PsyDoc, you did say that you believe this to be an axiom 4 situation. Do you now not believe this to be an Axiom 4 “punctuating the sequence” situation? In my opinion, and I say this with respect, you do not have a full understanding of the axiom you applied in this satiation, your Axiom 4 or the Interactional View Theory called “Punctuating the Sequence” I am not saying that you are confused in a derogatory way, I am saying that you either do not have a full understanding of the “punctuating the sequence” axiom 4 of the Interactional View Theory, or that you do understand the theory and applied it correctly and hence do believe that the OP has some responsibility in this. In other words, from your very own words below, you have either contradicted yourself or don’t understand the theory. You said and I quote:He created this situation, not Monica. In family therapy, we refer to this process as "punctuating the sequence". then in applying Axiom 4, you acknowledge that the OP had some responsibility in the situation. That’s the very basis of the "punctuating the sequence" Axiom, that both people are responsible for a situation. This runs contrary to your supposition that the OP was completely the victim and that that her neighbor was completely the perpetrator. In other words you contradict yourself in your above quote and I believe therein lies the problem you are struggling with, you are conflicted in this situation and have not convinced yourself that you believe that it is ethical for the OP to pursue this situation further without substiantaiton. I am not trying to be derogatory in this discussion, I am trying to help you to understand why it is wrong for the OP to become involved in preventing the man to get counseling at a facility that the OP does not work at. I also noticed, and I say this respectfully, that you have not addressed your contradictions in any of the discussion, the only thing you have really said is that you are right and I am wrong, without backing up any of your discussion with examples or an ethical premise to support your assertions. Going on the premise that you yourself believe that Axiom 4 applies in this situation, then you can not deny that Monica has some responsibility in this situation. And this being the case, yes, it would be clearly unethical for the OP to have this man banned from a place which the OP does not work at. So either you have mis applied the Interactional View Theory in this situation and believe the alcoholic to be solely responsible, or you have applied it correctly which would in essence contradict your original supposition that the OP is completely the victim and the Alcoholic is solely to blame. Monica may have compassion for the general public, clients in general, drug addicts, etc. I don't know. Whatever her personal feelings may be, ethical standards of a psychotherapeutic relationship do not apply here. I agree with you there. I never said anything to the contrary. I have always maintained that the OP does not have a therapeutic relationship with the alcoholic. This is nothing new here. Even if she had a therapeutic responsibility to this man (which she does not), compassion is not justification for further victimization. I hope that clarifies things. I agree there too' you see, we agree on many things! No one should be victimized. Neither the alcoholic, nor the original poster. Nothing hew here in your assertion, I have said this as well in this thread. So the bottom line here is this: your argument is that it is unethical for Monica to request that someone who violated her rights and threatened her at her own home be treated at another facility. And you claim that it is unethical for her to do so simply because she's a therapist. All the tangential issues aside, this is the crux of your argument. I strongly disagree. No, it is not the crux of my argument, you still do no have a good understanding of it and no, that is not what the OP is asking. She is asking that the man be banned from a place that the OP does not work at. So yes that is unethical. And if the OP was not a therapist and worked at one building and wanted to ban a man from a place she did not work at, it would still be wrong. I'm not saying that "just because" the OP is a therapist that it is wrong for her to have him banned. Respectfully, you are still minunderstanding the boundaries between therapist and non therapists in my opinion. And the point that it would be unethical for a non therapist to do this is moot anyway because non therapists don't have ethics codes to follow. The OP said and I quote: …but I don't even want him to be at the other site. She believes we can make him have to get services at another agency, So yes that would be unethical and in my opinion grounds for this couple to file a defamation lawsuit against her for interference, whether or not she was a therapist You see the problem here PsyDoc is that despite the fact Also, Since the OP imagines that this man will start a smear campaign against her then this does indicate that she does harbor some pangs of guilt for getting herself interjected into this situation which is why she posed the question in the first place to this forum. Otherwise she would not have asked the question. Even you yourself admit that she was partly responsible here because you claim that an Axiom 4 “punctuating the sequence” situation occurred here. The bottom line here is that yes it is very good that th I have addressed the issue of other facilities in the county so many times, I don't think there's anything left to say. If there are none, then he should be treated at the other site of her company. I've said that about 5 times. Yes you have said this five times, and I say this respectfully, even though you have said this five times, you have offered no sound ethical argument to support your theory. Saying it five times without proofs does not make it true, all it means is that you ahve said it five times. All you have basically said is that I am wrong and you are right, but have given no examples or ethical proofs to support your suppositions. The only thing you have done is demonstrated that either If there are comparable facilities (counties usually have multiple contracts with multiple agencies) then she has every right to request he placed there. I disagree, at least from the ethical discussion you have offered thus far. You have not convinced me as of yet. Yes I did, it is in the previous posts and I won’t waste space here. I have offered both many examples, and ethical discussion as to why I am correct. If you did not understand them or did not read them then I suggest that you read them. Also in the OP's original post, no where did she say that the man said that he was going to start a smear campaign against her. Nor did he say he was going to slash her tires. This is what the OP had imagined, and is not based on any credible evidence, so therefore her imagined threats are without Substantiation. If she went to the police and filed a second report which said something like “I imagine this man is going to start a smear campaign against me at work” or that “he might slash my tires”, and that “I don’t want him to be at the other facility that I don’t work at”, that would not hold up in court. The cops probably would not even take the report. And bluntly, and frankly, if she goes into court with these kinds of unsubstianted assertions and they fall through, this alcoholic would have grounds to file a defamation suit against her. The man could say, and rightly so, that the OP is trying to start a smear campaign against him and he would have some valid argument. If he had the correct kind of legal representation she could lose and be required to pay damages. Whether or not she is a therapist. I think that it is poor advice to advise her to further interject herself into this situation, unless of course the man threatens her again. Then she would have grounds to go to court. She should talk to a lawyer instead. So before she goes through with this she should definitely talk to an attorney to cover all the bases and make sure that she should do this, else she could be placing herself in legal peril.
that this man banged on her door, the OP was partly responsible for instigating the situation. She pulled this woman into her home. She got physically involved with this man. Even Dr. Reid himself said this was the wrong thing to do. Let the police handle it. I’m not saying that was necessarily wrong to do, but since she did it, she can’t expect to assign total responsibility to the man who banged on her door and then expect the right to have this man banned from a place she does not work at.
e OP asked this question in the forum and indicated that she is taking responsibility to get outside opinions, that is a positive thing.
a.) you do not fully understand the “punctuating the sequence” axiom 4 of the Interactional View Theory, or
b.) You do understand it and applied it correctly and hence contradicted your idea that the OP does not have any responsibility in instigating the situation.
Nothing you've shown me demonstrates that it is unethical for her to request treatment at another agency under these circumstances.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.