The Trouble with Men and Counseling

[BridgeTheGap]

Twenty years ago, Bob Smith’s wife questioned his commitment as a father. She demanded he see a psychiatrist. Smith (not his real name) grudgingly obliged. He went. Once.

“The idea of paying some guy $300 an hour to massage your issues,” says Smith, a Los Angeles-area attorney in his early 60s, “is ridiculous.”

In fact, the psychiatrist Smith talked to found plenty of issues to massage. His 45-minute assessment suggested that Smith was toting a veritable luggage store full of psychological baggage that needed unpacking. He recommended twice-weekly counseling sessions.

Smith was having none of it. Like millions of other American men, he simply couldn’t see paying good money for spilling his guts.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/mind-body/men-and-counseling-zm0z13mazwil.aspx#ixzz2NzjwkLbm

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Good stuff. I'm reposting in the Men's group. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

2. The question is, how did this come to light, given patient confidentiality?

How did Betsy Bates Freed and David Freed learn the intimate details of this patient's psychological issues?

And how does this kind of exposure convince men that it is safe to talk to a shrink?

[Warpy]

4. Names and specifics were changed, of course.

Medical case studies are done all the time with the person's anonymity preserved. I've been in a couple of scholarly articles, myself, with part of my face blacked out so I can't be identified (the price of being an interesting case in Boston). I did give my consent and possibly other people in this article did, too.

[Xipe Totec]

7. Changed, of course, but by a witness who shouldn't be in possession of any of this information.

By the description of the patient in this article he is a person who, to this day, and over a period of over 20 years, has been reluctant to talk to a psychiatrist about his personal psychological problems.

If he was not willing to talk abut his problem to a shrink 20 years ago, and 20 years later he still does not want to talk to a shrink, would he be the one talking to the press? Not likely.

If 20 years ago he went to a shrink once, and then didn't go to one for 20 years, would he be going to the same shrink 20 years later? Again, not likely. The previous one more than likely has retired, died, forgotten the original visit, or lost the case file.

That leaves the spouse as the only persistent memory source in those 20 years, and evidently upset that her husband still doesn't want to talk to a shrink... Is she the source? And if so, is she qualified to make this kind of medical assessment?

The story just doesn't sound credible as a case study originating from the doctor, and it's clear the guy is still resistant.

Hence my skepticism about the background to this case.

[Warpy]

8. It might be a composite and it might be specific

and from a scholarly article that buried everything in aliases.

Such articles abound in medicine. I've read many of them and written a few.

In any case, consent could be given posthumously by the widow.

[Xipe Totec]

9. My apologies if I seem obstinate - perhaps I'm not stating my point clearly.

Even if the widow gave her consent, she would be consenting to disclosing information she should not have had in the first place, and would not have had, unless the psychiatrists violated patient confidentiality and told her, 20 years ago that her husband had problems that required regular therapy sessions.

So either the psychiatrist violated confidentiality, or the spouse is relating second hand information she heard from her husband (i.e., "the shrink wants to see me regularly and I'm not going to go&quot . On the one hand we have an ethical problem. On the other we have a credibility problem (she is not a qualified psychiatrist sharing a clinical report; just a lay person relating from memory something she heard 20 years ago).

I hope this explains why I'm having trouble with the story purely form a critical analysis perspective.

[upaloopa]

3. I am a man I have been seeing a psychiatrist

for over 20 years.
I'm afraid this going to evolve into one of those threads were men are all lumped together and a consensus will develop
where I am the exception because it is so important that we men get our shit together and some DUers feel it is their responsibility to make sure that happens.

[Warpy]

6. The problem with every statistical norm is the number of outliers

I know plenty of men in therapy.

However, I knew far too many others who resist it because they're supposed to be the ones who fix everything, because they hate talking about how they feel, because they hate talking about anything interpersonal unless they're making a joke about it, because they're reg'lar guys and if the wife would quit bellyaching, everything would be just fine.

Stereotypes exist because the majority of a group falls into it somewhere or other. However, as a woman who's great at math and hates shopping, I recognize the fury of being outside the statistical norm on any level.

[cbayer]

5. Some of the most difficult cases are men with severe anxiety or panic attacks.

They are so much more comfortable with something being wrong with their heart or lungs or just about any other part of them.

It's part of the bigger problem with the stigmatization of psych illnesses and treatment, and it is truly harder for men in general.