- Thread starter stopdog
- Start date
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
There's probably a boatload of reasons.
One guess:
Any time you introduce new treatment modalities (at least at the same time), you may increase the risk of watering down the import and focus on the first line of therapy. And that's just with one therapist.
There's probably a boatload of reasons.
One guess:
Any time you introduce new treatment modalities (at least at the same time), you may increase the risk of watering down the import and focus on the first line of therapy. And that's just with one therapist.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
How so? It seems like the focus on just one leaves room for the client to gain less knowledge, increases the potential for more abuse of therapist power and keeps the idea that therapy is something that cannot be explained going. With two - the client has a reference, something to compare this to, a way of knowing if something works or not - which in my experience is missing if you are locked into one therapist who will not answer questions or explain what therapy is supposed to look like or how to do it or how to tell if you are worse because it is working or because it is not.
How so? It seems like the focus on just one leaves room for the client to gain less knowledge, increases the potential for more abuse of therapist power and keeps the idea that therapy is something that cannot be explained going. With two - the client has a reference, something to compare this to, a way of knowing if something works or not - which in my experience is missing if you are locked into one therapist who will not answer questions or explain what therapy is supposed to look like or how to do it or how to tell if you are worse because it is working or because it is not.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
Well, for example, there are behavior therapists who think cognitive therapy is beneficial but overrated. So they see the real "healing" taking place with behavioral activation or exposure therapy. So focusing a lot on both approaches at once may not necessarily be beneficial.
I am all for psychoeducation, but I think a more effective use of one's limited resources (money and time) would be to try one therapist at a time. And most therapists are familiar with a number of treatment approaches (not to mention that public university libraries have thousands of undergrad and graduate-level psych books available to the public -- including DVDs).
Well, for example, there are behavior therapists who think cognitive therapy is beneficial but overrated. So they see the real "healing" taking place with behavioral activation or exposure therapy. So focusing a lot on both approaches at once may not necessarily be beneficial.
I am all for psychoeducation, but I think a more effective use of one's limited resources (money and time) would be to try one therapist at a time. And most therapists are familiar with a number of treatment approaches (not to mention that public university libraries have thousands of undergrad and graduate-level psych books available to the public -- including DVDs).
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
I have tried one at time and that works out badly for me. I have an advanced degree and have read over 20 books in the past month about how to do therapy, how to end therapy etc and non of them agree or make much sense. About the only thing I get out of them is that therapy is magic, no one knows how or why it works, therapists hate clients who do not just agree with them and I hate the ones who write these books. Both of mine are psychodynamic/eclectic. I just wondered why it seems to upset therapists so much.
I have tried one at time and that works out badly for me. I have an advanced degree and have read over 20 books in the past month about how to do therapy, how to end therapy etc and non of them agree or make much sense. About the only thing I get out of them is that therapy is magic, no one knows how or why it works, therapists hate clients who do not just agree with them and I hate the ones who write these books. Both of mine are psychodynamic/eclectic. I just wondered why it seems to upset therapists so much.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
I would agree with this:
I would agree with this:
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
Thank you for that brief article and for taking the time to respond. The article still does not explain how the treatment could be compromised or how the problems become worse by seeing two. Just that it is unethical for them (without explanation) and a general statement that it is a bad idea. Why is it that these people are so reluctant to explain their positions and give actual reasons rather than some pat general sentence. I simply have not told mine and they have not asked or told me I could not. One of the reasons I asked the question was that I had seen that article earlier and was hoping someone could elaborate. It still seems to me it is more of a power issue on the part of the therapist than anything to do with the client. Of course, I would also see two cardiologists if I felt like it and could pay.
Thank you for that brief article and for taking the time to respond. The article still does not explain how the treatment could be compromised or how the problems become worse by seeing two. Just that it is unethical for them (without explanation) and a general statement that it is a bad idea. Why is it that these people are so reluctant to explain their positions and give actual reasons rather than some pat general sentence. I simply have not told mine and they have not asked or told me I could not. One of the reasons I asked the question was that I had seen that article earlier and was hoping someone could elaborate. It still seems to me it is more of a power issue on the part of the therapist than anything to do with the client. Of course, I would also see two cardiologists if I felt like it and could pay.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
If you allow the therapists to talk to each other (and if they are willing to do so -- which may be a big assumption), I think you may be onto something:
The art of co-therapy: how ... - Google Books
---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------
But it seems there is no evidence to support co-therapy with two individual therapists as more effective than just seeing one therapist. It seems like the whole notion of it went out of fashion due to the disadvantages not outweighing the benefits. For example, it would seem to be a coordination nightmare. (Some of the hardest problems in theoretical computer science involve coordination among machines -- which is relatively simple compared to coordination between humans.)
Some things that come to mind:
"Too many cooks in the kitchen." vs. Benefits of synergy
More insight vs. "Insight does not equal behavior change"
As someone who hasn't seen a psychodynamic therapist, my initial impression of having two psychodynamic therapists would be that there may be too much emphasis already on trying to gain insight with just the one therapist, let alone two. (With the OCD I have, for example, trying to seek more knowledge/insight is, at least eventually, more part of the problem than the solution.)
If you allow the therapists to talk to each other (and if they are willing to do so -- which may be a big assumption), I think you may be onto something:
The art of co-therapy: how ... - Google Books
---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------
But it seems there is no evidence to support co-therapy with two individual therapists as more effective than just seeing one therapist. It seems like the whole notion of it went out of fashion due to the disadvantages not outweighing the benefits. For example, it would seem to be a coordination nightmare. (Some of the hardest problems in theoretical computer science involve coordination among machines -- which is relatively simple compared to coordination between humans.)
Some things that come to mind:
"Too many cooks in the kitchen." vs. Benefits of synergy
More insight vs. "Insight does not equal behavior change"
As someone who hasn't seen a psychodynamic therapist, my initial impression of having two psychodynamic therapists would be that there may be too much emphasis already on trying to gain insight with just the one therapist, let alone two. (With the OCD I have, for example, trying to seek more knowledge/insight is, at least eventually, more part of the problem than the solution.)
suewatters1
Member
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
I have 3 therapist. I have GP/Psychotherapist and I have a Psychiatrist and I have a CMHA worker. I see all 3 every month. My Psychiatrist is the only one that gives medications but all 3 has the same style of treatment. So they compliment each other and I get session with all 3. Lately I have been seeing my Psychiatrist every 2 weeks becasue I am having more of a difficult time with dealing with life. Also my CMHA worker is coming to my place next week to help me clean and organize my place.
Sue
I have 3 therapist. I have GP/Psychotherapist and I have a Psychiatrist and I have a CMHA worker. I see all 3 every month. My Psychiatrist is the only one that gives medications but all 3 has the same style of treatment. So they compliment each other and I get session with all 3. Lately I have been seeing my Psychiatrist every 2 weeks becasue I am having more of a difficult time with dealing with life. Also my CMHA worker is coming to my place next week to help me clean and organize my place.
Sue
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
As Daniel said, the major potential problem is coordination and timing.
Therapy is not just about sitting in a chair listening to the client. It's in large part about determining when the client is ready for what and how to identify the best strategies to help an individual client. As a therapist, when I work with a client I have a "master plan" in mind - it's flexible of course and subject to review as therapy progresses - but in order to carry out that plan I typically need to prepare the client, first by reducing distress and helping the client to better manage the most distressing symptoms; then by helping the client to identify his or her own goals for therapy; and then guiding the client in steps toward those goals.
That process, which I think is essential to therapy, can be compromised if the client is getting advice or interventions that may be contradictory or otherwise in conflict with what I am trying to do.
It's not that having more than one therapist is impossible - indeed inpatient therapy usually involves a team of different professionals - but it does require that there be close communication between the various therapists involved, and that each therapist understand the overall goals of therapy at each stage (in a hospital setting, this is done via case conferences).
As Daniel said, the major potential problem is coordination and timing.
Therapy is not just about sitting in a chair listening to the client. It's in large part about determining when the client is ready for what and how to identify the best strategies to help an individual client. As a therapist, when I work with a client I have a "master plan" in mind - it's flexible of course and subject to review as therapy progresses - but in order to carry out that plan I typically need to prepare the client, first by reducing distress and helping the client to better manage the most distressing symptoms; then by helping the client to identify his or her own goals for therapy; and then guiding the client in steps toward those goals.
That process, which I think is essential to therapy, can be compromised if the client is getting advice or interventions that may be contradictory or otherwise in conflict with what I am trying to do.
It's not that having more than one therapist is impossible - indeed inpatient therapy usually involves a team of different professionals - but it does require that there be close communication between the various therapists involved, and that each therapist understand the overall goals of therapy at each stage (in a hospital setting, this is done via case conferences).
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
Well, you seem to be doing it already
But for them to coordinate, I think the ideal would be colleagues who work in the same clinic.
Well, you seem to be doing it already
But for them to coordinate, I think the ideal would be colleagues who work in the same clinic.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
I am doing it and they do not know about each other and I see no ill effects and they are both getting paid and if either of them did complain - I would drop that one and find another-so it is more of a curiousity for me. Why not tell the client the "master plan"? It seems very paternalistic and controlling to me for the therapist to get all worried that his master plan is going to be compromised. And again - why on earth would the therapist care?
I am doing it and they do not know about each other and I see no ill effects and they are both getting paid and if either of them did complain - I would drop that one and find another-so it is more of a curiousity for me. Why not tell the client the "master plan"? It seems very paternalistic and controlling to me for the therapist to get all worried that his master plan is going to be compromised. And again - why on earth would the therapist care?
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
The treatment plan is always something a therapist should be willing to discuss.
The treatment plan is always something a therapist should be willing to discuss.
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
It seems to me more of a situation of informed consent -as in informing the client = if you work with two therapists, then each one may be less effective - then the client can choose whether to take that risk or not. It is, after all, the client's time and money and life.
It seems to me more of a situation of informed consent -as in informing the client = if you work with two therapists, then each one may be less effective - then the client can choose whether to take that risk or not. It is, after all, the client's time and money and life.
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
You can do whatever you wish, of course.
The bottom line really has nothing to do with what you CAN do or with whether or not you have the right to do it. The bottom line is what is going to get you to your goals in therapy most effectively and efficiently?
Do whatever you wish. But bear in mind that you are consulting experts because you are not an expert in therapy. If you are not going to listen to or follow the advice of the experts you consult, why bother? Why not just save your money and do what you want in the first place?
You can do whatever you wish, of course.
The bottom line really has nothing to do with what you CAN do or with whether or not you have the right to do it. The bottom line is what is going to get you to your goals in therapy most effectively and efficiently?
Do whatever you wish. But bear in mind that you are consulting experts because you are not an expert in therapy. If you are not going to listen to or follow the advice of the experts you consult, why bother? Why not just save your money and do what you want in the first place?
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
Because in therapy especially, there seems little way to know if the expert is any good or not. Also I consult (and advise my clients to do the same) various experts in other areas and see if they agree or conflict or what works best after gathering a lot of information - why is therapy different? Also, even "experts" in therapy go to others for therapy - so being an expert in it would not mean you could simply do it to yourself. I would of course prefer to do it alone without the aide of any therapist at all and like most people in therapy only am trying it as a last ditch effort. Having just one therapist was a disaster for me, so I tried another and it is at least a little better for me than it was before - and much better than when I was dealing with just one. Thanks for the discussion. It seems to me this is just another area of therapy is magic voodoo and clients are just supposed to blindly follow whatever the therapist says or quit.
Because in therapy especially, there seems little way to know if the expert is any good or not. Also I consult (and advise my clients to do the same) various experts in other areas and see if they agree or conflict or what works best after gathering a lot of information - why is therapy different? Also, even "experts" in therapy go to others for therapy - so being an expert in it would not mean you could simply do it to yourself. I would of course prefer to do it alone without the aide of any therapist at all and like most people in therapy only am trying it as a last ditch effort. Having just one therapist was a disaster for me, so I tried another and it is at least a little better for me than it was before - and much better than when I was dealing with just one. Thanks for the discussion. It seems to me this is just another area of therapy is magic voodoo and clients are just supposed to blindly follow whatever the therapist says or quit.
David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Re: Why not see two therapists on a regular basis
*shrug* Your choice. But if you don't trust your therapist, I think you're wasting your time and money. Find one you do trust and stay with him/her.
*shrug* Your choice. But if you don't trust your therapist, I think you're wasting your time and money. Find one you do trust and stay with him/her.
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.
Similar threads
