Law and Ethics

So last night in my Law and Ethics class I had an interesting experience. The topic was Referrals When Clients Profess Feelings of Attraction, and I held a slightly different view than the professor. I also had a different opinion when it came to Length of Treatment Time.

Basically, and I agree with my professor, that it is one option to refer out when clients start to talk about feeling attracted to their therapists and if their therapists start to feel attracted towards them. However, my professor initially presented the idea of referral as the only option, and that seriously didn't sit well with me. After all, it is highly prevalent for clients to feel attracted to their therapists and it is also not uncommon for therapists to experience some level of erotic countertransference (being attracted to client) as well. It is perhaps not hard to realize why such phonomenon exists when one think of the intimate nature of the therapeutic setting and the work involved. However, I would argue that, since it is so prevalent, what does that mean and is referral the best to deal with such things when they occur? It makes more sense to me for both the therapist and client to recognize that, while processing such feelings can be entirely therapeutic, sexual acting out is never tolerable and entirely unethical. There is a huge gray area between feeling something and then actually acting on it, and I see that's where therapists come in to direct the conversation and to use the material to an therapeutic end. Where are these feelings coming from? Is the client attempting to regulate his/her affect through such transference? Is the client trying to manipulate the therapist? What are the implications for the client's relational template when he/she raises such feelings in therapy? What are they trying to create? Are they trying to meet their emotional needs? Then why would they choose such a setting instead of a real life one? What does that say about the client? Granted, it can be very uncomfortable, but that may be exactly why it could be beneficial. The therapist needs to be able to keep his/her emotions in check and makes sure that he/she is getting his/her own emotional needs met outside of their work to ensure good boundary setting and to avoid unconsicous exploitation of the client. It is not easy, but, who said being a therapist is about easy? Wouldn't you choose to be a typist or admin assistant if you want black and white and no in-between?

I expressed my view, and my professor, in my view, copped out. He just said that certainly the situations I describe are still ethical, but dangerous. Well, dangerous for whom and because of what? He didn't answer me. AAAArrrrrgggggghhhh. But, I like him. He is a good professor.

He also talked about ethic issues regarding termination. He thought it to be potentially unethical if a client sees the same therapist for 12 years.....or some long time like that. I disagree. While it is important to make sure that the therapists not to treat their clients like money cows, it is dangerous to put a time cap on how long treatment lasts. What if the client has been abused for 35 years prior to coming to therapy, then is 12 years of recovery too long? What if the client has been raped, been an incest victim, or prisoner of war? In these extremely traumatic situations, is 12 years too long? Solely looking at the time itself could be misleading and dangerous; it is more important that professionals keep track of their clinical records and have a good handle on treatment progress rather than focusing on time. I expressed my opinon, and again, my professor copped out. He agreed with me briefly, and then restated his opinions. Oh well. What the hell.

Actually, the only reason why I care to raise these points was because he was lecturing to a roomfull of beginning therapists. I'd hate for my counterparts to receive his viewpoints as the only ones in these matters.

When am I going to stop being an advcoate?