Can my therapist legally and ethically make me do this?
Is she nuts?
No... probably not, but probably convinced that "violence in the media" causes all the problems with Our Young People, and thus removing it must be a panacea...
Get a different counselor. This one is clueless.
_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com
Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com
Yes.
Any doctor or therapist can refuse to continue treating you if they feel you will not follow their advice.
If you are unwilling to at least do as they say for a period of time to see if it helps/hurts/has no effect your situation, then there is little more they can do for you.
We (parents of an autie adult) deal with this a little. He has depression and so do I (his mom). Violence and sadness DO make the depression worse. However, REAL and REALISTIC violence is the worst. We have always avoided newscasts and soap opera type shows. We also never allowed slasher-type movies in our home. If the violence is from a ghost or a monster it was OK when he was old enough. NO sadism or torture allowed. He still adores disaster movies though - and was the only one who cried when the earth was saved in armaggedon!
I would first pay a lot of attention to how you feel during and after the violent stuff. Better? Worse?
Then I would consider doing without the worst stuff (just pack it, don't destroy it) for a week. Yes, if you are addicted to it that will feel really scary and bad and make you angry (just like me on a sugar-free diet). Plan some other fun stuff that week. See what happens. And the therapist may be helping you or not - but I bet they are a little scared of the violence, worried that you may carry out some of it, and then they would be held responsible for it...
i dont think your therapist should do that,but has it crossed your mind to just lie and say you dont have intersest in violence.she doesnt know what you do unless you tell her.just say you dont read or watch violent content.however there was a teenager in boston with aspergers who got obsessed with stephen king.he ended up stabing a classmate to death.the courts gave him life without parole even though he was only 17 at the time of the crime.please get help if you get a urge to act out something you read or watched
Legally, yes she can place an ultimatium on you, just as you can ask to seek a different therapist. Ethically is a entirely different side, and I don't know if she can say violent images ( such as the particular manga in question ) causes one to be violent in real life. I can say that there could be reasons why she thinks it could influence you negitively, however it's up to you to decide if the manga is influecing you in any way.
_________________
" If I did THIS... would that mean anything to you? "
No... probably not, but probably convinced that "violence in the media" causes all the problems with Our Young People, and thus removing it must be a panacea...
Get a different counselor. This one is clueless.
This therapist might not be blaming the media for violence. Maybe the OP talks about it too much and it makes her uncomfortable. I can understand why.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
I would get a different psychologist.......lol one time my mom had me talk to some friend of hers who does therapy type stuff. And she told me I should stop listening to metal.....that suggestion alone made me want to kill myself so yeah that was the last time I talked to her. I don't think getting rid of or avoiding the things you enjoy is a good way to deal with depression.......In my experiance its hard enough to even be intrested in anything at all when you have depression.
It's not the same situation. The OP might be able to still read about violence, just not discuss it with the therapist. If he doesn't discuss it, then how will the therapist know he is still reading about it?
The OP might want to suggest to the therapist he won't talk about it anymore and see if that helps.
I didn't explain it very well - the doctor was objecting to his patients smoking at all. He'd pressurize them into promising that they'd quit, then next time he saw them he'd ask them if they'd stopped smoking, they'd say yes, then next time he saw them he'd do a test that proved they hadn't stopped, then he'd dismiss them - he was even known to say to them "I trusted you, and you let me down!" In those days there was no nicotine replacement therapy.....he never took responsibility for the immense practical difficulty that his edicts were creating for his patients. In his mind, smokers didn't deserve to be treated because they "bring it on themselves." Tough love gone mad.
I would not recommend outright getting permanently rid of all your violent entertainment. I mean lets say you do and your therapist turns out to be one of those batcrap crazy 'violent media is the cause of all mental problems, people have no other issues' people then all your stuff is gone and nothing else has changed for the better. But yeah, it's not unreasonable to pack it up and make a deal not to engage in it for a certain period to try it out. You could even suggest to her that someone you trust won't throw it away can take care of that stuff for you for the duration if that would make her feel more at ease with the arrangement.
You might want to ask her why she thinks the violent entertainment is an issue, if she's expecting changes in your personality if you do stop using it. And then ask her, if those changes (whatever she thinks they would be, I'm pretty sure she won't tell you what she thinks will change) don't happen if she is willing to consider that that may not be the cause? Because if she's already decided your violent entertainment is the problem she may not be open to the idea that it's not and even if you uphold your end of the bargain she may accuse you of having gone back on it because she isn't seeing changes she expects to see.
I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ask, but I think the types of people who ask these kind of things are very often unreasonable people. Not always, but generally people who put down these type of ultimatums tend to be very closed off to discussions about the subject. They often seem to want more to make you do something to try to force your feelings than to make you consider the value of that same something. It sounds like she thinks by exposing yourself mainly to violent media you're closing yourself off to more positive stuff and that is affecting your mood and behavior negatively. While I can see her point, sometimes watching a touching comedy just makes you want to break something because your own mood is so far from that feeling it physically hurts to watch people laughing.
You really, really need a new therapist. This one is incredibly unhelpful. Why are some therapists so awful?
Yes, it is legal. It is not a legal issue.
Yes, it is ethical, no ethical lines have been crossed.
but, it is very unreasonable and unhelpful.
and to give an ultimatum--really!
I am amazed at how many replies disagree with this.
Let's be frank here. There is nothing wrong with violent artwork. It doesn't matter if it is music, books, videos, etc.
This sounds like the misguided "violence in the media causes problems in our youth" argument.
I don't know what the cause (if there is one) of your depression but I can tell you your choice of art is not the problem.
The problem here is when a therapist is highly critical about this, it will derail the client relationship.
Only when you can find someone that get past your taste in media (music, movies, etc.) can you then share your problems about your depression.
I truly hope that you will find a less judgmental therapist that can help you out, they do exist. Maybe one that will say, "hey anime is kinda cool, now lets talk about why you are here"
Good Luck!
yeah, that's it quit listening to metal and listen to "happy music" and your problems will go away <sarcasm> LOL!
people are so clueless
Like I said, most of the people who say this are unreasonable people. Who knows, she might be someone who would realize after a period without the entertainment that it doesn't really work that way. I've agreed to try some things I saw no purpose to if they weren't against my core beliefs. Once I made it clear that I felt the exact same way after trying them as before, I didn't bother listening to the "But, you can tell how you can really feel this.." I got in response. My feelings are my own, they are not for others to try to claim ownership of.
I gave their idea a fair unbiased chance, it failed to elicit the feeling they wanted it to elicit in me. I informed them of this, providing them with a chance to change their approach and theories. They told me that my feelings were wrong and I really felt something else. I, disappointed that they were less flexible and open to new paradigms than the person on the Autism spectrum (which really is saying something), left and never came back. But I did give them the chance, which I was personally very proud of. But I also never went back after they failed.
Oh yeah and my vote was get another psychologist. I may believe in giving people a chance if only so you leaving never makes you feel like you were the one who failed, but if what she's been doing so far hasn't worked that can count as her chance.
I still see value in the /exercise/ of removing violent elements from your life as much as possible, and focusing on something more positive, and seeing where it takes you. The idea that it can be removed completely, and that this treatment will be a panacea, is dubious, and I wonder if that's really what your therapist intends.
That being said, I think this points out a big issue in addiction psychology. Let's face it, AA does a /pretty good job/ of getting people off booze, and an /OK/ job of keeping them off it. Given the difficulty of confronting addictions, those so-so results (and the all-or-nothing approach behind it) really colored therapists' ideas of how to confront addictions. And they probably get so-so results - which is far better than what they WERE getting.
There is a lot to be said for moderation. But it takes a LOT of involvement and willpower from the client. Statistically, I don't think it does as well. But I'll bet that it has lower chances of relapse once it is successful, since the client builds skills to deal with it instead of running from it. Meanwhile, most 'cold turkey' clients will buckle under even minimal pressure once separated from their support network. Moderation is also a harder program for the therapist.
For myself, my drinking became a problem for a while. I considered abstaining, and did for a while. But eventually I limited myself to 2 drinks a night, and never alone, and never when I'm sad. It was tricky at first, but now I moderate just fine. It's not for everyone, but moderation CAN work.
If you think you have what it takes to pull off the moderation approach, I'd present that to your therapist. But you can't be half-in with that approach; it rests very firmly on your own willpower. Start by taking what violence you can out of your life, and see if you can do without for a few weeks. Talk out your feelings and frustrations during this stage, so you can fully examine how a lack of violence affects your mood, and what places in your life are left empty by its absence. Then slowly add it back in until you've reached a happy medium. Perhaps an hour a week with a timer set. And then see if you can handle reading a series without going numb.
the more fundamental problem here is when a client feels they have to lie to a therapist than the relationship just doesn't work and therapy is likely to fail.
It's not the same situation. The OP might be able to still read about violence, just not discuss it with the therapist. If he doesn't discuss it, then how will the therapist know he is still reading about it?
The OP might want to suggest to the therapist he won't talk about it anymore and see if that helps.
I didn't explain it very well - the doctor was objecting to his patients smoking at all. He'd pressurize them into promising that they'd quit, then next time he saw them he'd ask them if they'd stopped smoking, they'd say yes, then next time he saw them he'd do a test that proved they hadn't stopped, then he'd dismiss them - he was even known to say to them "I trusted you, and you let me down!" In those days there was no nicotine replacement therapy.....he never took responsibility for the immense practical difficulty that his edicts were creating for his patients. In his mind, smokers didn't deserve to be treated because they "bring it on themselves." Tough love gone mad.
I disagree with the Doctor on that issue, Tough Diamond. He should treat their addiction and leave it at that. He shouldn't dismiss them over a health problem unless they require a specialist. Doctors refer their patients but usually do not cease in being their PCP because of a health issue, so giving a patient an ultimatum in this case is counterproductive.
However, there does seem to be a doctor shortage, so maybe he was looking for an excuse to dump patients? Or, maybe he thought it would work, though that kind of method can result in the patient wanting to smoke more and more reluctant to quit.
Too bad there wasn't a nicotine replacement therapy back then. The doctor might have thought resorting to those tactics were his only alternative, and he rationalized by thinking he was really helping the patient quit by the only means he had.
