Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Comments by rquagan

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • It is sad that the interviewer lost a brother to suicide, but I’m not sure that justifies his response. If this is a personal issue that is upsetting to him, perhaps another reporter may have done the interview. Or, should he have been chosen to be the interviewer just for this reason, and it is personal, then maybe Ms. Williamson may have responded in a more clinical sense and said something like, “It seems that the death of your brother to suicide must have been devastating for you.” What I see here is the confusion to whether this is a fact finding interview for a political candidate, or a dialogue between a professional and one who would benefit from counseling.

  • The email newsletter refers to this article as “the mental health industry pathologizing adaptive responding”. My question to the community is when does this not happen? I believe just about any instance of what is presently termed a “symptom” is an attempt to self protect or response in order to adapt. A client is labeled psychotic because she experiences the Virgin Mary put her arms around her when she is flooded with frightening memories from the past while at a retreat. Another client is labeled explosive because he has found a way to defend himself and thus makes getting hurt less likely. When I suggest to clients that their “psychiatric symptom” was a protective way of responding to what happened, the scales fall from their eyes.