Ibrahim I think it is important for you both to give the client a different point of view and to not judge another therapist.  If it were me I would say the following to the client:

"Interesting.  I have a very different take on this.  I think the most important person who needs to weigh in on this behavior is you.  How do you feel about what your husband is doing?

The marital relationship is a primary one, so your reactions and feelings about an affair are something that you may really want to consider actually discussing with your husband.  How you feel about it matters---to you as well as in the marriage.  While some women might be willing to tolerate infidelity, others aren't.  But the topic should certainly be one that you and your husband talk about."

I also think it is important not to tell the client what to think or do, but rather support the client in discovering and conveying what the client herself thinks. 

You might say something like, "That's odd. This other therapist seems not to be aware of the full scope of the evidence. The full scope of the evidence indicates..." and then correct the error of the previous therapist. Personally, I have no problem with telling someone that another expert in the field has done something inappropriate, as long as you can objectively show the inappropriateness.

Tell him the truth because it is surely that he is suffering. He is unsatisfied as he comes to you to gain the right news. 

Liqaa 

If the diagnosis of the first therapist is true, you must tell the truth

If it is not true (as she says) there are no emotions in human health, but it is possible to soften the conversation in an acceptable way

For example, you tell her that the first therapist forgot to give you an important blood test that might make him say so, or another reason. 

Hi,

Take that sentence "that is just what men are like", and ask your patient "what do you think about that?"

The important thing here isn´t what the other therapist said either your opinion, the important thing is what your patient believe. Start with that question and follow explaining fallacies of thought.

Good luck!

Extramarital affairs are painful and hurtful, a broken heart needs mending. However, there are many components such as children, religion and economy in a relationship to consider.  "that is just what men are like", it is not a sin to say so and you can forget about it. Focus on your client and lead her to realize what is acceptable and what is not in her relationship with her husband but also with her therapist!

I like it Béatrice Marianne.

What is important is not what the other therapist said but what the patient thinks of it and what is the transferential meaning of telling you about it

Hello Ibrahim, 

 Here's my take. Your first priority is your client, as you are aware of course. And while there are immediate concerns that must be dealt with you also have to look at long-term consequences of those. If this is not corrected, what will she tolerate in future, or perceive as normal? Of course some cultures allow for such things, and if she is a member of that, then respect must be given. That being said, the generalization the therapist made excuses said action without investigation, and this can change her meaning of what a relationship is. I would suggest instead of outright saying the other therapist is wrong, guiding her through a course of actions that allow her to determine what really is healthy and acceptable for herself. However, if she out and out asks, then be honest. You have a responsibility to your client to have integrity. 

Hope all is well. 

I would agree with the above and work through the feeling that the affair has brought about rather than judge the behaviour of the husband or the therapist. I would also like to add, that what a client thinks is said and what is actually said can be two completely different things. They may have assumed that is what the therapist was implying or focused on one sentence rather than the whole context of the conversation, or even used her own interpretation of events. 

I think the issue is not: if we may speak about the work of former colleagues, or if we may not. I think the value of therapy is precisely that we can talk about EVERYTHING—former colleagues included. The issue is rather HOW we talk about that, I mean respectfully and with open-minded curiosity, even though we can disagree (or even appreciate of course) about what they did. 

I concur with all of the above.  Open examination can be a very helpful process.  Criticizing the previous therapist can lead to a number of unintended and problematic consequences.  The manner or technique in which the misinformation is dealt with will depend upon the sort of therapy that you are doing. 

good luck!

Hello Ibrahim,

How one handles situations like these is certainly up to their conceptual and clinical approach to the treatment and to the subjectivity of the person in question. The suggestions above seem all reasonable and helpful with a view to encouraging your work with this client.

My own, unquestionably subective approach, and with my hypothesis about the psychic structure of the person in mind, would be to say something like "well, can anyone really know what men are like?". Such an intervention would not dissaprove openly with the former therapist's words nor agree with him/her, and in fact attempt to empty of meaning strong statements like these. At the same time the client would be given the chance to assume that the therapist they are now facing holds some other kind of knowledge and develop a different form of transference.

Regards,

YG

Yannis I find that your statement "well, can anyone really know what men are like?" is very ... sound. We have many good therapeutic techniques today—but also too many certainties, dogmas, and parochial wars around them.

A

hi Mr. Bugliani, I personally think you shouldn't totally debunk your colleagues accession, rather you can advice your client that, that was his opinion and since opinions are like noses, every body has one. however, do well to suggest a much more appropriate suggestion from your outfit and believe to your client. for all you know, what might kill somebody will rather heal another, just as ones cake can be another mans bitter pile.

Hi Akwasi (if I may), I very much agree with your formulation. Therefore I'm curios: what made you think I did not? I didn't intend to debunk colleagues' accession at all! I trust open and respectful confrontation about everything. (Perhaps the misunderstanding is because of my English). I think that Yannis formulation was cautiously pointing in your same direction.

It is interesting that no one so far has mentioned the "transference" aspect of this riddle.

Working psychoanalytically, the first thing to do would be to note the parallel triangle - that is, the one now forming between the client and the two therapists, who are (presumably) meant to fight about who has the right to "seduce" the client with wisest (it is a bit like Solomon's dilemma with two mothers fighting over ownership of a baby) statement about affairs, or about men ..

So - I would point out the repeated pattern, in relation to forming conflicted triangles (Oedipus would have something to say here ..) and that the therapist is "meant" to compete with the other therapists (supposed) take.

That would bring the problem right into the room, and in the here and the now. After that, roll up your sleeves and start collecting the sparks .. but at least you will be working with the unconscious, and avoiding having to make some impossibly profound generalization - in competition with another (unknown) therapist ..

That's my two cents worth - but only if you want to work more analytically.

Otherwise, you will miss that the client is really asking if all Therapists are alike, continually missing the repeated pattern and just trying to guess what is correct.

The client is really in pain, I think, about whom to trust - both as a partner, but also as a therapist - so this dilemma is also really a massive test for the therapist, to see if they just become yet another triangular impasse. Do not be the "idiot" Solomon who thinks you have to really decide who owns the baby - be the wise Solomon, who knows that cutting the baby in two is no solution.

It has to be addressed at the level of feeling, emotion and the unconscious conflict - or else your client will keep shopping for the next triangle.

[ Perhaps the issue is also repeated in yet another parallel process, right here.

A tricky question is asked, and "rival" answers have to "compete" for Ibrahim's approval.]

Interesting observation Neil. I think that we would need a little more information to determine if this was an expression of underlying conflict. As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar...

I really like how you brought in Menninger's two triangles, that of conflict and of person.

Good to keep in mind.

The "transference aspect" increased from the 1960ies which is a shame for the profession

No, Beatrice - it has always been there, in all relationships, all of the time.

What changes is how much attention a therapist pays to its importance, since Freud first noticed it at the end of 19th Century.

But, perhaps you need to explain what the "shame" is ..

Psychoanalysis cannot do without the concept of transference.

If you are saying that it is a shame psychoanalysis increased from the 1960's .. the what exactly is your case ?

It has always been derided by those who do not accept unconscious aspects and patterns in human relationships - but why "a shame .." ?

Neil, Béatrice,

I think that many of us are still under the spell of prejudices. How many of us are really familiar with the actual way other therapists work? How many of us can really follow the literature of different theoretical orientations? I think the best of us in each different orientation are working very integrative, flexible, and with good judgement—for the sake of clients. Being trained as a psychoanalyst, I could/can experience on my skin the shortcomings and the excesses of my field—e.g. the excesses of focusing upon transference or interpretation. But I think that this is the case of every field: there are excesses in Gestalt's approach, as in CBT (see for instance the great book of a CBT therapist, Richard Hallam, The Therapy Relationship. A Special Kind of Friendship, 2015, about the excesses of CBT, and also his online interviews).

I think the time has come in which therapies collaborates, for the sake of clients, instead of continuing to be a "tribally divided field" (P. Wachtel).

Communities like SEPI give me some hope.

And I also belong to IARPP and ICCE, and to my original one, Jungian, IAAP.

And I enjoy this mixed and free forum too.

Adriano

Neil,

I am very familiar with transference from inside out, but I am referring to crossing the border for what is ethically accepted or not (the non-ethical behavior increased during the 60ties). Because I belong to the profession I do not like to elucidate this topic in a deeper way.

Stereotyping and groups come to mind where guidelines and supervision meetings can be somewhat of a headache for all involved in following a stereo=type. Ironically psychoanalytical discussions (therapeutic) deal with big time diversity...

Michael S...