分類:Systematic Change

探索治療與助人關係

醫生與病人,助人工作者與個案(案主)之間存在著關係,我把這兩者之間的關係大約分成三種來進行以下討論。

傳統權威關係:

從早期的巫師、算命師、到早期傳統的醫師,病人來求助,就是向有能力、有權威、有訓練的「專家」來求個答案。

不同「專家」在不同的文化與故事脈絡之中,提供的答案可能有所不同,但病人得到答案(或解釋)之後,會覺得安心,會被告知接下來要做什麼,病人就會被期待要乖乖照做。

如果算命說今年不順,那就不要大張旗鼓,如果算命的說身為女兒有這種命盤不好,那就認命。

如果醫生說要吃藥,那就不管自己身體吃藥之後有什麼反應,還是照三餐吃。如果醫生開的藥包含有快絕種的動植物,也還是繼續吃。如果醫生說要開刀,那就乖乖被別人開腸破肚。

在權威關係底下,對求助者來說,不管是過去的靈性儀式、宗教、催眠、瑜伽氣功,還是現在的神經科學藥物,求助者習慣的是一種全盤接受的信仰。

雖然上面我舉了比較挑戰的負面例子,但其實,服從權威一個口令一個動作,相信做了就是對了,這在治療與成長的過程中,確實也是需要的

如果病人不相信專家,今天吃抗生素明天就突然不吃,今天戒酒戒毒明天又破戒,今天拜佛明天又殺生,這樣反反復復,很難解決問題也無法突破困境。同樣的道理也用在教育與教練的過程當中,學生如果三天曬網兩天打魚,很難真正地學會一項新的技藝。

績效表現關係(performance-based):

「青出於藍更勝于藍」,即便是在傳統教育發展過程,專家也承認學生總有一天能夠累積足夠的知識技能而勝過自己。而在助人關係當中也有一種,強調專家從旁協助求助者,求助者自己要發展出增進本身績效表現(performance)的技能。

換句話說,求助者即便是生病的人,都還是要自己從谷底爬上來。專家從旁提供的,可能只是攀岩的工具,或者是因為站在高處看得稍稍清楚一點的路線指示,專家並無法自己把生病的人拉上來。

傳統權威關係當中,只有特定的巫師神父才能代表神靈,只有醫生才懂醫學知識,只有心理師懂得心理治療。

採用績效表現關係的專家助人工作者,既便是使用過去傳統算命中發展出來的工具,也不會說只有我可以聯通天上神明給你答案。在績效表現關係中,專家助人工作者會說,我只是陪著你在這裡,你自已去跟集體深層潛意識接觸,自己去找對你來說有意義的答案。

即便是使用西醫或中醫,採用績效表現關係的專家助人工作者可能也會強調,我給你開的藥,是針對目前你說的症狀和我的推測而建議的,你回去先吃個幾天,但是,你要自己觀察記錄身體心理的反應,有幫助的是什麼,副作用是什麼,過幾天回來,把這些資料帶回來,我們在一起研究,這個藥方是不是需要修改。

換句話說,連結這兩個人的,是希望求得案主良好績效表現的共同合作關係,一方面求助者或病人尊重專家多年來的專業訓練與專業知識體系,另一方面,專家尊重病人自己有認識自己身體與心理的責任與能力。兩人一起,在專業知識所提供的一條道路上,專注于減輕求助者的身心症狀與困擾,提升求助者的能力(empowerment,賦能/培力)。

 

多元系統觀關係:

前面的兩種關係裡面,專家大多是在單一的知識系統中工作,算命的專職于算命,醫生專職于開藥開刀。而心理師,則是在某個單一理論架構中與案主工作,甚至,強調合作關係的心理師可能會跟重視專業權威的心理師之間展開論述大戰。

如果我們能夠把多元系統觀帶進來,或許可以用更豐富的視角來檢視治療關係。

上面提到,要真正幫助病人療癒,有時候傳統權威關係是重要的,有時候績效表現關係是重要的。既然兩者都是需要的,助人工作者需要進一步在倫理道德考量之下,思考許多問題。

例如,要如何與病人案主說明,自己所提供的服務模式是什麼?有沒有可能讓病人理解這兩種關係模式的不同?例如,在各種文宣與服務條款中清楚說明專家所採用的模式,同時,在初次見面的時候,詢問與討論案主他們期待的關係模式是什麼?

如果兩者是不可能並存的,要如何設計系統中分工合作的方式?例如,開藥的精神科醫師,本身就不會是提供長期古典精神分析的醫師,而是在執業醫師當中,建立起彼此轉介的網絡?

如果兩者是可能並存的,就像是父母帶著小孩走過不同的發展階段,從權威到民主,這中間要如何建立保護小孩不被父母濫用權威而虐待的體制?如何透過不同的討論與練習讓關係得到轉化?

又或者,遇到不同的病症與不同的狀況時,兩人之間的權威關係與績效關係是可能流動的嗎?在進行過程中,擁有較多權力的助人工作者,需要隨時偵測專家與求助者兩人由潛意識互動而形成的關係模式,把關係模式提出來討論。

例如前面幾篇關於複雜創傷與結構解離的討論,讓我們看到,如果一個人曾受過複雜創傷,可能一部份的人格是可以跟治療師建立彼此合作的關係,但是另一個部分可能卻很需要權威關係中那種絕對依靠的信賴。

又或者,一個本來沒有受到創傷的案主可能本來有能力用彼此合作的方式建立治療關係,但卻可能在過程中因為新近的創傷而產生新的需求,若不去正視那因為強大創傷而產生的無助感,以及這無助感所引發需要權威指引的需求,繼續以強調對方自主的方式來互動,也可能造成另一種傷害。

打個比方,如果急診室中突然推進來一個昏迷不醒需要開刀的人,不管這個人平常有多高的自我功能,醫生也不可能在這個時候詢問病人意見。有時候,心理創傷所引發的意識改變就有類似的狀況,這時候,案主真的就需要有個權威專家先幫助自己止血止痛。

心理治療過程中,我們不會面對完全昏迷的病人,所以,專業助人工作者,就有可能用系統觀,去看清楚當下這一刻,去看清楚案主內在系統的流動,有能力在不同的時候調整關係模式,又有能力在案主恢復自主性的時候,用系統觀去討論回顧雙方的互動。如此一來,兩人一次次的,往後退一步,去探索互動中不同的系統,進一步促進案主內在的協調與整合。

Beyond the dichotomous thinking: What US can learn from recent Taipei election experience

I have a dream……What if, an independent US candidate, who truly represents the majority of American, wins next major election? Other than Blue and Red, is it possible to have another color, such as Green or Yellow, on the US political map?

The majority of Americans say the major two parties don’t represent them. The two parties, to various degrees, have not been able to serve the majority.

The process of election is not necessarily a rational thinking process. It was full of fear-based, anxiety-provoking advertisement, specially crafted to stimulate our “limbic (more primitive) brain” with the money the two parties collected from Cooperates.

Taiwan just finished its election yesterday. (It’s always interesting to see that Taiwan and US have the same election cycle. Yes, so the 2016 is the next round of presidential election for both countries).

In the Mayor race in Taipei City (the capital of Taiwan), the independent candidate won the election by 200,000+ differences. Yes, he refused to join the Blue (KMT) or Green (DPP) parties. Most interestingly, this candidate, Mr. Ko, was a head surgeon and a professor in Taiwan University Hospital Trauma Center until this February. Yes, he had no previous political background. Yet, a physician with the heart of saving people and the rational mind to make critical decisions during complicated surgery, may actually posses more leadership quality than a savvy politician.

So, once Mr. Ko decided to become the candidate in Jan 2014, he went public to look for campaign staff. This was his first step in changing the election and political culture – Giving people back the power.

A lot of Americans are upset by the 2010 Citizen United case, which opened up the unrestricted election expenditure by for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. It is hard to change the Supreme Court decision; however, from this recent Taipei election experience, we witnessed how easy for the general public to ask the politicians to change their behaviors – make the campaign process transparent and democratic.

The Taipei mayor candidate, Mr. Ko, posted his campaign fundraising record online (as well as his income list in the past, so he can show that he never received any donation before he started this campaign). Also, Mr. Ko closed the campaign account for receiving more donation when he decided that there was enough money for campaign.

Yes, people can’t stop cooperates to donate more money than the general publics; however, people can ask for transparency. Such transparency not only protects the general publics, it also protects the candidates/politicians from becoming the puppets.

I am not a US citizen. In this country, I am just a registered legal Alien (from another planet? LOL), who doesn’t have any right to vote. Why do I care about the democracy in the US? Because I am a psychotherapist.

As a psychologist, I know that the dichotomous thinking (black or white thinking) is the root of depression and anxiety. During the depressed and anxious state of mind, we can only see the world through the colored lens – life or death, win or lose, Blue or Red……

If the larger political system is permeating the dichotomous thinking constantly to every American’s mind, there is no way we can end the suffering of mental illness. If most US people are suffering from the depressed/anxious dichotomous thinking mind, the foundation of democracy may be lost within decades.

The new Hunger Game movie is out during this Thanksgiving holiday. I surely don’t want see our grandkids generation to live in the Hunger Game.