Posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 12:54:20
In reply to Re: therapy debate gets 'raucous' - Auntie Mel » Shadowplayers721, posted by Dinah on August 11, 2004, at 11:55:11
What I said in my previous post could clearly be construed to mean that I judged contribution to society as a purely monetary function. That is not at all my belief.
I was merely putting on a fiscal responsibility hat for a moment to point out that it is not only humane, but economically responsible to provide people with the treatment they need. How many therapy sessions can one inpatient hospital stay pay for? How many therapy sessions can the hospital stay for a failed suicide attempt pay for? What is the lifetime earnings potential of a person who completed a suicide attempt.
And of course, my main point was that I would never judge whether therapy is a personal indulgence because someone still has problems. That can only be judged by comparing the same person with and without therapy. Which admittedly makes outcome studies difficult.
A fictional, but reasonable to me, example is in the TV show Monk. Mr. Monk goes to frequent therapy, yet is still plagued by what most would consider to be extreme dysfunction. Yet in one episode we meet his brother who is not going to frequent therapy and get an understanding that Mr. Monk is actually coping quite well. Fictional, yes. But a good object lesson, I think.
poster:Dinah
thread:376384
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040805/msgs/376440.html