|
| |
From Roger Morrison's seminar
One
of the biggest pitfalls I see is lack of clarity about how deep to probe in a
case. It is very easy at time to probe seemingly for ever. You can keep
getting more and more insight into the nature of the problem and that may
actually be a mistake. On the other hand, it is easy sometimes to gloss over a
case and just assume that there is nothing there and not probe deeply enough.
When you decide to go deeper and when you decide not to go as deep, is a matter
of judgment, but there are a few clues that I want to pass around.
First of all, the first thing I look for is the amount of resistance on the
patient's part. If there is resistance, then I would tend to probe deeper. If
there is not really resistance, but sort of a blank look on their face, then I
leave it alone. So, if you feel the patient is withholding, many times that
means that there is really valuable information behind what they are
withholding. Another clue is dependent upon where the focus of the pathology
is. Now you won't know that right away as you are taking the case. But, as you
start to take a case, you will realize the focus of this case is a physical
problem and if it is especially a bona fide diagnosable physical problem, it
decreases the likelihood of a necessity to probe deeper on a psychological
plane. But, if the focus of the pathology seems to be more on an emotional
plane, obviously you have to probe deeper. One thing I get when I am analyzing
cases with people is the idea that wherever the focus of pathology is, is where
you have to pay the most attention for deciding on the remedy which is not the
truth. In other words, just because a problem is basically a mental problem,
doesn't mean that you only have to use mental symptoms and that you ignore a
strong physical peculiarity. I remember George saying that one time. I brought
him a case and the case was a depression or something like that. The symptoms
of the depression were rather vague. Nothing that you could really put your
fingers on. But they had a very strong physical peculiarity. They had some
sort of breathing problem which I considered trivial compared to the rest of the
case. So, I was prepared to throw that out and base my whole case on these
psychological but more vague disturbing symptoms for the patient. He said,
"What about this symptom? It's so unusual and so strong? " I said, "Yeah, but
the center of pathology is here, so we don't base it on this especially when the
two are contradictory." He said, "No, but where the case is, where the unusual
factor in the case is here," so don't feel that where the focus of the pathology
is where you have to make the prescription. You make your prescription wherever
the information is strongest, not necessarily where the symptoms are strongest.
It can be from the totality sometimes. Maybe just a striking physical keynote,
or on the other hand it may be a striking mental symptom in an arthritic case
where you would use that. Or it could be just very strong food cravings in a
depressed person and you would forget about the symptoms of the depression if
the strongest and most peculiar and most reliable symptoms in the case were the
food cravings under some circumstances. Don't make that mistake.
When do you not want to probe a case deeper? What type of people? Well we said
one - people with a bona fide physical problem of moderate intensity. Another
is in solid, closed, responsible types like the Calcarea types, the Kali Carb or
other Kali types. It is not necessary to probe so deep in that. I'm not saying
that those are the only remedies, do you understand? But just solid, grounded,
responsible people. Probing is sometimes not only futile but will actually
backfire on you because they will think that you are being silly and you are not
concentrating on their main problem and they will lose faith in you. Another
type is just the reverse type where probing is a mistake. That is in people who
are well versed in psycho babble. EST graduates, people who are
psychotherapists, theorizing type people. It can be a mistake to probe too
deeply into cases of that nature. They come in and they say that their symptoms
start with, you know, they have systemic Candida or they have this or that.
Then they start analyzing. These are people who are tremendous theorizers.
They are already too far away from their symptomatology and if you start
analyzing and probing, what you'll get is further and further degrees of
jargonism that comes out. So what do you do in those people? Go for the facts
of the case. Something that comes up in my case taking over and over and
probably not enough even yet is "tell me what your main problem is" and in those
kinds of people if you can get one definite fact, then that is the only thing
that is reliable in a case frequently of that nature. So, with those types,
instead of trying to probe behind, probe the surface or don't probe the
surface. Take the surface. Insist on what the surface is. Instead you will
get a lot of background.
Another thought. If all you have in a case is physical pathology, make sure you
get every possible detail of the physical pathology. This is very frequently a
good way to make a patient open up is if they come in and they say, "I have a
certain physical pathology" and even if you feel that that maybe isn't the
deepest pathology in the case, if you show the interest to go into every
possible detail of that physical pathology, you may encourage them to open up on
other things, because they see that you are taking them seriously. The other
point is that if there isn't other deeper symptomatology that you can base the
case on, you have to know every modality every time and you have to get in as
much specificity as possible because in those cases you have a scarcity of
symptoms. So, a big mistake that I see frequently in people's cases is that
they will bring me a case and it is gastritis and they will say "Well, he has
gastritis." Then you go through the rest of the case and they say, "Well, they
wouldn't really give me a good case. I didn't really get this. I really didn't
get that. There weren't any deep emotional problems. They didn't have strong
food cravings. " So, a lot of times when they don't have those other things, all
you have to base your case on is just that one physical symptom and then you
have to get all the modalities of it. And a lot of times we have been too much
oriented to either getting the totality or getting an essence and ignoring all
the modalities of the case. So, be careful to do that.
Now, when would we probe deeper in a case? In cases where you get the following
statement. Early in the case where the patient says that they have been under a
lot of stress lately. Or, they describe themselves as a tense person.
Sometimes in the early description of themselves, but they don't seem to have
the tendency to give more details about it. Those cases warrant much more
probing. Any time a patient mentions that they have seen more than one other
form of therapist, deserves deeper probing of the mental state in the
psychological problems. If you have a case that has a specific time of onset.
In other words, they can say that 1½ years ago they started with the problem,
and there is no specific cause that is obvious such as heavy drug use, medical
suppression, a surgical suppression, an abortion or something of that nature.
You have to assume that there is a psychological cause until you prove to
yourself that there is not at that time period. A lot of times, people won't
explain necessarily what the stress was and you will have to get it later.
Remember to put down those times and then every other time somebody brings up
later in the case a specific psychological event, make sure to ask the date of
that psychological event and then you will go back and compare. Very frequently
you will find that there is a temporal connection. Any time the patient goes
through 20-30 minutes of the case and you are not clear why the person is there,
then it requires deeper psychological probing. Any time the main complaint is
fatigue, it requires deeper psychological probing. Of course, any time when
sexual dysfunction is a part of the case, requires deeper psychological
probing. And people who have been single for more than five years. They need a
deeper psychological probing. And in people who do not have, and sometimes you
won't know this, but if you get the feeling when you are talking in the case
that they are not well connected, they don't seem to have a lot of family
hanging around and then you ask them, "Well, what about your friends? " "Well,
I'm busy at work." Then it is a good point to say, "Well, do you have any very
close friends? " Anybody who doesn't have one very close friend deserves a very
deep psychological probing of the case. I'm sure there are other situations,
but those are the main ones that come to mind.
Another problem that we frequently have is either over-directing or
under-directing a case. So, when do we direct a case? What type of patient?
In a very loquacious patient, you have to direct the case. If you establish
within the first two or three minutes, which usually you will, that somebody is
loquacious, immediately you have to gear yourself up for the battle of directing
that case, interrupting and forcing them to come back to the point time and time
again. If you don't start the pattern early in the case, it gets harder the
farther into the case, because by that point what happens is your mind will
start to get blurry. You will start to get lost and you will feel punch drunk
within 15-20 minutes if you don't start directing early. By then, you don't
have the mental force any longer to direct the case at that point. If you let
it get too far, then you will never be able to recover control of the case. The
same thing is true, as we alluded to earlier, theorizing people. What I find to
be the most affective with loquacious people is to immediately take control of
the case. Don't let it get out of hand. Don't let them talk for more than 1-2
minutes without interrupting them and in that kind of case something that I will
do frequently is I'll say, "Excuse me, I have to leave the room for a minute. "
"I have to go get another book." I will go away and I will leave them there for
five minutes and then I will come back after I have my faculties restored a
little bit. You have to just let it filter out a second. It disturbs the
nervous system to hear that much energy. You will get confused. Your mind will
start trying to follow their mind and then you both get lost.
|