Episode Transcript
Mark Antczak: Hi. I'm your host, Mark Antczak, Registered Clinical Counselor and Clinical Educator, and you're listening to Anxiety Canada's, #OurAnxietyStories podcast, the OCD Series. Each week, we'll dive into personal stories, expert insights, and practical tips to help you understand and manage OCD. Whether you or someone you love is affected by OCD, this podcast aims to provide support, education, and a sense of community. Join us as we navigate this journey together, one podcast at a time.
With me, I have Justine De Jaegher joining us again, who is a 34-year-old living with OCD, who's involved with both the IOCDF, International OCD Foundation, and Anxiety Canada's Community Advisory Committee to help increase access and equality for OCD treatment. We talked a lot about the ways that your OCD showed up last time, Justine. I'm so happy to have you back. There was so much to talk about, we just needed to have a round two with you.
Justine De Jaegher: Absolutely. Yeah, good to see you again, Mark. And back by popular demand.
Mark Antczak: Back by popular demand.
Justine De Jaegher: Not really because these are recorded back to back, but maybe. Maybe it would've been by popular demand. Who knows?
Mark Antczak: I think it would've been popular demand, for sure.
Justine De Jaegher: Cool.
Mark Antczak: So last we talked, we covered a little bit about the different ways that your OCD manifested, and we talked about the ebb and flow nature of the OCD itself. So why don't you give us a quick little recap about the ways that OCD turned out, maybe with a bit more of an emphasis on some of the more taboo themes that we're going to be focusing on today?
Justine De Jaegher: Sure. Yep, so started experiencing these intrusive thoughts around harm coming to the people I loved, and it being my fault in my early. And compared to most people's journeys, actually, we know it takes people a long time to find appropriate treatment. I found treatment within a few months. So it was certainly difficult, but I was able to find a trained clinician in exposure and response prevention, and things did improve quite a lot. But as you said, with the ebb and flow, again, in my mid to late twenties, the OCD re-emerged with the religious scrupulosity subtype, which is perhaps not talked about as much as the checking compulsions that I was engaging in earlier in that decade. And so I re-engaged in treatment, and again, I could recognize it for what it was this time around, which was really helpful.
Then more recently, my wife... He's seven months now, so seven months ago, gave birth to our son, and OCD, of course, decided to latch onto that because I love him a lot. So experienced some of the perinatal subtype symptoms, but it was really interesting. I anticipated it this time around. I was like, "Okay, you have OCD, but you also have the skills to deal with it now that you didn't a decade ago." And so I was really quickly able to identify the issue, to engage in response prevention, to identify some exposures. And as much as it was difficult, it was also cool to realize that I have this resiliency now and this understanding of what this is and had some tools in my toolbox to address it. So that's my story at a glance, I suppose.
Mark Antczak: Gotcha. It's really, really highlighting the power of education, highlighting the power of having an understanding of what's really happening. And you mentioned the notion of some of the more taboo spectrum type of OCD obsessions, and this is in large part why you're back today. So why don't you share a little bit about, for our viewers that may not be familiar, what religious scrupulosity or gender sexuality obsessions mean? What does that look like, or how does that sound in our brains?
Justine De Jaegher: So I mean, I think for those who have even a small sense of what OCD is, I think the common image that conjured up is around more contamination themes, around more checking things, which I also experienced, and which are also to be clear, devastating to the sufferer. And so incredibly difficult to deal with, but there are subtypes that are very prevalent as well and just aren't talked about as much for whatever reason.
Either people feel more ashamed bringing those issues forward, or they deal with more, as you said, taboo subject matter. So yeah, so I can speak a bit to my own experience with religious scrupulosity. So as you might imagine, the thoughts, the obsessions often have to do with, am I blaspheming? Am I offending God? Will I be punished? Will my family members be punished? What if, what if, what if around God, the afterlife, all that kind of stuff. Compulsions, of course, can look like repetitive prayer, needing to say a prayer "perfectly." What else? Either attending religious services excessively or not, avoiding them, even though you see value in attending them, seeking reassurance from religious texts or religious leaders, all those kinds of things. And certainly, those manifested for me.
And one thing I always like to really emphasize when I talk about this subtype because we hear from folks with this subtype who are engaged in a faith community and have a strong basis of religious belief, which for the record, you don't need to have to experience this subtype. There are folks who identify as atheists and an experienced religious scrup because it's about uncertainty. But for those who are engaged in the faith community, oftentimes there's a fear that, well, if I engage in exposure and response prevention with a therapist, they're going to make me do stuff that contravenes my religious practice, my religious belief. And one thing I want to say is if you are working with a qualified clinician who knows about this, that should not happen. They can work within your religious practice to challenge the OCD while not contravening your beliefs or your practice. And some clinicians will even work with your faith leader, if that's something you're open to, to identify appropriate exposures as a bit of a team. So that's something I guess I wanted to highlight on that subtype for sure.
Mark Antczak: Such an important point. And I think religious scrupulosity in particular, any of those kind of blasphemous thoughts, as you've already mentioned it, it doesn’t, you don't need to come from a religious background essentially because so often, the idea of being blasphemous, the idea of offending, sometimes that can be linked to what you were taught or what you believe, but sometimes it could also be linked, as I'm sure you know, to morality. Okay, I don't believe in a subscribed God, but I'm worried that if I make this decision or I'm worried if I don't do this, I will end up in Hell and be tortured for life. Or if I don't do this, then my family will. And there's just so many different implications as to how it can show up. And, I imagine from an ERP perspective, there's a lot of fear for folks when they understand what involves exposure, that they're going to be asked to do something that contradicts their beliefs or values. And I guess it's finding that line, what is appropriate exposure and what is deemed not okay, or what is deemed non-respectful to the person's beliefs?
Justine De Jaegher: Exactly, exactly. And in fact, what I hear time and time again and was the case for me is when folks start engaging in ERP that's you know thoughtfully developed, again with a clinician, possibly with a faith leader, etc, they actually end up feeling closer to their faith and their religious tradition after the fact because it's interesting, with OCD, it's all about risk aversion and trying to find certainty where really none exists. And so you end up praying to a God that you don't even believe in, some different version of this incredibly vengeful God who is apparently fine with you having OCD and not getting treated for it, and just wants you to spend hours out of your day praying "just right", rather than engaging in family time or your community or whatever it is. And that certainly wasn't the God I believed in, but that was the God OCD was having me pray to. So it skews, I think, people's involvement in their faith. So a lot of people say it's actually strengthened after engaging in ERP, which is cool.
Mark Antczak: I remember one of the most impactful exposures I ever did with a client, I think in my career so far, we had someone that was of religious faith and there was a lot of fear that we're blasphemous in nature. If I do this, I'm going to end up committing this mortal sin, or if I'm thinking this, it must mean that I'm a really bad person. A lot of the time it involves morality. And as we know in exposure therapy or in OCD therapy, a big part of it is learning how to sit with uncertainty. It's learning how to build that muscle for tolerating uncertainty.
And one of the most remarkable reframes or exposures that I remember being introduced to through a priest that I was working alongside with, once I explained the mechanics of what we need to do in treatment, he had suggested I say, "Well, why don't they start responding with if that's meant to be, that was His plan?" So we're not invalidating, we're not acknowledging or we're not getting certainty in any stretch, but we're acknowledging that this individual believes in something and they believe in whatever direction that higher power wants to take.
Justine De Jaegher: Right. That's amazing. I think, again, the emphasis of working with faith leaders, I know there are clinicians who do some of the psycho-education work with them because they won't always recognize it as OCD, but they might be in the Catholic tradition, it might be the case where folks are coming to confessional compulsively, repeatedly and asking for essentially reassurance on the same issue time and time again. And oftentimes, faith leaders will recognize that something's up but not know exactly what it is, and so it's great to see that psychoeducation work happening.
Mark Antczak: Can I ask any really common examples that showed up for you and how that was navigated in session?
Justine De Jaegher: Yeah. I remember looking up bible passages compulsively to try... Okay, well, what do we think was meant by this? A compulsive Bible study almost. There's a healthy way to engage in Bible study and this was not it. It was just about trying to quell anxiety. So that was a compulsion for sure. Compulsive prayer, absolutely, and that kind of thing. Avoiding certain religious services and things like that because it would raise anxiety. So exposure would look like, okay, go to that religious service and sit with the anxiety. And the response prevention, obviously, around the prayer and the Bible checking, or Googling or that kind of thing is to essentially reduce and eventually stop compulsively doing those things, and that kind of thing.
Scripts were a big exposure piece. You'd write an imaginal script of, okay, yeah, God has judged you and these are the consequences, and you write it in detail and you're in Hell, your family's in Hell and it's your fault, that kind of thing. And you read that out. So that's the kind of stuff. And again, if for you, any of that stuff is contravening to any kind of belief or practice, that's not something you'd engage in, but if it doesn't contravene your religious practice and you're just uncomfortable doing it because it is challenging your OCD, then the clinician will probably push you to try to do it. So yeah, those are some examples.
Mark Antczak: You mentioned imaginal exposures, and I think this is a less common tool that a lot of folks are unfamiliar with. Can you describe to me a little bit the reaction you had to you writing your first script? Because I think a lot of folks, when they think about imaginal exposure, they sometimes get confused, but I'd love to hear what your experience was like with it.
Justine De Jaegher: I mean, first of all, it was huge initially in terms of the anxiety [inaudible 00:13:46]. Initially, it was just writing down a single word because there was this feeling, and of course it wasn't based on reality, but that if I put it down on paper, it made it more real or more likely or something. Whereas, if kept in my head it was slightly better. So just putting it to paper, it definitely looked at anxiety, but you do as with exposures, realize okay, you can do it. And so you start with a word, you move on to sentences, you move on to paragraphs. By the end, I wrote a novel. Not quite. And then you practice reading it out loud and that kind of thing, and you basically learn that you can cope with the anxiety that comes up and cope with the uncertainty around the issues raised.
Mark Antczak: For those that may be curious, Anxiety Canada actually has a PDF that gives some pretty specific instructions on how to create your own imaginal worry scripts. Literally just typing in Anxiety Canada worry script gives you some great examples on that. And I often give the disclaimer to folks that these are used for situations that we can't emulate ethically, or realistically or pragmatically in a session. So, clearly when it comes to religion or afterlife or what may happen after we die, there's no way to do exposure on that besides using our imagination, right?
Justine De Jaegher: That's right. Yeah, exactly.
Mark Antczak: Okay. So we're talking about this taboo trend. We're talking about the importance of making sure that when we're doing exposure, we're doing it in a way that is respectful towards that person's belief. And we often talk about the idea of using important pieces as props, or doing things disrespectfully in exposure. And we talk about this a lot within the obsession themes around gender and sexuality a lot. So I'm curious if you have any thoughts or experience in that realm of OCD?
Justine De Jaegher: Yes. So gender or sexual orientation OCD were never subtypes that emerged for me, but I mentioned my wife. I am a gay woman, and so it was of interest to me, I suppose, of okay, well, how is this subtype treated in session and through exposure and response prevention? And I read a bit about the history. I guess previously for a long time it was called homosexuality OCD or HOCD. The name was changed to sexual orientation OCD, I think for a few reasons, but one of them is that it can impact anyone because again, it's about uncertainty. I think traditionally it was viewed as like, oh, a straight person fearing that they're gay essentially, but it could be a gay person fearing what if I'm actually straight and have I been lying to my family and friends this whole time? It's about the what if, and so it was a bit more inclusive language there. And then of course, gender identity OCD to be inclusive of uncertainty and obsessions around one's gender identity.
Again, that can be someone who's cis who thinks, well, what if I'm actually trans? And someone who is maybe trans, non-binary who thinks, well, what if I'm cis? And again, it's often about authenticity is a big part of the fear for folks is around like, oh, have I been lying to my family and friends? What if? What if? And compulsions can range from if you are looking at a catalogue and you find someone of the same sex attractive. Like, oh, what does that mean? What does that mean me and my identity? And those kinds of things.
But to your point around I guess ethical exposures, there was some great work, and I'm sure others have done wonderful work as well, but I know by doctors Caitlin Pinciotti and Lauren Wadsworth in the United States that I know I've taken a bit of a look at. It emphasizes what they call justice-based exposures, so these are exposures that, again, address the OCD, but don't reinforce stereotypes about queer or trans folks, and that doesn't use those people as props. So, a traditional old-school ERP script, I guess, around these themes might've included things like shake a gay person's hand and tolerate the disgust you feel, right? Which is not the kind of thing we want to reinforce. It reinforces the idea that gay people are disgusting in some way. It also is non-consensually using people as props who are already facing marginalization. Might also see things like in session asking people to say, "Oh, I think I might be gay." And then the clinician responds with, "Oh my God, that's disgusting," or again, some negative response.
Whereas, a justice-based exposure might be a neutral response like, "Oh, maybe you are," because there you're still addressing the uncertainty, but you're not reinforcing the idea that that would be some terrible thing. And same with the shaking of the hand. Instead, what if you attended a pride parade? Great. And what might come up for you there? We don't know. It's uncertain, but again, you're not treating people as props or reinforcing the idea that there's something negative there.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. And this really reminds me of a scenario earlier in my career where within the realm of contamination, HIV phobias are rampant, and there's a lot of folks in particular that are, they get a lot of obsessions about different ways that they could get HIV. And I remember my first ever case of that, my hand being used as a contaminant because I am a queer clinician, and I made that very apparent from the get-go. I remember the feeling of what it was like to have someone see me as a potential contaminant.
I had a lot of compassion, not just for myself, but also for this other individual because when it comes to a lot of these taboo-themed obsessions, it often relates to something much deeper. Like in the scenario of HIV, it's the fear of the stigma that you're facing within the fear of being trans if you identify as a cis person. What if I end up hurting the person that I'm with because I make this spontaneous discovery? Or what if I end up losing out on a lot of my authentic life because I discovered this too late? So it's a really pertinent and important topic because I think a lot of people can get hurt in the crossfire if these are being done incorrectly.
Justine De Jaegher: Totally, totally. And for people dealing with this subtype, we'll often hear that, "Well, I didn't want to mention it because I don't want people to think I'm homophobic." And experiencing these intrusive thoughts doesn't make you homophobic. Uncertainty is lashing onto this theme for whatever reason, and it is complicated by the fact that there is homophobia and transphobia in this world. And so that also has to be, I guess, considered in treatment, right? There might be people for whom, for whatever reason, internalized shame and learnings, whatever, they might view the idea that they could be gay or trans as disgusting or wrong, and that you can still treat that OCD in a way that doesn't reinforce that notion.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely, and on the topic of internalized phobias, I think it's really important to talk about how oftentimes, individuals who are exploring their identity, who may have internalized transphobia or internalized homophobia will sometimes see a description of these forms of OCD and they'll say, "Oh, that's what I have." Where maybe you are a straight individual who is really fighting some of these attractions or some of these thoughts that you might be having, the idea of coming out feels so terrifying and it's almost something that we can't really accept, so we say, "You know what? This is actually sexual orientation of OCD. I'm not actually gay." And one thing that I often emphasize to folks whenever they come in with this challenge is, I’m very transparent in that the work involves exploring if some of that is present because otherwise, you're doing a backwards or loophole conversion camp adjacent situation, I would imagine, right?
Justine De Jaegher: Right. Yeah, absolutely. Again, you can tolerate the uncertainty one way or the other and so yeah, maybe we can't know for sure.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. And so were there any guidelines provided by these researchers or the folks that are doing some of these more justice-oriented exposures? How do folks differentiate between what is on more the OCD spectrum and what is more of the internalized phobia spectrum?
Justine De Jaegher: I actually know less about that distinction, how that's drawn, though I imagine they would have a better answer. You should have them on, but I would hypothesize it follows similar diagnostic criteria. There would be a degree of distress associated of compulsive behaviour of that kind of thing for it to reach OCD territory. But it's a good question. I wish I had a better answer.
Mark Antczak: And I mean, I speak from the experience of someone who had their own coming out experience, so I do have an inherent bias in this, but as someone who also works with a lot of those forms of OCD, the more taboo forms, I think very often it comes down to what is it that we fixate on? Is it the implications of what happens if we are, or is it specific to the way that this could be integrated into our life? Because I think for some folks, there's almost this internal knowing. Yeah, I think I know, but I'm just really scared of the consequences versus I'm pretty sure I know, but what if I'm not? What if I'm actually this instead? It's that kind of spontaneous fear I think that comes up for them.
Justine De Jaegher: Yeah, exactly. You're right. It is a thorny issue because for most people who have come out, there was a period of what ifs, right? It's not like a switch flips one day and it's like, okay, I think is the case, whatever. And hopefully there are less and less, but there are a lot of messages that, oh, this is something to be ashamed of, or you're outside of the norm and that's not a good thing. That kind of shame breeds some, okay, well, I have to be sure if I'm going to do this, if I'm going to come out. In fact, you don't have to be sure because you can't always be sure.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. And a good rule of thumb, I would say with any kind of identity-oriented obsessions, a lot of the compulsions prevent disconfirmation, where we're saying, what if I'm actually trans, or what if I discover that I'm actually gay? A lot of the times you're utilizing compulsions to try and reaffirm yourself that you're not, or that you are a certain way. And I would say a tried and true method, regardless of which end of the spectrum you're on, it's more OCD or if you are questioning, it's a matter of doing some of those exposures and saying, "Okay, so you're a cis male that worries you're actually trans. What would it be like for you to put on some lipstick and look at yourself in a mirror and see what happens? Oh, there's a lot of fear that you might discover something. Okay, well, it sounds like that's a worthwhile experiment to do regardless."
Justine De Jaegher: Right, right. Yeah, makes sense.
Mark Antczak: Well, let's talk a little bit about policy because I mean, you're quite involved in that world as well. Would you mind sharing with our listeners a little bit about what you do to combat how hard it is to get treatment in North America in general for OCD?
Justine De Jaegher: Yeah, so, this is an issue I'm really passionate about. I told my story on the last pod and an abbreviated version this time, but I often think about how much as my journey with OCD was very difficult, how privileged I was in many respects in terms of the care that I was able to access. And we know that in fact, more often than not, folks do not have that level of access. By access, I mean one, in terms of the availability of qualified clinicians who can treat OCD. Certainly, there's a shortage, but you think of the fact that early on in my journey, before I got a diagnosis, I was really struggling with negative coping skills, I guess, self-harm, alcohol, etc. I found myself in the hospital and emergency room, and I think about whether if we didn't have a universal healthcare system, would I have been able to receive that care? And then I found a clinician who was providing services to address my OCD.
At the time I was, I think, still on my dad's insurance plan, and what if I hadn't had access to private insurance to cover that treatment? I believe right now, the median insurance coverage in Canada, private insurance coverage is I think $750 for those who have coverage. Many people, of course, don't have any. But we know that a session, let's say, roughly 200 bucks with a clinical psychologist to treat OCD. When I started seeing a clinician, I was seeing them twice a week for a few months, and so that 750 would've run out real quick. And I think actually, the Canadian Psychological Association recommends something around, I think it's 3 to 4,000, I want to say, recommendation for employers in terms of coverage because that's roughly what folks who need in-depth psychological care would require in the course of a year, which drives with my experience.
So that's certainly something that employers can do, insurers can do, but we can also look to governments. I think it surprised a lot of people to learn that the Canada Health Act, it provides for a lot, but it only provides for mental health care and substance use care in the event that it's being done by a physician in a hospital setting. And so we know that of course, most people are accessing social workers, counsellors, clinicians in a outpatient setting. Some will, of course, receive hospital treatment and that might be covered, but generally it's a private fee-for-service model. And for those who don't have coverage, again, that might be fairly inaccessible.
This is something I care a lot about. There are moves in both Canada and the United States to introduce what's called parity acts, parity provisions, where essentially you treat mental healthcare like you would physical healthcare, that treatment ought to be proportionate for both. And there's, I think, a strong moral argument for that, but there's also a strong economic argument for that. We know that there is a return on investment in terms of people's productivity, in terms of people's further investment in the economy. The numbers range, but I think the most common number cited, at least in Ontario, is for every dollar you invest, you get $1.79 back, so that's a pretty good return. I think the moral argument's probably sufficient for a lot of folks, but it's a helpful one to have too.
Mark Antczak: There's-
Justine De Jaegher: Go ahead.
Mark Antczak: There's just so many folks that I know are constantly trying to access treatment that can make use of it and it can make such a tremendous impact. And you yourself are a testament to what happens when you get early support. Imagine because you were able to get it earlier and you got sufficient support, you needed a lot less of it as well as compared to trying to manoeuvre the system yourself, finding someone that may not be as qualified. You bouncing around using up a lot of that insurance for interventions that may not be as helpful, and then all of a sudden, you're just starting therapy with an OCD therapist after you've maybe avoided it for 5 or 10 years, or maybe after you've already seen 2 or 3 therapists that weren't trained in it.
Justine De Jaegher: That's right. Exactly. Yeah, ER room visits in crisis because you didn't receive appropriate outpatient care. If you want to view it from a resource perspective, it's both harmful to the person and inefficient.
Mark Antczak: Right. Are you familiar with what Canada is doing to increase accessibility to some of these resources or some of these services?
Justine De Jaegher: There's definitely been some talk of a mental health transfer from the federal government. There's some, I believe, agreements negotiated between the federal government and provinces around funding for mental health care, which is great. But again, there's this advocacy point of either amending the Canada Health Act to explicitly include mental healthcare, or separate legislation for mental healthcare that is adequately funded. And so multiple levels of government would have a role to play in that, but I know there's a strong advocacy push for that. I mentioned the parody pledge pitch, which I think is something being put forward by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health. So I think they've got a report on that. So there's been pilot projects here and there around free CBT, which is great at the provincial level, but as with most things, it's generally underfunded. It doesn't always get renewed beyond the pilot stage, so there's more work to be done there.
Mark Antczak: You're talking about degree of influence, right?
Justine De Jaegher: Yes.
Mark Antczak: Because I mean, it's one thing to be aware of these policy changes, and whenever we're working with any kind of systemic goals, it really can feel like an uphill battle sometimes because you're one person that's trying to make a lot of change. So on an individual level like yourself, it sounds like you are getting involved with some organizations, you're getting involved on some policy reform attempts. For the average viewer that wants to get more involved or that wants to try to get their feet wet in this world and to try and make that difference, what would some of those steps look like for them, or what could they do specifically?
Justine De Jaegher: I mean, organizational involvement is great because they'll have places to plug volunteers in for sure, but it doesn't have to be even that big. One thing I do encourage folks to do and again, it seems intimidating, but the more you do it, almost like exposures, the easier it gets. But you can reach out to your local representative and just let them know that this is an issue that matters to you. You're a voting constituent and you live with this mental illness, or perhaps you have a family member, a loved one, a friend, whatever, who lives with mental illness, and you've seen firsthand how inaccessible treatment is. And so a lot of constituent offices will pick up the phone and listen to that case, and they might be willing to support legislation that's moving forward on that or propose some themselves.
I actually, with the ICDF, I've provided some call-your-representative training because it's easier than you might think, and they're often very receptive to hearing from people in their constituency. And, to your point around people feeling discouraged and like their voice doesn't have an impact, these things don't happen overnight. Change does take time, particularly in the political arena and even in the employer benefits side of things, but we look at how OCD treatment has progressed in the last even 30 years. You do see that things can get better. It takes time for sure, but it takes a few dedicated individuals on the research and treatment side of things to advocate for resources for this kind of research, for this training for clinicians. And then of course, on the access side of things for saying that this is a serious mental illness that requires appropriate supports. And things tend to improve over time, even where there's setbacks or it feels very slow.
I guess I encourage folks where they feel comfortable to share their story, op-eds and media engagement's another great way to try to raise the profile of these issues. But you can start somewhere small and reach out to any number of organizations advocating around this, and they'll probably have a spot for you in terms of encouraging you to write to your representative or look at your own insurance coverage and where it might be improved. All kinds of options.
Mark Antczak: So on a more individual level, reaching out to your elected representatives, talking about the impact of this disease, talking about how challenging life is and how increased support could really be helpful for you. We have versions reaching out to established organizations, as you've mentioned. The International OCD Foundation I know primarily works within the American system, but I know that they have some Canadian adjacent programming that they can certainly direct you to. And it also just sounds like acknowledging that fundamental negativity bias that we're so prone to, remembering to see the bigger picture about how we are slowly moving towards that thing, and to not get too stuck on the fact that there is still so much work to do were all important pieces for you.
Justine De Jaegher: That's right. Absolutely. And sharing your story, let's say through an op-ed or through a podcast or whatever, you might not overnight influence legislation or how much coverage employers are providing for psychological care, but you might also reach someone who just needed to realize that this is what was going on for them as well. And then that's one more person who hopefully can access appropriate treatment and maybe share their story down the road. So it all has an impact, for sure.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. And in OCD therapy, as I'm sure you know, we often talk about value congruent action, where having gone through what you went through, I imagine there was so much empathy for those that are or did navigate the same situation that you did. And from that perspective, it sounds like you reaching out to these organizations, you committing some of your time, time that was sustainable and time that you were able to commit, that allowed you to feel like you were chipping away at something, even if it was really big. And that does seem to really provide you with some of that relief for some of that purpose or meaning behind that action.
Justine De Jaegher: Yeah, absolutely. This could be a good option for folks. Of course, anything can become compulsive, but if you're engaging in advocacy in a healthy values-based way, it can be a really great thing. There's nothing more powerful than sharing your personal narrative. I can talk about returns on investment till I'm blue in the face. That will not be as compelling as someone sharing their story with OCD. So, it's if you get to a place where you feel comfortable doing that, it can be a great thing to do.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. Justine, any final thoughts or musings for our listeners that may be struggling, navigating any of these taboo spectrum OCD themes, or for those that are wanting to get more involved? You shared so much valuable information, but any closing thoughts?
Justine De Jaegher: Sure, yes, regardless of whatever subtype you're dealing with, whatever manifestation of OCD, OCD is only limited by the human imagination, unfortunately. There's a ton of hope. Treatment does work. I talked about the inaccessibility of treatment, and of course that is a problem, but there are qualified clinicians out there who do want to see you and do want to help. And there might be a bit of a waiting list and you got to sort that out, but they are there. You can reach this. In the meantime, there are wonderful self-help resources. You can learn more about the disorder. Anxiety Canada has a whole resource page, of course. The International OCD Foundation has a wealth of resources, so you can check that out. There are a number of, I know oftentimes support groups locally or online ones that may be accessible.
Again, I recommend checking out Anxiety Canada and the ICDF for some of those. I know the ICDF has a resource directory that does include some Canadian clinicians and support groups. So I'd encourage folks to check that out. And on the policy front, I guess I'll always just say it's easy to get really down on the slow pace of change, but don't despair. I think most people do want this to improve and over time, it certainly can, and that political will can be built around this issue.
Mark Antczak: Absolutely. Such an important reminder. And we have a whole episode with Dr. Peggy Richter over in Ontario, who really goes into a bit of a deeper dive into the different levels of support and services that you can access at a medley of different financial means. So even if you don't have the same financial privilege that a lot of folks may have when it comes to OCD, that is not a barrier to be able to still get a lot of support and a lot of resources made to you. So definitely check out that episode if you want to revisit that, or if you're at that point where you want to check it out. Justine, thank you so, so much for joining us. This is such a rich podcast to be able to talk about subjects that are so niche and so underserved, so we really appreciate your expertise on this.
Justine De Jaegher: Thanks so much for having me again.
Mark Antczak: Well, thank you everyone for listening to #OurAnxietyStories, the OCD Series. If you'd like to support this podcast or Anxiety Canada, please go to anxietycanada.com. All right. Till next time.
