3 ms·
I mean, if someone is shot, you can still surgically intervene without them having to participate. Okay, this is clearly not what we were talking about. Sorry
by jm__87 8y ago
I mean, if someone is shot, you can still surgically intervene without them having to participate.
Okay, this is clearly not what we were talking about. Sorry I was not more specific in my statement to generalize to all scenarios, ever.
Edit: I think it is also a pretty fair assumption that if someone is shot or their appendix is about to burst, they would want help. The key difference here is that someone who is shot is not capable of helping themselves - with regards to many things people go to therapy for, the only way to fix your problems is going to be taking some actions yourself.
- GW150914 8y agoConsent is one thing “my appendix is killing me, help!” while actually doing the work yourself is another. Obviously any intervention requires consent to really work, but once you’ve consented to the appendectomy your role ends. You don’t have to actively engage in your own surgery past the act of wanting it. By contrast merely consenting to therapy isn’t enough, you have to do a lot of hard work as well. The fact that the hard work of everything from overcoming neuroses and anxieties to battling substance abuse is the patient doing the work suggests something about the nature of therapeutic intervention as “treatment” rather than advice-giving.