) offer no explicit rules about friendships with former patients. Their directives about “multiple” or “dual” relationships, as they’re called, explore friendships withFriendships with former patients are a bit more of a gray area, so I made a few calls for clarification. Dual relationships “are not disallowed as long as the client is not being hurt, [however], most of the psychologists I know would choose not to do it,” David Palmiter, Ph.D.
to share their thoughts about being friends with former patients, and wow, did they ever. The consensus? Most who responded to my social media call-outs said they would never even consider it and instead follow the “once a patient, always a patient” rule. That might be disappointing, but hear us out.
Also, it could be really hard for them to shake a feeling of duty to you that would go beyond a typical friend’s. “I would always feel obligated,” Anna Borisovskaya, M.D., a psychiatrist from the University of Washington, tells SELF. “I would have to respond to every worrisome status post on Facebook. I would have to worry if I didn’t call them often enough—they might take it as a rejection on a variety of levels.
Therapists can also redirect their unconscious feelings about someone else onto their patients, which is called countertransference. In “positive” countertransference relationships, a therapist might really like you and have the desire to be overly supportive, share more about themselves than they should, or break boundaries to support you in some way. The thing is that, as professionals, we’re trained to identify these feelings for what they are and still maintain therapeutic boundaries.
My social media call-out opened my eyes to a few special cases of unavoidable dual relationships. They all hinge on running into each other a lot socially.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: marieclaire - 🏆 102. / 63 Read more »
Source: marieclaire - 🏆 102. / 63 Read more »
Source: CNBC - 🏆 12. / 72 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: BusinessInsider - 🏆 729. / 51 Read more »
Source: Forbes - 🏆 394. / 53 Read more »