EMDR

I really wrested with these readings this week. A lot of questions came up about myself as a therapist and what I value. I will go into more details, but I think I can understand and agree with some of the theoretical components of EMDR, but I don't imagine that I will use it in my clinical work. 

I think I made the mistake of reading the Herbert article first. Maybe it helped me read the other articles more critically or maybe it biased my opinion before reading the other articles. While reading Shapiro's articles, I found myself agreeing with her theoretical underpinnings for EMDR. I like the idea of restoring a memory to a "healthy, nondistressing form" in an integrative fashion. She didn't propose that EMDR was a new, profound idea that was formed on its own. She acknowledged that EMDR is informed by other theories and be integrated within them. My pet peeve is always theories (or people) who claim to know it all and be the "right way" of doing something. That raises a lot of red flags for me because I think there is a little bit of truth in everything. Going back to the path analogy, I think we are all working toward the same goal but we take different paths to getting there. However, because I had red Herbert's article, I was more aware of her claims. Her discussion felt very confident and reminded me of my history and systems class in undergraduate. The first psychological researchers were often informed by observations from their daily life and performed experiments like she did. Science was a bit more philosophical than it was evidence based during the early days. I wrested with the fact that we applaud our founders for observing and testing their observations the best way they could then but invalidate someone for doing it today. Science should advance with time, but does that mean experiences are not valid anymore? 

Because there is such a focus on EBP, I feel like EMDR has been discredited because we don't know how it works exactly. Is it okay to use something even if we don't know how it works? There is obviously some evidence that some people have great experiences with it. Do experiences matter as much as evidence? I wrestle with this question because in my profession life I would argue that evidence matters but in my personal life I would say experiences matter. Because I am religion, I hear all the time about how God doesn't exist and there is no evidence to prove what I believe in, and that is okay for me. I know my experiences and that confirms my belief. But, in therapy, I want to use something that I know works based on previous research, and treatments that do not have evidence to support it are irrelevant. How can I believe both? Maybe I need to change my "but" to an "and" and I will feel better. 

One article pointed out that the connection between scientist and practitioner is weakening. This made me question how integrated I am. I feel like they are connected in my correctional work because my research involves evidence based treatments. I don't feel as connected in my clinical work with the general population. I think it is just a learning curve- figuring out what theoretical framework I mix with, learning the tools to use, getting used to therapy in general- but I don't want to become so focused on EBP that I neglect personal experiences. Who am I to say a specific treatment is good if it worked for someone? I don't think anything and everything should be okay to implement, but there should be a balance between evidence based and experiences.