Risk Taking in Therapy

[quinn rithi]

There is often a conflict in therapy between conformity and effectiveness. Brain C-13 Review  The desire to "do no harm", to remain within the scope of practice, and to comply with ethical and boundary requirements result in a hesitancy to explore alternatives that may be in the patient or client's best interest. While I would never question the compassionate intention of such limitations, they may very well present a stultifying effect on the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions. My intent here is to explore the appropriate balance between risk-taking and caution both in the intellectual development of our professions as well as regarding practical applications with subjects.

Most certainly I would be the first to admit that risk-taking is allowed within the established and accepted rules. Clinicians have license to try a variety of approved techniques. Clinton Clay, LCSW, who was one of my first NLP instructors, impressed upon me the necessity of having a collection of optional techniques - meaning that there is no one solution to everyone's concerns.

Indeed, even Milton H. Erickson, MD, preached that psychiatrists should approach their practices as somewhat of an art rather than being confined by a particular school of thought. Nevertheless, when looked at with historical perspective, risky protocols are frequently viewed later as barbaric - such as frontal lobotomies and many of the methods that were once common in self-styled modern asylums. This leaves me to conclude that several of the current methods may also eventually be considered cruel and ineffective by the practitioners only a few decades from now.Regardless, too many clinicians and theorists mistakenly regard psychology as a field of science rather than as a primitive, nascent endeavor.

https://diet4today.com/brain-c-13-review/