Motivational Interviewing And Gestalt Theory
Identify one of the family members from the Campbell Family Case Study that you will be engaging in mandated therapy and use Gestalt techniques and Motivational Interviewing techniques to describe how you would work with this client. Because this is a mandated therapy session, you can assume this will be a hostile client who is not interested in being in therapy; additionally, the client has a lot of anger, frustration, and irritability that accompanies him or her to therapy. Please use evidence-based interventions from the Gestalt therapy and motivational interviewing skills to effectively work with this client.
Sample Solution
If I were to engage in mandated therapy with a member of the Campbell family, I would likely choose to work with the mother, Mrs. Campbell. To begin, I would use Gestalt techniques such as role-play and dream analysis to explore her subjective experience. This would allow her to become more aware of how she interacts with other family members and how these interactions may be contributing to the problems at home (Corey et al., 2019). Additionally, I could also utilize art therapy or music therapy as creative outlets for her feelings (Corey et al., 2019).
In addition, I would also use Motivational Interviewing techniques such as open-ended questions and reflective listening in order to help Mrs. Campbell identify her goals and values related to improving family dynamics. This type of approach puts emphasis on helping clients develop insight into their own motivations which can lead them towards making positive change on their own without feeling pressured by an outside source (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). Overall then it can be seen that through a combination of both Gestalt and Motivational Interviewing techniques one can create an effective environment for helping Mrs. Campbell address the issues within her family dynamic in a respectful manner that honors autonomy above all else.
bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers wan