>


If you don't trust your psychologist to treat the information you reveal with confidentiality, then you need to find a different psychologist. 

Using the information one gives to help another is the crux of the issue, there is a point to be made that you can use information without disclosing it, and that's not quite breaching confidentiality, it's a complete can of worms though, and explicitly goes the idea that therapy is in the interest of the patient at hand and nobody else.

As far as the psychologist is concerned, those are two completely separate patients.
What on patient says never reflects directly on another patient. Not without their informed consent. 

This is not the case here. What one says affects others. That's the point.
/u/Levitz (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I don't mean to be rude but I feel you're operating on a bit of TV based version of therapy.
You're right that there is such a thing as a conflict of interest in psychology that prevents psychologists from working with certain clients. However, it isn't like in TV where this is to somehow shroud them from the context of your life. 
Generally speaking, friends don't fall into that description for several reasons. They simply do not have the kind of impact on your formative experiences, traumas, etc, for them to be the focus of therapy or for their relationships to be that relevant. A psychologist is unlikely to even know that various patients who aren't couples or families know each other at all. 
With couples and even family, the reality is that the job of a psychologist is not to comfort you or validate your perceptions. In fact, psychologists may ask you to have friends or family fill out questions on you, such as in assessing ADHD or various other issues that your self perceptions may not be completely accurate on, it is an assessment tool. 
In psychology, external context on your behavior is not a bad thing. Sometimes, what you need is literally to know that you are in fact in the wrong, or if you're not that in fact it's time to call it quits with the relationship. So you're right that it is impossible to remain unbiased as a psychologist, you are wrong in that has not been the objective. Psychologists don't form personal relationships with clients because liking the person in fact can shield them from negative perceptions, and because the person can begin to put their relationship into the perspective of the therapist. >

This is basically what I came here to say. I'm having trouble understanding OP's point. They seem to be under the impression that the therapist's job is to mitigate disputes, when it's really to help each person process their own understanding of the situation. If, for some reason, other members of the friend group come up in therapy repeatedly (and that seems like a bad sign), the therapist isn't there to make sure they're still all friends at the end of the day. The therapist is there for the patient, not the drama, and it's extraordinarily easy not to get wrapped up in the drama of a friend group you're not friends with. >

Yeah, I think their perspective of therapy seems to be to make you feel better. But it's not always that. If you're overcoming narcissism you're going to have a different experience than if you're a battered spouse. The therapists job is going to be to make the first person face hard truths and hold themselves accountable, and it's going to be to help the other person leave their situation and realize their value. If those two people are a couple, knowing the other partners perspective isn't bias, it's revelatory. >


First. It would take an inhumane effort to be able to keep himself neutral in this scenario.

Or just an iota of professionalism. You think doctors who see entire families just share everyone's medical history with everyone else? Think lawyers who know their clients are guilty are incapable of defending them? 

It would also take an inhumane effort to feel confident not to hide anything from your psychologist as a patient,

Or just a basic understanding of how therapy works. If you can't trust that your therapist isn't going to violate their requirement to not share what you tell them, you shouldn't be in therapy. Also, you might want to look up what "inhumane" means, because while I'm assuming you mean "beyond what is humanely possible," that's very far from what it means.

No others should directly benefit from it 

That's not how therapy works. People might be in anger management so they don't beat their family members. They might be in therapy to have a healthier relationship. They might be in therapy because they're an unruly child. There are countless reasons why someone might go to therapy to directly benefit someone else.

the damage is done

There's no damage.

This psychologist also seems to keep a rather informal relationship with them.
he has, thankfully, never showed up to these events

So how is he keeping an informal relationship with them? It's like claiming someone is your friend because you invite him to all of your parties but he never shows. >


You think doctors who see entire families just share everyone's medical history with everyone else?

No. In the same way that a mechanic works. This is a specialist using the information of one to help other though, which I think is wildly different.

Or just a basic understanding of how therapy works. If you can't trust that your therapist isn't going to violate their requirement to not share what you tell them, you shouldn't be in therapy.

The line between "sharing" and "using" makes me feel uneasy. I think it's easy to suspect that the psychologist is influenced by specific things the other people have said, and they clearly do too, they accept this. If this is unethical I'm not so sure, so !delta for that one.

Also, you might want to look up what "inhumane" means, because while I'm assuming you mean "beyond what is humanely possible," that's very far from what it means.

Also thanks for this, edited.

That's not how therapy works. People might be in anger management so they don't beat their family members. They might be in therapy to have a healthier relationship. They might be in therapy because they're an unruly child. There are countless reasons why someone might go to therapy to directly benefit someone else.

Yes but in every case the objective is to benefit the patient and never a third party. The therapist only has obligations towards the patient. That's the agreement.
The agreement can also be something else, whether others are healthy or not is a different matter.

So how is he keeping an informal relationship with them? It's like claiming someone is your friend because you invite him to all of your parties but he never shows.

Because as a therapist you are in charge of establishing the boundaries of the relationship. He is keeping an informal relationship as long as he enables them thinking of him as a buddy, even if he doesn't cross that boundary.
As a matter of fact, even if he hadn't ever done anything to cause that kind of relationship, it would still be his responsibility to ensure that's not how they see him. >


Yes but in every case the objective is to benefit the patient and never a third party

I mean... I just gave multiple examples of where that specifically was not the case. People frequently have to go to therapy because they're hurting people around them.

. He is keeping an informal relationship as long as he enables them thinking of him as a buddy,

If you're not there, you really don't know what he's doing. >


Therapists are actually able to handle these situations and provide proper care even in these conditions.

Do you believe your therapist is a competent professional who can recognize when something may be a conflict of interest? >

Yes. I go to a different therapist though and she explicitly refers friends of patients to other professionals.
Do I trust the person at hand to do such thing? No. >

Have you considered talking with your therapist about your concerns? >

I have, and decided against it.
I see no reason to get an answer from my therapist specifically on this matter, that'd be a question to her as a professional rather than as my therapist.
If she agrees I'd take it as information from an authoritative figure and I'll just be sure I'm right.
If she doesn't agree I'd want to talk about the whole thing with her, and not only do I feel that her giving secondhand opinion on a colleague is a bad idea, that's just not what therapy is for.
Best response possible? She refuses to answer. But I'd rather just refuse to ask. >


I see no reason to get an answer from my therapist specifically on this matter, that'd be a question to her as a professional rather than as my therapist.

Is that a bad thing? Many therapists make a point of being open and honest about how they operate and what techniques they use, so asking for a professional opinion on "How Therapy Is Done" seems like it's fair game.

If she agrees I'd take it as information from an authoritative figure and I'll just be sure I'm right.

If you were to bring this up, I'd think it'd be more productive to frame it as a question about what is happening rather than trying to objectively state something that you don't have the entire story about.
She may agree with your conclusion and your judgment that it's unethical, or she may offer some insight on what the other therapist is actually doing (whether or not it aligns with what your friends think the therapist is doing).

If she doesn't agree I'd want to talk about the whole thing with her, and not only do I feel that her giving secondhand opinion on a colleague is a bad idea

You certainly don't have to name the colleague or provide identifying information, but even if you did, she would be obligated to keep that confidential. 

that's just not what therapy is for.

Why not? You've got a concern that is causing some amount of unease about something in your life, so seeking clarity from an expert and working through these issues seems like a reasonable thing to bring up in therapy. 
You could also lead with your concern (that this isn't appropriate for therapy) and listen to her answer on whether she agrees with that idea or not. >


First. It would take an inhumane effort to be able to keep himself neutral in this scenario. I can't for the life of mine imagine how a person might even try to be unbiased towards all of these people when it's certain they often talk about each other (especially the couples).

I don't know what you mean by neutral or unbiased. That's just more information for a psych -- they can see how people are and act and their reactions to other people they know, etc.
Psychologists aren't jury members. They're not meant to be unbiased like they have no opinions about people. Their whole job is based around having opinions about people. They may think you lie about everything. That's a judgement and opinion based in their observation of you. The job is to help the patient deal with what's impeding their life, and see things that they may not see because they're on the inside.
Using outside information to clarify the picture is only helpful -- as long as they don't violate any confidentiality, but that's a deeply-entrenched thing, not to talk about patients to each other with any identifying info.

Second. It would also take an inhumane effort to feel confident not to hide anything from your psychologist as a patient, and even if that wasn't a worry (they are choosing to do things this way, after all) the psychologist should see this as a possible problem and refuse to work this way.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think most people would feel somewhat compelled to "tell on" the other people, which, see above, but regardless, a psychologist will help a patient focus on what's going to help them. That may be their perception of or interaction with others. Depends entirely on what's going on and the school of thought.

Fourth. Even in a situation in which some of these people leave, the damage is done and the psychologist can't "unlearn" what it learned from the people leaving. I don't want to imagine what happens if one of the couples decides to break up and they have to argue who keeps the psychologist

See above. I'm not sure where you got the idea psychologists are not supposed to know anything but what you specifically say to them but it's not true. It may be how it works a lot, but it's not some kind of goal.

This psychologist also seems to keep a rather informal relationship with them. They have invited him to events a few times (nights out, D&D games, house parties), he has, thankfully, never showed up to these events, but to me that happening screams a poorly understood therapist-patient relationship and I believe they should cut all contact with this person.

You're again misunderstanding the relationship. Some people may be uncomfortable with that and that's FINE but there's no big 'don't ever see a psychologist outside of their office' rule. You seem to be imagining some giant wall that does not and should not exist. Romantic, one-on-one relationships are out of bounds but 'this store hosts a D&D thing you might enjoy' is not. It'd be odd if he started going to their things all the time but he's not, and their inviting him tells him something.

I want to change my view because frankly I want to smash my head into a wall when I try to explain that trying to paint this as a good thing makes no sense whatsoever and I hope someone can argue their side better than they do.

So... why does this bother you? You don't seem to understand psychology as a practice, but feel compelled to try to convince people their choices that they feel good about are wrong -- because of some odd idea you've gotten about being "unbiased?" Why do you care?
If it works for them, it works for them. Also, see above, they're correct. >

I am a therapist.
This is like ethics code 101. Specialists are highly discouraged to so that.
I am not from the US tho >

Agreed, me too - me just trying to think of an answer that is CMV-worthy feels unethical. >


My group of friends sharing a psychologist is unethical at best and a disaster waiting to happen at worst.

It has a lot of potential to be unethical, but professional guidelines like patiënt confidentiality are designed to keep this in check. 
It's not unethical. 

First. It would take an inhumane effort to be able to keep himself neutral in this scenario.

Psychologists are professionally trained to stay neutral and objective when dealing with patients. 
They're capable of being neutral in far more extreme cases, like dealing with rapists and murderers. Keeping the accounts two patients separated is well within these bounds. 

Second. It would also take an inhumane effort to feel confident not to hide anything from your psychologist as a patient, and even if that wasn't a worry

If you don't trust your psychologist to treat the information you reveal with confidentiality, then you need to find a different psychologist. 
If you can't trust psychologists at all, don't go to one. 

Third. A relationship between psychologist and patient must be a completely one-sided relationship. No others should directly benefit from it (more on this later).

The fact that two patients know eachother does not affect their respective relationships with a shared psychologist. 
As far as the psychologist is concerned, those are two completely separate patients. 
What on patient says never reflects directly on another patient. Not without their informed consent. 

This psychologist also seems to keep a rather informal relationship with them. They have invited him to events a few times (nights out, D&D games, house parties), he has, thankfully, never showed up to these events, but to me that happening screams a poorly understood therapist-patient relationship and I believe they should cut all contact with this person.

Sounds like its the other way around: 
He is invited. He doesn't invite people to private affairs. 
The psychologist draws healthy boundaries here by politely declining.