Thread: Anorexia Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026407
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
A teenaged girl in our church is suffering from quite severe anorexia.
She has been placed in hospital, is under good professional care, and is not now in physical danger, but is still very disturbed and angry.
She is very vocally abusive of her mother, but is simultaneously in spiritual despair that God has abandoned her because of her behaviour.
At the pastoral level, there is the problem of a prominent figure in the church who is into Jay Adams, and is therefore taking the line that her problem is to be dealt with by her facing up to the alleged root cause, ie her disobedient and rebellious attitude, and repenting of it.
Fortunately her parents have more sense than to let this person anywhere near her, but the mother is (understandably) upset about her daughter’s condition, and speaks about it at length to us and other friends in the church.
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
May I suggest that part of the reason for the girl's vocal aggression towards her mother may be because the mother is discussing her daughter publicly with people at the church?
Even if this girl is only just a teenager, at 13 she has the right to expect that personal issues - including health - are private, not bandied about by her parents, however much they protest it is well-meant.
I don't think you can pastorally support "the family" as a unit: I think you may be able to offer support to the parents but that any attempt at pastoral care for the girl herself should only be in response to a direct request from her.
There are may theories about anorexia and no doubt members of your congregation will have heard of some and may assume that one (or more) applies to this girl: any visiting with that in mind could be dangerous.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
May I suggest that part of the reason for the girl's vocal aggression towards her mother may be because the mother is discussing her daughter publicly with people at the church?
I don't think the commencement of the hostility coincided only with her mother's sharing the problem.
"Publicly" is not quite accurate, in that she is not broadcasting to the church generally.
Yes, there is a case to be made that she had no right to tell anyone else at all without her daughter's express permission, but she has.
quote:
I don't think you can pastorally support "the family" as a unit: I think you may be able to offer support to the parents but that any attempt at pastoral care for the girl herself should only be in response to a direct request from her.
Obviously, and as I said in the OP, she is under good professional care.
It is the parents who need support.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
Is this girl punishing herself and/or others? The reasons for anorexia can be so varied that it is to be hoped that the medical/psychiatric staff dealig with her will be able to unpack the reasons. But it's no surprise that anger is part of the equation.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
for all involved.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Look after the parents since they seem to want and need looking after. Offering a friendly supportive ear, help with lifts to and from the hospital, or whatever they need at the moment is the way to go. It sounds as though this girl's situation is best left with the professionals. Anorexia is a really difficult thing to offer help with at the best of times because it twists the person's perceptions of things to such an extent that virtually anything you say can be used to reinforce the disorder.
It sounds as though it's the mother who is coming to you for support, so you need to think of this in terms of how you can support the person who is asking for it, rather than the girl or the family as a whole. You can't support the family as a whole anyway because they need different things right now and it sounds like the girl is getting the most appropriate help already.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
It is very worrying to hear that the girl feels quote:
God has abandoned her because of her behaviour
Where did this idea come from? Is it something that she has picked-up from the church she and her family (and you?) attend?
Moreover, you report her as being angry - this is understandable: but you also report her as being "disturbed" - who has given this teenager the label of being disturbed?
You say the mother is not "broadcasting" her daughter's problems to the church but you know about them, you are worried that a "nouthetic counselling" zealot be kept away from her so obviously they know too.
I stand by what I say: the mother has no right to discuss her daughter's problems with people, even people at church. Sadly she has already done so but she must stop reporting any more now.
I'm glad you wish to support the parents but I think one of the best ways this can be done is to give them love but NOT listen if they start to discuss details of their daughter's treatment or diagnosis.
I have experienced something similar - not my problems but someone doing as this mother has done - and the damage to the relationship between parents and child was never repaired.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I agree with l'organist - what I find disturbing is how this girl's problems are being, apparently, so widely discussed in a church environment. This is very irresponsible. If the girl knows about this, or suspects it, it could be quite traumatic.
The boundaries sound in a mess here; but it's difficult to suggest any remedy at a distance. Perhaps allow the professionals to treat the girl in total privacy and confidentiality?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I stand by what I say: the mother has no right to discuss her daughter's problems with people, even people at church. Sadly she has already done so but she must stop reporting any more now.
I couldn't disagree more.
A child with anorexia (or autism or Downs or OCD or Crones or a whole host of other conditions) affects the whole family. They are not, per se, the daughter's problems. They are the mother's problems, the father's problems, the siblings' problems. If other family members don't reach outside the family, individually or collectively, for help and support, it can get really very messy.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Doc Tor
I'm not saying that the parents, siblings, won't be affected by the illness afflicting this daughter but its one thing for the mother to discuss her own feelings, that's fine, but she shouldn't be reporting back on things she's either being told by the hospitalised daughter or (worse) by the daughter's doctors.
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on
:
A key part of supporting will be getting a buffer between them and the walking pastoral disaster of the church person you mention.
That may mean vocally opposing their ideas which may seep into others as news creeps through the congregation (which it will). Those who don't understand may be open to a range of ideas, and if they are a prominent person does that add weight to their opinions.
The family may be alert to avoid them but don't want their ideas creeping in a back door.
Being there for them without any answers, but with them in the pain and chaos is all you can do, and I suspect it is also the best thing.
The hostility and anger is possibly a symptom of the inner chaos that is also the trigger for the anorexia - she is having professional support to follow that up, so not for others to try and be armchair psychologists.
Prayers for the family and for you and others caring for them and being there,
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I stand by what I say: the mother has no right to discuss her daughter's problems with people, even people at church. Sadly she has already done so but she must stop reporting any more now.
I couldn't disagree more.
A child with anorexia (or autism or Downs or OCD or Crones or a whole host of other conditions) affects the whole family. They are not, per se, the daughter's problems. They are the mother's problems, the father's problems, the siblings' problems. If other family members don't reach outside the family, individually or collectively, for help and support, it can get really very messy.
As someone working in healthcare, I disagree, Doc Tor. Anyone's illness is their own business, and no-one else's, unless the person with the illness chooses to make it so.
This is an especially important principle in cases where the person's illness may relate to a feeling of not having any control over their own life. A feeling of lack of control can make them subconsciously retreat to something they do have control, over, such as eating (or not), and so become a contributory factor in the illness.
To then have the illness gossipped about, and also be on the receiving end of a barrage of unwanted, unprofessional and often unkind advice, is only going to make things much, much worse. What this person and her family need is good ongoing professional help, and for congregation and friends, however well meaning, to mind their own business.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I often found in situations like this that the parents themselves need professional help. It sounds here, for instance, as if the boundaries are all over the place, but you can't solve that by just chatting to people in church.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
Get them involved in the professional counseling.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I stand by what I say: the mother has no right to discuss her daughter's problems with people, even people at church. Sadly she has already done so but she must stop reporting any more now.
I couldn't disagree more.
A child with anorexia (or autism or Downs or OCD or Crones or a whole host of other conditions) affects the whole family. They are not, per se, the daughter's problems. They are the mother's problems, the father's problems, the siblings' problems. If other family members don't reach outside the family, individually or collectively, for help and support, it can get really very messy.
As someone working in healthcare, I disagree, Doc Tor. Anyone's illness is their own business, and no-one else's, unless the person with the illness chooses to make it so.
This is an especially important principle in cases where the person's illness may relate to a feeling of not having any control over their own life. A feeling of lack of control can make them subconsciously retreat to something they do have control, over, such as eating (or not), and so become a contributory factor in the illness.
To then have the illness gossipped about, and also be on the receiving end of a barrage of unwanted, unprofessional and often unkind advice, is only going to make things much, much worse. What this person and her family need is good ongoing professional help, and for congregation and friends, however well meaning, to mind their own business.
The issues re boundaries and control are apt and worth noting. However, I can't imagine how anyone working in health care could not recognize that a child (even an adult child's) serious illness DOES impact every member of the family, particularly the parents. While the suggestion of professional family counseling is a good one, these parents are asking for pastoral care as well. They need the love and support of their faith community. (And, as noted above, they need protection against congregants who may insinuate themselves into the situation offering a false hope through a dangerous quack therapy.) Your all-or-nothing approach fails to recognize that providing effective spiritual care for these parents will improve the entire system and help everyone grow stronger.
Which is not to deny that there aren't serious boundary issues going on here, especially given the nature of the illness. It's a messy situation-- as families always are. It won't be an easy dance to navigate. But, as noted above, they have asked for help-- and that's a good sign. Their pastor and church friends should respond on that basis-- by listening and praying for them without engaging in long conversations speculating on the meaning, cause, or cure of the daughter's illness. Mostly the parents are asking for someone to walk alongside them., with no words necessary. That's what we do as a church.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
I'm not saying that the parents, siblings, won't be affected by the illness afflicting this daughter but its one thing for the mother to discuss her own feelings, that's fine, but she shouldn't be reporting back on things she's either being told by the hospitalised daughter or (worse) by the daughter's doctors.
"I'm sorry that the doctors have told you your daughter is dying, but should you really be discussing that with me?"
As cliffdweller said, the boundaries are messy, but not supporting the parents in their grief, pain, and yes, guilt?
Harsh. Really harsh. And frankly, not what we signed up for. No, the entire congo don't need to know every jot and tittle, but the pastoral team can, and prayers, assuming you believe them efficacious, should be given both in public and private.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Surely there could be a lot of discussion of the parents' struggles as caregivers without discussing so much of the daughter's business? "We are having significant struggles supporting an ill family member." etc. Yes, people would know which family member they were presumably talking about. But what was wrong would not be discussed and it would lessen anyone's temptation--including the parents'--to consider support a good reason to discuss the daughter's issues.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It depends on whether the parents are talking about their own feelings and so on, or are disclosing stuff about the daughter's feelings, symptoms, treatment, and so on. The latter could be quite disastrous, and represents a bad breach of boundaries.
In fact, eating disorders, as others have commented, often represent problems with control, choice, boundaries, and so on, so any such boundary fuck-up by the parents will not help their daughter at all. But it's impossible to judge at third hand.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on whether the parents are talking about their own feelings and so on, or are disclosing stuff about the daughter's feelings, symptoms, treatment, and so on. The latter could be quite disastrous, and represents a bad breach of boundaries.
Well, it sounds like they clearly are doing #1. I am thinking that Doc Tor was pointing out that the parents will need support and will need to talk about their own problems. I was suggesting that sort of intro would help them talk about their own problems instead of their daughters'. If the parents have anger and pain, they almost certainly do need to express them, but I agree that this sort of situation will make the girl feel gossiped about, and will likely cause more problems than it helps.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was just remembering working with adolescents in therapy, and it's amazing how many parents want to phone up and get the info on their kid, or even want to sit in on the session, or have some other kind of control. I suppose this a natural reaction in some ways, but the adolescent needs some kind of autonomy here, and needs the boundaries to be preserved. Thus to chat to the parent about their child would be a betrayal of the latter, except in emergencies and extreme situations, e.g. suicide attempts, wishes to kill someone, and so on.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Anorexia Nervosa is a psychological and physical disorder. It's complicated. There's something going on about body image, control of emotions, control of body, relationships, other things. The professionals need to figure out what the best set of interventions are.
I think the pastoral care required is to do something about the person in the church with the unhelpful ideas. Like asking them to not promote these ideas in this case. It is tremendously difficult. I personally had to tell someone in our church that "we do not follow your line of thinking on this, it does not work for us, we disagree, please do not push this on us, and stop calling". It was the well meaning prayer team chair on the telephone to us.
And that's the crux I think, the person with the unhelpful ideas is well meaning, but off base. But the person (and her family) in the most vulnerable position must be the priority. So someone's feelings will possibly be hurt, and that's what may be required, plus appropriate pastoral care about this. (Perhaps something to do with obedience, since this person already understands that idea? )
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
istm that one type of pastoral support for any family in a situation like this is to offer to help the normal things continue to happen.
In the middle of a situation that is distinctly abnormal, values can get skewed and individuals rapidly forget who we are and what we like doing. Other people's needs/ wants/ desires get pushed down (like we are helping anyone by becoming 'less than' or doing without.....)
Things like: having someone to go clothes shopping with....going out for coffee....having a trip out to a cinema....arranging and then going for a walk....going fishing (or swishing).....Christmas shopping, it can be great fun with others....ordering cards....bonfire night....processing the summer holiday snaps into a book is good fun, but even more fun with a friend.....going to the hairdressers...or the beach...having our ears pierced or our nails done....
The friendship things.
( but caution: no one who wants to go fishing for information or is a gossip need step up)
It's not all about the person who is ill. We tend to loose ourselves. The best pastoral care that i ever recieved enabled me to find myself again. And the Very best pastoral care (for the entire family) was a gift of ten sessions with a art therapist...for me. Kindness X 100.
i would have thought that everyone reading this thread will pray that your church finds creative and sensitive ways of providing the right care, in the right way, for the right individuals and at the right time.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on whether the parents are talking about their own feelings and so on, or are disclosing stuff about the daughter's feelings, symptoms, treatment, and so on. The latter could be quite disastrous, and represents a bad breach of boundaries.
Well, it sounds like they clearly are doing #1. I am thinking that Doc Tor was pointing out that the parents will need support and will need to talk about their own problems. I was suggesting that sort of intro would help them talk about their own problems instead of their daughters'. If the parents have anger and pain, they almost certainly do need to express them, but I agree that this sort of situation will make the girl feel gossiped about, and will likely cause more problems than it helps.
I don't know if it's "clearly" but it is probable. Because the people who are going this haven't read the text books or DSM and don't know all the rules re: what they can/ can't talk about, what is/ is not appropriate boundaries (although if they do go to family therapy they may learn some of this). They just know that their child is hurting, and so they are hurting, and they are reaching out to the people who love them, who care for them, for help. And they want to talk-- because for many of us, that's how we process stuff like this. They need to talk, not so much for someone to give them answers (that's what the mental health professionals are for) but simply because it is good, it brings healing, it helps us to feel not so alone. (And, btw, the opposite suggestion-- that they shouldn't tell anyone-- is what breeds the idea that mental illness is shameful and needs to be kept hidden).
So we need to be gentle with them. We can gently help them find those boundaries, without shutting them down and making them feel shamed and alone. One way we do that is to allow them to speak freely, but then respond only to the parts that are appropriate and ignore the things that are "outside the boundaries". Or by redirecting at times where the sharing takes place (e.g. in a more private setting).
Again, it's a delicate balance to care for everyone's needs here-- the daughter's and the parent's-- but ultimately caring for either one is caring for the other, because it's a whole family system. There aren't a lot of hard and fast rules, but in general silencing people seems like shaming to me, and overall not particularly helpful.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's fine, cliffdweller, but the OP describes a girl who is 'very disturbed and angry' and who is vocally abusing her mother.
I think it's fine to support the parents, but what does this girl need? My own view is that she might need firm boundaries, and that she is the one who decides whether or not her feelings, her illness, her treatment, are discussed anywhere. Those things belong to her, no-one else, and the danger is that they are handed over to others, without her permission.
Adolescents are very sensitive to stuff like this, and those with eating disorders, often intensely.
The danger is that her autonomy is eroded in some way.
[ 21. October 2013, 18:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
mmmmmmmm I would be very careful about boundaries. In my tiny book anorexia is a family illness exhibited by one member. So every conversation is confidential to everyone else.
Plus keep the nutter away, plus strong direction against gossip, plus asking for prayer for whole family.
Freaks me out, anorexia, too complex, too hard. Lord have mercy.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
Weird thread this. I'm pretty sure my parents will have told people at their church and asked for prayer when I was in psychiatric hospital (a number of years ago). But they can't have told people at their church about my thoughts, feelings and difficulties, because I wasn't discussing those with them. My relationship with my parents is not a good one, at times I have been extremely angry indeed with them and this has been noted by professionals as a (causal / exacerbating) factor in my mental-health difficulties. But in my case, and I suspect in many similar cases, talking to people at church about the fact their child is experiencing mental-health problems comes way, way down the list of reasons why a child considers their mother and father to be shite parents.
(Additionally, I think "disturbed and angry" has been a fairly apt description of my mental state at times in my life. But people who matter realise that (1) this is not necessarily an entirely bad thing and (2) my parents being shite at meeting the needs I had as a child played a fairly large part in this coming to be the case.)
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
To be fair, you might have considered it a bigger problem if you had shared personal vulnerabilities--like spiritual betrayal--with your parents, only to have them told to many people.
Posted by Zoey (# 11152) on
:
True. The way I handled my parents being shite at meeting my emotional needs was to stop telling them very much at all about myself. I guess as a result I'm finding it difficult to understand why the patient in the OP would still be telling her parents about issues like a sense of spiritual betrayal if there is a long-standing problem with her parents not respecting her privacy and autonomy. But, yes, I take your point. (And it comes back to the issue other people have raised, which is the difference between parents saying "I'm struggling to support my daughter who's in hospital with anorexia" and "I'm struggling to support my daughter who is having deeply personal problems a, b and c, resulting in her telling me x, y, z intimate pieces of information [which she clearly wouldn't have wanted me to pass on to you]".) Hey ho.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Zoey
That's a good summary.
I suppose the phrase 'at length' was a bit of a warning bell for me, but it's true that the mother may be talking at length about her own stuff, and not her daughter's stuff.
Anorexia is so deadly, I think the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, I think maybe 15-20%. What a living hell for everyone.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I suspect the mother is talking at length just because she needs to talk. It doesn't matter so much (to her) what she says-- she just needs to share this awful burden. She may very well be crossing all sorts of boundaries because she just doesn't know any better-- none of us do, until you find yourself in that particular hell. So again, some gentle direction may be helpful but we should try not to act like this is a mental health professional who knows all the rules and is breaking confidentiality. This is a mom, crying out for help, perhaps clumsily, perhaps making all sorts of mistakes, but crying out for help nonetheless. Responding to the underlying need while trying to provide some gentle boundaries is an act of kindness that will benefit much IMHO.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Again, cliffdweller, that sounds fine. I am curious as to who knows about 'gentle direction', and 'gentle boundaries', and is able to act accordingly? Perhaps you have trained counsellors.
I would say simply, if the mother is freaking out, she should get professional help.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
I'm fortunate that on my caseload I only have to deal with schizophrenia, borderline personalities, garden-variety dementia, pedophilia, explosive disorder, depression and the like.
But I want to second what Pyx_e said. This is a family disorder, with a single identified patient. Great care must be taken lest the "sides" in the family start lining up "allies" to carry on their struggles for them. Ideally, family therapy is called for.
One of my staffers has anorexia, currently more-or-less under control (though she's gone off the rails occasionally, and I've had to put her on leave not only for her own safety but for our clients'). I've lost count of the supervision hours spent dragging her back from her own issues to discussing what's going on with the clients in our care.
I'll be honest: she terrifies me. Her nutritional and exercise habits scare me, her judgment and coordination and perceptions scare me when she begins to lose her grip, and, well, she scares me.
I hope all concerned in this situation tread very carefully and softly.
[ 21. October 2013, 23:47: Message edited by: Porridge ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Again, cliffdweller, that sounds fine. I am curious as to who knows about 'gentle direction', and 'gentle boundaries', and is able to act accordingly? Perhaps you have trained counsellors.
I would say simply, if the mother is freaking out, she should get professional help.
Referrals to mental health professionals are part of good pastoral care, but don't replace the spiritual care that is offered by the pastor, as well as the care provided by other trusted congregants, deacons, etc. So, yes, hopefully you can point her to a trained counselor-- one who will address these boundary issues, among other things. But the pastor doesn't just pass a congregant off to an MFT and be done w/ it. I see the two roles (clinical counseling and pastoral care) as quite different, but complementary, and proceeding concurrently.
[ 22. October 2013, 01:38: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Thanks for all the comments.
They have stimulated my thinking even if they have not provided definitive answers.
The girl and her parents and siblings are being counseled by health professionals as a family unit, and whether the mother was not told by them to respect confidentiality, or was told but ignored them, I don’t know.
I think that one of the problems is that a good church is both a family and not a family.
If a kid does not turn up for a number of Sundays, naturally his/her parents and siblings are going to be asked by friends, “Where’s…?”, and it is difficult to just respond cryptically, “Health issues”, or, “Mind your own business and respect our privacy”.
The mother’s response, rightly or wrongly, was that it was natural to share such a matter with her Christian friends (though not with the church at large).
Then there are differences in personality.
If it were my daughter, my instinctive reaction would be to say as little as possible, put up a wall, and resent any attempts by other church members to become involved, however well-meaning, as “meddling” by “busybodies”.
However, other people (such as the mother) just as instinctively demand, welcome and embrace interest and concern, and are hurt if it is not offered.
Then there is the question of confidentiality as regards other sorts of health challenges.
For example, a mother would probably be less likely to be judged if she shared details of her child’s recovery, physically and emotionally, from cancer, or a traffic accident, but strictly speaking the confidentiality issues are just as relevant in those cases as in the case of anorexia.
Perhaps, as someone pointed out upthread, anything involving psychological challenges is still regarded as more “shameful” than straightforward physical problems.
At this point ISTM that the best strategy would be to let the mother talk; avoid responding with any prying or curiosity (ie don’t encourage her to cross boundaries); don’t share with others any information she reveals; offer love, prayer and practical support; and don’t attempt any DIY amateur analysis and counseling which could interfere with the therapy being conducted by those who know what they’re doing.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Kaplan, I am concerned about this thread . I know several Shipmates, especially clergy, have been outed by people who recognise who they are in real life. If I were this mother and even more so if I were her daughter I would feel both angry and betrayed that my life was being discussed in this way.
I may be overidentifying as I had serious issues with hating my mother as a teenager, and I do understand your concern, however I feel uncomfortable.
Huia
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
You can't help. Please try not to do any harm.
Erroneous Monk - sister of anorexic
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
You can't help. Please try not to do any harm.
Erroneous Monk - sister of anorexic
+1
I would have phrased it as "you can help - by staying out of the way of those who actually know what they're doing."
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on
:
I've thought long and hard about whether and how to respond to this thread.
I was anorexic in my late teens and early twenties. I received hospital treatment. To do this I took a year out of university and returned to my parent's home. My mother was an active church goer. I started going to the same church (long story but essentially I only became a Christian during my illness).
When I was ill my mother would talk to other people about it. She is one of those folk who need to share.
At the time I hated it.
However, with hindsight, I can see:
(1) Anorexia is a very visible mental illness. If someone is ill enough to be hospitalised it will be obvious to all they are seriously underweight. Even if my mother hadn't told people they would have known.
(2) Anorexia is a fucking bitch. For the sufferer but also for their loved ones. It is deadly, frustrating and terrifying. I think support for family, both professional and pastoral is key. My mum needed not just the (limited) professional counselling provided by the family therapist but also just friends.
As for the family in your situation, Kaplan, I think it is crucial to keep away/dilute the influence of the negative person and to counter their ignorance with some facts.
The one thing I would add to the many other comments is it might be worth thinking about what will happen when (if) the girl returns to church from hospital. Not just those who are obviously damaging but, many well meaning comments (don't you look well ) are not great to someone in a fragile state of recovery.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
You can't help. Please try not to do any harm.
Erroneous Monk - sister of anorexic
+1
I would have phrased it as "you can help - by staying out of the way of those who actually know what they're doing."
Obviously I'm biased, but I resent the implication that pastoral care is "of no help". I would agree that pastors masquerading as mental health professionals is of no help (or worse than no help). I believe each has a distinct role to play in caring for the entire person-- or family, in this case. Pastors should take care not to overstep their role and their training/expertise by offering advice about diagnosis, cause, treatment, etc. But they do have a significant and important role to play in providing ongoing spiritual care to those involved, especially when it is being directly requested.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
You can't help. Please try not to do any harm.
Erroneous Monk - sister of anorexic
+1
I would have phrased it as "you can help - by staying out of the way of those who actually know what they're doing."
+ 2 - another sister of an anorexic checking in.
And Pyx_e put his finger on it by describing anorexia as an individual's expression of a family illness. That sister became anorexic. My other sister and I found our own ways to self-abuse to deal with the control freakery of our parents.
I have got sucked into another situation when a friend was getting professional advice to deal with her self-harm and underlying problems. And she was leaning on a group of us to bolster her against the advice she didn't want to hear. The kindest thing I did was to pull my support so she had to rely on the professionals. But she didn't see it that way.
Anorexia is always complicated and often a family issue. How do you know that the help the family is asking for from the church is support not to deal with that which the professionals are trying to get them to face?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have got sucked into another situation when a friend was getting professional advice to deal with her self-harm and underlying problems. And she was leaning on a group of us to bolster her against the advice she didn't want to hear. The kindest thing I did was to pull my support so she had to rely on the professionals. But she didn't see it that way.
Anorexia is always complicated and often a family issue. How do you know that the help the family is asking for from the church is support not to deal with that which the professionals are trying to get them to face?
They may very well be. But that doesn't mean your only options are to give them exactly what they're asking for or bugging off and doing nothing. Again, if pastors are clear about their role and not trying to supplant mental health professionals, the fact that the family may make inappropriate requests is not a problem-- you can still respond with appropriate spiritual care/support, without allowing yourself to be triangled into the actual treatment.
I appreciate Badger Lady's post above, which I think sketches out the holistic needs of family and "identified patient" much better than I can.
[ 23. October 2013, 17:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Curiosity killed ... wrote:
I have got sucked into another situation when a friend was getting professional advice to deal with her self-harm and underlying problems. And she was leaning on a group of us to bolster her against the advice she didn't want to hear. The kindest thing I did was to pull my support so she had to rely on the professionals. But she didn't see it that way.
Anorexia is always complicated and often a family issue. How do you know that the help the family is asking for from the church is support not to deal with that which the professionals are trying to get them to face?
Very good points. This happens from time to time in therapy, whereby the client enlists the support of friends or family to work against the therapy. Of course, the therapist can explicitly point this out.
"My sister says that I've been much more depressed since I started seeing you."
"Yes, well, therapy can make you depressed."
"My sister says that I'm losing weight as well."
"Perhaps your sister would prefer you not to do therapy?"
"My sister says that your fees are way too high."
I'm not suggesting that this is happening in this case.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
There is an argument for someone with a recognised role in the church - e.g. A deacon or the vicar or whomever - to discuss with mother if they would like some support and if so whether they may liaise withe treating team, to agree the most helpful way to do this and boundaries.
It maybe the treating team may say, ok jhere is a contact number for any concerns and can we take yours. Please keep the conversation private, and that would be it. The key would be carer support from one person vs stuff being disseminated through the congregation.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Kaplan, I am concerned about this thread . I know several Shipmates, especially clergy, have been outed by people who recognise who they are in real life. If I were this mother and even more so if I were her daughter I would feel both angry and betrayed that my life was being discussed in this way.
I may be overidentifying as I had serious issues with hating my mother as a teenager, and I do understand your concern, however I feel uncomfortable.
Huia
I understand your concern, and agree that it is theoretically remotely possible, but would still maintain that it is highly unlikely.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Any suggestions from personal experience as to how we can best pastorally support this family?
You can't help. Please try not to do any harm.
Erroneous Monk - sister of anorexic
+1
I would have phrased it as "you can help - by staying out of the way of those who actually know what they're doing."
That is effectively what I decided,as I indicated upthread.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Anorexia is a very visible mental illness. If someone is ill enough to be hospitalised it will be obvious to all they are seriously underweight. Even if my mother hadn't told people they would have known.
Another young woman in the church also struggles with anorexia and is on the worship team, which means that she is up on the platform in front of the congregation each week.
Her anorexia is common knowledge, and (apparently) she does not mind that.
Whether she was forced into that position by people who talked about her without her permission, forcing her to adapt to a situation where she had lost any hope of privacy, or whether she genuinely didn’t see it as a boundaries problem and broadcast the information herself, I don’t know, and it is none of my business.
The reason the other case mentioned in the OP came to my notice was because of the girl’s mother’s unsolicited approach to us.
It is not a subject in which I have any particular interest or expertise, but it did reveal some difficult ways in which pastoral and therapeutic issues can clash and interact.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And Pyx_e put his finger on it by describing anorexia as an individual's expression of a family illness.
I think one should say that is sometimes the case, but certainly not always. Psychiatric illness may result from unhealthy family dynamics, but it would be wrong to label all families as dysfunctional because one member suffered with anorexia. Human psychology is not so mechanistic that output A consistently implies input B.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
mdijon - I would agree that not everyone's anorexia is a family issue - but for many teenagers it is. I've come across adult bulimics with similar issues outwith their family. But ... the scenario as depicted here sounds as if this one is a family issue.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The mother’s response, rightly or wrongly, was that it was natural to share such a matter with her Christian friends (though not with the church at large).
Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And Pyx_e put his finger on it by describing anorexia as an individual's expression of a family illness.
I think one should say that is sometimes the case, but certainly not always. Psychiatric illness may result from unhealthy family dynamics, but it would be wrong to label all families as dysfunctional because one member suffered with anorexia. Human psychology is not so mechanistic that output A consistently implies input B.
I agree. However, I do not see how sharing the daughter's problems with the church helps the daughter at all. I see sharing beyond the pastor as extremely unhelpful to the girl.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I don't see that as a however - that's simply a different statement which I'd also agree with.
It seems to me a pastor and/or church needs to draw careful boundaries, as many above have indicated already.
I think a skilled pastor would see their role as supporting a mother in distress who came to them, not as giving her advice on managing her daughter's anorexia, but perhaps where appropriate giving the mother advice about how to handle her own response to her daughter and her illness and being someone she can talk to about what is happening to her.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
mdijon - I would agree that not everyone's anorexia is a family issue - but for many teenagers it is. I've come across adult bulimics with similar issues outwith their family. But ... the scenario as depicted here sounds as if this one is a family issue.
Philip Larkin aside, there is no clinical evidence that parents cause anorexia. Or rather, if they do, they are not the sole cause and there are some very complicated psychological and chemical relationships at play.
Saying "it's the parents" over the internet likely means you're wrong.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Some good stuff in this thread.
I know well one person severely affected throughout adolescence and early adulthood. She's emerged from that and is doing well. The emergence was her choice in the end. I'm not sure I'd describe it as 'cured' by external medical/psychological help plus family support. It was a long and painful journey to where she is now.
I think it is a delusion with a powerful grip, including the inability to judge effectively the impact on one's own appearance and body. Forcible treatment is sometimes necessary when the condition becomes life-threatening. But in general the best support seems to be to journey with the sufferer and respect the choices, while being honest about one's own concerns. Turning the sufferer into a cause célèbre may help the anxieties of a family member but in my limited experience it's likely to be counter-productive.
The sufferer is often striving to exercise control over at least one aspect of their own life, particularly if other aspects seem to them to be over-controlled by others. That needs to be respected and addressed.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Forcible treatment is sometimes necessary when the condition becomes life-threatening. But in general the best support seems to be to journey with the sufferer and respect the choices, while being honest about one's own concerns... The sufferer is often striving to exercise control over at least one aspect of their own life
I remember a woman with severe anorexia who needed emergency treatment to avoid dying. She therefore lost control over that aspect of her life, and her response to trying to regain control was suicide following her life-saving treatment. This was despite proper input from professionals.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
So easy to overlook that. In the UK the sufferer needs to be sectioned first so that treatment can be given against their will. That is a massive step.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
With a few exceptions, the general tone of this thread seems to be (1) this woman's daughter has a mental illness, therefore it's shameful and she shouldn't be talking about it, she should be keeping it well hidden, and (2)as with all mental illnesses, it must be the mother's fault.
Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. That first diet may be triggered by anything at all. It might be something read in a magazine or it might be something a passing boy said in the hall. I don't think that makes it a "family disease," with the daughter's thinness an outward evidence of the mother's cruel abuse.
It sounds to me like the mother wants prayer for her daughter and a bit of sympathy for herself but soon she'll be gently told that she has boundary problems and I expect that will feel like a slap in the face from the very people she has turned to for support.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't recollect people saying that anorexia is shameful. Who has said that?
The question of boundaries doesn't concern that, but is about ensuring that the girl in question does not have her own private life disseminated to a group of people. I don't think this will help her, not because it's shameful, but because it violates her privacy and autonomy.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. ...
References, please.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. That first diet may be triggered by anything at all. It might be something read in a magazine or it might be something a passing boy said in the hall.
Bollocks.
There are plenty of places one can read what actual real people with anorexia, bullimia or EDNOS say about their conditions and how they started, if they know how they started that is - google some Pro-Ana sites (some of which are actually quite useful & helpful, despite their image) for some examples. Or talk to people, if they want to talk about it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't recollect people saying that anorexia is shameful. Who has said that?
The question of boundaries doesn't concern that, but is about ensuring that the girl in question does not have her own private life disseminated to a group of people. I don't think this will help her, not because it's shameful, but because it violates her privacy and autonomy.
I understand the boundaries issue, but the notion of "silencing"-- especially in the rather harsh and autocratic way it's being advocated here-- does feel quite a bit like shaming. Whether that's the intent or not, that's the message you'll send when you shut someone up and say "we don't talk about that".
Again, I think there are ways to respect the boundaries, to affirm what's appropriate sharing and just refrain from responding to what is not, without shutting down all conversation about something that is probably the driving, overriding trauma in this mother's life right now.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If she were my daughter, I would ask her. I mean, I would say that I wanted to talk about my own upset and so on, and how did she feel about being talked about, or having prayers said for her? Then I would do what she indicated. If she said, keep stumm about me, I would - it's her life.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. ...
References, please.
The NHS page. Scroll down to 'biological factors'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If she were my daughter, I would ask her. I mean, I would say that I wanted to talk about my own upset and so on, and how did she feel about being talked about, or having prayers said for her? Then I would do what she indicated. If she said, keep stumm about me, I would - it's her life.
If she were my daughter I would tell her, "I can't cope on my own with this. I need prayer and counselling for myself, independent of what you want me to do."
It is, after all, my life.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If she were my daughter, I would ask her. I mean, I would say that I wanted to talk about my own upset and so on, and how did she feel about being talked about, or having prayers said for her? Then I would do what she indicated. If she said, keep stumm about me, I would - it's her life.
If she were my daughter I would tell her, "I can't cope on my own with this. I need prayer and counselling for myself, independent of what you want me to do."
It is, after all, my life.
Yes. I don't see that that contradicts what I said. It's exactly the separation that's at issue - 'I need prayer for myself', but my daughter is a separate person. Does she need prayer, does she want to be discussed at large? - that's up to her, not me.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes. I don't see that that contradicts what I said. It's exactly the separation that's at issue - 'I need prayer for myself', but my daughter is a separate person. Does she need prayer, does she want to be discussed at large? - that's up to her, not me.
Apart from the bit which means that in order to have meaningful prayer and fellowship, I have to discuss (at least in part) my daughter's condition and treatment.
I'm not saying I wouldn't be sensitive about it, but you're essentially advocating my daughter vetoing my coping mechanisms without any sort of reciprocal arrangement.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes. I don't see that that contradicts what I said. It's exactly the separation that's at issue - 'I need prayer for myself', but my daughter is a separate person. Does she need prayer, does she want to be discussed at large? - that's up to her, not me.
Apart from the bit which means that in order to have meaningful prayer and fellowship, I have to discuss (at least in part) my daughter's condition and treatment.
I'm not saying I wouldn't be sensitive about it, but you're essentially advocating my daughter vetoing my coping mechanisms without any sort of reciprocal arrangement.
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, for me, that would be a total no-no. I just think it's risky, in fact, dangerous to violate someone's privacy and autonomy in such a situation. I don't think I have the right to talk about my children in that way, certainly once they have started to separate from me.
If my child was going through something as awful as this, I would get professional help for myself, partly because of the confidentiality.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Regarding the boundary issues, there is not a simple line which separates one person's need/desire for privacy and another's need/desire for support.
We've this bizarre notion that life is fair and balanced and neatly sectioned. It isn't. In a case such as this, it is very likely someone will come out in the short end. I would default towards the one in most need.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If she said, keep stumm about me, I would - it's her life.
This isn't quite true. It would be her life full stop if she had no ties to anyone else, wasn't living at home, and could quietly go off and behave how she wanted without any emotional trauma to anyone else. But she is having a terrible impact on her parents by her actions and I don't think it is reasonable to exert a veto on her mother seeking counselling about it.
(On the other hand it would be perfectly reasonable to expect her mother not to talk to an entire church about it, or not to talk about it on an internet forum).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
References, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The NHS page. Scroll down to 'biological factors'.
I think it's a bit of a reach to go from some hypothesis-generating-but-not-definitive research suggesting biochemical changes in anorexic people to definitive proof of causation in the majority of sufferers.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We've this bizarre notion that life is fair and balanced and neatly sectioned. It isn't. In a case such as this, it is very likely someone will come out in the short end. I would default towards the one in most need.
I definitely agree that individual rights are often in conflict and cakes can't be both had and eaten. In this case autonomy and confidentiality for one is right up against need for support and psychological care for another.
As an individual in contact with one other individual in the scenario I think it would be a tall order to judge fairly who is in the greatest need. I think one probably has to make a judgement based on the person one is in contact with, doing one's best to strike a reasonable compromise between the two.
I am very doubtful that, as some have claimed upthread, there can be a single over-riding black-and-white rule for this.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If she said, keep stumm about me, I would - it's her life.
This isn't quite true. It would be her life full stop if she had no ties to anyone else, wasn't living at home, and could quietly go off and behave how she wanted without any emotional trauma to anyone else. But she is having a terrible impact on her parents by her actions and I don't think it is reasonable to exert a veto on her mother seeking counselling about it.
(On the other hand it would be perfectly reasonable to expect her mother not to talk to an entire church about it, or not to talk about it on an internet forum).
Yes, I agree with that. My 'keeping stumm' was in relation to church and neighbours, etc. I don't think a family member can prohibit me from doing therapy!
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If she were my daughter, I would ask her. I mean, I would say that I wanted to talk about my own upset and so on, and how did she feel about being talked about, or having prayers said for her?
I didn't ask my brother if I could talk to people about how I felt about the fact that he was starving to death. I wouldn't have wanted to put that on him. I also don't think I could have had that conversation with him without it just turning into a long howl of grief, rage and despair. I talked anonymously to one of the eating disorder helplines. I talked about my rage in the confessional.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
Indeed. Coming at this from the other direction, there was a time, several years ago, when my response to "How are you?" was "My mother's is having / has had open heart surgery". I must confess that it never occurred to me that I was breaching her right to privacy but that operation dominated my life for those few weeks; I could not sensibly talk about how I was without mentioning it.
Or is it not so bad when the person whose privacy is being infringed is an adult rather than a child?
[x-posted]
[ 24. October 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: JoannaP ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My 'keeping stumm' was in relation to church and neighbours, etc. I don't think a family member can prohibit me from doing therapy!
Ah got it.
I would extend the boundary also to a trusted friend for prayer or a pastor (a proper non-mad pastor) - anyone else with a duty of confidentiality, and draw the line at a wider prayer-group or house-group.
I admit that's not a black-and-white line that I can defend against all challenges, but it feels like a reasonable compromise to me.
[ 24. October 2013, 16:15: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
*tangent alert*
I just wanted to post something positive, in case anyone reading this needs to hear it. This summer, we took the children to East Lothian for a week's holiday. We went into Edinburgh to see the pandas. And to meet up with my brother who lives in Leith with his girlfriend.
We hadn't been together since my (now 3-year old) daughter was a baby in his arms. We strolled in the sunshine. When I opened the picnic, he helped himself to a chicken sandwich (just one, mind). He played with the children. He was able to give us all a hug.
We were quietly happy. And very much alive. Thank God every day.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I must confess that it never occurred to me that I was breaching her right to privacy but that operation dominated my life for those few weeks
It is interesting how as a society we generally seem to think that's OK. Life would become impossible otherwise. Similarly, when a family arrives distressed on a ward, saying they've heard their brother has been admitted, how is he and what's wrong, it isn't considered correct for a nurse or doctor to sniffily refuse to confirm he is even on the ward until it can be established through proper channels that their loved one has given consent for them to know about him.
So I think one expects to be told he is seriously ill, had a bump to the head, or had an operation, but not to have his HIV status disclosed or a recent diagnosis of cancer that he is not yet well enough to be informed about.
But that's not codified in any rule book that I know of.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This conversation reminded me of an issue with therapy, that therapists/counsellors are usually advised not to see clients, whom they know, or with whom there is some connexion, say a neighbour, a distant relative, or a friend of a friend, a wife of a friend and so on.
This is relevant to this thread, as one problem with talking to church people, neighbours, and so on, is that they are connected to the child also, and obviously the family. I suppose here the question of boundaries is relevant, as the therapist generally has good ones, partly through an ethic of confidentiality, and also through being relatively anonymous, or unknown to everybody else. You don't want your therapist turning up at a party - although having said that, I have a ton of farcical/horror stories, where exactly that, or worse, happened.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Indeed. Coming at this from the other direction, there was a time, several years ago, when my response to "How are you?" was "My mother's is having / has had open heart surgery". I must confess that it never occurred to me that I was breaching her right to privacy but that operation dominated my life for those few weeks; I could not sensibly talk about how I was without mentioning it.
Or is it not so bad when the person whose privacy is being infringed is an adult rather than a child?
[x-posted]
I think it's also that anorexia often seems to involve issues of control, choice, autonomy, separateness, and so on.
Hence, some teenage anorexics may be very distressed by the idea that they are being discussed, without their knowledge/permission. Well, of course, people are going to do that anyway, but perhaps it should be minimized.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I must confess that it never occurred to me that I was breaching her right to privacy but that operation dominated my life for those few weeks
It is interesting how as a society we generally seem to think that's OK. Life would become impossible otherwise. Similarly, when a family arrives distressed on a ward, saying they've heard their brother has been admitted, how is he and what's wrong, it isn't considered correct for a nurse or doctor to sniffily refuse to confirm he is even on the ward until it can be established through proper channels that their loved one has given consent for them to know about him.
So I think one expects to be told he is seriously ill, had a bump to the head, or had an operation, but not to have his HIV status disclosed or a recent diagnosis of cancer that he is not yet well enough to be informed about.
But that's not codified in any rule book that I know of.
Agreed. I think it's also relevant if one knows how the patient would feel. This is abusable, but in the case of one's mother say one may very well know for sure that she wouldn't a bit mind if you mentioned she was having that surgery and would actually appreciate if you did ask for prayers. I'm much more careful of such things re my children--not that they've needed such privacy medically yet, thank God--because as they keep changing I cannot know nearly as well how they feel about privacy right now.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was just thinking of telling my son that he had been prayed for - I'm afraid his replies are rather unsuitable for a family programme! I guess he would have spoken to me again about a year later.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I know my 14 year old daughter insisted on being taken off the church prayer list (it wasn't a request from me that put her on) because she didn't want to be gossiped about. Although she was long term ill she wasn't anorexic. As I thought she was entitled to make those sorts of decisions, I requested the removal of her name.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I know my 14 year old daughter insisted on being taken off the church prayer list (it wasn't a request from me that put her on) because she didn't want to be gossiped about. Although she was long term ill she wasn't anorexic. As I thought she was entitled to make those sorts of decisions, I requested the removal of her name.
Sure. But there's a big difference between a prayer list that's made fairly public and asking for prayer or support from a pastor/priest or small group.
See "broken" thread for the flip side.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
References, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The NHS page. Scroll down to 'biological factors'.
I think it's a bit of a reach to go from some hypothesis-generating-but-not-definitive research suggesting biochemical changes in anorexic people to definitive proof of causation in the majority of sufferers.
True, but I'm waiting for someone to show me references that definitely prove that anorexia is a family disease with the thin one being the outward evidence of a big dysfunctional family, usually with a mother who is overbearing and controlling.
I don't know the ultimate cause of anorexia but I have read lots of articles that point to the ghrelin receptors as a likely factor in both anorexia and obesity.
What I do know is that I've been hearing this theory that it's all about control and perfectionism and hateful mothers for thirty years, and while that may or may not be true, whatever the professionals are doing, the number of people getting this disease and dying from it keeps on soaring. So I wouldn't say all the answers are in.
Why does it have to be someone in the family that sets this off? Young people are hearing that their bodies are unacceptable from hundreds of sources -- magazines, movies, TV, kids at school sports coaches and dance teachers. Now we even have the First Lady of the United States going to schools and effectively pointing her finger at the chubby children as she explains why they need to do something to change this aspect of themselves. Around ninety eight percent of adults can't lose weight and keep it off for three years, but we expect children to do it. It means that the person in the family who neither does the shopping nor cooking is somehow supposed to eat within a narrow caloric range that will cause her/him to lose weight while maintaining energy and health and then adjust the level to exactly what's needed for maintenance. I think we'll find out eventually that we don't overeat or under-eat because we, or our mothers, are crazy but that the dieting itself makes us crazy.
JMHO, no references -- just like every other post on this thread.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
True, but I'm waiting for someone to show me references that definitely prove that anorexia is a family disease with the thin one being the outward evidence of a big dysfunctional family, usually with a mother who is overbearing and controlling.
Do people seriously believe this in this day and age? Isn't this as outdated as the view that autism is caused by 'refrigerator mothers'? I thought the most recent research was suggesting genetic links between anorexia and autism, suggesting a genetic predisposition. For everyone I know who has had an eating disorder, they say it was about control - not their mother, but their own feeling of being out of control and needing to control something. This can be to do with how your mind works, rather than by parenting - with autism, the need for control is because your mind doesn't automatically make sense of the world, so you need to control something external. I don't know how it is with anorexic people's minds, but the genetic link would suggest it's something to do with how the mind works.
I feel very strongly that teenagers' right to privacy should be respected, and that when parents are discussing and praying about their children's problems, it should be with a trusted friend/pastor, who will not take the matter any further. I see it too often in churches that parents talk to several people about their teenagers' problems, and those people pass it on, and I feel uncomfortable with it when it is passed on to me, because I know it is none of my business, and I suspect the teengers wouldn't want their private lives to become a matter of casual conversation.
Also, in general, if I hear about a teenager supposedly being 'vocally abusive' to her mother, I always wonder whether the mother was abusive first. Because when you only hear the mother's side, you never know.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Firstly, there is no proven link between parenting and anorexia.
Secondly,
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
Also, in general, if I hear about a teenager supposedly being 'vocally abusive' to her mother, I always wonder whether the mother was abusive first. Because when you only hear the mother's side, you never know.
We have mostly very well behaved teenagers. But when they lose it, they lose it. May be the mother was shouting at the daughter beforehand, but you know, there's only so many times a parent ought to have to ask for chores or a tidy room before cranking it up a notch.
And in my experience, asking politely one too many times (where n is an unknown and constantly moving variable) can lead to tears and a tirade of abuse. And an inevitable grounding.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I can't get into the research papers as they're behind pay walls.
However, anorexia strikes in mid-teenage years and dieting is a risk for developing anorexia, additionally sports that judge on appearance (ice-skating, gymnastics and dance) have particularly high rates for anorexia, there is also a definite link to trauma and mental health issues - from this summary of research
quote:
- Many sufferers develop chronic social problems, which can escalate to the extent experienced by schizophrenic patients <snip>
- More than half of anorexia sufferers have been sexually abused or experienced some other major trauma
and referring to bulimia, which more than 40% of anorexics will exhibit
- Bulimia can become a means of coping with stressful situations, such as an unhappy relationship or a traumatic past event
All of those assertions have links to research on the link.
Twilight, have you seen anyone with anorexia up close? They lie, cover themselves under clothes, are good at pretending to eat ... it's not just about dieting. There's a lot of depression and other links to mental health included.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I can't get into the research papers as they're behind pay walls.
However, anorexia strikes in mid-teenage years and dieting is a risk for developing anorexia, additionally sports that judge on appearance (ice-skating, gymnastics and dance) have particularly high rates for anorexia, there is also a definite link to trauma and mental health issues - from this summary of research
quote:
- Many sufferers develop chronic social problems, which can escalate to the extent experienced by schizophrenic patients <snip>
- More than half of anorexia sufferers have been sexually abused or experienced some other major trauma
and referring to bulimia, which more than 40% of anorexics will exhibit
- Bulimia can become a means of coping with stressful situations, such as an unhappy relationship or a traumatic past event
All of those assertions have links to research on the link.
Twilight, have you seen anyone with anorexia up close? They lie, cover themselves under clothes, are good at pretending to eat ... it's not just about dieting. There's a lot of depression and other links to mental health included.
Even more strongly than that - eating disorders ARE mental illnesses. They just present in more obviously physical ways than many other mental illnesses.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't see a recommendation of family therapy as indicating that the family - or parents - are being blamed, or suggesting that the anorexia is the manifestation of a sick family.
Where does this idea come from?
In the British tradition, as for example found at the Maudsley, family therapy is used to help the family help the teenager. It's often said that it's not treatment of the family, but treatment with the family.
Just going in and blaming the family or parents sounds totally counter-productive to me, and will probably exacerbate any family tensions.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Damn, caught by the guillotine - I just remember the idea of the refrigerator mother - but this is very old-fashioned. Ronnie Laing used to talk about it, what, about 50 years ago, and it was sometimes used in relation to autism and schizophrenia - also the term the 'schizophrenogenic mother' was used. But it hasn't been used since the 60s and 70s I think.
In some ways, such ideas are detested today in the various psychological disciplines. For one thing, they are not empirical - they make too many assumptions.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
True, but I'm waiting for someone to show me references that definitely prove that anorexia is a family disease with the thin one being the outward evidence of a big dysfunctional family, usually with a mother who is overbearing and controlling.
Do people seriously believe this in this day and age?
I thought that was what was being said by some people on page one. Porrige said: quote:
But I want to second what Pyx_e said. This is a family disorder, with a single identified patient.
To me that's not just saying the family could benefit from therapy but that the family is disordered and that they are all "patients" in the sense of ill people needing a doctor.
It's true that when a child is very sick with any illness, the whole family suffers, but this idea that the anorexics family all need therapy definitely sounds blaming to me.
----------
I have known anorexics "up close," and I'm not arguing at all that it's a mental illness. I just think that dieting very often sparks the mental illness, rather than the mental illness arriving first and the patient just exhibiting the illness through not eating. Come to think of it, I've never known an anorexic who hadn't been on a standard diet before showing the first signs of in the illness.
Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on
:
Ah, okay, I misunderstood. I thought people were just talking about their personal experiences, rather than saying this was the case in general. As a sister of an anorexic myself, I would say from my experience that if someone does have the genetic predisposition, then a controlling/abusive mother can bring it out and make it worse. Just like certain situations can bring out the genetic predisposition to schizophrenia. But it doesn't cause it - just as having such a mother didn't cause my Aspergers, but certainly made it harder to deal with. And the majority of anorexic people I know - like the majority of autistic people I know - have loving, emotionally-healthy, non-controlling parents.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The mother’s response, rightly or wrongly, was that it was natural to share such a matter with her Christian friends (though not with the church at large).
Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And Pyx_e put his finger on it by describing anorexia as an individual's expression of a family illness.
I think one should say that is sometimes the case, but certainly not always. Psychiatric illness may result from unhealthy family dynamics, but it would be wrong to label all families as dysfunctional because one member suffered with anorexia. Human psychology is not so mechanistic that output A consistently implies input B.
I agree. However, I do not see how sharing the daughter's problems with the church helps the daughter at all. I see sharing beyond the pastor as extremely unhelpful to the girl.
Except it seems as if in this case the pastor is the problem in church. Maybe that is why the family need the support of other chhurch member.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
This whole conversation is difficult for many reasons. Not the least of which is the lack of a clear understanding of what causes anorexia, and a lack of a clear treatment path. Having added that caveat I am willing to stand by my suggestion. At the very least it affects the whole family and what is for me the underbelly of it all is that the anorexic person maybe showing the illness that is primarily somewhere else in the family. I did not say where, I did not allude to “controlling mothers.”
I accept fully that the scenario I am putting forward is not the only possible cause for anorexia because, as I have already said we do not understand the cause.
However I baulk at always only treating the person displaying a disorder while possibly the people who are actually adult/disordered are at best get ignored or at worst wrapped up in the treatment programme thus making worse the feelings of powerlessness, fear, being controlled and not being listened too.
In case it needs saying, I am not very experienced in this matter and am not a mental health professional. This is a internet bulletin board and as such should be taken with the appropriate degree of weight.
Fly Safe Pyx_e
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
No, PyxE didn't say anything about controlling mothers. I'm sorry if I implied that, the story about an anorexic sister and a controlling mother came after PxyE's post and just seemed to be linking the two things.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, caught by the guillotine - I just remember the idea of the refrigerator mother - but this is very old-fashioned. Ronnie Laing used to talk about it, what, about 50 years ago, and it was sometimes used in relation to autism and schizophrenia - also the term the 'schizophrenogenic mother' was used. But it hasn't been used since the 60s and 70s I think.
The problem comes from people who are not in the professions, who went to college in the 60's and 70's and still believe what they learned then. I hear it all the time from people who don't know I'm a "schizophrenic mother," and the friends and relatives who do know, give lip service to the new thinking until they get angry at me for something and then it's all, "No wonder you're the worst mother ..." or "I'm not surprised that..."
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Twilight - can you link to where anyone has said that it's the mother's fault on this thread? Are you sure you're not reading things into this that haven't been said?
The OP talks about the mother asking for help and I pointed out that sometimes people in therapy use others - friends, family, church members - to bolster their resistance to what the therapist is recommending and that the church needs to be aware of this and not get sucked into that unhelpful situation. Which quetzalcoatl agreed to.
I also said something about control freakery of my parents, but I really didn't mean to say anything that pointed the finger at my mother, or my father for that matter. Family issues are often far more complicated than you seem to be envisaging we are saying. The ways that families fuck up are rooted in the ways the individuals were fucked up by their parents. Nothing is that simple.
What I have been saying and I understand those of us suggesting caution are saying is:
"Be careful",
"Don't get involved in things you don't really understand, you could make things worse."
"Respect the daughter's right to privacy."
"Be aware that this is a complicated issue and the opportunities for doing harm are greater than the opportunities for doing good."
"Let the professionals get on with their job without interference from peripheral others."
"Refer this one to the professionals"
Churches, generally, are very bad at saying that they cannot help in some situations and referring people on to counselling and support services that are there to deal with these issues. And then supporting people in using those services without offering conflicting advice.
[ 27. October 2013, 12:44: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Curiosity killed ...
I don't really know much about churches possibly confusing their own roles, and interfering with counselling or therapy. As I was saying on another thread, one central London church that I went to, actually had counsellors on site some of the time, so I guess the boundaries were pretty clear there.
I suppose it might be difficult, since the priest/vicar has had a traditional role of comforting and counselling people, which is fine. I suppose it becomes tricky when it goes a bit deeper, and also involves other people.
As a therapist, for example, I was strictly forbidden from seeing a client who had connexions with another client or ex-client. So for example, seeing the husband/wife/child of an existing client (or ex-client) is a total no-no - as otherwise you get all kinds of incestuous stuff coming up. So I don't know how pastors/priests deal with that. It's quite sticky stuff. For something very short-term it's probably OK.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I've come across it. Two examples:
Pastoral support through a complicated bereavement and funeral became a long term counselling role - which the priest involved wasn't trained to do, and should have referred to counselling early on.
A patient who was counselled on church office premises who now has confused the church as the place to come for support - phones up drunk at 3am, phones and/or arrives wanting support and gets aggrieved if it's not offered by office staff ... and/or doesn't get passed on to members of clergy.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
I am frequently confronted with many versions of the truth. A wife and a husband, a parent and a child, two friends seeing a thing in different ways. You get used to it. To quote House “everyone lies” or from my perspective, everyone has a version of the truth. Including me.
The joy of being a priest (within the priesthood of all believers) and not a mental health professional or counsellor is that people are looking for different things and the answers come from a different place. I hope I am very strict about the difference, and frequently refer people to their Doctor.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I am frequently confronted with many versions of the truth. A wife and a husband, a parent and a child, two friends seeing a thing in different ways. You get used to it. To quote House “everyone lies” or from my perspective, everyone has a version of the truth. Including me.
The joy of being a priest (within the priesthood of all believers) and not a mental health professional or counsellor is that people are looking for different things and the answers come from a different place. I hope I am very strict about the difference, and frequently refer people to their Doctor.
I knew some old-timers (therapists) who did use to see husband and wife separately for therapy, or even husband and ex-wife, and so on, and oh boy, did they let themselves in for trouble. It can end up in a game of favourites, or even a weird kind of triangle - Oedipus schmoedipus! Not for me, but also now pretty much banned under ethical codes. I can see that a priest's role is different, and it's not really depth psychology, although it may be depth spirituality.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Support and caring of people is what makes us human and is something that we all need. However it is a fine line between support/caring and gossip. I have a family member who is so terrified of being a gossip that he never says anything about anybody else.
When another family member broke an arm he never told anybody – the person with the broken arm wondered why nobody was offering help and sympathy.
It’s got to be an individual call, if somebody suddenly disappears from the family for whatever reason and it might be for a while. You cannot hide it and have to find a way to deal with it, saying things like ‘it’s confidential’ can just make things worse.
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have known anorexics "up close," and I'm not arguing at all that it's a mental illness. I just think that dieting very often sparks the mental illness, rather than the mental illness arriving first and the patient just exhibiting the illness through not eating. Come to think of it, I've never known an anorexic who hadn't been on a standard diet before showing the first signs of in the illness.
You evidently haven't met any of those with Anorixia/Bullimia/EDNOS I (either online or IRL) have.
I've known many people with an ED who know those who like to assume that's how it goes, and who they (those with the actual ED) just don't disabuse of that cherished notion, because it's too much work, and/or it means that they get left alone to do what they want to do (often that being what their ED tells them to do).
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Twilight, if you were right in thinking that dieting starts anorexia then I would have been anorexic with my sister. We had both dieted the summer before as teenagers, me more seriously than my sister at that time. I was never anorexic. It wasn't dieting alone caused my sister's anorexia.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I am as sceptical about a one-to-one link with dieting as I am about a one-to-one link with bad parenting or neuro-endocrine receptors.
However, it does seem that anorexia is more common in cultures that think it is fantastic for women to be thin, and among groups where dieting and being thin is a particular focus. On the other hand it is possible that the psychological distress that leads to anorexia would come out in another way were it not to lead to anorexia, and hence reducing the rate of anorexia by focusing on such issues may not overall improve mental health.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am as sceptical about a one-to-one link with dieting as I am about a one-to-one link with bad parenting or neuro-endocrine receptors.
However, it does seem that anorexia is more common in cultures that think it is fantastic for women to be thin, and among groups where dieting and being thin is a particular focus. On the other hand it is possible that the psychological distress that leads to anorexia would come out in another way were it not to lead to anorexia, and hence reducing the rate of anorexia by focusing on such issues may not overall improve mental health.
Yes. But then again it might. I don't think Twilight was suggesting that dieting always causes anorexia, I think she was suggesting that anorexia can be kick-started by extreme dieting. That's certainly how it appears to be in some people.
It may well be that there is underlying psychological distress that sets someone off on the path of food-related obsession. It may well be that the one feeds into the other (and you have to have both to get the escalation). However, I don't think it necessarily follows that, if we had a society that was less insanely obsessed with female body shape, unhappy (say) adolescent girls would necessarily develop another extreme form of mental unwellness.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes, I agree it doesn't necessarily follow by any means.
Indeed, if one widens the focus of an intervention from dieting practices to include the issues you describe regarding how our society treats women dependent on their shape and the messages delivered then I think it much more likely the root causes of a source of psychological distress would be dealt with.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Twilight, if you were right in thinking that dieting starts anorexia then I would have been anorexic with my sister. We had both dieted the summer before as teenagers, me more seriously than my sister at that time. I was never anorexic. It wasn't dieting alone caused my sister's anorexia.
I don't understand why you are translating my saying that I think dieting is very often the spark for anorexia, as saying everyone who ever went on a diet gets anorexia? I've been on diets that I couldn't stop and came home from college at below 100 pounds. I've also been on diets that rebounded with binging and excessive weight gain and I once went on a diet and then managed to keep stable at 110 lbs for 20 years. It's all possible. All I'm saying is that I think our culture, that encourages anyone with the slightest bit of a bulge to go on a diet, and the strict dieting that sometimes results, is a factor in eating disorders. Of course every single person who goes on a diet doesn't get anorexia. Where did I say that?
Since you think I'm wrong and you have some other trigger in mind perhaps you would like to share it with us? While you're at it explain why anorexia was very rare a hundred years ago even though, surely, perfectionism, and controlling parents, etc. were just as much, if not more, in evidence.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Curiosity killed: quote:
Twilight - can you link to where anyone has said that it's the mother's fault on this thread?
I am not very good at doing links within threads (I'm not Twilight either), but a quick scroll through the rest of this thread threw up the following comments:
L'organist said: quote:
...part of the reason for the girl's vocal aggression towards her mother may be because the mother is discussing her daughter publicly with people at the church?
Fineline said: quote:
Also, in general, if I hear about a teenager supposedly being 'vocally abusive' to her mother, I always wonder whether the mother was abusive first. Because when you only hear the mother's side, you never know.
Both of these are reasonable reactions, given the evidence presented, but they do suggest that the mother is to blame for the girl being 'vocally abusive' even if they don't go so far as to say she's to blame for the anorexia as well.
Blaming parents for everything their children do is fashionable nowadays, anyway; a mother's place is in the wrong, etc., etc.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
It was this, more than anything, that sounded to me like the mother's "control freakery," was to blame for one sister's anorexia and the other sisters' other problems:
Curiosity Killed said, quote:
That sister became anorexic. My other sister and I found our own ways to self-abuse to deal with the control freakery of our parents.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Twilight here you said:
quote:
With a few exceptions, the general tone of this thread seems to be (1) this woman's daughter has a mental illness, therefore it's shameful and she shouldn't be talking about it, she should be keeping it well hidden, and (2)as with all mental illnesses, it must be the mother's fault.
And I was challenging you to point out where anyone had said it was the mother's fault.
In the same post you go on to say:
quote:
Anorexia, like obesity, usually starts with a diet that throws off the body's natural "hunger" hormones and the brain's response to them. That first diet may be triggered by anything at all. It might be something read in a magazine or it might be something a passing boy said in the hall. I don't think that makes it a "family disease," with the daughter's thinness an outward evidence of the mother's cruel abuse.
Which you reiterated here
quote:
I think we'll find out eventually that we don't overeat or under-eat because we, or our mothers, are crazy but that the dieting itself makes us crazy.
I continue to challenge your assertion that dieting causes anorexia on its own because not everyone who diets goes on to develop bulimia and anorexia, which you've just agreed when I pointed out that I dieted alongside my sister and didn't go on to develop anorexia.
The link I provided earlier showed research saying that more than half the anorexics studied had suffered trauma or sexual abuse.
Anorexia can really be to do with the sufferer taking control of something when that adolescent (and most sufferers are in the middle of adolescence) feels out of control. It can also to do with not wanting to grow up, to delay puberty.
That society emphasises thinness almost certainly is a part of why anorexia is as common as it is, but it's been around for a very long time. My mother picked up anorexia in my sister as fast as she did because she had a friend who'd been anorexic as a teenager back in the 1950s, when curves were a lot more fashionable. According to Wikipedia originally anorexia was identified with extreme religious fasting, has been recorded since 1689 and recognised and named since 1873.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am as sceptical about a one-to-one link with dieting as I am about a one-to-one link with bad parenting or neuro-endocrine receptors.
However, it does seem that anorexia is more common in cultures that think it is fantastic for women to be thin, and among groups where dieting and being thin is a particular focus. On the other hand it is possible that the psychological distress that leads to anorexia would come out in another way were it not to lead to anorexia, and hence reducing the rate of anorexia by focusing on such issues may not overall improve mental health.
Yes. But then again it might. I don't think Twilight was suggesting that dieting always causes anorexia, I think she was suggesting that anorexia can be kick-started by extreme dieting. That's certainly how it appears to be in some people.
It may well be that there is underlying psychological distress that sets someone off on the path of food-related obsession. It may well be that the one feeds into the other (and you have to have both to get the escalation). However, I don't think it necessarily follows that, if we had a society that was less insanely obsessed with female body shape, unhappy (say) adolescent girls would necessarily develop another extreme form of mental unwellness.
I think I agree with this. Certainly, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment indicated that eating disorder-ish behaviours *could* be induced in a previously healthy population, simply through extreme reduction of calorific intake.
The stereotypical anorexic is one who embarks on the extreme calorific reduction in pursuit of weight loss and/or thinness. But in reality, there can be many reasons why a person will embark on extreme calorie control, weight and appearance being only possibilities.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Certainly, the Minnesota Starvation Experiment indicated that eating disorder-ish behaviours *could* be induced in a previously healthy population, simply through extreme reduction of calorific intake.
They had what are described as eating disorders, although my scholarly precis (aka cursory googling of tertiary sources) suggests this was more bizarre behaviours during the forced starvation and binge eating in the re-feeding stage rather than anything looking like anorexia nervosa.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The link I provided earlier showed research saying that more than half the anorexics studied had suffered trauma or sexual abuse.
I'm sure that more than half the anorexics studied were female. More than half were probably over 5 feet tall. More than half probably wore jeans more days than not.
So, what percentage of the total population has suffered trauma or sexual abuse? What percentage of the female population?
I suspect that being female is a risk factor for sexual abuse, trauma, and anorexia nervosa. But I don't think there's adequate evidence to support the argument any one of those causes the others.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Josephine, my point was that anorexia isn't simply caused by dieting. There is a known link to trauma. There's a known link to adolescence and mental health issues - 1 in 5 of anorexia nervosa deaths come from suicide. It is a complicated situation made up of a number of factors. I was challenging the assertion made by Twilight that it is caused by dieting because that isn't supported by the research.
And the reason I kept pushing that point was to try to discourage people who seemed to be thinking that anorexia nervosa is something easily dealt with pastorally in a church. To maybe realise that the whole thing is complicated and boundaries should be respected and the professionals be allowed to work with the whole family with whatever needs doing.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And the reason I kept pushing that point was to try to discourage people who seemed to be thinking that anorexia nervosa is something easily dealt with pastorally in a church. To maybe realise that the whole thing is complicated and boundaries should be respected and the professionals be allowed to work with the whole family with whatever needs doing.
I don't think anyone here has suggested that anorexia is an "easy thing" that can be dealt with thru pastoral care alone. However, precisely because it is a very complex and significant event in the life of an entire family, it is something where I believe pastoral care as an adjunct to professional mental health care is appropriate-- especially when requested directly as in the OP. Frankly, I resent the implication (not just here but elsewhere upthread) that pastors are bumbling fools who don't know the limits of their professional expertise, and can't manage to care for a parishioner at a painful and difficult time of life without "boundary-crossing", breaking confidentiality, or interfering with a course of treatment.
The fact that this only comes up with mental health care-- as noted upthread, no one seems concerned that pastors will interfere with a patient's cancer treatment or heart disease-- says something about the failings of a small minority of pastors, but also, I believe, reinforces an implicit (and no doubt subconscious) "shaming" of parents with mentally ill children.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
My experience is that churches can be appalling at pastoral care.
I gave one example up thread of a bungled church pastoral relationship around a complicated bereavement. That was a minister getting in too deep and not referring the person on to counselling.
I can give another for a family whose daughter died from complications following leukaemia and where certain members of the church, who prayed incredibly hard for the child to recover, still can't talk to that family. Because prayer failed.
I could give more ...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My experience is that churches can be appalling at pastoral care.
I gave one example up thread of a bungled church pastoral relationship around a complicated bereavement. That was a minister getting in too deep and not referring the person on to counselling.
I can give another for a family whose daughter died from complications following leukaemia and where certain members of the church, who prayed incredibly hard for the child to recover, still can't talk to that family. Because prayer failed.
I could give more ...
and I could give examples of incompetent mental health professionals, who gave horrible advice, who drove people to despair or even suicide, who "crossed boundaries" and slept with their clients, etc etc etc. What's the point? there are incompetents in every professional, and we all make efforts to identify and root them out. That is no excuse for denying people the good pastoral care that is, 9 times out of 10, available to them, any more than the rare cases of abusive therapists is reason to deter people from seeking help.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Josephine, my point was that anorexia isn't simply caused by dieting.
I doubt it's simply caused by anything. If there were a single cause, we'd likely know it by now. But it's likely that any particular instance is "caused" by a combination of factors. But even there, to say "caused" is to say more than we know.
quote:
There is a known link to trauma. There's a known link to adolescence and mental health issues - 1 in 5 of anorexia nervosa deaths come from suicide.
True. Starvation tends to cause depression. And when you start eating again, you get a bit of energy before the depression lifts, so you're at a high risk of suicide. But knowing that doesn't tell you anything at all about what caused the patient to develop anorexia.
quote:
It is a complicated situation made up of a number of factors.
Absolutely.
quote:
I was challenging the assertion made by Twilight that it is caused by dieting because that isn't supported by the research.
[/b]
Weight loss seems to trigger anorexia in susceptible people. That does seem to be supported in the research. This page says:
quote:
The role of genetics on eating disorders is of particular interest to researchers. Our knowledge at this point indicates that genes load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger. We are far from knowing specific genes that cause eating disorders. There are a number of genes that work with environmental triggers. Dieting and loss of weight may influence the development of anorexia by turning on a gene that may influence an eating disorder.
quote:
[qb]And the reason I kept pushing that point was to try to discourage people who seemed to be thinking that anorexia nervosa is something easily dealt with pastorally in a church.
I haven't seen anyone suggest any such thing. Everyone seems to be aware that it's complicated and difficult. That doesn't mean that there's no role for pastoral care, or even for support from friends and other family.
[ 29. October 2013, 00:45: Message edited by: Josephine ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In the United States, at least, the Church may be the only care option open to people suffering from mental illness. Even when treatment is an option, people still frequently to turn to the Church first in mental health situations—more often than today's falling rates of religiosity would lead one to believe.
While it's important for a parish leader to know when an issue is beyond his or her expertise, it's also important to be able to do what can be done in these situations.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another point to make is that in the UK at least, the 'generalist' psychotherapist would not take on anorexic people as clients. They would normally go through their GP, and might then go to a hospital as an outpatient or inpatient, or possibly to a specialist clinic dealing with eating disorders.
So the treatment of these disorders is highly specialized, and I don't think that therapists would normally take somebody on, without that particular training, and without consulting a GP.
You would also often find that a care team would be involved, which might include paediatrician, dietitian, psychiatrist, and so on.
There are NHS clinics and private ones, and the latter will cost you an arm and a leg, but of course, for the NHS ones, there may well be a wait.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My experience is that churches can be appalling at pastoral care.
A lot of people can be very scathing about the Churches attempt at care. I know a person who won’t come to church because she did not get monthly home communion even though she was frequently (at least once a week) seen in the shops next to the church, And she tells everyone how crap we are. Frequently.
However Curiosity does have a point and I would like to add a couple of thoughts (which I hope fit in with this thread).
Practical help is as efficacious as prayer. The offer of a cooked meal, to drive them to a hospital appointment, to walk the dog. In my experience these tangible things mean a lot and are not stepping beyond our calling or skill set.
Good teaching about prayer. Its limits, Its possible outcomes they thought that God is working His purpose out and His will is being done. Not some faux one arm bandit where you put your prayer in and hope for the jackpot.
Not stepping beyond our calling and skill set. We are the Church, with good news of the Gospel, not social services, or doctors, or nurses, or counsellors. Clarity of purpose and a pretty extensive understanding of boundaries and confidentiality. This is at an individual and corporate level.
Fly safe, Pyx_e
[ 29. October 2013, 08:36: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
My experience is that churches can be appalling at pastoral care.
I gave one example up thread of a bungled church pastoral relationship around a complicated bereavement. That was a minister getting in too deep and not referring the person on to counselling.
I can give another for a family whose daughter died from complications following leukaemia and where certain members of the church, who prayed incredibly hard for the child to recover, still can't talk to that family. Because prayer failed.
I could give more ...
Curiosity - you seem to be assuming that churches have access to counselling services. Actually they don't, anymore than any other member of society does. - they may have acquired knowledge of places that might provide counselling but they might not, as these things change frequently. Anyway they can only advise people not refer them.
It is even worse in the current climate couselling services are being cut everywhere. A family member with severe post natal depression, was told that there was a waiting list of 2-3 months for couselling - even if she was accepted.
There is a big difference between providing medical help and giving people caring and support.
If this person daughter had had a car accdient nobody would be saying don't get involved and don't talk to them about how they feel at the moment, because you can't mend broken legs, that's for the doctor to do.
We would be saying give them the help that you can. As somebody else has said often the best help is practical - can we give a lift, childmind, provide a meal etc. Why should they be cut off form this just becasu ethier daughter has a different sort of problem.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I know my 14 year old daughter insisted on being taken off the church prayer list (it wasn't a request from me that put her on) because she didn't want to be gossiped about. Although she was long term ill she wasn't anorexic. As I thought she was entitled to make those sorts of decisions, I requested the removal of her name.
She shouldn't have been on the prayer list without permission in the first place. This is soemthing church members are very bad at, recognising that people might have problems but might not want to be public.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Practical help is as efficacious as prayer. The offer of a cooked meal, to drive them to a hospital appointment, to walk the dog. In my experience these tangible things mean a lot and are not stepping beyond our calling or skill set.
I know - I hope I know - that you weren't referring to this specific case here, Pyx_e. But it's one of the reasons why I say - not to priests, but to Other People - please don't try to help, just try not to harm.
When my brother was starving himself to death, one of the kindly-meant things certain people did was bring food to the house.
I'm crying now remembering the additional pain that caused us, even when we'd thought we'd got to the point when nothing could feel any worse.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Good teaching about prayer. Its limits, Its possible outcomes they thought that God is working His purpose out and His will is being done. Not some faux one arm bandit where you put your prayer in and hope for the jackpot.
Fly safe, Pyx_e
Amen Pyx_e. Prayer has been extremely helpful to me even at the worst of times. He may not always grant my wishes, but He always grants me peace.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I know - I hope I know - that you weren't referring to this specific case here, Pyx_e.
The OP suggests the teenager concerned with anorexia has been admitted to hospital - so presumably the implication is a cooked meal for the family left at home rather than the bizarre view that bringing round food for someone with anorexia might help.
The problem with the advice "just try not to harm" is that that leads to an isolated family.
I have seen this in bereavement as well - people wish desperately to avoid saying the wrong thing, and so say nothing. And so the bereaved become pariahs, an embarrassment to their friends, and people visit less often than before the bereavement. I don't think this is the answer.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I know - I hope I know - that you weren't referring to this specific case here, Pyx_e.
The OP suggests the teenager concerned with anorexia has been admitted to hospital - so presumably the implication is a cooked meal for the family left at home rather than the bizarre view that bringing round food for someone with anorexia might help.
The problem with the advice "just try not to harm" is that that leads to an isolated family.
I have seen this in bereavement as well - people wish desperately to avoid saying the wrong thing, and so say nothing. And so the bereaved become pariahs, an embarrassment to their friends, and people visit less often than before the bereavement. I don't think this is the answer.
I don't think it *is* like bereavement. People are concerned about saying "the wrong thing" to the bereaved, but they are highly unlikely to clumsily imply that the bereaved person actually killed their loved one.
In my recollection - and obviously, my memories of this time are very faulty - almost everything anyone said implied that we had caused/worsened/contributed in some way to my brother's illness, through action or inaction.
I think - and this is my experience only - that it's a lot more like being the relative of an addict than the relative of a someone with an illness.
Time is the thing that has helped the most.
[ 29. October 2013, 11:05: Message edited by: Erroneous Monk ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think - and this is my experience only - that it's a lot more like being the relative of an addict than the relative of a someone with an illness.
This was obviously a tough time and I haven't experienced anorexia in a family member, although I've had family members with serious illness. But I do not see why this should be an unavoidable problem. Surely once people are educated that such implications aren't appropriate, then healthy pastoral care or friendly support can resume?
You have clearly been justifiably hurt by what has happened to you and I don't wish to minimise that, but the conclusion that no-one can ever get it right and they should all be warned off seems to me like it may result in hurt as well.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think - and this is my experience only - that it's a lot more like being the relative of an addict than the relative of a someone with an illness.
This was obviously a tough time and I haven't experienced anorexia in a family member, although I've had family members with serious illness. But I do not see why this should be an unavoidable problem. Surely once people are educated that such implications aren't appropriate, then healthy pastoral care or friendly support can resume?
You have clearly been justifiably hurt by what has happened to you and I don't wish to minimise that, but the conclusion that no-one can ever get it right and they should all be warned off seems to me like it may result in hurt as well.
You are, of course, right.
I read something recently that seemed to say that - in a medical sense - wounds never really heal, and under certain circumstances, old injuries can simply re-open.
That's so true.
People didn't mean any hurt then and you certainly don't now, and nor do the other kind people on this thread. I probably need not to be here.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I read something recently that seemed to say that - in a medical sense - wounds never really heal, and under certain circumstances, old injuries can simply re-open.
Very true. And I'm sorry for your hurt - indeed no, I didn't mean to cause further hurt either. Thank you for being charitable despite your hurt.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I wonder if threads like this should have a warning attached to them, as they can easily restimulate people, and bring back the pain of it all. I suppose then you would have to put warnings on about half the threads though.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if threads like this should have a warning attached to them, as they can easily restimulate people, and bring back the pain of it all. I suppose then you would have to put warnings on about half the threads though.
In this case, the title of the thread serves as a warning. Those of us more intimately acquainted with anorexia than we would ever have wanted to be can choose to click or not. Sometimes, of course, we might choose to click, not realizing that we are still more vulnerable than we thought. But no blame to anyone else for discussing this topic on a discussion board.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I read something recently that seemed to say that - in a medical sense - wounds never really heal, and under certain circumstances, old injuries can simply re-open.
Very true. And I'm sorry for your hurt - indeed no, I didn't mean to cause further hurt either. Thank you for being charitable despite your hurt.
I want to echo everything mdijon said. I was being too defensive about my own puny concerns when I should have been modeling the compassion I was arguing for.
[ 29. October 2013, 12:55: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Taking food to the family of an anorexic is likely to be even more hurtful than you might realise. One of the things that anorexics commonly do is cook and feed others, but not themselves. So everyone else is groaning with the amount of cake and biscuits they're being fed. It almost feels as if the anorexic is trying to fatten up their nearest and dearest as they starve themselves. Where I've seen this it seems to be an additional control over the food the whole family eats.
Zacchaeus - I realise counselling services are being cut, but are churches really equipped to provide support? Do they have the right skills and knowledge? And can they maintain professional boundaries and distance when dealing with difficult situations within their local community? Which is worse: waiting for the appropriate service and support or having untrained, well-meaning support by people out of their depth and starting with different suppositions?
I've seen well-meaning people cause worse problems thinking they can help, not just in churches but in schools too. Rather than saying that this is outside my understanding and knowledge and other than being a listening ear and offering practical help, I really don't have the knowledge to advise you - you do need to take this to professional support via the GP or whatever, they continue to blunder on regardless. And make a bad situation worse.
Surely one of the skills of pastoral support is recognising that a situation is more complicated than can be dealt with pastorally and supporting the person involved to access other appropriate support, counselling or whatever?
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Whether or not the anorexic cooked, if they're not there to cook, food may be a practical use. It sucks to come home from a hospital and still need to cook. Also, I want to strongly agree with everyone who doesn't think we should avoid doing anything that may injure anyone. Because I am quite sure that doing nothing can also injure. When I lost my teenaged brother I don't remember who said the stupid things, though some did, but I remember who knit me the scarf and sent the lovely note. That really helped. I remember who brought those tamales. etc.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
No, Gwai, food for the family of an anorexic is a bloody minefield. Every meal time for months was a battle trying to get my sister to eat something or if she did allow a morsel through her lips, to eat more. It made family meals, which we were made to sit down to every day and take part in, an unpleasant experience. She'd bake cakes and biscuits, chocolate croissants for breakfast, and we were surrounded by sugary treats. I still feel sick at the thought of it and can't stand pain au chocolat or most of those croissants.
Anyone turning up with food would not have been welcome. Just remembering it is making me realise why I don't like certain foods.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I didn't say it would be welcome though. What I am trying to say is that there is something MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. To suspect that no one gives a shit. To have frightened everyone off by threats of possible offense. To assume everyone knows so much about own's own problems that one excoriates them for offenses they could not have possibly expected. To be isolated because someone else was offended and touchy years ago.*
To elaborate on what I said before, when someone said something particularly hurtful when my brother died, it wasn't their fault. They didn't know. It's much better that they tried to be caring and comforting--and utterly failed on the comforting--than that they abandoned us in our misery.
*CK: Note that none of these possibilities are meant to refer to you. I am trying to paint what I see as a worst case scenario. You know what suffering was like for you. I know what it was like for me. You're not an expert on what it will be like for Joe Bloggs and neither am I.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Zacchaeus - I realise counselling services are being cut, but are churches really equipped to provide support? Do they have the right skills and knowledge? And can they maintain professional boundaries and distance when dealing with difficult situations within their local community? Which is worse: waiting for the appropriate service and support or having untrained, well-meaning support by people out of their depth and starting with different suppositions?
I've seen well-meaning people cause worse problems thinking they can help, not just in churches but in schools too. Rather than saying that this is outside my understanding and knowledge and other than being a listening ear and offering practical help, I really don't have the knowledge to advise you - you do need to take this to professional support via the GP or whatever, they continue to blunder on regardless. And make a bad situation worse.
Surely one of the skills of pastoral support is recognising that a situation is more complicated than can be dealt with pastorally and supporting the person involved to access other appropriate support, counselling or whatever?
I would agree. One of the reasons you get the negative attitude towards pastoral care we've seen here is because of the confusion about the difference between pastoral care/spiritual direction and therapeutic counseling. It's pretty obvious I'm a firm believer in spiritual direction/pastoral care-- but it is very, very different from the sort of care offered by MFTs and other mental health professionals. Both are important, both are needed, both work together to bring holistic healing-- but in very different ways. Expecting the pastor/priest to act as cut-rate therapist is, indeed, a recipe for disaster. Rather, clergy can act both as referral to competent therapists (hopefully including some with sliding scales) and as an advocate working for greater public funding for mental health care.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I didn't say it would be welcome though. What I am trying to say is that there is something MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. To suspect that no one gives a shit. To have frightened everyone off by threats of possible offense. To assume everyone knows so much about own's own problems that one excoriates them for offenses they could not have possibly expected. To be isolated because someone else was offended and touchy years ago.*
To elaborate on what I said before, when someone said something particularly hurtful when my brother died, it wasn't their fault. They didn't know. It's much better that they tried to be caring and comforting--and utterly failed on the comforting--than that they abandoned us in our misery.
I would agree that doing something is usually better than doing nothing, because it IS important to show that you care, that the family is not alone. Good communication is key. Asking questions. None of us can be expected to be an expert in every disease, every disorder, every disaster, so none of us can know what would/would not be helpful in any particular situation. So we should ask. We should ask if a meal would be helpful-- and expect families to answer honestly (i.e. treat them like adults). Then listen, and respond appropriately. If a meal is not helpful, don't bring one. Maybe a ride would be useful-- or someone to come clean the house once a week, or rent a movie to get your mind off it all. Ask, and listen.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Well said, cliffdweller. And good point about asking before bringing or doing!
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
There seems to be some confusion here over support and treatment – we have not said that anybody should treat the family, support it s vey different thing. For instance how would a hurting family feel if everybody ignored their hurt and carried on as usual – which is what it would mean without support, nobody would ask how are you? Is there anything I can do for you? Provide a space to be still in the storm.
Churches in the UK are not referral places to counselling, it is not their remit, though as I said sometimes they have contacts in the community but often not, it can might depend on the personal contacts of the church members. Such referral should come from the medical and social services, and it was not suggested that the church was a replacement for counselling – it is a very different role altogether.
Taking food was only suggested, along with things like offering lifts, childminding, in the context of a family with a hospital inpatient who may not have the time and energy to come home and start cooking a meal, not as a form of help to the person suffering from anorexia.
So many things are going to be personal to each family, in fact to every family who is suffering for what ever reason. That it will be impossible to have a totally correct list here of practical things that might or might not help, that is where you need to know the individuals involved, but surely it is worse to ignore the family? That is really going to make them feel stigmatised and abandoned.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I've seen well-meaning people cause worse problems thinking they can help, not just in churches but in schools too. Rather than saying that this is outside my understanding and knowledge and other than being a listening ear and offering practical help, I really don't have the knowledge to advise you - you do need to take this to professional support via the GP or whatever, they continue to blunder on regardless. And make a bad situation worse.
I think the listening ear and offers of practical help are exactly what the people here who are saying "support the family" are talking about. Not pretending that you are qualified to provide treatment. But you are qualified to listen and offer practical help, and refusing to do either one of those for the family members who do not have anorexia because it might upset the family member who has anorexia is to give the anorexic an unhealthy level of control over the rest of the family.
And it feeds the shame and stigma that everyone in the family is already dealing with. As has been noted, no one would turn away a friend whose child had cancer and tell them, "You shouldn't talk about this; it's violating their privacy." You don't have any illusions that you can treat the child's cancer -- but you can still be there for the family, listening, helping in whatever practical ways they find helpful that you can do.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The opening post referred to someone within the church
quote:
At the pastoral level, there is the problem of a prominent figure in the church who is into Jay Adams, and is therefore taking the line that her problem is to be dealt with by her facing up to the alleged root cause, ie her disobedient and rebellious attitude, and repenting of it.
So talking about inappropriate pastoral care was in response to the OP.
And in that situation, how do you persuade one person who is convinced of their rightness that they cannot be pastorally involved without laying down guidelines for the whole church?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be guidelines.
[ 29. October 2013, 17:46: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Josephine
But if my son, as a 15 year old, had had cancer, I would have been very wary about talking about him to others. I could have talked about myself, and my own reactions, upset, and so on, but it would be a different kettle of fish with regard to him, especially in terms of details of his illness, his own reactions, the treatments, and so on. He is separate from me.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He is separate from me.
But not very. You can't talk about your reactions without mentioning some details of him. You don't need to describe the secret fears he confided in you one night, the argument you overheard with his girlfriend or the rash the chemo gave him around his bottom, but you are going to have to talk about some things. Provided you are talking with pastors, close friends and in sensible ways I don't see the need to be "very wary" - just sensible.
[ 29. October 2013, 17:50: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
Surely the OP was lookihg for help in how to support in the light of how bad the leader was..
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He is separate from me.
But not very. You can't talk about your reactions without mentioning some details of him. You don't need to describe the secret fears he confided in you one night, the argument you overheard with his girlfriend or the rash the chemo gave him around his bottom, but you are going to have to talk about some things. Provided you are talking with pastors, close friends and in sensible ways I don't see the need to be "very wary" - just sensible.
Well, I notice you are drawing some boundaries here, so that secret fears, girl-friends, and bottoms, are not up for discussion. Why not?
How about a 15 year old daughter with ovarian cancer? Would you go into details about her? I wouldn't.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
Surely the OP was lookihg for help in how to support in the light of how bad the leader was..
Not entirely, because he is one of a number of leaders, the others do not share his views and, as I said, the parents are avoiding him.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
He is separate from me.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But not very. You can't talk about your reactions without mentioning some details of him. You don't need to describe the secret fears he confided in you one night, the argument you overheard with his girlfriend or the rash the chemo gave him around his bottom, but you are going to have to talk about some things. Provided you are talking with pastors, close friends and in sensible ways I don't see the need to be "very wary" - just sensible.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I notice you are drawing some boundaries here, so that secret fears, girl-friends, and bottoms, are not up for discussion. Why not?
Just being sensible.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How about a 15 year old daughter with ovarian cancer? Would you go into details about her? I wouldn't.
It depends what you call a detail. I would think it OK to name the diagnosis - it seems quite odd to unburden oneself talking about some nameless cancer. I might say she is having an operation. I probably wouldn't go into details about whether it is a partial or total hysterectomy. I might mention that she is having chemo. I probably wouldn't mention embarrassing side effects of the chemo.
That is where I would draw the boundaries. I don't sense whether you are arguing that there is no basis for drawing any sort of boundary and therefore we shouldn't say anything, or that my boundaries are too liberal or something else?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
mdijon
Well, ironically, we seem to be arguing for similar kinds of boundaries! It's people without them who disturb me.
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on
:
Curiosity, no one who hasn't lived through it really gets how awful it is, how complicated, how convoluted and tense and far reaching.
Those of you trying to compare mental illness to cancer don't seem to understand a fundamental difference between medical and mental health services and societies attitude to each.
I'm not going to try and talk about my experience here, but I will say how incredibly helpful my housegroup was, and what release I felt when an elderly man in our congregation, during a cafe style service, shared with me how his daughter was anorexic years ago. It was terrible, but now she is better, got married, had children and grandchildren.
If he, a living saint, had a child with a mental illness, specifically an eating disorder, then maybe it's not entirely my fault.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Provided you are talking with pastors, close friends and in sensible ways I don't see the need to be "very wary" - just sensible.
I agree - this goes for anything which that is troubling us we talk about (Which nine times out of ten will be concerning friends and family). We can't stay silent, that's not healthy or natural imo.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0