[esnr] Re: Get up, stand up

  • From: ex_ip276239@xxxxxxx
  • To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 18:50:17 +0100

Hi all,

Further to what Berrie has pointed out in the e-mail I would like to
take one part of it :

On Saturday 10 Jul 2004 16:19, you wrote:
> position within SAN and how to make it stronger. Maybe we could have a
> seperate list to discuss these ideas and in this way feed the Educational
> Committee (or other committees). In my peronal opinion there should be room
> for clinicians to exchange protocols, do's and don'ts, building a SAN
> database (just like Marco proposed). I would welcome an European e-mail
> Intervisiongroup (clinicians who consult clinicians by e-mail, 

This is an excellent idea. The reason for it is that cases which are been
discussed in other e-mail discussion groups (biofeedback) should, or not to
happen, or be reduced to a minimum. For instances this client has pointed out
this case :

>Some of the professionals who screwed aroound with my own case came 
>very highly credentialed and highly labeled!  One had his medical 
>degree from Johns Hopkins, his residency from Gerogetown and a post 
>doc from Texas Medical Center and is a revered expert in epilepsy.  
>It just took him a while to get the gist of things with me, because 
>he was too busy working excessive hours to sit down and give my case 
>enough thought to figure it out.  He set my recovery back 5 months 
>at least.
>I had to work on him for a long time before he came around to giving 
>me the time of day.  At one point he was shoving above maximum dose 
>AED's down my throat a day.  When he finally got around to listening 
>and studying my case and some of the literature I slung his way, he 
>acted on it and we started to make progress.  And I mean "we" here.  
>he did some target testing that allowed him to target the treatment 
>more specifically which resulted it greater stabilization.  But, I 
>had to force that issue.

This is something which cannot happen. The client should not be the one
who gives information to the therapist. For that there is a need for a
continuous actualization of knowledge and exchange of cases is just one way.
The other is to give points to something like on-line exams/readings of
literature in the area where the therapist is working on.

As far as I know, the EFPA is, at this moment, working on this issue, but
there are quite a few clinicians who do not want it, like the Portuguese
representative (this is my own 'fight' now). I, sincerely, hope that this goes
forward so that professional organizations, like what we are trying to do with 
psiconeurotherapy/psicophysiotherapy, and clinicians, organize their working
timetable to publish case reports and research articles. 

It is quite obvious that some research methodology, like control groups,
is much more difficult to implement in clinical than in experimental work.
But there is NO reason for not publishing/discussing cases as well as keeping
up to date. I spend about 1 to 2 hours a day reading new articles/research.
Why not making something similar to what the 'Centre for Neuro Skills' does
which is to publish a monthly 'TBI Resource Guide' but in our case something
related to NF? This could be included in the subscription to ESNR which may
cover the cost for setting up such resource list.

I do understand clinicians who are working in this area and do not want to
'loose' the nice economic gain one can get from NF. I, at this moment, have
enough cases to keep another colleague working with me, and new cases
are coming in every week (in particular if one does assessment and NF
interventions). But it is better to keep a steady pace and high level of
results than to try to attend to everybody and mess things up.

Jorge Alvoeiro
Prof. Dr. Jorge Alvoeiro, Ph.D.(Hull,UK), C.Psych.(BPS,UK)
2000-119 Santarem
URL: http://www1.terravista.pt/Enseada/8146/
E-Mail: ex_ip276239@xxxxxxx

Other related posts: