If you haven't take our poll on Why You See A Shrink, then please do! This is just for fun, it's not real science.
So today is Sigmund Freud's birthday. He would be 154 years old.
Today's poll asks How Often Do You See Your Psychiatrist---and I'll ask that you limit your answers to psychiatrists-- M.D.'s or D.O's-- so if you see a non-psychiatrist therapist for therapy, and a psychiatrist for meds--I mean the med check person, and if you're in psychoanalysis with a psychiatrist, I mean the couch person. But I'm not interested in how often you see your social worker/psychologist--- maybe another day.
Yes Peter did mention it was SF birthday. Not a big day in my life, but maybe for you, so will go along with the spirit of the day, because I am a good patient (a pt with PTSD ultra-reliable, not one not with a PD. I only was told I was a good sort of patient here). Your tick a box questionaire is kind of demeaning. Too far this time. Gather your own stats, from your own patients.
Boundary violation. Back in your e-box.
A supporter on most issues. Not this one
Demeaning? Too far? Boundary violation? Are there blogger boundaries?
I'll have to post about why I am asking.
i think it's really interesting. Read: i like to "talk" about myself...ha!
And i am one of the extremely fortunate ones who actually has a Psychiatrist who does therapy.
I think that the blog polling is fun and interesting. It is completely anonymous, so how can it violate anyone's privacy?
I used to see my psychiatrist twice a week and now it is weekly and I am considering every other week or termination because I feel well and reasonably "together". I worry about not feeling together as sooon as I leave, though.
I actually liked twice weekly best, but it is SO expensive and I feel pretty darned good now. I really used to have trouble making it a half week until the next session for a long time. My life was marked by psychiatrist visits. Only two more days. Only one more day. Only twelve more hours. I really felt like I was barely hanging on between sessions. Now the week rolls around and I am busy and it seems like a lot of trouble to drive there and walk a block and wait to see him (I am early; he is on time).
Blogger boundaries.... interesting concept. They are my limits in here, so yeah I get to say what is OK and what isn't, what I will answer and what I won't.
If I feel you are prying into info, that I have no idea what you will use it for, a healthy degree of scepticism is prudent, if you are a blogger of bigly brain. Being of merely medium sized brain and aware that nothing is just between 'you and me', are you surprised that more than one of us is uncomfortable with these polls. If you were more upfront with what the info was for, I might have been more forthcoming.
My therapist (god I hate that word.... he is Pete to me....(he isn't fixated on the 50 min deal, but at that time I am kind of winding things up, without intervention because I have to be elsewhere and so does he). Is it strictly medically necessary that I see him weekly... well no probably not.....but I feel looked after.... and I think, but I don't know, that he is glad of a regular full fee paying customer / client / patient. As I am prepared to pay and he is happy to see me, it is a business deal as far as I am concerned. I achieve more in my life with his regular care than without it.
I do sense some "sour grapes" with Dr Carlat's philosophies and unfortunately you show it. There is room for more for one view, and the discerning amongst us aren't voting for one camp over another, but give us some credit for seeing the real deal ( I am with you)
No-one nows for sure what causes cancer, sure there are risk factors and predisposing conditions, but that doesn't prevent therapy that beats the natural history hands-down. Psych is not alone in that manner.
Bring on robust debate.
(in a much more conciliatory mood now I now what you wanted the info for)
Paperdoll and anyone else who is uncomfortable with the polls,
please answer only if you want to.
It's completely anonymous (just tallies the number, doesn't say who clicked what, at least not in a way that my techno-idiocy would register).
I don't mind that Dr. Carlat wants to say there are problems and look for other solutions. That is wonderful and we need more of that.
What I don't like is
1) the dramatic language. Fine to point out that we often don't know what we're doing or have precise answers (that's kind of obvious in a field where many people don't get well), but the publisher's "shocking truths" and this isn't it unbelievable tone don't help anyone.
Dr. Carlat is actually much tamer than the book cover and only does this a few times. That stuff is about selling books, not helping the field.
2) I don't agree with a lot of what he says, particularly that psychiatrists shouldn't go to med school (why should pathologists? or radiologists? or dermatologists?). Maybe medical education should be rethought and more focused---I think we'd all say there were parts of it we didn't need. Or that turning psychologists in to prescribers would be a great fix.
3) He seems to have the answers---CBT and psychologist prescribing, for starters-- and I'm skeptical that here lies the answer for psychiatry. I learned about CBT in college (I was a psych major at Penn, there was no escaping the teachings of Aaron Beck) and while it's a very useful treatment, I don't think the answer to most people's psychiatric condition is to say ah, we've had this 12-session treatment that fixes psychiatric problems, it's been around for at least 25 years, and we've just overlooked the obvious cure. Mostly, I can't get my patients to really throw themselves in to and they won't do the homework. I think those who specifically seek CBT may be more motivated.
Maybe I'll make this a post later.
Post a Comment