Highlight at least two facts addressed on each side of the critical issue
In the article Taking Sides, which is a response to Devilly’s and Cotton’s article titled Psychological Debriefing and the Work Place, the authors express their opinion regarding the consequences of psychological debriefing. The authors discuss the effects of psychological debriefing on post traumatic victims. Opposing views regarding the effectiveness of psychological debriefing as far as dealing with trauma victims are highlighted in the article.
Devilly and Cotton are of the opinion that psychological debriefing is a harmful practice when administered to trauma victims. On her part, Mitchell is of the opinion that psychological debriefing is an important practice in dealing with trauma victims. According to her, psychological debriefing helps the victims deal with their past experiences.
According to Devilly and Cotton, psychological debriefing has ‘paradoxical effects’ on the victims (Devilly, 2002). They argue that critical incident stress debriefing, which is one of the most common forms of psychological debriefing, may increase levels of depression among the patients. The strategy may fail to attain the intended purpose, which is reducing the negative effects that a traumatic experience has on a victim. During the debriefing session, the professional may pose questions that may trigger negative emotions in a victim. The resulting negative emotions indicate the various unintended consequences of this technique.
In addition, Devilly and Cotton address the effects of critical incident stress debriefing (herein referred to as CISD) and critical incident stress management (herein referred to as CISM). According to these scholars, the two techniques are commonly used in psychological debriefing. However, it is hard to distinguish between the two techniques (Precin, 2004). The two scholars are of the view that CISM is more intense compared to CISD. In spite of this, there is lack of enough evidence to support any relationship or difference between the two processes. As a result of this, the professional cannot tell for sure which among the two techniques is more intense than the other.
On the other hand, Mitchell regards the technique differently. According to this scholar, psychological debriefing is not the first option when dealing with an individual faced with a traumatic experience. It is fallacious to regard psychological debriefing as the default technique used by professionals to help individuals who have experienced a traumatic event. Mitchell is of the view that psychological debriefing is administered several weeks after the traumatic encounter.
The duration of the period varies depending on the severity of the trauma experienced by the individual (Bledsoe, 2002). To this end, individuals exhibiting mild symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder are handled differently from individuals exhibiting severe symptoms of the condition. Mitchell states that only highly trained medical personnel can appreciate the fact that psychological debriefing should not be administered immediately after the posttraumatic event. According to the scholar, psychological debriefing should only come after psychotherapy is administered to the victim. The technique has to build on the benefits or effects of psychotherapy.
In addition, Mitchell states that psychological debriefing can only be administered by a qualified medical practitioner. According to the scholar, the skills and qualifications of the medical practitioner significantly determine the effectiveness of the technique. It is a fact that psychological debriefing is a medical intervention for trauma victims. In light of this, the technique should only be administered by persons with adequate knowledge in the field of psychology. The knowledge will help the medical practitioner diagnose victims correctly before therapy is administered (Litz, 2003).
Highlight at least two opinions presented on each side of the critical issue
Devilly and Cotton, who are professional psychologists, are of the opinion that psychological debriefing should be the first option in helping victims after a traumatic experience (Devilly, 2002). The two are of the view that psychological debriefing should be used as a form of emotional first aid. As a result of this, it should be the first intervention carried out in an attempt to emotionally stabilize the victim.
In addition, Devilly and Cotton are of the opinion that psychological debriefing may be noxious. As a result, it may do more harm than good to the victim (Devilly, 2002). The two psychologists feel that debriefing may trigger strong negative emotions in the victim. To this end, the intervention may aggravate the emotional condition of the victim. In some cases, the victims may be unwilling or not ready to share their traumatic events with the therapist.
However, Mitchell is of the opinion that psychological debriefing should be carried out after other forms of psychotherapy are administered to the victim. The opinion held by this scholar contradicts that expressed by Devilly and Cotton. As already indicated in this paper, the two scholars regard debriefing as a form of emotional first aid, which should be administered to the victim immediately (Neivid, Butcher, Mineka & Hooley, 2010). Mitchell feels that at such an early stage, the victims have not fully come to terms with their experiences. As a result of this, debriefing will be an unhealthy practice.
Furthermore, Mitchell is of the opinion that psychological debriefing is not noxious as Devilly and Cotton put it. The scholar feels that the outcomes of the practice, just like those of any other form of treatment, are dependent on the skills of the medical practitioner. As a result, only qualified medical officers should provide debriefing services to the victims (Doka, 2003).
What are the strengths and weaknesses associated with the arguments in favor of the issue?
The major strength of Devilly and Cotton’s arguments is the overwhelming research evidence revealing that psychological debriefing does not in any way benefit trauma victims (Devilly, 2002). The findings of eight research papers were used to highlight the inefficiency of psychological debriefing. Six of these studies were conducted by directors of the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation (herein referred to as ICISF). ICISF is an organization created to assist trauma victims. Given the credibility of the articles used to support their arguments, the opinion of the two scholars cannot be ignored.
However, the arguments made by Devilly and Cotton have various shortcomings. For example, it is difficult to determine the efficiency of treatment. The difficulty is associated with the fact that it is not easy to judge the individual’s psychological state. Mental fitness is not quantifiable, which means that it is difficult to establish the efficiency of psychological debriefing.
What are the strengths and weaknesses associated with the arguments opposing the issue?
The major strength of Mitchell’s arguments is the use of systematic facts to support the views and opinions expressed by the scholar. Mitchell uses the experience gained in the field of psychology and medicine to prove the credibility of the arguments and opinions expressed.
In addition, Mitchell uses reasoning to support the arguments and opinions expressed. For instance, the scholar states that it is not appropriate to administer debriefing immediately after the occurrence of the traumatic experience, since it may elicit strong emotions from the trauma victim. The strong emotions will have paradoxical. In addition, Mitchell feels that debriefing, just like any other medical procedure, should be carried out by a qualified medical practitioner (Doka, 2003).
However, the arguments made by Mitchell have various weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses is the fact that there is no evidence supporting the success of psychological debriefing among trauma victims. Mitchell’s work is based on mere reasoning and not scientific facts.
How credible are the authors of each argument?
The arguments presented by either side are full of inconsistencies. Devilly and Cotton, for instance, state that CISD and CISM are similar to each other. On the other hand, Mitchell states that the two processes are two different procedures. Another inconsistency is evident in the arguments made by the scholars with regard to the right time to administer psychological debriefing (Prience, 2004).
On the one hand, Devilly and Cotton are of the view that debriefing should be administered immediately after the traumatic experience. On the other hand, Mitchell feels that debriefing should be carried out several weeks after the event has taken place. According to Mitchell, this is the only way through which the medical practitioner can ensure the effectiveness of the technique (Precin, 2004). However, it is a fact beyond doubt that each of the three authors has a wide experience in the field of psychology. For example, Devilly and Cotton are psychologists by profession, while Mitchell works for the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation (ICISF).
Based on the statements presented in the critical issue, which author do you agree with? Why?
Based on the arguments presented by both sides, I tend to agree more with Mitchell than with the other scholars. I feel that psychological debriefing is effective if it is administered properly and by the right person. The effectiveness of any medical procedure is dependent on the skills and competencies of the medical practitioner in charge (Thomso, 2004). Likewise, the effectiveness of psychological debriefing depends on the skills of the individual carrying out the procedure (Prience, 2004).
In addition, I support Mitchell’s argument that it is difficult to quantify the progress made in treating emotional conditions. As a result, it is difficult to determine the efficiency of a medical procedure used in this field. Moreover, debriefing should not be carried out immediately after the traumatic experience since it may cause serious emotional problems on the victim. The victims should be given time to come to terms with their experiences. I feel that Devilly and Cotton have based their arguments on findings of research made by other psychologists as opposed to critically analyzing the issue.
Which side of this critical issue does contemporary research support? Please provide specific examples in your response
Most contemporary research supports the pro side of the critical issue. Research conducted by scholars in this field reveals that there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychological debriefing. Research by six directors of the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation (ICISF), a body charged with the responsibility of monitoring the progress made by trauma victims, failed to show any evidence of success in the application of psychological debriefing (Thomso, 2004). In his article, Leeman-Conley, an Australian psychologist, highlights the various means of managing stress effectively. However, the scholar fails to mention psychological debriefing.
References
Bledsoe, B. (2002). CISM: Possible liabilities for EMS services. Journal of Best Practice in Emergency Services, 5(1), 66-67.
Devilly, J. (2002). Clinical interventions, supportive counseling, and therapeutic methods: A clarification of direction for restorative treatment. International Review of Victimology, 9(1), 1-14.
Doka, K. (2003). Living with grief: Coping with public tragedy. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Litz, B. (2003). Early interventions for trauma and traumatic loss. New York: The Guilford Press.
Neivid, J., Butcher, S., Mineka, J., & Hooley, M. (2010). Abnormal psychology. Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education.
Precin, J. (2004). Trauma: Treatment and transformation. New York: Universe.
Prience, P. (2004). Surviving 9/11: Impact and experience of occupational therapy practitioners. Binghamton: Haworth Press.
Thomso, R. (2004). Crisis intervention and crisis management: Strategies that work in Schools and communities. New York: Brunner-Routledge.