My own view is taken from the theory of organisations or institutions. The organisation exists to perpetuate itself, and the principal aim of each and every part of that organisation is the maintenance of the status quo, at all costs. Any individual within the organisation is expendable to that end, and the weakest are the most expendable of all.
Change is always perceived as a threat, and is always resisted. Dissent is always seen as an abberration (or in t terms pathological), and compliance the only acceptable route.
So then we apply this to the NHS, and its provision of medical services or therapy to people such as myself. The rules are set by the doctors, and followed by the patients. Some flexibility is claimed, but it is not authentic. For example, you have a one hour session. You are able as the patient to change this to 50 minutes if you prefer, but you cannot change it to 65. You can choose to see the doctor fortnightly, but you cannot choose to see him/her twice a week. You cannot even arrange a new appointment if he misses one; that is just too bad. You wait a fortnight or three weeks or as long as it takes.
It is claimed that the rules are there to protect both patient and therapist, but the protection is unbalanced, and very much in favour of the professional. In the UK the patient is 'protected' for one hour per week maximum. There is no safety net whatsoever, apart from the A&E department. The therapist is protected 24/7.
Promises which are made turn out to be conditional. They are kept only if the doctor remembers them, and if the patient insists on them. Otherwise they are conveniently forgotten. If challenged, the doctor responds by saying something like; 'you didn't seem bothered, so I didn't think it was important any more.' In other words, they base their decisions to break their word on unverified (and wrong) assumptions about your internal state. And that is supposed to be ok.
The relationship never has the chance to become one of adult:adult cooperation. It is designed to create a dependency, based on punishment:reward. Maybe even Stockholm syndrome stuff.
The provision is geared 100% to the needs of the therapist, rather than the needs of the patient.
Claims are made about privacy. My daughter was told in her first session that everything she said would be private and confidential, and this was not qualified. The t then wrote a detailed description of her situation and sent it to the referring doctor. That is not consistent with the promise we were made. When I challenged this, I was offered a rationalisation, rather than an apology; why it is ok for doctors to write to one another, and why this is not included in the words 'totally private', when spoken to a child.
I am not a fan of t. And I have yet to meet a t who kept his or her promises to me; promises which I did not extort, but which they offered as part of the therapy. Freely given, and just as freely broken. I sit there thinking that I am there to provide the t with part of the rationale for their job; I and my fellow patients contribute to their identity, their means of earning a living and their self esteem. Who exactly, therefore, is the 'therapy' aimed at?
In return the t provides me with the occasional insight, a lot of pain, and eventual abandonment. Not to mention transferance which they are too arrogant to recognise even when you spell it out to them.
With therapy like that, who needs N parents?
So, to finally get to the question, yes, be honest with the t. They are supposed to be able to cope with that. In my experience they can't, but it is worth a try. Stay positive, because if she is one of the better ones, then she must be able to achieve something,
so do what you can to connect.
((((((hugs))))))
