Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 11:55:11
In reply to Re: therapy debate gets 'raucous', posted by Shadowplayers721 on August 11, 2004, at 11:26:54
The unknown factor is what would have happened without therapy. He can work. Would he be able to work without therapy? He can maintain a functional, if not optimal, place in society. Would he be able to do that without therapy? He pays taxes, doesn't need public assistance for shelter and food. Is therapy a more cost effective solution than the alternative?
I think the only fair way to judge therapy is to judge how *this* person would have done with and without therapy.
It wouldn't be fair to judge my therapy by the areas where I'm not well. It's a lot fairer to say "I'm alive. I hold down a more than half time job. I function pretty well as a mother, reasonably well as a wife. Without therapy, there would almost certainly have been suicide attempts, if not successes, hospitalizations, huge costs to my family and society. Maintenance therapy and maintenance medication is cheap in comparison to the alternative."
poster:Dinah
thread:376384
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040805/msgs/376418.html