Conference quark::human_relations

My HMO (Healthsource New Hampshire) covers counselling - up to 20 visits per
year with a $5 copay.  I took advantage of this for my son (and, on occasion,
for myself), with very little (generally no) difficulty.  Though the coverage
is not intended to supply long-term care, it can make the difference for
people who are having a hard time coping with a situation.

I am a firm believer in counselling - a good counselor will ask you the hard
questions that nobody else will, and won't feel the need to "take sides" or
protect your feelings.

DEC (whoops!  Digital) offers limited free counselling through the EAP
program, and I've used that too.

I think a distinction should be made between "crisis" counselling, which I
think is worthwhile, and "going to the shrink for 20 years" type which
Woody Allen made so famous in his films.  The former should not be considered
any different from any other kind of medical care, and if made easily
available, can help prevent many problems that could lead to the latter
type.

				Steve

    .0> The topic has become part of the national health-care debate 
      > because of the reluctance of insurers to cover this.  Shrinks are 
      > among the lowest-paid health care providers as a result of the lack 
      > of funding.  This despite the high costs patients must shoulder 
      > individually.
    
    
    I don't understand the logic here.  The shrinks get paid, right? 
    (Massive quantities, I believe :-) )  How could the source of the
    payment (insurers vs. patients) affect the shrinks' bottom line?
    
    Crying myself to sleep over the psychiatrists' plight,
    Leslie

    Re: .1
    
    The therapist profession is not very well geared to crisis management. 
    Last December, when I was going through the breakup of a relationship,
    it was getting to the point of taking weeks to get from initial
    calling, past intake interviews (usually with assistants rather than
    the actual doctors), to actual therapy sessions.  During this time the
    2-1/2-year relationship went to hell and we both abandoned the concept
    of couples counseling along with the relationship itself.
    
    The reason for this?  Most doctors fill up all their time slots with
    regular weekly sessions, and there's little time for introducing new
    patients.
    
    Every therapist I've talked to seems to recommend long-term therapy
    over short-term.  Either crisis counseling doesn't work very well, or
    they don't make as much money on it; whatever the reason, it's hard to
    obtain.  (I've read that after 20 sessions with a given doctor,
    effectiveness of further sessions wears off.  This makes some sense to
    me, though it might just be insurance-industry propaganda.)
    
    Re: .2, keep in mind that although a shrink charges you about $70-100
    per hour, most other individuals with the title "MD" after their names
    charge a whole lot more than that, and spend a lot less time directly
    interacting with each patient.  Consumers worry about such doctor
    bills less because those bills are paid for by Big Companies rather
    than Little People.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124
    

Re: .3

My experience has been different than yours.

			Steve

    	The other side of the coin is that controlled studies have found
    little corelation between counselling and people actually overcoming
    their problems.  When two groups were given counselling or just letting
    time do whatever time does, there was little difference in outcomes.
    	There is also the issue that when insurance is paying for
    counselling people are very often coincidentally "cured" at just about
    the time that the insurance runs out.  There are also a lot of bogus
    conditions (as described in the DSM IIIR) for which people are treated. 
    Among these is "oppositional disorder" in which adolescents oppose
    their parents.  One institution in New Hampshire has many such
    "troubled adolescents" in its care (or clutches).  These kids always
    get better when the insurance runs out.  In some cases kids with
    genuine problems are released with the rest.
    	Although Szasz may not be completely right, there is a ring of
    truth in some of what he describes.
    					John
    					(whose wife is a psychologist)
    

    
    	Re -.1
    
    >The other side of the coin is that controlled studies have found
    >little corelation between counselling and people actually overcoming
    >their problems.  When two groups were given counselling or just letting
    >time do whatever time does, there was little difference in outcomes.
    
    	I think that's a bunch of crap. Cite your referances specifically
    - what "controlled studies"?
    
    >There are also a lot of bogus
    >conditions (as described in the DSM IIIR) for which people are treated. 
    >Among these is "oppositional disorder" 
    
    	I also think that's a bunch of crap. What authority has declared
    "a lot" of them "bogus"? The conditions are in the DSM III so that
    people can recieve treatment for their legitimate ailments - not to
    "rip off the insurance company".
    
    	I hate it when someone even remotely suggests that something *I* 
    suffer from - which, BTW, is in the DSM III - might be "bogus" or whatever.
    So my condition - which I go to counseling *regularly* for - happens
    to be catagorized as just a "mild chronic depression". Hey, sounds
    about as bogus as "oppositional disorder" - I spose I'd "just"
    get over it "in time" - if I keep a stiff upper lip and my mouth
    shut - and save John Hancock an additional, unnecessary expense!
    
    	BTW, I go to my counseling sessions during lunch one day a week.
    Sometimes, I'm even late for work upon my return! I spose my condition
    is "bogus" enough that Digital's lousy 15 minutes ought supersede
    my concern for getting better...
    
    	Joe

    re.4, I agree; my experience has been different than that described in
    .3.
    
    Lynn

	RE .3

	Rich,

	It sounds like for whatever reason(s) you've had less-than-
	satisfactory experiences with counselors and counseling.
	Let me just say again, I've had different experiences; and urge
	you to keep an open mind about the profession and what it 
	can do. 

	I'd also urge you to remember that counselors are in business 
	to make money by selling a service. As a purchaser of those 
	services, you have the right and responsibility to take your 
	business elsewhere if you're not satisfied with the quality of 
	what you're getting from Counselor A.
	
	My experience (and some training) tells me that crisis counseling 
	is a speciality, and not all counselors	are trained to do it. 
	It can and does work well, if done with	someone who is appropriately
	trained. It's not the same kind of training that's needed for 
	longer-term therapies. 

	It's possible that the person(s) you tried to see last December 
	were not trained in crisis counseling, and did not know how to,
	or appreciate the need for, moving quickly in this kind of situation.
	Perhaps, also, the person(s) you tried to see were just insensitive,
	or inexperienced. Not all counselors are created equal.

	The times I've sought out counseling, both for individual work
	and for couples work, I've received a speedy and supportive
	response. Initial meetings were set up within a few days to
	a week, and regular meeetings were set up immediately. Yes, there
	was sometimes a little schedule-juggling, but the counselors
	involved had a helpful, concerned attitude.

	It makes sense to me that counselors fill up most or all of their 
	time slots; that's how they make a living, selling a service by 
	the hour. It also makes sense to me that a counselor should make
	some provision for flexibility in the event that s/he is contacted
	by a potential new client, or state up-front that s/he is not
	taking new clients (and make a referral). If I called a counselor 
	who couldn't see me for "weeks", I'd look somewhere else, pretty 
	quickly.

	Regarding your statement about "after 20 sessions with a given
	doctor, effectiveness of further sessions wears off", could you
	quote the source of that statement?

	Lynn


	

    re: .6
    
    Joe,
    
    I remember 'way back in my college days hearing about a study that had
    been done at state mental hospitals. As I recall (and this is *years* 
    ago!), it stated that roughly one third of the patients got better, one
    third got worse, and one third stayed about the same...whether or not
    they received counseling.  I can't remember who did the study, or what 
    they defined as "worse" or "better" or "the same".  I do remember that
    it was Thomas Szasz who quoted it, in the context of stating that
    mental hospitals don't really help emotional problems.
    
    In any event, I personally think it's wise to ask for sources when
    confronted with vague "evidence" about the value of anything (as
    you did). I'd also like to know, controlled studies *by whom*, in *what
    setting*, and define *overcome* while you're at it.
    
    Lynn 
    
    

	To address a couple of other issues raised by Rich in the basenote -

	Re: the reluctance of insurers to cover counseling
	I've had friends tell me that the reason insurers offer only limited
	coverage for counseling (set number of weeks) is because they
	want to encourage people to see help for short-term, crisis-type
	situations only. Given this (albeit short-sighted) logic, it
    	behooves consumers of counseling services to be creative about
    	getting the services they need. That may include, IMO, creative
        scheduling with counselors, lobbying your legislators, or whatever.

	>Are there ways to fund it without breaking the bank of either 
	>the patient or the government?
	Many counselors offer a sliding scale fee, based on income level.
	Even with insurance plans that cover only X weeks, it's possible
	to set up a meet-every-other-(insert # of )week(s) schedule. 
    
    	There is also the option of self-help groups, which are free, 
    	and which many people (myself included) find very worthwhile. They 
    	do not offer counseling, in the sense that a psychologist or other 
    	clinician does, but they do offer the support and experience and
    	example of other people who are coping with similar issues. That
    	can be extremely therapeutic.

	>Is group therapy a good alternative?
	I believe that the more basic question is, what do you want to
	accomplish in counseling. If the issue one has is a phobia, or 
	a couples problem, group therapy probably isn't the most appropriate 
	venue. If the issue is difficulties in relating to other people, 
	group therapy is likely more appropriate. Which is not to say that
    	individual problems don't get dealt with in a group therapy
        setting; I think individual problems get dealt with in some
        way,no matter what venue one gets counseling in; it's more an 
        issue of where is the (primary) focus.

	>Finally, another of the burdens therapy imposes is a long-term
    	>commitment of a fixed time slot per week.  It's *very* easy to 
	>burn out and quit when you've had to skip all else every Tuesday 
	>night (or whenever) for years.
	Making the decision to go into counseling of any sort *is* a
	commitment. My personal belief is, if I make a commitment (e.g.to 
	do therapy), I need to accept that it carries responsibilities.
	If I regard those responsibilities as burdens, I need to examine 
	in greater depth what I really want to get out of that commitment.

	These are my thoughts about my experiences. The mileage that 
	others get may vary.

	Lynn
	
	

    Just to make things a little clearer--the nature of the emotional
    issues I face (mostly growing-up, ACOA baggage) is of the long-term
    variety, definitely not the short-term.
    
    Sliding scales don't help on an engineering salary, and while the
    typical $75-100/week wouldn't run me bankrupt, it's high enough to
    question whether I might be better off taking two or three therapeutic
    trips to Hawaii per year instead.  (I keep teasing that friend of mine
    who has been doing two $100 sessions a week since about 1984 that he
    ought to spend the money on himself for a change...)
    
    Thanks again for all the comments!
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124

    This week the Citizens Commission for Human Rights published a booklet
    entitled "Billion Dollar Fraud" on the subject of mental health care in
    the US. I will receive my copy next week. I'll post a few of their
    references when I get it, I'm sure you'll all be interested.
    
    Alan.

    >Just to make things a little clearer--the nature of the emotional
    >issues I face (mostly growing-up, ACOA baggage) is of the long-term
    >variety, definitely not the short-term.
    
    Then there are self-help groups available for free.  No they're not
    the same as counseling, but for millions of people they have provided
    exactly the avenue needed to face and overcome the issues created in
    a dysfunctional family environment.
    

    On CNN this morning, I heard a story about counselors 'creating' 
    memories (of child abuse) where none previously existed. Two women
    were featured, both of whom were 'talked-into' having memories about
    something which never happened.
    
    I believe there is alot of this in the industry. 

    What Andrew said (.13).
    
    Lynn

    Re .11 -
    
    >trips to Hawaii per year instead.  (I keep teasing that friend of mine
    >who has been doing two $100 sessions a week since about 1984 that he
    >ought to spend the money on himself for a change...)

    	I think that's a particularly nasty thing to do - your friend
    *is* spending the money on himself. What someone spends to help
    themselves get better is nothing to judge, IMHO. It's also something
    that in all honesty, is none of your business.
    
    	The exact same thing can be said for sacrifices one makes to
    facilitate a relationship, given that the person isnt *crying out
    in pain* over it - as I suspect your friend is NOT over the amount
    of his expenditures. So it costs him - the relationship he just
    may be cultivating with his own self via this avenue may very well
    be beyond your wildest dreams.
    
    	Joe

This is just a small part of a booklet published earlier this year by the 
Citizens Commission on Human Rights. This is part of Chapter 8 from that 
booklet. 


	Psychiatry and the Destruction of Education

"If an unfriendly foriegn power had attempted to impose on America
the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might
well have viewed it as an act of war" - US National Commission on
Excellence in Education.

The infiltration of psychiatrists into schools was not a random
development. Psychiatrists planned out the conquest of educational
systems decades ago as part of their 'strategic plan' to gain 
dominance in every sector of society.

This planning was articulated in 1940 by psychiatrist J R Rees, 
cofounder of the Federation of Mental Health, in a speech entitled,
'Strategic Planning for Mental Health'.

In this speech, Rees described the psychiatric plan to take over 
the field of education. He said at that time, "We can therefore 
justifiably stress our point of view with regard to the proper 
development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be 
incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational
activity in our national life....We have made a useful attack on 
a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally, are the
teaching profession and the Church."

"Rees acknowledged the 'incomplete' status of psychiatric knowledge of
the mind, but then insisted that these still experimental theories 
should be forced into every aspect of human life.

One of the most damaging of these psychiatric theories involves the 
deliberate and systematic destruction of the concept of right and wrong.

In 1945, psychiatrist G Brook Chisholm, also a cofounder of the WFMH, 
lectured to a group of psychiatrists on the psychiatric theory of the 
source of war and other social ills. According to Chisholm, "the cause 
of these ills was 'the concept of right and wrong' which he characterised
as a poison which must be eliminated".

Over the decades since Rees and Chisholm, the 'mental health' industry has 
accomplished an almost total reversal of America's educational policies.

The passage of the 1963 legislation provided psychiatrists the impetus
they needed to greatly expand their involvement in schools. A monograph 
prepared by the JCMIH (Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health)
entitled 'The role of schools in mental health' provided the manifesto
for these psychiatrists.

Among other suggestions, this monograph recommended that teachers:
"-Be extensively educated in the 'knowledge of mental hygiene'
 -Monitor the 'mental health' of their students, providing what is descibed
 as 'emotional first aid' as deemed necessary. By descibing the teacher-student
 relationship in medical terms, the authors of the monograph immediately 
 converted all teachers into mental health clinicians
 -Perform first level identification of 'emotional problems' in students and
 actively refer these students to psychiatrists for drugs or other 
 psychiatric practices
 -Persist indefinitely in pressuring parents to overcome their distrust of
 pyschiatry. "Sometimes it may take months or even years for parents to 
 overcome their fears of seeking psychiatric help" the commission wrote, 
 assigning to teachers the role of breaking down that resistance."

Later in the article...

"An insight into what such an analysis would reveal was provided by a study
conducted in Cambridge, Mass. on the long-term effects of psychiatric, 
psychological and other interventions on school children.
 In the study, 500 school children between the ages of 5 and 13 were carefully
matched into 250 pairs. One member of each pair was assigned to a treatment
group, the other to a control group, although neither knew to which he had
been assigned. Upon followup 30 years later, 80 percent of the children were 
located and evaluated on a number of points.
 While the researchers had expected that the treatment group would be found
to be better off than the non-treatment group, the statistics showed the exact
opposite was true.
 The study found that "comparisons between the treatment and control groups
indicate that the program had negative side effects as measured by criminal 
behaviour,death,disease,occupational status, and job satisfaction." In each
of these areas, those who had undergone counseling as children were worse off
than those who had received no counseling"
 In this study, one of the few which addresses the OBJECTIVE results of
counseling over a long period of time, counseling miserably failed the test of
effectiveness. There is no evidence showing the effectiveness of pyschiatry
and pyschology in the field of education. As this booklet illustrates, however,
there is ample evidence that both of these fields are extremely destructive and
that this destructiveness has for the last three decades systematically robbed
children of their right to a high-quality education.



The references used by CCHR in this part of the booklet were:

A Nation at Risk: The imperative for Educational Reform" - A report to the 
US department of Education by the National Commission on Excellence in 
Education. April 1983 Page 5

"Strategic Planning for Mental Health" - J R Rees, October 1940 pages 103-106

"The Reestablishement of Peacetime Society" - G B Chisholm, Feb 1946

"A thirty year followup of Treatment Effects" - Journal of the American 
Psychological Association, Vol 33, No 3 March 1978

"Drop in Student Skills Unequaled in History" - Jack McCurdy and Don Spiech,
LA Times 15 Aug 1976; while schools had been contending with false theories 
of learning propounded by mental health practitioners for decades prior to 
1963,(see "Why Johnny can't read" - Rudolf Flesch) the 1963 legislation 
overwhelmed the schools by granting psychiatrists unprecedented power to force
their "medical" practices into the educational system.
    

    	I see a couple of problems, one in this discussion and one in
    the "Psychiatry and the Destruction of Education" findings...
    
    	First, there's Psychiatric counseling and then there's Therapeutic
    counseling - that which is done by a professional that's not a
    practicing psychiatrist. So I can see that there's some apples mixed
    in with the oranges in this discussion. Maybe psychiatric counseling
    is destructive, I dunno. I was coming from more of the Therapeutic
    counseling side of the issue.
    
    	I find the aspect "although neither knew to which he had been
    assigned" of the study cited in "Psychiatry and the Destruction"
    to be crucial. From my knowledge and experience, one has to participate
    actively with their counselor in their counseling for anything as
    far as a "change for the better" to occur. That these people didnt even
    know whether they were recieving treatment or not seems to me to
    preclude them participating in a useful and productive way. No wonder
    the findings did not correlate to the expectation. Counseling is
    not something one can just dump on somebodys lap - and expect to
    have positive results. I'd be willing to bet half the claimed "waste"
    in counseling is because people are doing it - paying the money
    - yet they dont *want* it. Kid's parents are "making them go" or
    it a condition of their being able to "get out of jail"; keep their
    job or licence. They're just doing it to get out of something else;
    of course the actual effectiveness is going to be *less* than optimal.
    
    	Joe

    re .6
    	As far a "cite your references" is concerned, what I saw was an
    article in the Scientific American about 3 or four years ago.  If you
    want to look it up they publish an index yearly.  Other stuff was from
    daily or weekly anecdotes of what my wife was seeing at work.  She, by
    the way, still believes in the field much more than I do.
    	That the DSMIIIR contains some bogus categories of diseases does
    not invalidate all of the diagnoses contained therin.  That it contains
    even one such demonstrates that it is not infallible.  Until a few
    years ago it included homosexuality as a treatable condition.  The book
    is a reflection of the opinions of a lot of practitioners who to some
    extent reflect their society.  
    	In my opinion there are four classes of people who may receive
    counselling:  a. those who will improve no matter what, b. those who
    will improve with counselling, c. those who won't improve no matter
    what, d. those who are perfectly OK and are perceived by some others to
    have a problem.  Counsellors are very willing to treat all three 
    groups.  They are very unwilling to tell those in categories a, c and d
    that they can't do anything for them.  There are some very ineffective
    counsellors who make a good living from counselling people in
    categories a and d.  They may actually harm people in category b by
    missing a window of opportunity.  There is no quality control on
    counsellors after they receive certification.  The standards for
    certification do not require any demonstration of competence in
    counselling.  In most areas there is no requirement that a counsellor
    be certified to the irrellevant standards.
    	The whole thing is as if when you wanted to get an engine problem
    on your car fixed, you went to a certified repair facility.  The
    facility might be an auto body repair shop.  They could hammer on the
    outside of your car, give it a coat of paint and send you on your way
    having relieved you of some cash.  The difference is that humans often
    repair themselves.  So even a lousy body shop could get testimonials
    from people whose engines fixed themselves while non-existent dents
    were being hammered out.
    						John
     

re.17

   I think what .0 is asking about is the sort of counseling one would expect
from a psychologist as opposed to the treatment one would get from a 
psychiatrist. A psychiatrist tends to treat a condition as a mental disorder
that can be fixed by the right drugs. This may include conditions such as
depresion or whatever. The psychologists approach is to treat the condition as
something that can be dealt with by aquiring new thinking skills. A couple may
seek such counciling in order to learn healthy ways to communicate.

   I believe the distinction is important.

   As to the basic question. I think counseling helps. My HMO offers a 
counciling service that covers 20 office visits per year with a $2 co-pay. 
I have also think group counciling and self help groups helpful. When I went 
to EAP I had no problem getting to see somebody quickly.

Peter.

    
    re .19 -
    
    	Admittedly, I was a bit ticked when I made my response yesterday.
    I dont think I'll bother to look up the article. Though not infallable,
    certainly as demonstrated by the "homosexuality" diagnosis as a
    treatable condition, I still contend that it's much more a means for
    people to be compensated for legitimate ailments, than it is an
    indicator of society's bogus afflictions.
    
    	I've even thought of how "oppostiional disorder" just might
    be someone's legitimate suffering - rather than simply a phase of
    teenage life that one would grow out of in time. I wont go into it
    here -
    
    	I also wont dispute that there are some counselors who are not
    completely honest. Given my belief about the whole process, there's
    really NOT a lot of money to be made, because in a lot of cases,
    its probably most appropriate (and honest) to tell the client "Come
    back when you're ready to do some work, put some honest effort into
    yourself, be straight and up front with me", etc etc. I suspect
    we agree that there are some professionals who are content to just
    let a client "spin their wheels" and say "same time next week?"
    wringing whatever they cant get for as long as they can. That's
    just blatant dishonesty and I'm sure it happens on some level in
    any profession where there's money to be made. It's too bad it goes
    on in the area of therapy and counseling, because *trust* is of
    such importance there.
    
    	I believe we disagree on the issue of people "fixing themselves"
    in that it's just a matter of time. Some of the diseases listed
    in DSMIII are progressive and ultimately fatal. If one were a bonafide
    alcoholic for example; time in and of itself will NOT effect a cure
    and its (IMHO) highly unlikely that one would cure themselves in
    and of themselves, in simply "a matter of time".
    
    	There are other aspects in having a psychological problem, other 
    than simply "the problem", which serve to block or suspend someone's
    self-growth and progress out of it. These are treatable through
    counseling and ultimately _allow_ the "natural" growth in time to 
    happen. Your body shop analogy might be modified to suit; after
    the accident, the engine always overheated. Specialists changed
    the fluid, replaced the radiator, changed the thermostat...but not
    until the body repair shop cut away all the mashed metal blocking
    the airflow, was the engine able to resume operating normally.
    
    	I believe Lynn mentioned that one must *choose their counselor*.
    I admit its probably quite perceptive on the part of a distraught patient
    to determine that his/her counselor would simply allow them to just
    go on and on without making any real progress, take their money
    all the while, and upon making that determination, change therapists.
    It does happen, however.
    
    	*I've* done that. I've gone to one person for a time, decided
    I just didnt like his model of therapy (what he offered, basically)
    and changed to someone else. It's no different than changing dentists,
    IMHO, given you decide you dont like your current practitioner and/or
    you've heard of someone better. It's only a service.
    
    	Joe
    
    	

Re: -1
>    	I believe Lynn mentioned that one must *choose their counselor*.
>    I admit its probably quite perceptive on the part of a distraught patient
>    to determine that his/her counselor would simply allow them to just
>    go on and on without making any real progress, take their money
>    all the while, and upon making that determination, change therapists.
    
    In my experience it's been tough to make these choices.  Never in the
    last couple of times I've sought help have the intake interviews been
    free of charge; they've costed the same amount as a regular session. 
    Apparently counselors in the Boston area have gotten wise to consumers
    who "shop" counselors before buying.  So interviewing three counselors
    costs about $300 even before you've picked one.
    
    It's tough to decide whether to put this on insurance:  I'd say if you
    can afford to pay for it on your own, the long-run cost is lower if you
    just pay out-of-pocket.  The insurance industry puts all this data into
    a computer someplace where it haunts you for life.  Insurance usually
    only covers a dozen sessions a year, anyway.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124

    
    The thing I really distrust in pyschiatry, pyschology or counseling is
    that there is no methodology to guide the counselor. Each counselor has
    his or her own way of dealing with patients. Their understanding of the 
    mind is so lacking that a solid methodology can not be developed. I
    guess this is why people can go to counseling long-term and still not
    get the result they want. If these guys really understood the mind and
    how it works, then solutions to patients problems should materialise in
    weeks or months, certainly NOT years.
    
    That's my opinion.
    
    Alan.

    
    	re .23 -
    
    	I've heard it said that given it takes years for one to form and 
    entrench their problem, expect it to take time - on the same order -
    to extract and do away with it. Basically, there are no "quick fixes"
    or "short cuts". Those who do "understand the mind and how it works" 
    know this. Some even say, "it's the work of a lifetime".
    
    	Even in this file, there have been those who've cried out "What 
    I'm doing hurts! What can I do!?!" Answer: Stop doing it. Next entry;
    same question. Same answer. Still later, same question. Same answer.
    A true solution is obviously more involved than something as simple
    as "Just say no". Believe me, there are people who practice counseling
    who *do* know this - and what it takes for someone to get to a true 
    solution.
    
    	Joe
    
    	

Re: .24  

I don't agree. Counselors that tell you if it took you 30 years to get into 
this mess and it will take you 30 years to get you out of it, either they 
just want a secure income for the next 30 years or they simply don't 
understand the mind sufficiently to help you fast enough.

I personally found that counseling just for a couple of hours once a week 
did not help me one bit, simply because my counselor was handling the upsets 
of the week just past and didn't have any time to really progress with me. We
were basically just fire-fighting, getting nowhere.

So then we started arranging my holidays so that I could spend a whole week 
doing 6 hours a day, boy did we make progress. 

When I first started, he repaired my major life upset in 25 hours. He then 
sorted out my communication problems in 20, restored my ability to handle 
my own problems in about 30, to handle any upset in about 10. I've not been 
back for a whole year now and I don't need to go back. 

Alan.

Re: .25
    I agree.  The amount of time you've been driving your car with a funny
    ticking sound coming out of the engine has nothing to do with the
    amount of time it might take a mechanic to fix it.
    
    His experience of rehashing events-of-the-week resonates with my most
    recent experience of seeing a psychiatrist, 18 sessions in the summer of
    '90.  He put me on Prozac, apparently an insufficient dosage to make any
    noticeable difference, and we never got to explore my primary problem
    (feeling totally unmotivated by my career field, engineering, a problem
    which persists to this day, causing me needless anxiety about where the
    bread on tomorrow's table is going to come from) owing to the myriad
    weekly distractions.
    
    I like the idea of 6-hour sessions.  Where does one find a doctor who
    specializes in this form of high-intensity therapy?  This is something
    I'd be *much* more willing to try than yet another hour-a-week
    years-long ordeal.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124

My counselor was a Dianetics Counselor at the Church of Scientology in London.
My sessions cost me around $120 an hour (I got a sliding scale discount for
buying in bulk).

When I walked into the centre, I was first given a personality test to assess
the state I was in, and it wasn't a good one. So they said my first action
would be to get some Life Repair Counseling to get me out of my immediate mess.

I started the counseling, two hours every evening but it didn't go well because
I was very tired after a day at work as well as all the upsets that I had to
confront during that day as well. So my counselor suggested that I come in at 
the weekends to get me through this thing that was runing my life as quickly
as possible. He only worked monday to friday, but he agreed to give up several
weekends to give me some instensive counseling. After 25 hours, we had found
what was really ruining my life and it WASN'T what I thought it was. Afterwards
I realised that if you really know what is ruining your life then it won't
ruin it any more. Until you know the exact cause, you'll be stuck in your ruin
forever.

What sold me on Dianetics and Scientology was not only the fact that it worked, 
it was also the dedication and care my counselor had for me.

After this, I then started a program called the Purification Rundown which 
got me off the drugs I was taking. 

re: .26

I understand what you are going through when you are unsure of you own
career direction. Last year I did a course called the Life Orientation Course.
It basically took my life apart and I then re-assembled it in the correct order
with the priorites in the right place. Since then decisions in my life are so
much easier because I know what I want and what I am heading for. With a 
target to aim at, lifes often impossible decisions are a breeze, I actually 
feel in control for the first time, instead of drifting with the tide. 
After this course, it was so easy to resign from a job, something I had never 
done before, I usually waited until I was fired. 

So that's my experience of Scientology, I've seen it and done it. 
Any questions ?

Alan.
    

    Not knowing anything about the Church of Scientology...I'd be
    interested to hear their beliefs on how the human mind and human
    behavior works.
    
    Lynn

Note 31.2 contains a pointer to one description, though one not flattering
to Scientologists.

				Steve

    re: .29
    
    Actually, I'm more interested in Alan's experience as told in Alan's
    words. 
    
    Lynn

    I went to a counseler for over 4 years, never did me one bit of good.
    Charged me $115 for 45 minutes, twice a week for a year, once a week
    for 3 more years.  I came out worse than when I went in.
    
    A year after stopping I met someone socially who was a therapist.
    I saw her 3 times.  Charged me $75 for each 90 minute session.  She got
    right to the heart of my problem, which was, (surprise!, surprise!) that
    I get into situations which are not working for me and somehow can't
    leave, cause I'm a wimp.  We identified the problem in the second
    session, and I fixed it by the third.  Now I know how to identify
    when it happens and what to do.
    
    mm

re .30   Thank you Lynn.

re .28   

    Let me explain what qualification I have to explain this. I have done much 
    counseling in Scientology and have reached the state of Clear (this is 
    explained later). As well as receiving counseling, you are also advised to 
    study how to give counseling to others, this I have been doing in the last
    year and I still have a long way to go before I can practice any counseling
    and even then it is always supervised by another person.

So what does Scientology say about the mind. Well first let me say that the
part of Scientology that deals with mind itself is called Dianetics. So...

The basic command of the mind is Survive. The thrust of survival is toward 
pleasure and away from pain. By pleasure is meant "Gratification; agreeable
moments, mental or physical; enjoyment". By pain is meant "Physical or
mental suffering; Penalty". The purpose of the mind is to solve problems 
relating to survival. The mind operates on information it receives or 
has recorded. That a person fails or makes a mistake does not alter the fact 
that his basic motivation was survival.

The human mind can be considered to have two major parts. The first being the
Analytical mind. This is the conscious, aware mind which thinks, observes
data, remembers it and resolves problems. It thinks on similarites and 
differences. It is perfect, it never makes a mistake. It cannot err in any way
so long as a human being is reasonably intact (unless something has removed 
a piece of his mental equipment).

The analytical mind has its memory banks which are filled with recordings 
called mental image pictures. Mental image pictures are three dimensional 
colour pictures with sound, smell and all other perceptions, plus the 
conclusions or speculations of the individual. (Think and recall something !)

The analytical mind uses data in the memory banks to make decisions that will
promote survival. This is sanity. This is happiness. This is survival. So where
do the errors come from ?

There are two things which appear to be - but are not - recorded in the 
memory banks: painful emotion and physical pain. In moments of intense pain,
the action of the analytical mind is suspended and the second part of the mind,
the reactive mind, takes over. When a person is fully conscious, his analytical
mind is fully in command of the organism. When the individual is "unconscious"
in full or in part (not fully aware), the reactive mind is cut in, in full or 
in part. The reactive mind continues to make pictures no matter how 
unconscious a person supposedly is. The shocks of accidents, the pain of 
injuries, anesthetics and the deliriums of illmess are the principal sources
of uncounsciousness.

The reactive mind works on a totally stimulus-response basis (given a certain
stimulus, it gives a certain response). It is not under the individual's
volitional control, and it exerts force and the power of command over the 
awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It is this mind which stores
up pictures of all bad or painful things that have happened to one and throws
them back to him again in moments of emergency or danger so as to dictate his
actions along lines which have been considered "safe" before. This is called
restimulation.

The reactive mind stores engrams and not memories as we know them. An engram 
contains pain and unconsciousness as well as the normal perceptions. An example
of an engram would be: A woman is knocked down by a blow from her husband. She
is rendered unconscious. She is kicked and told she is a faker, that she is no
good, that she is always changing her mind. A chair is overturned in the
process. A faucet is running in the kitchen. A car is passing in the street
outside. The engram contains a running record of all these perceptions.

The problem with the reactive mind is that it "thinks" in idenities, one thing 
identical to another. A reactive mind computation about this engram would be:
the pain of the kick = the pain of the blow = the overturning chair = the
passing car = the faucet = that fact that she is a faker = the fact that she
is no good = the fact that she changes her mind = the voice tones of her
husband = etc etc etc.

So when this woman's environment contains enough similarites to the elements
found in the engram, she will experience a reactivation of the engram. The 
mechanism is telling her that she is in dangerous surroundings (she actually
may or may not be in danger). If she stays in this environment for any great 
length of time, the pains in the areas where she was abused can become a 
predisposition to illness or a chronic illness in themselves. The words 
in the engram are also taken literally and used as commands by the reactive 
mind. When the engram is restimulated in one of the great many ways possible,
she has a feeling that she is no good, a faker, and she WILL change her mind.

The reactive mind is very rugged, but it is not refined. Although it's purpose
is to aid the individual's survival by helping him to avoid situations which 
have proven harmful in the past, in actual fact the courses of action dictated
by the reactive mind are often not safe, but highly dangerous. The reactive 
mind comprises of an unknowing, unwanted series of aberrated computations
which bring about an effect upon the individual. Thus we get irrational 
behaviour, short tempers, and in the extreme insanity.

There is more to this which covers the three types of mental image pictures, of
which the engram is one, and how these three types build up into chains of 
incidents within the reactive mind. How they have mass and charge attached 
to them. But I don't have time to type it all in. Maybe another time.

So to finish off I shall say...Dianetics contains techniques which can rid a 
person of the adverse effects of engrams and the reactive mind. The goal of
Dianetics is the Clear, a person who no longer has his own reactive mind.
Freed of the reactive mind, a person can be happier, more self-confident, more
effective and successful.

I've done this and know that it works because it worked for me. There is a 
quote from the Dianetics book which I particular like and that is "Dianetics is
an adventure. Treat it as an adventure. And may you never be the same again."

Not_the_same_Alan_they_used_to_know :-).
                                                             

    Re: -1
    
    I have a different theory on how the mind works.  I suppose if I had
    complete understanding then perhaps I'd be able to fix it like a car
    or a computer; but maybe it's more like one of our disk drives which
    suffers from a defect only a servo-writer can correct (that's a
    $100,000 piece of equipment most people don't have lying around the
    house).
    
    The way I see the mind working is not a two- or three-component system
    in which one part is "perfect" and analytical and another is
    "emotional" or "reactive".  While it is highly structured, there
    aren't sharp boundaries between functions.
    
    Here's an analogy of how I think my mind works.  Picture a large array
    (graph, actually, in the CS sense of the word) of small cells into
    which tidbits of information can be stored.  In most cases these are
    referential, kind of like a macro in the C programming language:  only
    a small amount of memory is required to refer to the concept of "apple"
    or "cubicle", though a large amount would be required to record a
    complete and exact image of either one.  Probably a single neuron can
    hold enough information to store a reference to such concepts, but it
    takes many to hold an image, and our minds aren't organized in scan
    lines like the screen on which you're reading this admittedly-strange
    posting.
    
    OK, so you've got a lot of little slots to hold memories.  How do the
    memories get there?  Taking the analogy further, let's say there are
    a couple more components of the system:  one is a way to dump raw
    concepts in (from the senses), and another is a way to draw connections
    between memory-cells and to copy across a connection into another cell.
    The more copies of a memory which exist, the easier it'll be to recall. 
    But if there aren't a lot of connections (references) then it doesn't
    really matter how many copies there are.
    
    Tying it all together is the process we call thought, or stream of
    consciousness.  Our mind is constantly running parallel paths tracing
    through these connections, making and breaking them.  A traumatic or
    an especially wonderful experience will cause more connections to be
    made, creating more copies and causing a memory to reach "deeper"
    places in the mind where it is more likely to be held long-term.  Thus
    in this model there isn't *any* difference between short-term and
    long-term memory; the distinction is created simply by how much of an
    impression an incident makes on the person, and on how often the
    information is recalled/cycled through the thought process.  The more
    you recall a memory (and you can do this deliberately, if you want to
    memorize a phone number simply repeat it, and dump it into your "memory
    cells" via more than one sense--e.g. write it down and look at it, say
    it out loud), the more connections you'll make to it and thus the more
    you'll be able to recall it.
    
    The reason it's harder to recall something than to recognize it is that
    recognition follows a wider variety of connections or references.  You
    probably can't recall all the dreams you had last night but some pieces
    of them are stored somewhere.  If you see something which matches the
    contents of one of the dreams, suddenly a new connection will be made
    and a flood of memories will be accessible across other connections.
    
    Trauma does something weird.  There's a self-preservation circuit which
    goes through and destroys connections to memories.  But it doesn't
    destory the contents of the cells.  This causes you to be unable to
    recall details of the trauma, but you still have memories and there's a
    way to get at them.  This connection is often triggered at *really*
    inconvenient moments, and under the model I'm suggesting, I don't see
    how to prevent that, since there is no provision for erasing a memory.
    
    So there's nothing perfect about it.  It's not even all that fast, in
    terms of the kinds of systems our company sells.  And the amount of
    memory probably doesn't have to be all that huge; it seems like a lot
    but it's all coded very efficiently in images (or "memes", as a friend
    of mine calls them).  A lot happens in parallel, so a whole flood
    of images can be recalled very fast.
    
    But there is something wonderful about it.  I'm always amazed at our
    existence, and it's easy to get depressed about the lack of recognition
    of this fact by so many members of our society.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124
                                

    
    L.Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology) said that Dianetics is not the
    only system to explain and relieve the problem of the mind, but it is 
    a workable system. And that is the important bit, that it works. There
    are many fakes on the market and that is half the problem because when
    one comes along that works, nobody believes it. They've been stung so 
    many times before.

    So your theory of the mind now needs some workable solutions to go with it
    and you can start getting this society back into shape. Simple eh ?

>    So there's nothing perfect about it.  It's not even all that fast, in
>    terms of the kinds of systems our company sells.  

    I would disagree here, just look at the amount of image processing it has
    to do for a start and then instantly come to a conclusion about the image 
    it is looking at. It has billions of other images it can consult to arrive
    at the correct significance. It's utterly astounding. And it does all that 
    before you start considering what a thought is. :-)

    Another good reason I enjoy being a Scientologist is that as a group they 
    appreciate life and the sheer "wonderfulness" of it all. They have a 
    cheerful and positive outlook on life. There is nothing more depressing 
    than being the only cheerful person in a crowd of misery. And try keeping 
    cheerful in that sort of environment, it's impossible. That's why I'm 
    currently planning a career change to get out of computing and become
    more active in Scientology. The money isn't good, but then money has never
    made anyone truly happy.

    Alan.

    
    	I've been quite busy as of late and have been unable to "keep
    up" with the conversation here. I would like to take a moment to
    add two comments however -
    
    	- As to whether counseling is effective because counselors dont
    know what the $*^! they're doing re: the Human mind. Then, possibly,
    effectiveness is not as much a matter of that, merely a matter of
    whether counsling is given on a 50 minute per session weekly basis,
    or, as in Mr White's experience, sessions lasting up to 4 hours.
    
    	This of course begs a controlled effectiveness study with two
    groups; one receiving the 50 minute sessions on a weekly basis,
    the other getting 4 hour sessions, say, once a month.
    
    	- My experience with Dianetics has been this. One time, about
    10 years ago, I bought the book. It was on my coffee table when
    a couple of friends stopped by for their evening visit. Upon seeing
    it, they both exclaimed "Be careful with that; that's L. Ron Hubbard;
    that's the Church of Scientology; They'll take it *all*". Being
    a fairly vulnerable young man at the time, I simply threw it out;
    even doing so against the advice of one of them who said "Well,
    you know - read it - just be careful with what you do with it".

    
    	re Mr White;
    
    	I'm glad to read that Scientology works for you and has been
    an enlightening experience for you; even to the point of you choosing
    to pursue it in earnest. I do not question its validity nor judge
    its effectiveness for you or others. However, in the context of
    honesty in the area of counseling, I question whether the third
    element - the church - played a significant part in your getting
    the exceptional treatment initially by your first scientology
    counselor. Personally, I'm wary of such arrangements, where there's 
    "a catch"; an additional operator beyond the give//get relationship 
    between counselor and client. In this case, what the church "gets".
    
    	Joe

	Joe,
    
    re: "My experience with Dianetics has been this."

	Not meaning to be of any offense, but I would hardly call listening to 
	someone elses opinion an experience of anything. Did you ask them 
	what they based their opinions on ? Media hype ?

>>    	re Mr White;

	Please call me Alan, we're not at war yet. ;-)
    
>                                           However, in the context of
>    honesty in the area of counseling, I question whether the third
>    element - the church - played a significant part in your getting
>    the exceptional treatment initially by your first scientology
>    counselor. Personally, I'm wary of such arrangements, where there's 
>    "a catch"; an additional operator beyond the give//get relationship 
>    between counselor and client. In this case, what the church "gets".
    
	The church is the employer, it provides the training, office space etc.
	The church trained my counselor, it also checks that the counseling he
	does is upto standard and that he makes no mistakes. During a session
	he makes full and complete reports of everything I say and do, also of
	what he says and does. This is then checked by the Case Supervisor. If
	there are any mistakes, my counselor is sent to Qual to iron out the
	mistakes so that he doesn't do them again. 

	I don't see this type of Quality Assurance anywhere else in the
    	counseling business.

	The reason it is a church is because it is a religion. It is a religion
	because it not only believes in the human spirit/soul, it can prove 
	that the human spirit/soul exists. 

	It is current Pyschology that says that man is merely an animal, which
	is crazy since Pyschology means the study of the spirit. 
	Boy, have they got it wrong. The human body may have descended from 
	the apes but the human spirit certainly did not.

	Alan_who_is_more_than_a_walking_hamburger. ;-)

    	Okay, Alan,
    
	So you're saying the Church is virtually the same as any "XYZ 
    center for healing" insofar, as a business, simply provides manpower,
    management and facilities - with counseling as their product?
    
	>I don't see this type of Quality Assurance anywhere else in the
    	>counseling business.
    
    	Well, what's the motivation for having this level of QA in place?
    To be "best in class" in the field of helping people with psychospiritual 
    issues?
    
    	Joe

    
    Absolutely, anyone who supplies any type of product should have some
    sort of Quality assurance if they want to provide a good product to the
    customer.
    
    In the counseling business, even more so, since you are dealing with 
    people's minds. The cosmetics industry go to great lengths to ensure
    that no-one is injured by any of their products, so why shouldn't the
    shrink business do the same ?
    
    There are too many psychiatrists in this business putting people on
    Prozac and other such drugs just because they don't have a better 
    solution and the patient had been a long term case.
    
    With decent, ethical Quality assurance in the industry, people might
    actually get the service they are looking for.
    
    I'll dig out a few cases of psychiatrists resorting to drugs and the
    effects it has on society, I think you'll find them interesting.
    
    Alan.

    On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy opened fire on a schoolyard full of 
    young children in Stockton, California, with a military assault rifle.
    During his vicious and unprovoked attack, Purdy killed five school
    children and wounded 30 others. Purdy then killed himself. - "Schoolyard 
    Massacre", The Sacremento Union, Jan 18 1989.

	Since the age of 16, Purdy had been in and out of the hands of 
	psychiatrists, steadily deteriorating and becoming more violent. 
	During the two years prior to the murders of the Stockton children, 
	Purdy had been on three strong psychiatric drugs of categories known 
	to cause violence - "Chronological Life History of Patrick Edward 
	Purdy" prepared by special agents Allen Benitez and Phil Lee of the
	Bureau of Investigation, California Dept of Justice. 1989


    On September 26, 1988, 19 year old James Wilson took a .22 caliber revolver
    into a elementary school in Green wood, South Carolina, and started
    shooting school-children, killing two 8-year old girls and wounding seven 
    other children an two teachers - Los Angeles Times, Sept 27, 1988.

	Wilson had been in and out of the hands of psychiatrists since age 14,
	and within the eight months prior to the killings had been on several
	pyschiatric drugs which can generate violent behaviour - Bob Smith, 
	"Medications' effects issue in the Wilson trial", State, Columbia, 
	South Carolina. 25th April 1989

    
    On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley Jr, gunned down President Reagan, a Secret 
    Service agent, a police officer and Reagan's press sceretary, outside the
    Washington Hilton Hotel. Hinckley had been seeing a pyschiatrist and using 
    the drug Valium (diazepam), a drug linked with acts of violence. Two hours
    prior to the shooting the president, Hinckley took four Valium tablets. - 
    The Miami Herald.


    In 1964, at the age of 15, Edmund Kemper III admitted shooting his grand-
    parents to death and was sent to Atascadero State Hospital in San Luis
    Obispo, California, for psychiatric treatment. He was released in 1969 based
    on the recommendation of two psychiatrists. On May 7 1972, Kemper killed and
    decapitated two women. On Sept 14, 1972, he killed a 15-year old girl and 
    then had sex with the dead body before he dismembered it.

    On Sept 16 and 18, Kemper was examined by two court appointed psychiatrists
    who gave him a clean bill of mental health.

    A Santa Cruz County district Attorney quoted the evaluation of Kemper made
    by one of the psychiatrists: "He has made an excellent response to the 
    years of treatment. I see no psychiatric reason to consider him to be of
    any danger to himself or any other member of society.
    
    In November 72, Kemper's criminal records were sealed based on the 
    recommendation of the two psychiatrists.

    On April 23, 1973, Kemper confessed to the brutal murders of eight women, 
    five of whom he had butchered since his September 1972 psychiatric 
    evaluation. One of the five was his own mother.

Now tell me the shrink industry doesn't need some kind of straight jacket. :-)

Alan.                                           
    

>Now tell me the shrink industry doesn't need some kind of straight jacket. :-)

    Every single one of them drank milk as children.  This is a common
    thread that runs through not only these stories, but the stories
    of virtually EVERY mass murderer in the history of the USA.
    
    Obviously drinking milk, a constant element in every murderer's
    life history, has an effect on them -- it must be one of the
    contributory causes.
    

    	The real problem is that there isn't much that the professionals
    can do for real hard core nuts.  I've known some in my time, and they
    were nuts when they were 20 and they were still nuts when they hit 40. 
    My personal belief is that the hard core nuts have wiring problems in
    their brains and all the software (counselling) work in the world isn't
    going to fix a hardware problem.  This is reflected in the fact that
    when they find a drug that works on the hardware, some part of the hard
    core population is cured.  The professionals are always willing to try
    more of what doesn't work on the cases that they can't fix.
    	It is unrealistic to talk about locking up all of the people whom
    the shrinks can't cure, so there will always be instances of these
    people going all the way over the edge.  The vast majority of them
    stumble along to some degree.  Some of them can hold jobs and are
    somewhat productive, while others are permanently dependant on society.
    Miracle cures don't come along that often, so it isn't surprising that
    the shrinks try all of the effective drugs on the hard core serially
    hoping that one drug will work.
    	Effective counselling and sometimes drugs often apear to be effective
    in helping people with short term problems to get over them.  But, it
    isn't really clear whether the treatment is the cure or just time.  It
    is also not clear to me whether people with short term problems
    sometimes become part of the hard core.  (The exception is people who
    have organic damage as a result of drugs or injuries.)
    						John
    

Re: .38
    
    When I saw that doctor at McLean in 1990, I felt like a research
    project.  At this point I'd recommend against seeking help at big
    research institutions like McLean (this Belmont institution is
    world-renowned for its psychiatric research).  Within four sessions, he
    had me on Prozac.  This despite his total lack of knowledge of what was
    wrong.  A better doctor would certainly study a patient's history more
    before doing that, and if as in my case there wasn't much in the way of
    history, then he'd wait a while before trying "hardware" fixes.
    
Re: .39
    
    What are you trying to say?  That psychiatry can't help someone like
    me, who has a relatively simple problem with work motivation and an
    inability to ever truly relax, because it can't solve the problem of
    violence in society?
    
Re: .41
    
    Under the Reagan/Bush administration, there was a long-term trend
    toward deinstitutionalizing psychiatric patients, reversing 30 years or
    so of building warehouses for the mentally ill.  I doubt that Clinton's
    administration has done anything to change that.  Reflecting on this,
    yesterday I saw a bumper sticker reading "Back Yards not Back Wards /
    For the Mentally Ill".                          
    
    Current government policy is a non-policy.  One way or another
    something should be done to address hard-core mental illness.  And I'd
    like there to be more societal support (and quality control) for the
    counseling profession, to help the rest of us.  There are way too many
    bad apples practicing therapy and I don't have a Consumer Reports for
    counseling handy.
    
    -rich
    Mass Storage Engineering OEM D&SG  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                            508-841-2124

	Re: .42

	Rich, 
	
	I have to disagree about a better doctor wouldn't try a "hardware"
	fix so soon. MDs are trained to think of the world in terms of
	diseases that can be cured by appropriate medications; and 
	psychiatrists are just medical doctors who specialize in mental 
	illness. I'd be surprised if an MD in a hospital *didn't* try
        a medication "fix", and in some cases, that's appropriate. 
    
    	Clearly, what this person offered wasn't the solution you were
    	seeking, or that would help you; so the answer is, look for
    	someone or another situation that could help.
	
	(There are some situations where I believe it is *necessary* to see
	an MD, specifically for medication, because the problem underlying
	the presenting symptoms is biological/chemical in nature.
	Manic-depression and schizophrenia come readily to mind, but I know
	that anxiety and panic disorders (and others) respond well to 
	medication. A friend who has manic-depression and takes lithium
	for it describes its effect as "it takes the extreme edge off the
	highs and lows; it doesn't take away my feelings, but it makes me 
	function within normal ranges.")

	However, there *are* therapists who deal with problems of life
	adjustment (which is, IMO, where career dissatisfaction and
	inability to truly relax fall; just IMO, your mileage may vary).

	These people are called counselors, psychologists, social workers, 
	(the titles vary by state) and are trained (primarily) in the 
	workings of human psychology, emotions, etc. Let's leave aside for
	the moment the issue that different "schools" of psychology teach
	different things. My point is, they are not trained as medical
	doctors, neither are they empowered to write prescriptions for 
	medications; they don't see things in those terms. 

	I think there are situations where the type of help these people 
	offer is precisely what is needed, because what the client presents 
	is a problem in how s/he copes with life. It's not an issue of 
	body chemistry gone awry; it's emotional or psychological responses 
	that continue to get the individual into a place where life isn't 
	as pleasant or satisfying as it could be. 

	There are also workshops, seminars, etc. available which deal with
	these issues. There is also the self-help groups, 12-step 
	programs, etc. These settings offer another flavor, if you
	will, of learning better ways to deal with life experiences.

	...........
	
	A few more thoughts about my own experience with therapists -

	In my own experience, as a child of an alcoholic and emotionally
	abusive family, I've found counseling and self-help groups to be
	very beneficial. They have helped me actively learn new	and healthier 
	ways of coping with the world. Some of the specific things I've 
	learned about are ridding myself of the need to be always 
	responsible for whatever was happening around me (hypervigilence), 
	eliminating the "no talk" rule (keeping secrets due to shame), 
	and standing up for my own needs (the lack of which was expressed in 
	my life as a pervading depression, sometimes severely so, and 
	automatic reaction of trying to please everyone else, by pursuing
	the career other people chose for me, or the lifestyle, or whatever).
	
	I also know people with similar family backgrounds who find it
	essential for their functioning that they take anti-anxiety medication,
	as well as pursue psychological therapy and work 12-step programs.
		
	...............

	About finding a good therapy situation - which I define as, one
	where your problem(s) clearly are understood, and which can help
	you make a positive difference in your life -

	Each person's situation is different, and I think the important
	thing is to keep asking questions and seeking alternatives until
	you (generic) find what works for you. I personally am a strong 
	believer in the psychological therapies and would likely never see
	a psychiatrist, but that's what works for me.

	My initial exposure started when I happened to tune into PBS during
	fundraising week. They were airing John Bradshaw's tapes, and he 
	was describing the alcoholic family, specifically the role of the 
	"family hero". It was the first time I had ever heard anyone describe 
	*exactly* how I felt (and I and all the people close around me had
	had literally years of training in psychology). 

	Shortly after, I attended a weekend workshop given by Bradshaw. 
	This was structured so that small groups of 4-6 worked together 
	throughout the weekend. (There were probably 200 such small groups 	
	in the hall at the same time. It was a very intense experience of 
	remembering and re-working-through some very painful childhood 
	memories, using techniques of physical relaxation, visualization,
	and positive affirmations. Many people I talked to found this 
	experience equally helpful. Some found it entirely too threatening.
	(If anyone wants more details, send me mail separately; it would
	take too long to explain here, and would sidetrack the purpose
	of this reply.)
	
	I've gotten into helpful group therapy, self-help groups (and
	started some), individual therapy, and couples therapy situations by 
	seeking recommendations/referrals from others, notably fellow 
	12-steppers. I've gotten positive things out of each situation.
	
	Lynn




    

    Just to chime in with my own experiences....
    
    First of all... a coming-out of sorts: I'm the anonymous author of
    1284.0 in HUMAN_RELATIONS-V1 ("101 reasons *not* to call EAP").  To
    summarize: I knew I needed help but I also had the damndest time
    summoning the will to seek out that help.
    
    I guess I got lucky... the short form of the story is that I finally
    *did* call EAP, saw a counselor for an hour, he referred me to an 
    outside counselor, who I've been seeing once a week for the past year.
    It has worked out very well, and we've made a lot of real progress.
    The counselor I have, at least, is very good at getting to the 
    heart of whatever it is I'm talking about.  Sometimes we'll start out
    a session talking about the "crisis of the week", but we're usually
    able to use that as a springboard to start addressing the deeper
    issues that made for that crisis in the first place.
    
    Now for the slightly longer form of the story: what finally got me to
    call EAP was the fact that I was helping *another* friend through *her*
    bad times... she too had been dealing with EAP and with an outside
    therapist, and making some good progress.  One day I told her that I
    needed *her* help for a change, and started asking her about EAP.  She
    gave me a few tidbits of information that were useful (e.g. "There's
    two counselors who cover our site; one's pretty good and the other is
    worse than useless.  The good one works Thursdays").  So when I called,
    I contrived to *have* to have my appointment on Thursday 8-).  The hour
    I spent with the counselor was valuable, and he was able to size up my
    temperament and recommend a counselor that would be a good match.
    
    As for the other counselor... I saw her giving a seminar, and she did
    not seem all that effective to me... well-meaning, but *I* certainly
    didn't think I could communicate with her.
    
    In a lot of ways this is what it comes down to; a particular counselor
    may be wonderful for one person but not for another; the match is as
    important as the credentials.  In my own case, I had to start with
    someone who knew me well and was able to recommend someone I would
    likely get along with...
    
    --jim
    

    Glad to hear that it's working well for you jim.....keep up the good
    work!  As long as it works for you and helps in some way, that's
    goodness.  Take good care!
    
    
    bright blessings,
    -HA

    SOME NEED IT REAL BAD, AND IT HELPS''''''''''''''''
    
    
    				BOB