16th of April 2015
Reasons for an appeal:
• The Complaint Procedure was not followed
correctly.
• Evidence readily available at the
time was not used.
• New evidence came to light in the
registrant’s and supervisors’ statements.
After the Screening Committee had studied
the complaint against H it was decided there was a potential breach of the Code
of Ethics by the registrant, henceforth the complaint was passed on to the
Intake Committee which appointed a Hearing Panel. Instead of receiving a date
for the hearing, as explained in the BPC’s “Guidelines for Making a Complaint”
and the Complaint Procedure (CP) under 4.5 and 4.7, I received a letter
stating:
“The Hearing Panel has studied the
material submitted in COM06-14. After serious consideration, the panel
concluded that there is no case to be answered in the context of the complaint,
and has recommended that the complaint be dismissed [… ] As a result of the
Hearing Panel’s findings, the BPC has accepted its recommendation to dismiss
this complaint without prejudice.”
I wrote to The Professional Conduct Case
Manager Ms C asking for clarification: In the "Guidelines for Making a
Complaint" document the BPC states that the "complaint will now be
considered by the SC which decides if there appears to be a potential breach
and whether the complaint should therefore be taken to the next stage of the
Procedure. [...] This Committee will evaluate your complaint and assess whether
it could be substantiated, and, if it were to be substantiated, whether this would
indicate that there has been a breach of the Code. The Committee will decide
whether or not your complaint should be pursued, and you will be informed of
its decision. If the complaint goes ahead, the SC pass all relevant information
onto another body called the Intake Committee (IC) which selects a Hearing
Panel (HP) to process the complaint and which will set a date for a
Hearing."
As the SC has already considered my
complaint to demonstrate grounds for potential breach of the Code by the
registrant, it was moved onto the IC which selected a Hearing Panel. Since this
has been confirmed I have been waiting for the Hearing Panel to set a date for
the actual Hearing, as described in said document, instead I have received a
letter announcing the Hearing Panel has recommended the complaint be dismissed.
Two questions follow from this statement which I would like the BPC to clarify:
- Why has the Hearing Panel not set a date for a Hearing but made a decision
without a Hearing? - To whom in the BPC does the Hearing Panel
"recommend" the complaint be dismissed?
The "Guidelines for Making a
Complaint" document goes on to explain that the appellant has an
opportunity to appeal if:
a) evidence that was reasonably available
was not considered
b) the CP had not been properly
followed
I believe both points above need to be
considered in my case as:
a) The digital recordings that I offered
were not called upon as evidence, nor has the
b) CP been followed properly as there was
no Hearing.
Ms C replied: “The Hearing Panel may
decide to reach its determination without proceeding to the hearing if it
considers this is the best way forward. Under the provision of paragraph 4.34,
the Panel may decide its own procedures if they adhere to the principles of general
fairness. After careful study and consideration of the material, because the
panel did not find breaches of the Code of Ethics in the context of the
complaint, they considered there was no case to answer and it would have not
been in the interest of fairness to proceed to a hearing.”
Following questions arise after this reply
which are part of my appeal:
1. “The Hearing Panel may decide to reach its determination without
proceeding to the hearing if it considers this is the best way forward.”
a. Please confirm whether a Hearing
Panel can, in private, without having provided a hearing, listened to both
sides, witnesses and evidence dismiss a complaint after the SC has recommended
there be a hearing.
b. Please clarify how such a concealed and
non-transparent judgment of a complaint in which evidence was not considered
and a hearing not held is “without prejudice” and how the 5.1 “civil court
standard of proof, the balance of probability” has been applied to in the
finding.
c. Please clarify the phrase “best way
forward” as it fails to explain in which way it is the best way forward and for
whom.
2. 4.26 reads that “at any
time the panel may decide to adjourn its proceedings”, yet there is no section
confirming that the Hearing Panel may at any time decide to dismiss the
complaint and/or proceedings without a hearing. Instead, the "Guidelines
for Making a Complaint" document makes clear that it is the Screening
Committee that ”decides whether or not your complaint should be pursued”. Please
point me towards the paragraph in the BPC’s Complaint Procedure which
specifically states the Hearing Panel can dismiss a complaint that has already
been considered by the Screening Committee to have possibly breached the Code
of Ethics without a hearing.
The paragraph 4.34 The Professional
Conduct Case Manager suggests to be the paragraph defining that the Hearing
Panel can dismiss a complaint without having held a hearing does not actually
state this instead it refers to the paragraphs just before 4.34 when the
hearing is already in process with both parties already present.
3. What are “the principles of general fairness”, where can I find
them and who do they concern in this case and in what way?
4. Please clarify why “it would have not been in the interest of
fairness to proceed to a hearing”, how not having a hearing, hence not being
able to call witnesses and present evidence, is fair and who benefits from this
“fairness”?
5. Please clarify how the “study of the material has been careful”
when my evidence was not taken into account, no witnesses have been called and
there was no hearing.
6. In your findings, please provide a detailed account of each
allegation made against H in context of the complaint that the panel found did
not break the Code of Ethics -- from her telling me my question doesn’t deserve
an answer to blackmailing me out of my training and all other points I have
listed in the complaint (and this appeal).
7. 5.8 states “the FtP Officer will write to the complainant and
the registrant complained against informing them of the finding and sanction,
if any, and the specified reasons given by the panel. Every endeavor will be
made to ensure that this is done as soon as possible after the hearing.” Please
explain why I was informed of the findings without having had a hearing.
As the Complaint Procedure has not been
followed correctly, the hearing panel’s “specific reasons” are missing,
evidence which was readily available at the time was not used and new evidence
has come to light, I will respond to each point and add to my original
complaint, via this appeal, point 13 and ask the Appeal Panel to re-examine all
points as well as the complaint and provide a hearing in which all evidence is
taken into account and possible questions can be clarified.
Point 1: Registrants must at all times act in a way
that they reasonably believe to be in the best interest of their patients. At
all times the welfare of the patient must be paramount and every care taken to
ensure that the patient is not exploited in any way.
The Panel’s reply: In the early years of the therapy, the
Registrant allowed more than ordinary flexibility in contact outside sessions
and then latterly brought the boundaries back into the more standard practice
of containing communication within sessions. The Complainant may have
experienced the boundaries set down in the later stage of therapy as
inconsistent, however, the Ethical Guidelines are clear that “if a registrant
is unsure of the appropriateness of any existing or proposed relationship or
conduct that might affect … a patient…, a senior colleague … should be
consulted for advice.” On this issue, the Hearing Panel found that the
Registrant had consulted two supervisors on this issue, both of whom endorsed
her approach. Therefore, the Registrant adhered to the Ethical Guidelines.
My response: Please advise me on where and how to find
the Ethical Guidelines [Clause 1(d)]. Dissociative Identity Disorder (D.I.D.)
is an attachment disorder (Attachment E) in which the sufferer finds ways, by
dissociating, to attach and stay attached to an important and needed Other who
cares and abuses simultaneously.
It is therefore of utmost importance for
the therapist to receive appropriate supervision while working with such a
client in order to become aware and act appropriately, if the therapist is
taking on the role of this caring and abusive Other (through Projective
Identification).
H did not consult appropriate supervision
for my condition until 3 years into my therapy with her although she had known
I suffered from D.I.D. right from the start in 2007 (B’s statement). I was
unaware of this fact which became clear to me after having read H’ and her
supervisors’ reply. The D.I.D. supervisor informed the registrant, after she
had approached him in 2010, that out of session contact with people suffering
from D.I.D. was a “frequent problem in psychotherapy with this client group”
(Appendix 3 & Attachment E), something H would have been aware of right
from the start had she been receiving D.I.D. supervision.
H acknowledges that her “boundaries were
challenged by me from the beginning of the therapy”; that I was in “extreme
states […] at risk of severe self-harm and dangerous acting out”( registrant’s
reply p.1); that I showed her “pictures of my cuts […] and pictures painted in
my own blood”; that I “called her in state of anxiety of having lost too much
blood or fear of blood poisoning because I cut myself” and that there was “a
threatening and abusive quality to my presence” (p.2). Judging by these
statements H felt challenged right from the start, to the point of feeling
threatened. Yet she continued working with me for 3 years without appropriate
D.I.D. supervision until she admitted just before the breakdown of the therapy
that “she doesn’t know how to help me other than not tolerate it (verbatim 24th
February).”
The above statements also reveal how
severe the damage, done by the registrant, was by the time H approached the
D.I.D. supervisor who points out that not only was H’ previous supervisor Mr.
C “not experienced in working with clients with severe dissociative
symptoms” but that H was already experiencing “difficulty in holding manageable
boundaries, especially around contact with her client between sessions”
(Appendix 3).
The allegation that damage was done to me
in this time is reinforced by the “senior member of the S.A.P.” who
acknowledges that H came to see him when “the escalation of enactment had
reached the point where there was no longer any possibility of meaningful
psychotherapeutic work, while attempts to sustain it seemed merely to provoke a
response which could not be contained and put the patient in danger” (Appendix
8).
The Hearing Panel found that both
supervisors “endorsed H’ approach” which is ambiguous hence misleading as no
reference has been made to the specific approach both supervisors supposedly
endorsed. In my complaint I accuse H of withdrawing all support from me before
and after the holiday break -- an approach in contradiction to her supervisors’
guidance:
• The D.I.D. supervisor recommended
“not to withdraw or retaliate in these circumstances” yet H did withdraw and
retaliate, which was markedly followed by the breakdown of the therapeutic
space, which is part of my complaint. This same supervisor recommended
“manageable and padded boundaries” -- not the removal of them (Appendix
3).
• Supervisor Mr. C advised H
that “it would be counterproductive to attempt to ‘forbid’ out of session
contacts such as emails and telephone calls” and that “unless H had been
willing to adapt in this way it seemed unlikely that she would be able to
engage the patient in therapy at all.” He continues “…given this adaption, Mrs.
Z would be able to make use of analytic psychotherapy” (Appendix 2).
Clearly, both supervisors advised against
the withdrawal of support suggesting that if H did not withdraw, but adapt, I
would be able to make use of the therapy. I therefore ask the Panel to
clarify:
• Why were the withdrawals of
support that happened before and after the break not examined and talked about
in a hearing before the complaint was dismissed.
• Why were the withdrawals before and
after the break not mentioned and clarified in detail in the findings?
• Why was H’ explanation in point 4
accepted when she completely fails to answer to the allegation of withdrawing
all support before and after the break (withdrawal of email contact, mobile
phone contact, skype contact, a substitute therapist, helplines, letter to GP,
etc.) instead regurgitates her reasons for ending the therapy
prematurely.
H not only took away all support (before
the holiday break) but failed to offer care replacing this previous support --
she did not write to my GP nor did she get me in touch with a substitute
therapist or any other helplines. “No it’s not. No! I, it’s not about helplines
in a sense. I didn’t, in a way, I think that, I think you’re right, it would
have been helpful if I had remembered that, but I didn’t!” (24th March
Verbatim).
H took away all previously offered support
and “did not remember” to leave something in its place before the holiday break
and then stated after the holiday break, I was never to email or phone her
again, if I did the therapy would be over (all verbatim). This retaliatory
behaviour and lack of compassion was possibly a sign and symptom of burn-out
which the D.I.D. supervisor mentioned to H when he told her that ”therapist
burn-out was sadly not an uncommon outcome” (Appendix 3).
H acknowledges her inability to be
compassionate in session 24th February. The colleague who does admit to
advising H to withdraw all support and threaten me with the end of therapy is
Mr. “Senior member of the S.A.P.” who states: “it seemed therefore that the
only recourse was to attempt a trial of whether the patient might be able to
work within the boundaries by making it clear that the therapy would have to
end if she were not” (Appendix 8).
Thus questions I would like to ask in the
hearing would be: Did H receive this advice from Mr. “Senior Member” as a
colleague or a supervisee? Who was H in supervision with at the time? What and
how much experience in working with D.I.D. did this man have to give H such
advice? It seems like no one supervised H extensively enough to be able to get
a feel for what it was that she and I needed to continue working together and I
would like to know who her supervisor was at the time she threatened to end the
therapy.
In four and a half years H only received 6
supervision sessions from an experienced D.I.D. supervisor and “several”
sessions from her previous supervisor who was not trained and experienced in
working with D.I.D. and who no longer keeps any evidence (of the number) of
sessions H actually did receive from him regarding her work with me. This
neglect led to the deterioration of my mental health, added to the aggravation
of my condition and ultimately put me in danger (H’ reply Appendix 6 & 7
& 9).
I (and my family) paid a high price in
this time not just emotionally but I paid thousands of pounds to a therapist
whose boundaries felt challenged by me right from the start yet did not refer
me on nor seek suitable supervision until three years later; instead she
nurtured and exploited an attachment in me towards her which she was unable to
understand and work with. Evidently, H did not act in my best interest nor did
she consider my welfare as paramount when she
• did not put substitute care in
place of previously offered support;
• started work with me without employing a
supervisor who had experience in working with the symptoms of severe
dissociation.
As a result she exploited and damaged me
further when she fostered an attachment towards her that is at the core of
D.I.D.; my dissociation worsened (my mind became more fragmented, separate,
unconscious) in order to deal with the care and the abuse H acted out on me
simultaneously.
Point 2: Registrants must take all reasonable steps to preserve
the confidentiality of information acquired through their practice and protect
the privacy of individuals and organizations about whom information is
held.
The Panel’s reply: The complaint alleges that the Registrant
violated this confidentiality by sharing information about the Complainant with
another of the Registrant’s patients, who coincidentally was in the same
supervision group as the Complainant. The Hearing Panel found this allegation
to be unsubstantiated. Any breach of confidentially occurred as a result of
boundary breaking by the Complainant, who arrived at the Registrant’s
consulting room at an unscheduled time, in a condition apparently affected by
alcohol, and refused to leave. In addition to disrupting sessions of other
patients, the Complainant exposed herself and her relationship with the
Registrant. This was not in the control of the Registrant and therefore is not
an ethical breach.
My response: The Hearing Panel found the allegation of H
“sharing information about the Complainant with another of her patient to be
unsubstantiated” when H admits in her reply to sharing information about her
experience with me to this client (p. 3 & p.4).
The reason H gives as to why she phoned L
up “later that evening” and shared information about another client (p.4) is a
reflection of her difficulty to contain her anxieties enough to act
professionally within the psychoanalytic and therapeutic frame.
In psychoanalytic therapy the practitioner
works with the client’s f/phantasies. It was H’ responsibility, as a
psychoanalytic therapist, to tell client L that something unexpected had
happened which stopped her from seeing L that evening; that she would see her
again next session and then work with client L’s fantasies and feelings around
this experience -- this included L’s fear of the client “being a man” (p.3),
which has now become a break of L’s confidentiality.
Instead H, having already spoken to L at
the door, abandons her psychoanalytic stance and, following her own needs,
calls client L in the evening to then discard her own anxieties of the incident
onto L because she “had to explain to patient L why she could not keep her
appointment.”
H admits to telling client L about a “very
disturbed patient inside who would not leave and that the patient was a woman”
(p.3&4). So even though H did not actively state to L that it was ‘Mrs.
Z’ who was a very disturbed, female patient who did not want to leave
(p.3&4), H told L those very details about ‘a client in her house’.
If L saw me leave H’ house that evening,
she would have been aware that all those details were referring to me. H did
therefore not take “all reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of
information acquired.”
It was irresponsible and reckless (and
non-therapeutic for L) to tell L any details of this incident as I too was H’
client at the time and had a right to have all details and information of my
distress and state of mental health protected.
Although my being in extreme distress
disrupted “sessions of other patients”, I did not “expose myself” to client L
as she turned up at H’ house after H had already invited me into her house
(p.4). Having misconstrued this fact of when and how this information got to
client L the Panel goes on to put onus onto me although my distress was partly
brought on by H’ behaviour and partly through the psychoanalytic work itself as
it states in the BPC’s 4.5c Statement on confidentiality:
“Psychoanalytic psychotherapy is
based on theories about the ways in which conscious thought and behaviour is
influenced by unconscious mental activity; this activity often producing
symptoms and difficulties.. Psychoanalytic psychotherapy provokes strong
feelings in patients towards the whole process and towards their analyst or
therapist; the patient’s communications and behaviour have to be understood
within the context of this relationship. In this kind of psychotherapy patients
are invited, not just to be themselves and to reveal intimate secrets, but at
times to reveal their worst. This activity can only occur in a situation in
which the patient trusts there to be a high degree of neutrality and
confidentiality; any breach of confidentiality would be acutely damaging to the
essential relationship between the patient and the psychoanalytic
psychotherapist and a violation of the patient’s innermost thoughts, feelings,
fantasies and dreams.
“Very strict confidentiality is an
essential prerequisite for the focus on and the use of this material. The
disclosure of such material to third parties can be acutely damaging to the
process and should be resisted in nearly all circumstances.”
Point 7: Registrants must restrict their practice within the
limits of their own competence and seek professional consultation or
supervision in any situation which may reach this limit. As a matter of good
practice, registrants should exercise clinical judgment in considering whether
to seek a medical opinion about a patient.
The Panel’s reply: The Hearing Panel noted that the
Registrant sought supervision throughout this case, including specialist
supervision from the Clinic for Dissociative Studies, and wrote to the GP
seeking a referral to the Clinic for Dissociative Studies. The Panel found no
ethical breach in the Registrant’s practice in this regard.
My response: Please refer to my response in point 1 and recognise that H
did not practice within the limits of her own competence as she was not
equipped to take on a client suffering from D.I.D. because she did not consult
appropriate supervision until 3 years into my therapy although she knew I
suffered from it right from the start.
She was advised by B before my first
session (a month in advance) that I needed a therapist who was able to work
with D.I.D. (B’s statement) especially as my last therapy had broken down
because of the therapist’s ignorance of D.I.D.
The panel states that “the Registrant
sought specialist supervision from the Clinic for Dissociative Studies and
wrote to the GP seeking a referral to the Clinic for Dissociative Studies” but
fails to recognise that H did not write to the Clinic of Dissociation off her
own accord (refer to complaint). It was only after I had been in constant
crisis for the first 3 years of my therapy that I asked her to write to my GP
so I could get referred to the clinic (refer to complaint). After my requesting
to be referred to the Clinic H wrote to the GP – once (appendix 4). I was then referred
to see a NHS psychologist. When the NHS psychologist report came back
acknowledging that I could benefit from specialist help H told me we should try
and do it alone and that she did not work in a team.
Nothing more was said about getting help
from the Clinic until the last couple of sessions before the breakdown in which
H states (Attachment A); (Verbatim 24th February); (Verbatim 7th March).:
• “It is very hard for you to work with
one therapist and for me as a therapist to work with all of the different
aspects. It is very, very hard which is why most people don’t actually work
with dissociation like that! In a single setting, it’s very, very, very hard.
For both; both you and for me”
• “I guess that’s one of the things
about where one person isn’t enough. You know, maybe, maybe it DOES take a
clinic or something that is set up to be able to offer a level of support that
I can’t give on my own. Because I am just one person; and a human being.”
Even in H’ trying to rid of me she still
did not see the importance of getting me specialist, instead she suggested I
search for a support group myself (verbatim 7th March). It was H’ lack of
correspondence with the NHS psychiatrist/psychologist in regards to getting a
referral to the Clinic of Dissociative Studies that prompted B and myself to
write to H numerous times requesting her to get more support for me (B’s email
& Attachment F).
H did not put any more effort into getting
me referred to the Clinic (or any other help) instead told me that we should
try it together, alone; she let me struggle on, on my own, leaving her as the
only port of call when I was in crisis.
This is supported by H’ statement
“However, in the absence of other forms of support, I felt it important to
contain as much of Mrs. Z’s disturbance as I was able, under increasing
pressure both from Mrs. Z and at times, her friend, B, who wrote or phoned me
when she herself was having difficulty coping with Mrs. Z” (page 5).
Therefore, H did not exercise
clinical judgment in considering whether to seek a medical opinion as she knew
about my condition from the start and should have sought appropriate medical
opinion then.
She therefore did not restrict her
practice within the limits of her own competence as she was unaware of what
working with D.I.D. would involve because she hadn’t sought professional
consultation or supervision at the beginning. In fact, H sounded like
(Attachment A) she was feeling rather alone in her work with me and was looking
to me for support when she should have been having (regular) D.I.D. supervision
to offer her that support and guidance.
Point 13: Registrants must carry out their duties in a professional
and ethical way and maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with the
patients at all times, so that they are not exploited in any way.
My response: H was unable to provide ordinary
flexibility regarding boundaries throughout my therapy as she admits in one of
the sessions (Attachment B).
H encouraged and nurtured my dependency on
her by widening the goal posts of the therapeutic frame to a “more than
ordinary” extent by suggesting all through my therapy that email contact
between sessions was very important (complaint & Verbatim 5th of March) and
that I must continue writing to her.
This in-between-session contact became a
significant form of communication between both of us as
H too used it to act out unconscious
dynamics that were exploiting my attachment towards her (refer to complaint). H’
supervisor at the time states that H “recognised that she had initially made
herself available to her client for between-session contact out of compassion
for her client’s pain” (Appendix 3) which indicates that H chose the
‘boundaries’ of my therapy according to how compassionate she was feeling
towards me rather than keeping them “appropriate and professional”; therefore
basing ‘boundaries’ on her own needs rather than the needs of her client which
explains the sudden withdrawal of all support when she no longer felt
compassion (verbatim 24th February).
After H nurtured my dependency on her for
more than 4 years she suddenly demanded that I never call or email her again,
if I did, the therapy would be over. This is not “bringing boundaries back into
the more standard practice” as it was done in a retaliatory and threatening
manner without providing me, the client, with a space to talk about the new
conditions/sudden change.
Whenever I wanted to talk with H, within
the sessions, about this change, she took it very personally, threatened,
attacked or mocked me and told me to look for a new therapist (Verbatim 22nd
& 24th February & 5th March). H’ boundaries throughout the therapy and
near the end, after she had yet again changed the goal posts, where not
“manageable and padded” nor “appropriate or professional” but by H own opinion
non-existent (Attachment B & H’ reply p. 6, point 5).
I allege therefore that the rigid
conditions that developed out of this lack of appropriate and professional
boundaries were unethical and abusive; especially when H denied me the right to
be self-governed by demanding I stop my training (Attachment C & Verbatim
7th March).
When I tried to explore what was happening
between us she mocked me; when I tried to express how I felt she threatened me;
when I expressed angry emotions she called me an abuser (refer to all recorded
sessions).
H exploited me emotionally and
financially. She did not know how to work with the attachment dynamics of
D.I.D., had no D.I.D. supervision but nurtured this unhealthy attachment and
dependency in parts/alters who she was able to accept because they were
vulnerable and needy. Parts/alters who felt threatening to her, because they
criticized her, were emotionally abused and rejected (Attachment B).
Point 14: Registrants shall, in all their professional work value
integrity, impartiality and respect for patients and seek to establish the
highest ethical and clinical standards in their work.
The Panel’s Reply: The Panel found no basis for any ethical
violation in this category.
My Response: Perhaps it is to be expected that BPC
registrants are permitted to work to such an ethically and professionally low
standard when the governing body leads with such a poor example regarding
impartiality, integrity, and respect.
To offer me, the client, a member of the
public the BPC boasts it wants to protect and serve, one sentence to a point
that embraces most of my complaint is absolutely inadequate let alone “fair”,
“seriously considered “ or “respectful”.
Moving on, I refer to my answer in
point 1. Although H states that she “maintained respect for my situation
throughout her work with me”, she has not explained precisely what situation
she is referring to:
• My suffering from D.I.D. and working
with a therapist who received no supervision for it?
• Her sharing information about me to
another client?
• Her blackmailing me into stopping my
training?
• Her emotional withdrawal?
• Her withdrawal of all previously offered
support without substituting it with other support or
• Her threat of ending my therapy should I
speak within sessions about the things H could not bear to hear?
The registrant “hoped to offer containment
and gradually build up trust which would enable me to manage, more
compassionately, the most disturbing aspects of my life” and fails to
understand that her ignorance of D.I.D. and her actions based on this ignorance
were damaging, not containing.
Also, what a client internalises is the
relationship with the therapist, not the actions of the therapist and as there
was no wish or desire on H’ part to build up a compassionate relationship
(Verbatim 22nd February & Attachment B) towards “my abuser” there was never
going to be a “benign container that could have been internalised” (p.2).
The D.I.D. supervisor was able to see that
my criticisms of H’ behaviour were “valid” and thus advised her to be
“undefensive” (Appendix 3) but H failed miserably to achieve this. As a result
she was unable to value her and my integrity when she, after finding out I was seeing
clients, did not consider “holding the psychoanalytic frame as her priority”
(p.2) but instead made it her priority to:
• Demand I speak to her about my training
(Attachment D) and later on
• Blackmail me into stopping my training
which eventually led to the end of my therapy with her (Attachment C &
Verbatim 7th March).
H also failed to stay impartial at this
point when she took it upon herself to decide what I should and shouldn’t be
doing outside therapy sessions (verbatim 7th of March). This is again a break
of my personal boundaries. Her inability to stay separate from me enough to
work with the negative transference and counter-transference, within
therapeutic boundaries, led to her perceiving everything I communicated as a
personal attack (Attachment B & all verbatim) which prompted her to
become defensive, emotionally abusive and withdraw all support.
Subsequently, still feeling abused and
controlled in the counter-transference, she added conditions to therapy that
were impossible to stick to for someone with D.I.D. H put me in a double bind
when she demanded I speak only in the session otherwise the therapy would be
over, yet when I spoke in the session I was told not to speak about it anymore
otherwise the therapy would end. After three weeks of trying to contain and
hold my self while trying to communicate with H in the session and her not
wanting to hear my distress instead threatening me with the end of my therapy,
I broke down and did contact H, not because I was “testing” but because I was
no longer able to hold and contain all that I was carrying as the email to H
clearly shows (refer to complaint). H, still feeling abused and controlled
because of having identified with my projections, saw my reaching out as me
needing to abuse and control her. As a result she acted out my projections and
rejected/abandoned/bullied/abused. Unable to see the repeat of my past within
this ‘therapeutic’ relationship, H continues to believe that to “allow the
abuse of her to continue was a continuation of my own abuse” (p.3) and fails to
realise that it was her acting out my unbearable projections, which I needed
her to hold, contain and feed back to me in manageable pieces continued the
abuse of me.
As a result therapy did not “end in a
proper manner” as H indicates she would have liked it to end because H:
• Put me in a double bind situation in
which I was not able to survive psychically unless I stopped thinking, feeling
and talking completely about my concerns regarding the break of
confidentiality, the threat of ending therapy, the lie, and her complete change
of how she was now conducting ‘therapy’.
• Told me she would not work with me
unless I stopped my training.
It was her inability to hold the tension
(due to lack of quality and quantity of supervision sessions) that fractured
the therapeutic frame and therefore the trust -- a rupture that was followed by
many crisis situations which eventually worsened my mental health and put me in
danger. H’ reply “Unfortunately, Mrs. Z chose not to attend any further therapy
sessions and did not get in contact with me save to request mediation which was
not appropriate” (p.6) is imprecise and together with her dubious description
on page 7 why mediation was not an option I would like the Panel to provide a
hearing so that H can explain in detail, from her point of view, what exactly
happened in the end, why she denied us mediation throughout my therapy and the
reasons for this.
This is an important statement which needs
to be thought about and understood as it shows that I wanted to resolve
whatever was happening during the therapy and at the end without making a
complaint, but it was H who denied me this chance and therefore a proper
ending.
As the BPC claims to act in the interest
of public and practitioners, a hearing will surely be in the best interest for
both as it will establish whether H’ mental health has been seriously
compromised by working above her limits. Should this be the case H can receive
appropriate support which in turn will prevent further harm to her (future)
clients. For that reason I ask the BPC to act with integrity, impartiality and
respect and provide a transparent hearing in which the complaint against H is
inspected comprehensively by talking about it, not writing about it; evidence
is presented, witnesses are called and a just judgment is made based on a
thorough and fair investigation.