These area very good points that require some thought Dan.
The first point to consider is that Bert Hellinger's statement "I do not
interfere in any way in the movements of their soul." does not actually make
sense when considered closely. Setting up a constellation is actually
interference in movements of a client's family's soul. It changes things. That
is why we do it. So Hellinger's statement is more a statement of attitude than
a statement of fact. This attitude of non striving and non interference is also
practiced in meditation. I also find it very useful at times in psychotherapy.
In this regard, you may be interested to check my article called No Paradigm
which is about Buddhist practice in relation to psychotherapy.
I think your point about movements of the soul highlight that is much better
not to use the clients themselves, but rather representatives, with these
constellations.
That allows us to distinguish between the non interference practised during the
constellation and the more proactive stance that may be required afterwards. In
my opinion, even Bert Hellinger subtly changes his stance after a
constellation. He often makes comments that help the client to relate to the
healing aspect of what they have just witnessed in the constellation. I have
not seen him do more than that after constellations. ( He may have done so
privately)
If I were aware, of any serious ongoing danger, I would act in my professional
capacity to do what I felt necessary. Others may decide differently. So if
indeed there is subtle ethical conflict here, that is how I personally resolve
it.
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
An Australian Constellation Website:
www.constellationflow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Booth Cohen
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 14 May 2004 1:32 AM
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Dual relationships
Chris - Very well said. May I ask for amplification on one point that seem
central to this question?
One of the guiding principles of being a constellator, as articulated by
Hellinger, is to take the position, "I do not interfere in any way in the
movements of their soul." Ethics codes for therapists require pro-active
intervention in special circumstances, such as the case of a suicidal client.
Do you agree that there is a potential for conflict here in very rare
instances, between the principles of non-interference and pro-active
intervention?
You state, "We probably should ensure that any vulnerable clients do have
adequate follow up." This suggests that in situations where you see that the
client's life may be in immediate danger, you would interfere in the movements
of the soul to ensure adequate follow-up.
As a matter of common practice, I agree with you that being a constellator
and therapist does not constitute a dual relationship of the type restricted by
the Ethics Code. However, it is helpful to look at these subtle distinctions
and nuances.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Walsh [mailto:chrisjwalsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:11 AM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk] Dual relationships
Hi Dan,
I wanted to address some of your comments about suicide where you
said:
The conflict would seem to arise in a circumstance where as facilitator you
might want to say something that you could not ethically say as a therapist.
For example, in the case of a client with suicidal feelings, a facilitator may
acknowledge the client's desire to follow someone in the system to death. This
can be voiced in a way that is accepting of that fate. A therapist, on the
other hand, is required by ethics to act to prevent that fate from being
realized.
However, being drawn towards death in the form of suicide, has many subtle
nuances. It can be a valid manoeuvre to acknowledge this in both traditional
therapy and in constellations.
First we need to consider that there are quite different situations in
constellations in which it may arise i.e..
1. for someone other than the client who might or might not have already
died
2. for the suicidal client
I assume you are talking about the second situation. In that situation, the
acknowledgement and validation of the desire to die is a necessary step in
dealing with it. After all this is not a trivial feeling that a person arrives
at easily. Disavowal only leads to worsening feelings of alienation in the
client.
When a therapist accepts that fate either in constellations or therapy this
is a seemingly paradoxical step that is used to clarify the situation. It helps
the client to feel understood. It is usually only an intermediary step which
leads to the client finding a way to turn and go forth in their life. Very
occasionally the paradoxical intervention is enough and the intervention can be
stopped there. A therapist needs to be very skilled & experienced dealing with
suicidal clients to do this. I myself haven't done it for some years.
Nonetheless it is a recognised therapeutic technique.
In the setting of constellations we need to be mindful that the constellation
may have subtle unobserved acute effects. As such, we probably should ensure
that any vulnerable clients do have adequate follow up. Some may even need
assertive medical treatment. Even with this, there are no guarantees because
some psychiatric illnesses like cancer are terminal, in spite of the best
treatment. So we as therapists, need to bow to fate. That frees us to act more
skilfully.
When hold that attitude in our hearts, our clients feel better understood
and better held, which actually makes it more likely that they will want to
live.
So I don't see an ethical conflict between competent therapeutic management
of these issues in the two arenas of constellations and of conventional therapy.
hasta la vista
Chris Walsh
An Australian Constellation Website:
www.constellationflow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel Booth Cohen
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:44 PM
Subject: RE: [ConstellationTalk] Dual relationships
Libby - You are raising an important point.
The general public might think that the Code of Ethics exists to protect
clients from unethical psychologists. However, the members of professional
associations guided by these Codes understand that their primary purpose is to
protect practitioners from civil and criminal liability in situations where the
outcome of treatment is not successful, such as in the case of suicide. If a
practitioner can demonstrate that the course of therapy conformed to best
practices, as set forth in the Code, they there is no legal liability for a bad
outcome. Conversely, if the therapist's actions fall outside the boundaries
established by the Code then the courts may establish a case of malpractice.
The situation of being a therapist and facilitator raises some thorny
issues. The conflict would seem to arise in a circumstance where as
facilitator you might want to say something that you could not ethically say as
a therapist. For example, in the case of a client with suicidal feelings, a
facilitator may acknowledge the client's desire to follow someone in the system
to death. This can be voiced in a way that is accepting of that fate. A
therapist, on the other hand, is required by ethics to act to prevent that fate
from being realized.
It would seem to me that once you accept the responsibility of being a
person's therapist, you cannot shut it off for purposes of facilitating a
constellation. The responsibilities of a therapist supercede the detachment
required of the facilitator. Operationally, there are a number of ways to work
around this.
Thanks for bringing this subtle distinction up for discussion.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Libby Nottle [mailto:LibbyNottle@xxxxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:35 PM
To: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: *Possible Junk Mail* [ConstellationTalk] Dual relationships
Thanks for the responses so far. I appreciate the way the definition of
therapist can be extended but I am also asking an ehtical question. As a
clarification I meant dual relationships in terms of (as the other Libby
defines)
"a professional who works in different capacities"
Part of my reason for seeking comment is that were my practice to be
questioned by a professional organisation, the organisation would take into
account what is considered appropriate practice with other practitioners in the
field ie you guys!!! (as well as my supervisor's reports of our discussions
relating to the client, Chris's, as my constellation colleague, comments about
the workshop etc)
My query is partly, and I stress only partly, prompted by a situation
earlier this year when a client of mine suicided. I had been seeing him
reasonably regularly over a two year period and he had attended a number of
Chris and my constellation workshops. The most recent was two weeks before his
death. He had had previous attempts. His family were very grateful for the
support he received from (a number of) professionals. So I did not end up
before Coroner's Court or answering a complaint to a professional body from
family members. But I could have.
This is an unusual situation. And having clients attend workshops can
benefit the therapy but if it "goes wrong" what are the
justifications/processes? In the sort of context described above arguements in
addition to definition of therapist would be useful.
Thanks
Libby
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConstellationTalk/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ConstellationTalk-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
