Therapy Ethics is a wide subject.
In the last post from my presentation at the NCHP conference we were talking about memory. Memory is not some ethereal concept, but is made up of specific neurons in the brain.
I work with a particularly scientific client, and this principle opens up the idea that she is not stuck with a memory for life.
Memories change, re-frame.
Memory is malleable.
This introduces a sense of possibility and with unhelpful memories.
If things haven’t gone the way the client hoped, you’re often dealing with their attachment to how ‘it should have been’ .
Breaking the attachment to the memory (because it may not be entirely accurate) attaches the problem to the memory and not the client.
I’m not blind to the juxtaposition here with the person centred concept of self-actualisation and that the client is the expert in their problem.
I believe both these principles entirely but as with all things sometimes a perspective doesn’t work, and we need more creative solutions.
It’s strange to me too, that in therapy the idea of intervention against natural process is such a minefield
There is this idea that any sense of change in the client that they didn’t initiate themselves is somehow unethical. We do however change everything around us all the time.
We make different types of plants and foods by modification. .
It’s a complex ethical issue, and we will all have our standpoints. Putting male cells into a female body however is a different story when you’re doing it in the context of a bone marrow transplant to save someone’s life from cancer.
There always consequences to acting and there are always consequences to not doing anything.
All I am suggesting here is let’s not be hypocritical. Therapy Ethics is a lens.
Therapy Ethics are important when clients come to us as therapists to change, for us to help them change.
We work in an idiographic way of course, but change is nevertheless the brief. People will always be self-organising, adjusting to minimise discomfort but there are times when that isn’t enough on its own.
In Western medicine, we celebrate advancements and ways of changing things. One day we will beat cancer.
Will anybody be saying that we should have left that process to nature?
All I am suggesting is that we fit the methodology to the client.