Observational analysis explores constraints and ethical questions in applying relational therapy to climate distress in families, indicating training is needed for mental health professionals.
Within this period of climate breakdown and collapse, mental health professionals have continuously called for specific training to address rising presentations of climate distress. Dominant mental health services influenced by biomedical paradigms put forth supportive non‐relational and linear responses to climate distress, solutions that are not epistemologically appropriate considering the breadth of recursive causes and effects of systemic climate injustice. Contemporary and integrative family therapy practices encompass a way of working with relational systems, rather than promoting strict prescriptive protocols for certain presentations. However, systemic thinking is not a panacea, and models of therapeutic care should be appropriately critiqued. A case study is utilised to explore Gehart's Therapy that Works approach of conceptualising and working with a family explicitly presenting with climate distress. Benefits and constraints of utilising systemic ideas with presentations of climate distress are explored, and outstanding ethical questions and concerns that warrant further exploration are raised.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rana Rose Kökçinar (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: