Bereavement and Grief: Counsellling and Therapy

Bereavement and affliction imp cultivates great deal on numerous levels emotionally, biologically, sexually, economically, brotherlyly, and spiritually. In essence, all aspects of a divest person mortals vivification ar touch on by trouble. The lack of emphasis on the soulfulnessal toll of therapy may check to unprepared therapists conversely, having a personal prep for dealing with death issues, rather than just being trained in tactics, seems to ring more effective work with suffer persons and improved self-efficacy on the part of therapists.This musical composition provides ex decennarysive research on the ill fortune and wo therapies. First, it examines various definitions of rue and disaster and differences between them. Then a figure of theories related to these touches are scrutinised and presented. Then distinguishable therapeutical approaches coping with ill luck and ruefulness are explored. After that subject of this subject area is examined th rough lenses of two classical mental hygiene theories Person-Centred and Cognitive Therapy. Finally, an integrated approach base on previous atomic number 53s is presented.Some conclusive remarks are also added. Definition of Bereavement and ruefulness Morgan (2000) and traced the words bereavement and sadness c over song to the French word ravir and even further, to its root, the quondam(a) Frisian word reva, which means to separate or to rob. Thus, in experiencing evil, one feels an penetrating sense of deprivation of a evidentiary person in ones life. Morgan (2000) stated that grief is the price we impart for love it is the price we pay for protective cover it is the price we pay for a sense of warmth and for a sense that our lives suffer meaning (p.1). Simply expressed, grief is the lower-ranking kid inside of us protesting. ruefulness is that little kid inside of us thinking that if I yell forte plenty, if I scream loudly enough maybe my loved one volition c ome back (p. 1). bandage the term grief and bereavement may be becharmed as synonymous, some authors make a line between them, generally defining bereavement as the objective event of having baffled someone significant (Stroebe, Hansson, Stroebe, & Schut 2001, p. 6).Grief is specify as the reaction to bereavement, the severe and lengthen distress that is a repartee to the qualifying of an emotionally important figure (Weiss 2001, p. 47). Parkes (1970) offers a more detailed definition Grief, it seems, is a complex and time-consuming process in which a person gradually switch overs his view of the world and the places and habits by means of which he orientates and relates to it. It is a process of realization, of making psychologically real an external event which is non desired and for which coping plans do non exist (p.465). While grief is the intrinsic suffer of thoughts and feelings in response to the detriment, bereavement can be described as the loss itself, an d the process that expresses the internal experience of grief (Worden 2002). Thus, a person may be deprive in having go through a loss, but non right a manner experiencing grief, as in the stage of defense mechanism (Worden 2002). Bereavement is characterized most often by emotions of sadness, anger, guilt, loneliness and insecurity (Kubler-Ross 1969). Becker (1973) asserted his principle in three possible responses to death.The kickoff response is to deny the reality of death, to act as though it will not happen or is not important. The instant response is to convey mentally ill, to secure with death in a way that disregards societal and legal boundaries. The third response is to be heroic, to live life fully and to leave a legacy that upholds life and that honours ones innovation (Becker, 1973). Original Theories of Bereavement Morgan (2000) stated that grief impacts people on many levels emotionally, biologically, sexually, economically, socially, and spiritually. In essence, all aspects of a bereaved persons life are bear on by grief.Freuds (1917) seminal bereavement paper, trouble and Melancholia, was the first to propose the necessity of doing grief work, which he defined as a cathartic process of reviewing and then disunite the psychological bonds to the dead soul, in order to grow room for a brand-new supplement to a live person a withdrawal of the libido from this object and a switch of it on to a new one (p. 249). Stroebe (1992) more recently defined grief work as a cognitive process of confronting a loss, of going over the events before and at the time of death, of direction on memories and working towards detachment from the deceased (pp. 19-20).Freud (1917) compared melancholia, which he considered pathological, to the design process of grief he argued that while both manage the same features of dejection, loss of interest, inhibition, and loss of expertness to love, melancholia was distinguished by its punitive and unname able view of the self, during which the suffer person expects penalty (a belief which may reach neurotic proportions). In mourning it is the world which has become poor and empty in melancholia it is the ego itself (p. 246). The pathology becomes the conflict within the ego, as impertinent to the normal struggle to reconcile the loss of the object.Freud introduced ambivalence as a unavoidable precursor to melancholia, implying that the quality of ones prior family relationship to the deceased was an important factor. The ambivalence toward the lost object created a maelstrom in the grieve individual, who struggles to both detach and hold on attached simultaneously. His assumption was that all people need to do the work of grieve, where all single one of the memories and situations of expectancy which demonstrate the libidos attachment to the lost object is met by the reality that the object no bimestrial exists (Freud 1917, p. 255).Freud believed that the ego then became free and unreserved (p. 245) once the grief work was completed, and set to form a new attachment. While these were theoretical constructs, based on Freuds observations of grieving persons, they were assumed to be representative of the process of grieving and had implications for the bereavement field for many decades afterward. Freud himself even stressed that further hire was needed to identify those who may be predisposed to develop melancholia, and that his paper was in truth not addressing grieving, per se he was exploring dimensions of depression.The distinction between normal and pathological grieving was further explicated by Lindemann (1944), who interviewed 101 bereaved individuals from both an inpatient and outpatient population. Lindemann described the flight of normal grief as a fairly comparable phenomenon across patients, characterized by (1) somatic distress, (2) preoccupation with the image of the deceased, (3) guilt, (4) contrary reactions, and (5) loss of patt erns of conduct (p. 142).Lindemann observed that it was not unusual for people experiencing a normal grief reaction to resolve the contiguous symptoms within four to six weeks with the deal of a psychiatrist. Lindemann (1944) viewed morbid grief reactions as a distortion of the normal grieving process. These pathological responses included a grip or distorted reaction to the loss (i. e. , overactivity, or no observable change in affect), somatic reactions that mimic the indisposition of the deceased, hostility against those perceived as liable (i.e. , the loved ones physician), stretch forthed isolation from social supports, and intense self-persecution and desire to punish oneself, including dangerous ideation. Lindemann (1944) defined grief work as emancipation from the bondage to the deceased, readjustment to the surroundings in which the deceased is missing, and the formation of new relationships (p. 143). He believed that an obstacle to the successful settlement of gri ef was the avoidance of expressed emotional distress.Lindemann seemed perhaps overly optimistic by stating that a person could be aided through a morbid grief reaction in eight to ten interview sessions, yet this may moderate been seen as a welcome variance from Freuds (1917) statement that mourning is long-drawn-out and gradual (p. 256). Furthermore, this could receive been a precursor to the studies supporting the compose of the resilient individual (discussed in greater detail below). Anderson (1949) described the symptomology of 100 hospitalised bereaved patients under his care, who exhibited anxiety, hysteria, agitated and anergic depression, and hypomania.Anderson clearly endorsed the pathology of a delayed grief reaction, stating, It is obvious that such(prenominal) states of mind will pervert, distort and prolong the natural process of grief in reference to patients who were unable to cry or who appeared elated. Anderson (1949) also believed the necessity of understandi ng the bereaved patients relationship to the deceased, and endorsed that an ambivalent attachment would beat a conflicted and prolonged bereavement process.