Skip to main content

5 Reasons We Struggle to be “Trauma Responsive” – And Why the Struggle Should Continue

I listened to her. She was young, an overnight worker in a congregate care facility.  She was in anguish, her voice tight with pain, as she described seeing another worker taser a youth who was upset, and then high-five a co-worker and say “Got another one!”  How could her organization claim to be trauma informed, she asked?  She said she knew better than to file a complaint, because the youth who was tasered had been labeled a problem, and wouldn’t be believed.

How indeed?  Trauma-informed is a buzzword right now.  Everyone wants on the bandwagon.  Some states even mandate trauma-informed care.  But it’s clear—trauma-informed isn’t trauma-responsive.

Even the United Nations Human Rights Council understands that we need to “walk the talk” and “practice what we preach.”  In 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur, Juan Mendez, delivered a stunning report that called for eliminating practices in mental health care that are tantamount to torture (including coercion and restraint).  Ask the kid that got tasered if you don’t understand the connection.

So why don’t we “walk the talk” and put what we know into practice to move from being trauma-informed to trauma-responsive?:

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/organizations/2014/04/5-reasons-we-struggle-to-be-trauma-responsive-and-why-the-struggle-should-continue/

Add Comment

Comments (1)

Newest · Oldest · Popular

Elizabeth--great distinctions and the need to truly claim the "responsive" element of trauma is huge.  Finding that often Trauma Informed is a cover for "diagnosis" and pathology--"Let me tell you what happened to you."  Such a distancing move.  Reminds me of this video about difference between Sympathy and Empathy--Empathy vs. Sympathy

Post
Copyright © 2023, PACEsConnection. All rights reserved.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×