Just how far can the bedside manner go?

Press, 1 September 1977, Page 9

Just how far can the bedside manner go?

NZPA-Reuter San Francisco Psychologists agree that sexual intimacy with clients is unethical, but they are divided over the definition of sexual intimacy, Associated Press reports. Speakers at a meeting of the ethics council of the American Psychological As-; sociation, holding its annual meeting in San Francisco,! said yesterday there was a great deal of confusion over, what affectionate gestures —j short of intercourse — were ethical. Also unclear was whether the gestures could help patients, they said. Members of a panel also said it was hard to find legal remedies to stop unscrupulous therapists.

i Some of those opposed tor ; sexual contact with patients! ; acknowledged that they] : sometimes had to fight the; f onslaught of sexual fantasy. | 1 “I had many fantasies! about my patient — had fi thoughts of erotic interludes : during my office hours,” said •| one psychologist. Dr Stanley llMoldawski, of Rutgers Uni- , | versify, who opposed a i, physical relationship between | •• therapist and patient. •; "We can do our patients ■more good as therapists than ; as lovers,” Dr Moldawski told I the panel. A Santa Monica psycho- > therapist, Dr Zoltan Gross, I maintained that sexual feel- • ings were natural for doctor and patient, saying: ‘'Psycho-

>r therapy is a highly erotic] ; i art.” I Verbal therapy was very : limited because it had a sparse emotional vocabulary, ; I said Dr Gross, of the Centre I for Counselling and Psycho- . therapy. But he added that I touching could be a powerful ■ source of emotional communication. i The boundary had to do i.with actual genital inter-; course: “I will touch them; ; above the waist or below the: i waist or anywhere else it is] I necessary to make them! aware of what they are feel- J ■ ing. Very few people mis- ■ understand me— they see me . as conveying information," he ■ said.