I’m still not completely sure of the optimal way to proceed with termination.
Termination refers to the end of the therapeutic relationship between patient and physician (or, more specifically, psychiatrist). There are essentially three ways termination can occur:
- Patient exits the relationship (patient stops attending appointments; physician fires patient; s/he dies)
- Physician exits the relationship (s/he dies; patient fires the physician; physician disappears)
- Patient and physician mutually agree on a final appointment date and time and complete the session
Ideally—for both parties—the last option occurs. This allows “closure”. And, no, I’m not entirely sure what comprises “closure”, but the lack of “closure” is why many break-ups suck. Think about it: Break-ups are uncommonly mutually agreed upon events; usually one party decides to unilaterally bail, resulting in negative emotions all around.
In therapy, we do not want to recreate break-ups; instead, we want to model and engage in the graceful end of effective and meaningful relationships. (Psychobabble.)
Saying good-bye is difficult. The white coat-wearing medical doctor within the psychiatrist bristles at the idea of termination; there is something about our medical training that promotes the idea (”virtue”?) of emotional distance and independence from our patients. So many things about our profession (both intentionally and unintentionally) facilitate this: Doctors wear white coats. Doctors wear gloves. Doctors ask a lot of questions, but rarely answer any. Doctors aim for objectivity and evidence.
So when we psychiatrists terminate with patients, the experience is weird and we are often surprised with how difficult it can be.
It’s never too early to initiate termination, so I had informed the adolescent male three months prior to our last appointment together that our time was drawing to a close. At the time, Andrew said nothing.
It’s not that he didn’t have anything to say about it; I had learned by this time that he heard practically everything I said, even though his behavior often purposely suggested that he was ignoring me.
A month prior to last our last appointment together, I reminded him again of my departure.
“Have you seen that Geico commercial? You know, the one with the little kid imitating a monster?” he replied.
As the days passed, he spontaneously mentioned the limited time we had together, though he tossed his remark within a smokescreen:
“I can’t believe that happened; it kinda makes me sad. You and I have three sessions left; we have to make the most of them. So I think I am going to try asking her again, maybe when she’s not so depressed, but it’s hard to tell….”
And that’s the way it had been the entire time we spent together; he would share bits of himself—often only a sentence here, another one there—at random intervals. Sometimes he would acquiesce if I asked a few questions to clarify his remark; most times, he simply changed the subject. One day, I called him on it.
“You’re really good at changing the subject when I ask you questions.”
“Yeah, I know,” he nonchalantly conceded, “I don’t like it when people care about me. It makes me feel weird.”
And when I tried to ask him more about that, he promptly commented on the weather. I smiled—sadly—at him.
The last time I saw him, he greeted me warmly.
We learn in the course of our training that therapeutic termination includes reviewing the time spent together and commenting on progress and goals attained. It’s like a summary statement, an opportunity to reflect upon how the patient has changed and how the patient can continue to effectively pursue his goals.
I already anticipated that, though he would hear my monologue of the above, he would not respond. My hypothesis bore true.
I commented on our very first meeting and what he stated were his goals at that time.
“Did I tell you the joke about the buffalo?”
I continued to commend him for the significant progress he had made in several spheres.
“What did the mother buffalo say to her kid as he left for school?”
I then reiterated his strengths—he had so many: he was so good with people; his integrity was admirable; he was intelligent and thoughtful; he was fiercely independent and more than capable of taking care of himself.
“Bi-son!”
I expressed my hope to him that he would continue to pursue his dreams— I was (and still am) confident that he could reach all of them.
“How about the one about the cowboys?”
I looked at him, willing him to participate in the conversation—but I knew saying good-bye was not his strong suit. His parents had abandoned him when he was young; there was no such thing as a “healthy” good-bye in his experience.
“Because they are too heavy to carry! HA!”
“Take care of yourself,” I said, patting his shoulder. “Good-bye, Andrew.”
He had already started to walk away when he answered, “Alright.”
I watched his lanky figure amble down the hallway. I then quickly turned to go.
(Part of the ongoing Relationship Series.)
21 Jun 2007 |
“there is something about our medical training that promotes the idea (”virtue”?) of emotional distance and independence from our patients.”
As both a (former) mental health professional and a psychiatric patient I would say emotional distance is anything but a virtue. It is a mistaken and I’d argue egotistical assumption that only adds to the great power inequities in the patient/doctor relationship. This inequity is not necessary to the extreme that it is practiced. I found that allowing myself to feel emotion and even identify (heaven forbid!!) with my clients allowed for much better relationships with my clients than many of my colleagues had. I rarely had a difficult time with personality disordered folk, for example. Most colleagues who saw these people who are simply hurting terribly, as “other” and usually spoke of them as though they were sub-human had a terrible time with them.
I was trained to never identify with people–to only show empathy. I learned by experience that identifying with people was the most therapeutic thing I could do. Something most people in the mental health field have yet to discover. It seems sometimes that people are scared they might catch something from their patients–such a terrible disregard is often shown.
Again I state this as having both been treated by numerous untalented mental health professionals of various stripes and working with many as colleagues as well.
Anyway, that being said, I’m really enjoying your relationship series!
Comment by Gianna | 22 Jun 2007 @ 5:35am
Milton Erickson has written that when a client conveys something to you indirectly, it is not effective, and often threatening, to respond to them with a direct communication about the same thing they conveyed indirectly. Instead, respond indirectly. Easier said than done, for me, at least. I guess a joke from you after his Bi-son joke, also about saying goodbye, would be a possibility? I believe that Erickson’s principle is valid, but very challenging to effect.
Comment by Don Austin | 22 Jun 2007 @ 6:44am
I wonder if emotional distance is useful to the practicioner because there is not usually any two-way benefit to the relationship?
Comment by bill | 22 Jun 2007 @ 7:29am
I have been interested for a long time in the fact that while there is abundant literature on the first session in psychotherapy, there is very little about the ending and how to end. I think it is in the nature of us as humans to expect, even when we know better, that an intimate relationship — and therapy is intimate — does not begin with a known end in mind. So even though we know our relationship with our patients or therapists will end, that is an abstraction when we begin. And when the ending is set by something outside the relationship — the ending of a residency or the requirement of insurance — then the relationship is not able to follow its own normal arc and come to an ending when it feels right.
Because I am in private practice and do not have those external forces to contend with, when I end with someone I always make it clear that I am available in the future if the need arises. And my patients and I talk about the fact the ending does not mean we die to each other.
And that emotional distance stuff? It is important to think about for a beginning therapist but it has been my experience that as I have become more comfortable and clearer about who I am and what I can and cannot do, my need to maintain distance has decreased. We Jungians believe that in a therapeutic relationship, both parties change in the course of the treatment, that the patient influences the therapist also. Which is probably how I have become less fearful about being reasonably emotionally engaged with the people I see. That said, I suppose I should also note that I work mostly long-term with people.
Comment by Cheryl Fuller, PhD | 22 Jun 2007 @ 8:25am
“Patient exits the relationship (patient stops attending appointments; physician fires patient; s/he dies)”
Fascinating. I thought that the patient stopping attending appointments was the patient firing the physician. How can Patient-fires-physician be in the same category as Physician-fires-patient?
Comment by Alison Cummins | 8 Jul 2007 @ 8:05am