation above, saving early-morning slots for residents before they head off to clinic and class. You lower fees and accommodate their hurtling, insane schedules. You remember how it was.

But no amount of wisdom prevents personal frailty. You are never too old for your own problems. Yet when you are the professional others go to, where do you bring your sorrows and secret pain?

Sometimes the situation is clear. During my training there was a formidable psychiatrist who disappeared periodically. Everyone knew she was being hospitalized for a recurrent manic psychosis, and that she would be back to intimidate the trainees as soon as medications had stabilized her.

There was an oddness about it, but no dishonor. Actually, her illness made her more impressive. We are taught to explain that mental illness has a biological component responsive to medical treatment, just like diabetes or heart disease. Her example brought conviction to our tone.

In my residency, I moonlighted in a medication clinic where an elderly psychiatrist was being treated for a dementia he did not recognize. He could not remember simple requests, raised his cane to strangers, screamed at family members; his wife met with me separately and told me she was ready to leave him.

Carefully writing ?Dr.? on the top line of each of his prescriptions, I felt undersized and overregarded. Yet he took the pills without question and showed a fatherly interest in my career. Years later, I thought maybe his wife had chosen a student deliberately. My junior status allowed him to maintain his senior status.

Often, though, the situation is not straightforward, and medication is not the problem. Life is. Maybe we are overcome, maybe ashamed, maybe despairing. Self-revelation ? the nakedness necessary in therapy ? is hard when you have been a model to others.

?In my situation, it would be difficult to find someone,? Dr. Dan Buie, a beloved senior analyst in Boston, told me. It is not that psychiatrists aren?t waiting in wing chairs all over the city. It is that so many of them are former students and former patients. One generation of psychiatrists grows the next through teaching and treatment.

Surrendering that professional identity to become a patient reverses a kind of natural order. ?You can?t be a simple patient,? Dr. Buie said. ?Anyone I?d go to, I?ve known.? To avoid it, some travel to other cities for therapy (probably passing colleagues in trains heading in the other direction).

There is also the factor of experience. It is one thing if my internist is younger than I; she is closer to the bones of medicine, and with any luck we can get to know each other for years before serious illness requires more intimate contact. It is another thing if my therapist is younger than I.

?It would be a big mistake not to turn to someone,? Dr. Buie went on, ?but I might have some trouble going to younger colleagues. It?s hard to understand the issues that come up in the course of a life cycle unless you?ve lived it yourself.?

Dr. Rachel Seidel, a psychoanalyst and psychiatrist in Cambridge, said that when people feel vulnerable, ?we want someone with more insight than we have.?

?It?s a paradox,? she added. ?Do I have to have gone through what you?ve gone through in order to be empathic to you? And yet, I?d have a preference for someone who?s been around longer.?

Some look laterally for help. Peer supervision is a well-known form of risk management; presenting troubling professional cases to colleagues prevents folly and mistakes at any age.

?I use a couple of peers,? said Dr. Thomas Gutheil, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. ?Then they use me. It?s the reciprocity that?s key ? you feel the comfort of telling everything about yourself when you know the reverse is also true.?

Other solutions are even closer. The playwright Edward Albee once wrote that it can be necessary to travel a long distance out of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly. The best source of help can be the nearest source of all. An elderly luminary at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute listened without comment when asked: Whom does he ? the doctor others seek out for help ? seek out for help himself? He wasted no words.

?My wife,? he said crisply.

Elissa Ely is a psychiatrist in Boston.
 
I've been thinking about this topic for some time, so I'm glad Dr. Ely wrote this piece and I thank you for posting it, David. The way I see it, there are two issues here: one legitimate, and one a defense.

The legitimate: if a therapist has been around a while and knows every other therapist in the city (or if they live in a small town and knew everyone immediately), seeking out therapy will be a problem. This is a logistical issue that may resolve through weekly road trips or some form of teletherapy.

The defense: I think some therapists are blinded by pride. According to this article a wise old therapist may take issue with the age, life experience and professional status of potential therapists. I'll also throw in here intelligence, academic degree and other career milestones. If a therapist doesn't possess certain standards of training, seasoning and intellect (at least a step above theirs), they won't pass muster. They're not going to be able to help, so why bother. I say this is baloney.

In my opinion, there are two primary criteria for a helpful therapist: she has to be competent, and she has to be other.

As for competence: she needs to know professional ethics, have some theoretical training and experience, have some personal understanding of sadness, anger, fear, joy, love and hurt and she should be aware of her own garbage.

As for other: she should be able to sit with another person, work to understand him, empathize with him without merging, formulate themes and theories about his development and have the courage to share them. She needs to be able to see things he can't see and say things he doesn't want to hear. She needs to be other.

Years on the planet doesn't matter. Number of clients, years in school or shared personal tragedies are insignificant. In fact, they're a smoke screen. How many stories have you heard of a child who shocked an adult by pointing out the obvious? How many times have you, an insightful, psychologically-minded person benefitted from the observations of someone you consider less insightful, wise, experienced or intelligent than you? Probably several times, if you're listening for it. A good therapist should be able to understand their client and point out patterns or conflicts without their own issues getting in the way, regardless of age, vitae or biography. Therapists avoiding personal reflection because there isn't anyone older and wiser is a cop out. I think they're just too proud to face their junk.
 

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
I think some therapists are blinded by pride. According to this article a wise old therapist may take issue with the age, life experience and professional status of potential therapists. I'll also throw in here intelligence, academic degree and other career milestones. If a therapist doesn't possess certain standards of training, seasoning and intellect (at least a step above theirs), they won't pass muster. They're not going to be able to help, so why bother. I say this is baloney.

I totally agree.

I used to say to my students that the critical factor I saw in new clinical psychologists in training was what I called "clinical instinct", which is a mixture of empathy, perspective taking, and gut level insight. If you have. most of the rest of your training is going to be skill and knowledge acquisition. If you don't have it, you may be able to make a living in clinical psychology but your never going to be that top level therapist.

Of the top therapists I've had personal experience with (not counting me, of course! :eek:), either through therapy myself or through clinical supervision, two are masters level therapists and one was a psychiatrist with MFT training.

As with medications, sometimes it's a matter of trial and error, and finding the right match.
 
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Top