- Darian Leader calls for a waaaahmbulance
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – why it matters
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Who’s Against it
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – More from its opponents
- Psychotherapy self regulation – a licence to carry on abusing?
- Psychologists join the HPC register
- The sham of self-regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (1)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (2)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Response to Zarathustra
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Another Arts Therapist struck off
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: The Maresfield Report (1)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Maresfield Report (2)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something rotten in the state of Denmark?
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something Rotten in the State of Denmark (2)
- Professor Andrew Samuels caught lying about his role in abuse case
- An Open letter to the UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: UKCP document leaked to Mental Nurse
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: More on the leaked UKCP document
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: More leaks from the UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Samuels’ Damascene Conversion
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Therapist struck off by BACP, remains registered with UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: HPC calls UKCP critique “gobbledegook”
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: 85% of service users want statutory regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Acclaimed Journalist Calls for Psychotherapy Regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Charity Commission urges UKCP to seek legal advice
As I’ve previously stated, I’m strongly in favour of the government proposal for psychotherapists to be regulated by the Health Professions Council. The Derek Gale case (struck off by the HPC as an arts therapist for abuse and misconduct, but able to continue working by simply changing his job title to psychotherapist) shows that this is deeply necessary in order to protect vulnerable people.
Still, I think we need to hear more from those psychotherapists who are campaigning against regulation of their profession. One such opponent is the elpnosis website, which declares the proposed regulation to be a “notably unintelligent and values incongruent move”. Christ, and people say NHS managers need to learn to speak plain English.
The website is…well, it’s pure comedy gold, quite frankly. Not least with its blow-by-blow account of the HPC hearings against Derek Gale.
Scene: the Health Professions Council chamber. A large completely white room. A rectangle of white tables fills most of the space. On them are half a dozen microphones plugged into a court-room style voice recorder. Nearby is a court stenographer’s keyboard. Along one wall are the dozen or so chairs of the public gallery. Narrow white venetian blinds over huge windows hide the backstreet outside. Half of the wall opposite them has a floor to ceiling window onto the corridor. High up in one corner in a tiny brown dome, is a cctv camera. Modern. Featureless. Anonymous. The sun begins to illuminate the back wall but it’s a false promise, a reflection from windows of nearby office block.
Erm quite…
The author seems rather confused by the purpose of a fitness to practice hearing.
Is it a trial? Is this a court? As the days unfold, it certainly becomes a psychodrama. I served as a juror for many days in a Crown Court trying allegations of rape, and this Health Professions Council fitness to practise ‘hearing’ mirrors that Crown Court’s adversarial style. There is counsel for the HPC, Mr Caplan QC of Kingsely Napley, who brings a practised grey expertise to the proceedings. Next to him is the youthfully elegant Hearing Officer, Salam Begum. Adjacent to her sits Mr Simon Russen the Legal Assessor, a euphemistic title ill-matched to his role which seemed comprehensively to be that of ‘Judge’. When there were points of ‘law’ or incorrect procedure, he interrupts the process and makes authoritative rulings, as judges do.
Well, yes. Fitness to Practice hearings (whether they’re by the HPC, the NMC or the GMC) are quasi-legal hearings, with lawyers involved to present arguments and assess the facts. It’s not an imaginal construction or something.
Of course this is an imaginal construction. These are my projections onto what little I know of the people in front of me. And onto their unseen background—their full or part-time jobs, their holiday entitlements, pensions or in the case of the experts, their £300 a day fee—or the knowledge that the HPC spends £300,000 a year on transcribing, printing and storing these hearings.
But enough of these imaginal constructions. Surely the bottom line is that Derek Gale has been found to have systematically, over a long period of time, committed a whole slew of abusive acts – groping patients’ breasts, discussing his sexual fantasies in front of them, taking illegal drugs in front of them. That’s what’s real, right?
As practitioners we know that grasping the ‘real’ is matter of navigating multiple transferences and embodied foregone conclusions, this article included. The HPC as it seems to me stands in defiance, studied intentional defiance of this. The HPC has spectacles through which it sees only categories. Health. Standards. Competence. Treatment. Note-keeping. Effectiveness. This is a ‘hearing’ and in this room, as we were repeatedly reminded, what matters are ‘particularized facts’
Yes, and the ‘particularized facts’ including calling patients a ‘cunt’, failing to keep proper records, failing to call for medical attention when a patient was injured during a therapy session, breaching client-professional boundaries repeatedly…
Also in defiance but of another order, from another paradigm, is Mr Gale, who for almost thirty years has had a private practice of individual psychotherapy and groupwork.
His defiance, as was apparent from the first three days proceedings, has its roots in Humanistic Psychology and the Human Potential movement, personal development traditions that stand outside the HPC’s medicalised models of healthcare.
And what roots did his defiance come from when he breached a client’s confidentiality by telling a group about the client’s self-harm?
Surely it’s the substance of what did that’s important? The conduct that goes well outside of any acceptable behaviour of a professional towards a client? Conduct that nobody, least of all a vulnerable person with mental health problems, should be subjected to?
At this point I feel that a detailed catalogue of the cross-questioning would be in danger of over-legitimating the ‘fitness to practice’ hearing process the HPC have adopted. An adversarial approach in which, as I have said earlier, the business of the hearing is ascertaining the ‘particularity of the facts’ involved and testing them against the fixity of the HPC’s standards.
Enough! Enough! There’s only so much post-modern gibberish and theorising I can take. This is not a merely a psychodrama or an imaginal construct. It’s an investigation into real events that harmed real people. In amongst the author’s psychoanalytic musings, there doesn’t appear to be the slightest concern or regard for Derek Gale’s victims. I’m not saying that the author needs to be flagellating himself and weeping for them, but at least some acknowledgement that people got hurt would be nice.
The author, incidentally, appears to be a psychotherapist called Denis Postle. In this article, he takes issue with an Observer journalist who criticises him for comparing clinicians who work with the HPC to members of the Vichy Regime. His defence appears to be that he wasn’t accusing people of behaving like Nazis because nobody could possibly link the word “Vichy” with the word “Nazi”.
In the same article, he also comments:
I do not ‘represent’ a ‘caring profession’
Denis, you just said about the only thing I can agree with you on.
Jesus that Gale bloke is just a complete cunt.
Having gotten away with it for 30 years is not the point. That just makes it a million times worse.
According to Gale c*** is just a term of endearment in Essex. Blokes use the word to each other in general conversation.
Obviously he moves in different circles to me.
i’ve been a bit busy of late, and interested to now see another topic of great importance. this Gale chap sounds like a bad person, sure, but i’m not so clear how it shows that we should dispense with the principle of caveat emptor. and of course, one can accept that regulation be legitimate without it being imposed by the Health Professions Council, since it is not clear how psychotherapy is a health profession. for me, anything which restricts the choice of individuals to contract freely with another person (someone who calls themselves a psychotherapist, for example) is wrong – whether or not the asserted benefits (direct or indirect) are true. as it happens, i think that the removal of responsibility from the individual (buyer) and subsequent placement on to the state is enough to make any regulation quite difficult to justify. but for the sake of consistency, if every profession is managed by the government, then why not…
I thought the principle of caveat emptor had already been dispensed with? If not, what are product warranties and British Standards for?
Of course there are state-enacted regulations for all sorts of things, but we must be clear about what any regulation or legislation actually does. I am in favour of laws which punish fraud and abuse. I am not in favour of laws which restrict voluntary contractual relations between persons.
It seems to me bizarre that anyone would pay a lot of money to a another person without making at least some attempt to find out if they are who they say they are. The point about protecting vulnerable people is a valid concern, but there are two questions which need answering: first, whether the regulation will actually help vulnerable people; second, what harm the regulations will do to the vulnerable and those offering services. Are there even approximate answers to these concerns, or is simply assumed to be the best course of action “to protect the vulnerable” (or whatever). Of course, regulation of therapists is by definition an increase in state control, and as such is another step towards a monopoly on these services.
It is clear that much utility can often be found in best practice guidelines and other industry standards, but importantly these arise across all sectors of business without state intervention.
One problem with state licensing is that a distinction between real and fake therapists is invented, and those (whether therapists or clients) who wish to engage in freely contracted conversation are outlawed. The state’s reach is extended again, and people beg for more.
You write of State as if it were a unique and insular entity – when it’s really a representative extension of the people.
I’d agree that people need to take responsibility for their own decisions. But regulation – or control in any variant – is doing for people what they apparently fail to (or cannot) do for themselves,
Same thing happens in UK for gas installers (CORGI) and builder (NIBH) because the consequences are high and the lay person does not generally carry sufficient knowledge to make that sort of decision. Regulation demonstrates to lay people a level of competence at what they do without having to get into background checks and having a knowledge of the process.
IJ’s comment [below] sums it all up -
[T]he public are generally not very well informed about the actual status of a “therapist” and what is behind use of the title, and those approaching a therapist are usually at a particularly vunerable point in their lives anyway.
In this case an increased presumption of vulnerability risk to the client; the power balance relationship and the increased consequential risk of harm from malpractice would be the exacerbating factors that cause it to be worth looking at in a regulatory fashion.
“You write of State as if it were a unique and insular entity – when it’s really a representative extension of the people.”
While the ability of the people to get rid of a particular set of leaders or laws exists, equating government with the people isn’t a particularly easy argument to make. And in any case, it begs the question of whether such regulations are justified.
“But regulation – or control in any variant – is doing for people what they apparently fail to (or cannot) do for themselves”
One reply to that is to ask why the people cannot do it for themselves. One answer is that there simply isn’t the demand for it.
If the public are not very well informed about therapists, then they have very little complain about should the therapist turn out to be not to their liking. (Note: I am not saying that therapists who abuse their clients should be immune from prosecution). To rest the case for state intervention on the alleged vulnerability of some of those who seek therapy is a particularly weak argument, imo. There is a much stronger case for bringing psychotherapy up to the gold standard of psychiatry by putting the state in charge, since this at least gives some consistency.
The bottom line is this: psychotherapy has more in common with religion than it does with medicine. It is absurd to call it a health profession, and even more absurd to regulate it as such. If you are serious about people taking responsibility for their decisions, then expecting them to be a bit careful about who they pay to talk to about serious personal issues is hardly asking too much.
The trouble with caveat emptor in relation to Therapy is that the public are generally not very well informed about the actual status of a “therapist” and what is behind use of the title, and those approaching a therapist are usually at a particularly vunerable point in their lives anyway.
When all this Gale stuff was brewing, the editor of a therapy journal said to me that regulating therapists makes about as much sense as regulating tarot card readers. For me that says a lot about the sort of service that you get with some of these people. The labels that are used – “Psychotherapist” and “Psychoanalyst” – have a pseudo-scientific ring to them that I think lulls a client into a false sense of security. Then with Gale there are the certificates from the regulators on his wall. Then once you are in there, any issues you have are your issues. If you complain about the behaviour of the therapist, it’s becuase you have an issue about being controlling, or you have a lack of generosity, or you have issues with authority figures etc. (that’s what I got anyway). It’s not a good arena to be relying on caveat emptor.
If the legitimising titles were restricted to those who had had some proper training and did have supervision, and didn’t explouit their clients to do their building work for them, the whole situation would be much clearer. Then those out on the periphery can take their chances in the market under a different title.
Dererk Postle, who writes his drivel in iPnosis and who shambled around the HPC on some of the days I was there, talks of “love” and “soul” and so on. So maybe those types of talking therapists, who want to avoid regulation, can labels themselves something appropriate like “Alternative Loving Soul Guide” and see who then wants to pay them for that.
Sorry, as you mention above, Postle writes for “eIpnosis”, not “Ipnosis”. They seem to be two different, but similarly named, therapy ‘journals’. maybe I should start “nIpnosis” as a journal with a different point of view on the same topics.
i’m not so clear how it shows that we should dispense with the principle of caveat emptor
Erm, when I’m mad as a box of frogs and desperate for help, I’m in no fit state to be comparison shopping. I need the first one I go to to be competent.
Are the people on here practicing psychotherapists, or nurses. If find there is a difference, an important difference here-training. One has to remember that the practice of psychitry and psychotherapy is very very young in comparison to ancient ways of thinking about mental distress. To discount other ways is foolish when considering the “evidence”. The human race got along just fine without the NHS and government ideas of regulation when it came to mental distress 2.5 thousand years ago in Ancient Greece. What makes the peoples coments on this site seem scary is that there seems to be no love, and also a complete forgetting on thousands of years of history…….1984……..
One has to ask oneself, if the cure is regulated, can the cure be effective on a basis of regulation, that’s if you believe in a cure that is!?
To lose one’s mind so to speak and then be faced by a practitioner who has a cure all by telling you what the cure is (or acting in a imposed regulated way) surly does not help one’s find one’s mind. It is only another imposition upon another. The patient has to discover that he/she can regulate him or herself.
Where is happiness? It is not an object of scientifc experimentation like molecules. Thus how can you regulate a therapist (or a treatment) dealing with happiness as an objective (via NICE guidlines) when happiness cannot be measured like in true science?
Jan
The human race got along just fine without the NHS and government ideas of regulation when it came to mental distress 2.5 thousand years ago in Ancient Greece
And with a life expectancy of 35 and a belief that depression was caused by excessive black bile, who wouldn’t regard that as a success?
Hi Jan
In answer to your question, the people on here are a mix of mental health nurses and mental health patients – or in some cases, a combination of the two.
Can one measure happiness? Maybe, maybe not. However, we can certainly measure depression – for example by certain physical symptoms – decrease in energy levels, disrupted sleep pattern, loss of sexual libido, inability to concentrate, poor short-term memory etc. And the return of energy, motivation, libido, concentration, short-term memory etc are also things that can be measured.
I would argue that the focus of mental health services is the alleviation of mental illnesses rather than an abstract pursuit of happiness per se. Psychiatry can’t make you happy, only you can do that.
Some psychotherapists might argue that they’re engaged in a different pursuit other than treating mental illness, but the trouble with that is that a high percentage of people seeking psychotherapy are doing so because they want help with a mental illness – be it depression, anxiety, OCD, eating disorders or whatever. That doesn’t mean that psychotherapists have to take a medical-model approach in helping them with these problems, but it does mean that those people are vulnerable and therefore need assurance that the psychotherapist will follow a set standard of record-keeping, confidentiality, professional boundaries, respect and dignity.
Derek Gale wasn’t struck off for refusing to follow the medical model. He was struck off for abusing his patients.
I would argue that the focus of mental health services is the alleviation of mental illnesses rather than an abstract pursuit of happiness per se. Psychiatry can’t make you happy, only you can do that.
Exactly. I don’t seek mental health treatment because I want to be happy. That’s what hobbies and friends and pets and culture and relationships are for. I seek mental health treatment because I want to be mentally healthy. I want my mind to stop the potentially fatal malfunction.
I was pleased the first time I felt sad when I was on antidepressants. It was a real feeling and it had a cause and it would run its course and make way for the next. It was so liberating, to feel sad rather than depressed. I was pathetically grateful for it.
Hello,
well in response to Zarathustra, I am both an ex-nurse, ex-mental patiant, and psychologist . I researched depression for many years and you are sadly wrong about being able to measure depression. One can create a list of signs ans symptoms and use a questionniare or a focussed interview etc, but one cannot measure depression. One can only obtain scores on a questionniare developed by research and researchers of what they “deem” variables useful for talking about depression. You have to be clear about what you mean by depression-there are many scientific/medical theories about it and thus no one clear idea what “it” is. So you cant measure depression as you say anymore than you can measure sexual libido. It is not an object of scietific enquiry. I hope that is clear. It is not like measuring bone growth with the use of certain food supplements. This is where psychology and mental health ideas of depressio have gone seriosly wrong. It introduces a discourse that floods our conversations (lay and pro) and becomes real, but in itself plays a part in re-producing the “illness”. I have heard so many people say to me, I have got a bio-chemical imbalance of the brain. I reply how, was it measured? Is there a test that can demonstrate this. No of course there is not.
Again I would disagree about your idea that psychiatry’s aim is to not aim for unhappiness. If this was the case why does it try to banish unhappiness that it deems pathological. One has to very careful about “getting rid ” of negative states of mind for a fallacy that they are negative per se. I am not saying that they are unpleasant (Ishould know) but to be told that they are wrong by a mis-guided notion of health versus disease is plain nuts! In many traditions ancient and current, deeps states of “depression” are seen as neccessary processes that have to be faced and transformed by (i.e., St John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul).
One must consider that if so many people are wanting help with a mental illness one must question why do they assume they have a mental illness. One is getting on very dicy ground if you are asserting this claim. Further, do you not think that most therapists understand thay they are dealing with vulnerable people. Just becasue your are regulated does not mean one will help another person with care and consideration and keep professional boundries. Regulation of any type of profession in my opinion will not protect people per se. Harold Shipman a name in point. We all have the law to deal with cases of abuse and our employers. I am not familiar with the Derek gale story, but was he not regulated? This did not stop any abuse did it? To assure people coming for treatment that they are not going to come to harm is of course paramount. But is this not common sense. Transgressing these boundires already has a system set in place by therapists’ governing organisations. Why do they need the HPC?
One has to ask yourself, what consitutes a human flourishing? A clinician with the government prying into his everymove in the consulting room? Would this not affect his humaness and ability to be spontaneous, creative, patient (as progress will be measured). What if nothing happens in therapy for 2-3 years. Is that a failure? I would like your answer to that based on the background of regulation. What if a patient does not speak for the first 50 sessions. Is that a failure? What if they dont want to talk? What if they like sitting in peace and quiet, and having that time to “do nothing”. This is important, why is doing nothing not therapeutic? Panic, reaching out out of concern to cure the person, or haul them out of it so to speak may abort a natural process, and be a violence on the part of the nurse’s fear of such states (or regulatory system). One last thing supporting people, who deal with the “care and community” ex-hospital patients have a quota of progress bulity into their funding policies, and this is based on what the government think a human bening should live. Psychiatry has much of the same (and psychology). When one starts asserting how two consenting people meet and deal with each other i.e, that this is how the session should go, and this is waht should happen, you are on very dangerous ground.
1) where is the evidence of a certain way of working or therapy works better than others? There is none. The main thing that helps in therapy is the relationship of two people. That is all.
“I am not familiar with the Derek gale story, but was he not regulated?”
No. That is the point. And there is nothing to stop him from setting himself up as another fake therapist and abusing more people behind the mask of a fancy sounding title.
Thank for your comment which is fluent waffle.
Another thing, where is the evidence that more regulation will stop abuse occurring? Surly the government have had to rely on evidence to try set up a regulatory body to impose regulation on therapists? If this is not the case, then why are they doing it? If there is no evidence to call upon what is the point of it?
I am reminded of the plight of the teachers here, and the their job was more and more regulated over the years. Freedom, creativity etc has waned in teachers, teachers have fled the profession. Regulation has not helped teachers or our childrens education.
Another thing, where is the evidence that more regulation will stop abuse occurring?
Well, there is certainly evidence that HPC regulation stopped from Derek Gale practicing as an arts therapist, because they struck him off for abusing his patients. At which point he stopped calling himself an arts therapist and started calling himself a psychotherapist. That evidence would suggest that if psychotherapists were HPC regulated he could also be stopped from calling himself a psychotherapist.
More info on the Derek Gale case here:
http://www.mentalnurse.org/ind.....t-matters/
Admittedly he could then start calling himself a life coach, but I suspect that a lot of the people who were willing to pay £65 an hour to Derek Gale for psychotherapy would probably not do so for “life coaching”.
“Another thing, where is the evidence that more regulation will stop abuse occurring?”
Picking up on the same thing Z did, I see people saying this a lot. No, regulation will not stop abuse, but it gives us a means to bring to light abuse and make it much harder for someone to continue to abuse if they’ve been stuck off and banned from the protected titles. It creates consequences.
But taking your point and applying it in an extreme way elsewhere, we could say what’s the point of making rape, burglary or anything else illegal, it doesn’t stop people doing these things. Let’s just get rid of the police and the judiciary. If you take Postle’s line you might say that we should be rid of the laws themselves and they inhibit free human expression. Maybe Postle would like to get the rapists and burglars to regulate themselves. The good people of this country do not find the laws inhibiting, and I don’t think the good therapists will find HPC regulation inhibiting. As has been said on here before, you don;t find may mental health professionals arguing against regulation, just the “snake oil” salesmen types. The police, the judiciary, the law creates consequences for those who wish to behave in a way that society has agreed is not acceptable. Same goes for some basic regulation.
…and I really must check my postings for typos before sending
jan – you’re right!
Gale should be applauded for his creative use of cannabis to break barriers, ridiculing the patient to motivate, sharing confidential stories in a group to demonstrate how ppl maintain sick roles ..etc etc… as there is no evidence to suggest this is counter-therapeutic or results in negative overall outcomes.
Indeed – even medication has a period of negative an unwanted experience before you can get to the therapeutic gain…..
My goodness – I think we’ve stumbled onto something here…. a lack of negative ends justify the means – and if it’s negative then you’re simply possessed by the devil……
I reckon I can go cure some PTSD by running a group session naked and having sex with a goat….. wish me luck. Let you know how it goes.
As for regulation preventing events happening – well, of course it can’t – it can minimise and mitigate against future episodes where hitory has proven a risk.
That’s why we do criminal background checks, have annual registration and instil systems of supervision to try and protect before the event.
The lack of response/evasion/jocular mood to my points say’s volumes.
1) we already have a legal and police system.
2) Therapists have governing bodies they are assigned to like Doctors (GMC).
as IJ said
No, regulation will not stop abuse, but it gives us a means to bring to light abuse and make it much harder for someone to continue to abuse if they’ve been stuck off and banned from the protected titles. It creates consequences.
——————————–
Thus, one can be a part of a governing body. They have regulatory procedures already. If one is struck off the list good-Yes one may set up under another name, but this can happen already. Life-coach, Philosphical Practioner, etc etc. There are always going to be risks in life, people who take risks and people who want to abuse. some Doctors, nurses, dentists, all abused and continue to abuse and they are regulated
More importantly, where is the evidence that abuse is widespread-Look to the US, regulation has not helped things at all. It has led to the spread of litigation culture and is smothering the consultation room. There is no evidence that there is a big problem with abusive therapists, wher is this evidence?Nobody has quoted once on this site. Gale is the only one mentioned.
When I was in hospital, I was told to shut my mouth. i wanted to complain, but told to shut up, I wrote and complained, but nothing was done. Such occurances occur all the time in life. Regulation will not stop that. Hospitals, close ranks, as do insitutions, as do individuals. Regulation does not stop that.
I sense from this forum that regulation is seen as some kind of utopian future where clients will be free from all harm. But that is not the case.
Where is the evidence that this will be the case. Look to America.
IJ, what do think a good therapist is? Or nurse for that matter or psychologist. Please look at the meaning of regulation
regulation
Noun
1. a rule that governs procedure or behaviour
2. the act of regulating
Adjective
in accordance with rules or conventions: dressed in the orchestra’s regulation black tie
If you know anything about psychotherapy, for an outside agency to govern the procedure of therapy, one mechanicizes the meeting. If one imposes rules (therapeutic) via the use of a protected titles, one creates robots. One then does use one’s own mind. Or is this something that people object to. Living a good life is all about living in a way that suits one. There is no formula, thus no therapeutic method that acheives this. Thus rules, and regulations (therapeutic) do not help in this case.
As I said we have the police and governing bodies already.
My Doctor was sent to prison for sexual abuse. I was not affected, but he was a good doctor when I met him. But he was caught out by the law.
Jan, perhaps if I can pick you up on one of those points.
2) Therapists have governing bodies they are assigned to like Doctors (GMC).
Part of the reason legislation is coming in to assign therapists to the HPC is due to concerns that the current governing bodies are *not* like the GMC (or the NMC for nurses for that matter). The differences are as follows:
1. There is no single body, but a multitude of them.
2. There is no legal requirement to join any of them. A nurse who is struck off by the NMC will go to prison if they continue calling themselves a nurse. A psychotherapist who is struck off by the UKCP can carry on calling themselves a psychotherapist regardless.
3. GMC, NMC and HPC fitness to practice hearings are quasi-legal tribunals whose proceedings are a matter of public record. By comparison the disciplinary hearings of most psychotherapy bodies are held in private, behind closed doors. Anyone looking up Derek Gale on the HPC website will find out that he has been struck off and why. By comparison no such information is available on the UKCP and AHPP websites. We wouldn’t even know that he was registered with these bodies if it hadn’t been for some of the complainants in the Derek Gale case turning up on this site and telling us that he is currently suspended from them.
Those complainants state that the HPC took their allegations seriously whereas the UKCP and AHPP were (initially at least) evasive and unhelpful. Is that claim true? We don’t know, because the UKCP and AHPP keep their proceedings private.
And if you want to read about one person’s experience of dealing with the “so called” self regulatory system of therapists check Howard’s thread at http://www.mentalnurse.org/ind.....n-abusing/
“If you know anything about psychotherapy, for an outside agency to govern the procedure of therapy, one mechanicizes the meeting.”
This is the sort of alarmist, hysteria that I keep seeing from the more, shall we be generous and say “avant guarde”, end of the psychotherapy spectrum. Are you saying that you having some basic rules of conduct such that the therapist will not abuse a client will inevitably lead to a mechanisation of the therapy relationship? if so I guess you’re also saying that all the Arts Therapists that are working in the UK now are either breaking all the HPC rules or else they are working automatons with a paintbox.
I think there’s something of a category error going on here, or the conflating of two very different things.
What do I think a good therapist is? Well to start with it’d be someone with more than a teacher training qualification and some sort of diploma in Dramatherapy from the University of Hertfordshire, which I understand to be the limit of the qualifications of Mr Gale. I think that they’d be having supervision on a regular basis and discussing the mroe senstive issues from their practice, unlike Mr Gale. I thin kthat they’d keep client confidentiality and not get their clients to rebuild part of their house for free, unlike Mr Gale. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Personally I think the dictionary is wrong, it should be:
“Regulation – 1. a description that helps define the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. ”
But then some of these therapists are good at boundaries.
OK. Let me tell you about caveat emptor.
I just bought a laptop yesterday. Looked on some websites, went to PC world, picked up a few, turned them over, pressed some buttons, got some free virus software, unsuccessfully haggled over cost. If I’ve bought the wrong one, it’s probably my fault unless it doesn’t actually sing Jerusalem whilst it’s making cappuccino like they’ve told me.
Psychotherapists are different.
A number of years ago, I went to see one, being on antidepressants ( but not having told anyone because I really didn’t want to admit to myself let alone anyone else that I spent my whole day obsessing about my grisly demise).
So, being sensible, I decided to sort myself out. Now choice is a fine thing if there is some choice. If you live in London, there’s choice. if you live in the sticks, you don’t.
if you want to buy a laptop, you ask your mates what they have and they tell you what they think. if you want to find a therapist you’re too embarrassed to ask your mates and if they do know one they probably won’t tell you anyway. So you surf the internet or look in the Yellow pages.
My therapist had all sorts of credentials. i phoned his regulatory body and asked what qualifications he was likely to have and was told (very shirtily) he would be very highly qualified. I googled him and found nothing on him other than his website.
The details are tedious , and it was all a long time ago. He extended sessions till after hours, offered me meals and booze, invited me out to social events with his friends, one of which I went to, I met his kids – who “liked me” apparently. I told him about being abused as a child. when i didn’t bring it up in the next session he told me we shouldn’t waste our time and my money on it as it clearly didn’t bother me too much. No, obviously not. When i told him I sometimes found physical contact too intense, he said I should try using a lubricant. He had some upstairs ( his office was in his house). Did I want it? Erm, no thanks.
I’d paid in advance. I forget how much, but at least 300 or 400 quid, incuding a “client fee” which was “for looking after me”. So i didn’t want to just leave and not go back . I’d never done this before. i didn’t know what the rules were. I brought up the fact that i thought he was behaving inappropriately. He said “Well a therapist does get close to his clients.” He was going to miss me when I stopped bing his client. Did I want to keep seeing him outside of therapy?
I stopped going. I went home and hid. Eventually I got angry. I phoned an NHS psychologist and asked if she could help. She didn’t do private work. I said what it was about. She asked who it was. When i told her , she said “When can you come round? and in less than an hour I was in her office. She knew all about him. He only has an undergraduate psychology degree. He’s done it all before (and worse besides) and been disciplined by the BPS – information which is not easily available.
I was furious. I had him struck off, which wasn’t exactly a cakewalk. He’s still practising as a psychotherapist, hypnotherapist and random psychologist.
I am nobody’s fool but I was vulnerable. Those that say regulation is unnecessary miss the point entirely. Your job, first and foremost is not to hurt me more than I am already. This isn’t a philisophical game of heuristics. It’s my life.
… and then you add in the inherent power relationship. I know I bang on about this, but when one person is labelled The One Whose Brain Doesn’t Work Right, and one person is labelled The Sane Helpful One With The Qualifications In This Stuff, the first person has a vulnerability which is not to be found in, say, shoe-shopping.
Which is precisely how he got my visa card off me – and it was a £50 quid discount if you buy today deal. Actually he’d make quite a killing as a double glazing salesman, come to think of it.
“My Doctor was sent to prison for sexual abuse. I was not affected, but he was a good doctor when I met him. But he was caught out by the law.”
Caught out by the law? Poor soul! Convicted of sexual abuse after a proper trial and everything, even though you weren’t affected yourself. What a travesty of justice.
I hope this evasive and jocular post speaks volumes.
Tickity boo said: I am nobody’s fool but I was vulnerable. Those that say regulation is unnecessary miss the point entirely. Your job, first and foremost is not to hurt me more than I am already. This isn’t a philisophical game of heuristics. It’s my life.
———————————————–
When you say you do you mean me? Well I am sorry to hear about your problems that you had. What makes you think I work in a therapeutic capacity? I am an ex-patient who has also has had good and bad experiences of therapy but I am very sure that most people regulated or unregulated know that its wrong to hurt another. To be blunt, the worst therapist I had was and NHS therapist (he was a robot who was hardly human who mechanically blurted out CBT jargon with no warmth-he should have been in another job), the best a “non-trained” unregulated lay person who was a philospher. Maybe I am lucky.
In response to Z (for the last time) Is there evidence that regulation will stop abuse? Is there evidence that the HPC are using evidence based resources to want to impliment regulation? Please tell me the research please which points to this.
Is abuse more prevalent in regulated professions than non-regulated profession (health)?
Oh Dear Nell, it was a travesty that he got away with it and the people he hurt. Your jocularity on a serious issue is quite offensive and does speak volumes. I was not defending him, he was a good doctor with ME, but not with others obviously. I am saying that the law was best placed to deal with this situation and a good job too. I think you are too quick to jump down my throat. I think we should regulate that-or can you regulate yourself?
When i said you, I was addressing the therapeutic adn caring professions, ie people who set themselves up in therapeutic practice either in the NHS or privately and advertise their services as such. Clearly not you personally.
Thanks for clarifying your position.
but I am very sure that most people regulated or unregulated know that its wrong to hurt another
*laughs hysterically*
I am very sure that that is not a risk someone with oh, say, PTSD from previous abusive relationships would want to take.
It also fits interestingly with your comment about your doctor with the sexual abuse conviction.
Sorry, that was addressed to janbrokel, not tickety-boo (which, by the way, is a wonderful name).
well thank you
For those who don’t want regulation – would you be prepared to consult, say, a GP or a dentist under similar circumstances? Seriously?
Lorna,
Not wanting psychotherapy regulated by the state does not imply a stance against regulation per se. Is the difference not clear?
Presumably you’re referring to the alternative of self-regulation by a professional body, Ted?
That issue is discussed within the guest post that has just been published.
thanks, zarathustra. however, i don’t see it impacts on the arguments against regulation by the state.
to IJ, i ask why should i be the one to propose as an alternative regulator? that’s like asking who will make my shoes. the answer to both questions is whoever decides to. if there is enough of a demand for something, it will be supplied. (i concede to Mr Ian that this applies just as well to state regulation, but then that would be assuming the conclusion.)
and to Lorna, i wonder why you are not concerned about the self-interests of state regulators? if you don’t trust someone who sells something, you are free to walk away. how is it legitimate to use force to criminalise the voluntary agreements therapists make with clients?
Mr Ian:
“I can advise that my therapeutic relationship with my clients/patients is in no way compromised by my regulating body.”
You accept that others might disagree with you (whether because they see the regulations compromising the therapist-client relationship, or for any other reason)?
If only it were true that regulations “merely tell me I must do so in a safe and respectful manner”.
“You accept that others might disagree with you”
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
“If only it were true that regulations “merely tell me I must do so in a safe and respectful manner”. ”
… it is.
My nursing body does not tell me which model to use – or what processes to go by – merely that they are sound and reasonable practices – fit to undergo the scrutiny of a potential complaint from a dissatisfied punter.
What’s controlling about that? Shouldn’t all my interventions meet that standard without a regulating body?
Please demonstrate how my regulating body interferes with my therapeutic relationship and not just by your unsubstantiated comments.
“safe and respectful manner” and “sound and reasonable practices” are not the same thing, unless by both you meant that the state regulator’s definitions of those things. Clearly, not injuring someone is not the same thing as practicing in a manner which is formally recognised by the state. The former does not require any sector-specific regulations, but the latter does.
“Please demonstrate how my regulating body interferes with my therapeutic relationship and not just by your unsubstantiated comments.”
By definition, state regulations interfere with the voluntary agreements made by therapist and client. Surely you can imagine why that might be harmful for either therapist or client or both. One example is the therapist who “informs” the client that the relationship is confidential.
Just like the office of fair trading interferes with my voluntary agreement to be ripped off by a salesman?
When we don’t need regulation for the supposedly non-vulnerable then I’ll gladly look into taking risks with the vulnerable.
if you don’t trust someone who sells something, you are free to walk away. how is it legitimate to use force to criminalise the voluntary agreements therapists make with clients?
Sorry, didn’t see this for ages.
Because that requires free and informed consent, which is not present when someone who is vulnerable due to mental illness is being emotionally (or otherwise) abused. It’s kind of like complaining that a battered wife doesn’t leave, so everything must be okay. Well, no.
And I don’t wish to get into the whole yay-capitalism!libertarian thing, but the way I see it, when something is done by the state, it is everybody’s problem, everybody gets to have a say. Whereas if something’s a between a customer and a company, the customer is left on their own to deal with it. I believe fairly strongly – sorry, but the analogy with abusive relationships is just so glaring – that when things go bad, they do so behind closed doors and with pressure not to tell anybody. At least if something is publicly-owned, it’s fair game for public criticism.
There’s also the fact that that only applies to things you want, not things you need. Healthcare is not that faaaaabulous pair of shoes that you must have. It’s something that you actually must have. And when only a limited number of people are offering it, and you need it soon, then no, you are not free to walk away.
Yes it’s clear, but who do you propose as the alternative regulator?
The difference between actual regulation and self-regulation by those with vested interests is perfectly clear, yes.
Jan – Perhaps you can explain more about the aversion to regulation. Personally I can’t understand the opposition, but as I see it you are arguing that regulation will impede the therapeutic relationship with the client, and/or the therapeutic interaction and in effect usurp the entire therapeutic agenda.
I think that’s a little over-reactive.
I don’t know of any evidence to suggest regulation reduces abuse. It would stand to reason that something must come of it – after all we have an entire police force out there regulating an entire legal doctrine that enshrines our social values and mores. But anyhoooos….
Whereas I can’t provide any evidence as you request – I can advise that my therapeutic relationship with my clients/patients is in no way compromised by my regulating body.
There is nothing precluded from my practice by my regulating body that I believe (and have lawful authority to advise or utilise) to be helpful to the patient.
They merely tell me I must do so in a safe and respectful manner.
Mr Ian wrote:
I don’t know of any evidence to suggest regulation reduces abuse. It would stand to reason that something must come of it……
Jan reply-I rest my case with that one….it obviously does not stand to evidence that exists.
Mr Ian wrote: I can advise that my therapeutic relationship with my clients/patients is in no way compromised by my regulating body
Jan wrote: which body…id this is the case do you need another body? The HPC is a different ball game
“Jan reply-I rest my case with that one….it obviously does not stand to evidence that exists.”
Well using that tactic we can obviate the whole debate by asking – where’s the evidence that psychotherapy works longitudinally and consistently – and for which groups is it most meaningful?
Jan wrote: which body…id this is the case do you need another body? The HPC is a different ball game
No, not at all. This is the argument you’re missing – the regulating body is not there to dictate the therapeutic modality of engagement – but regulate the conduct of the professional delivering it.
The Nursing Council is my regulating body – the name varies slightly in title by location but the principles are more or less internationally agreed and they are constituted in statute just about everywhere.
They monitor conduct of practitioners – which (as stated above) includes ensuring nurses use validated and safe practices – tho it doesn’t dictate which ones are or aren’t used; it merely sets a standard to which we as individuals must hold ourselves accountable.
Smoking pot; fondling a patient or getting them to do some odd-job free labour work around the building would not be accepted
I get the impression you are speculating a decision based on very limited knowledge, understanding and professional experience and coming up with the “Oh no! Change? It can’t be!”.
Mr Ian wrote-Well using that tactic we can obviate the whole debate by asking – where’s the evidence that psychotherapy works longitudinally and consistently – and for which groups is it most meaningful?
Jan reply- well I think you are on dicy ground asking that. As a psychologist and researcher in that very field. Sure it might be “meaningful” to want to find out this “evidence”, but what do you mean by “works”. I am not asking that we conduct that kind of research as to be honest, such research is mostly fiction. It is not a tactic I am using. I am merly putting it out, where is the evidence of abuse in the psychology/psychotherapy field that the HPC are drawing upon? What is the evidence that HPC regulation will curb abuse. Not one person on this site has quoted a research document that answers this-not one. Dont you find that strange? Please think about this.
Mr Ian wrote-No, not at all. This is the argument you’re missing – the regulating body is not there to dictate the therapeutic modality of engagement – but regulate the conduct of the professional delivering it.
Jan reply- to regulate the conduct of the professional delivering it! Do you think therapists deliver things to their patients? A government body regulating a therapist’s conduct. How do you regulate your conduct? Do you need regulating when you offer help as a nurse? Do you stop and think “what would my regulator do here? Again strange words you use. Monitor conduct, where? in the consulting room? Monitor what? a conversation where a great deal of negative transference might be played out. What of the patient hates the therapist, is that negligence? Should the therapist make himself be liked? Is he being abusive by frustrating the patients demands? Should he change his conduct because the patient dislikes him or likes him too much re positive transference. The HPC want to implement spot random checks on therapists….what do think of that? Will they regulate the transfernce. Will they judge what is unconscious hostility in the patient as being uneccessary provocation on the part of the therpaist?
Mr Ian wrote-They monitor conduct of practitioners – which (as stated above) includes ensuring nurses use validated and safe practices – tho it doesn’t dictate which ones are or aren’t used; it merely sets a standard to which we as individuals must hold ourselves accountable.
Smoking pot; fondling a patient or getting them to do some odd-job free labour work around the building would not be accepted
Jan reply-a standard one holds onself accountable to? How do you set this standard? The examples you give are crazy. Of course fondeling a patient most people know is wrong, getting up and taking ones clothes off and squaking like a duck is inappropriate. So I ask what is the standard the HPC have and how do they make it, and how do they monitor it? Being safe. Well what is the boundries on that? Surly people take risks in talking to each other, to be more human and alive one may have to “risk” upset, sadness, anger, fury etc. Harold shipman used validated practices with his patients, but in the wrong context. He aplied a standard, but the standard failed to account for his murderous qualities.
Mr Ian wrote- I get the impression you are speculating a decision based on very limited knowledge, understanding and professional experience and coming up with the “Oh no! Change? It can’t be!”.
Jan reply-I have not said that “Oh no! Change? It can’t be!”.Limited knowledge? I am a professional psychology researcher and ex-mental patient with experience of both mental hospitals and private therapy. I have researched over 15 years psychotherapy, methodology, mental health, etc etc. I think the HPC are trying to implement a regulatory system based on no evidence at all. Again where is the research articles they are drawing upon that makes the case for the regulation they are proposing. There are none. I think thats limited knowledge and it concerns me that this is the case. Related is the idea of the RAE in universities. It means that researchers are forced to publish rubbish pointless research to keep their jobs, but hey….thats life or is it?
Jan, let me reply specifically to this point:
where is the evidence of abuse in the psychology/psychotherapy field that the HPC are drawing upon? What is the evidence that HPC regulation will curb abuse. Not one person on this site has quoted a research document that answers this-not one. Dont you find that strange?
To be honest, it would seem difficult to imagine how one construct such a research project. To do it properly, there would have to be a randomised controlled trial in which one bunch of professionals (be they doctors, radiographers, teachers, psychotherapists or whatever) were regulated and another bunch of people from the same profession were just left to do what they saw fit with no oversight whatsoever. You’d never get ethical approval for such a project.
That said, on an anecdotal level, there is ample evidence that regulatory bodies like the HPC, NMC, GMC or GSSC stop practitioners who have been identified as abusive from practicing their profession – because they do it all the time.
and another bunch of people from the same profession were just left to do what they saw fit with no oversight whatsoever. You’d never get ethical approval for such a project.
What u on about Z? We’ve got them….
They’re called ‘psychotherapists’
Also, while obviously this argument treads dangerous close to “there’s no evidence therefore it must be going on”, which is obviously nonsense, there’s the question of how you’d find out about abuse in a profession with no meaningful regulation. How would it be reported?
“You’d never get ethical approval for such a project.”
but you can get it for an open label study of the effects of Aripiprazole on kids with PPD-NOS and AS.
(40% of them had EPS to some extent, Prolactin was down to around 2.9 by the time the trial finished. No puberty for these kids then.)
the authors, Stigler et al., are now looking to do a DBPC trail.
Sitting on the fence gives you an unobstructed view of every horizon and bestows a greater objectivity ? Or is just a front row seat for staring into space ?
The NMC take £70+ a year from me. There are 500,000 registered nurses. That`s way over 1/3 of a BILLION pounds. WTF do they do to justify that kind of income ? Shouldn`t abusive practitioners be dismissed by their employers ?
As for regulating psychotherapy, are we having a laugh ? Every dodgy bluffer out there would simply restyle themselves as a lifestyle coach or some such othere nonsense
I have my own disagreements with the NMC and whether they’re giving us value for money from our 70 squids a year, but I have never and would never say that nurses should not be regulated.
And yes, abusive practitioners should be dismissed by their employers (though in the case of psychotherapists, a lot of them are self-employed) but the point of registration is so they can’t get a job with another employer doing the same role.
If a struck-off psychotherapist goes off and retitles themselves a “life coach” or whatever, then fair enough, but good luck to them in finding many people willing to pay £65 an hour for “life coaching”. Also “life coach”, unlike “psychotherapist” doesn’t imply an ability to treat depression, anxiety, OCD etc.
I am speechless………………I have never read so much clap trap in my life
One needs evidence to implment health policy!!!!!!!!!! Set up a bloody randomized control trial….you are having a laugh arent you? Please…We have had years and years of therapists practicing….one just needs to look at the data
So where is the evidence? If there is none, what is the motivation for implementing a health care policy/regulatory system?
I dont think I will hang around here as there does not seem to be much common sense.
The evidence is in the fact abusive people within regulated professions have been hauled in front of tribunals and banned from practising.
Why are therapists special? Almost every other healthcare practitioner has to meet a standard to get the title and the customers. If anyone could call themselves a dentist, you wouldn’t open wide and trust they knew what they were doing with that drill.
I am speechless………………<>
Hmm. Odd definition of speechless but ecxellent use of the Internet exclamation.
“We have had years and years of therapists practicing….one just needs to look at the data”
My understanding is that much of the data shows that therapists are just as effective as sitting on the sofa waiting to see a therapist.
OSB makes a good point if regulated to have to provide a health service they claim they can provide many of the duffers will jump ship and then move on to call themselves life coaches for example. Then given time as there are increasing reports of life coaches abusing and preying on their clients their own industry will try to self regulate. If this is insufficient there will be a call for legally mandated regulation.
The issues is many people receiving mental health services are vulnerable and deserve some kind of protection. If self regulation is not enough then it should be enforced from above.
I am a nurse. This title gives me some kind of respect in society at large. When I give my opinion on nursing and related issues my views are at least listened to every now and then. If I use this to better myself and abuse others I will eventually lose the right to call myself a nurse. Which will remove my ability to abuse others in this ways.
As other commenters (Ted probably) have pointed out if someone wants to pay money to engage in an abusive relationship with another they should be perfectly free to do so. Just not with someone who is not in reality offering the service they claim; in this case some kind of helath benefit.
There are many places where people can engage in this kind of relationship. I believe Tory MPs use S&M brothels and I fully expect to find they have been putting it on their expenses
no, ours just spent his £15,000 on a gate.
it was a very, very, nice one, though
Mmmmhmmm. S&M’s consensual. Going to see someone who offers to help you with your mental problems and actually treats you like shit is not consensual. Pretty sure there wasn’t any upfront negotiation and establishment of safewords.
re: “someone who offers to help you with your mental problems and actually treats you like shit is not consensual. ”
I think that there is a spectrum of abuse and only one end of the specturm is the sexual innuendo, nipple tweaking and worse is the more obvious treat you like shit stuff.
The more insidious end is where the relationship seems to be set up to both prolong the therapy (seemingly indefinitely) by continually finding “issues” to be dealt with (that are often nothing to do with why one went to see the therapist in the first place) and making major problems out of them, and to exploit the client while caught in that ongoing relationship.
The mechanisms for keeping this going are subtle too. For example, there’s the use of a group situation (in my case) where issues raised with anythign that is going on are challeneged by the group and turned around to become one’s own personal issues. There are also linguistic games where questions are presented so that whichever way you respond the underlying answer basically falls into “Yes, I’m at fault, I’m not a good person, I have an issue and I need to stay in this therapy longer”. Others ex clients of his have described it as a classic double-bind.
Gale himself said at the HPC that some of his clients are cured and didn’t need therapy any more, yet they still go. Those that are still working with him are now talking about how their therapy isn’t therapy any more – it’s a “life choice”.
Lorna said: The evidence is in the fact abusive people within regulated professions have been hauled in front of tribunals and banned from practising.
Jan reply: I must insist! What research article points to widespread abuse by psychotherapists? Politicians regularly steal money from the coffers via expenses. Does that mean we are all theives? I have not once said I am against regulation per se. A formal complaints procedure yes, and legal backup that most people know about.
Lorna siad: Why are therapists special? Almost every other healthcare practitioner has to meet a standard to get the title and the customers. If anyone could call themselves a dentist, you wouldn’t open wide and trust they knew what they were doing with that drill.
Jan reply: Are therapists health care practioners? Some would think not and not call themselves such. I dont personally think careing for somebodies health is the name of the game in therapy.
Lorna siad: Going to see someone who offers to help you with your mental problems and actually treats you like shit is not consensual.
Jan reply: What do you classify somebody treating you like sh**? Diasgreeing with you? Pointing out your faults? A therapist pointing out that a patient is very rude agressive and has hostility issues? Are these OK? A therapist refusing to save a patient (metaphorically) from his or her pain by soothing and using positive thinking? Is that being insensitive and an indication of malpractice? A patient may NEED to be feel the pain to be “healed” from the pain. Jumping in a being all nicey nicey wont do any good.
Abuse doesn’t have to be widespread to be unacceptable. Anyway, does the term “better safe than sorry” mean anything to you? What damage is an extra safeguard going to do?
Yes, therapists are health care practitioners. They’re in the field of mental health. I’m seeing mine on the National Health Service. I got referred by my CMHT, and I got referred to them by my GP. I’m seeing them in the name of getting my illnesses treated. Anything outside the scope of my illness, frankly, is none of their damn business.
No, I classify treating someone like shit as calling them a cunt and sexually assaulting them, like this Derek Gale character. Whose behaviour was dealt with in the art therapy world by regulation. Who is still free to practise as a psychotherapist, because of the lack of regulation!
Er, if you’re not against regulation, what on earth are you arguing about?
Jan, challenging is fair enough. Where do you draw the line though. Is angrily calling your client a “cunt” acceptable? How about sending them to their room for the major part of a week long workshop and in their absence making the group decide rules for how that person should lead their life? How about making suggesting comment and innuendo with an opposite sex client who has already said that they have got a sexual attraction to you (the therapist) – effectively taunting them – and telling them about a book that you (the therapist) has written about a therapist having sex with their clients? How about breaking all sorts of client confidentialities? How about manipulating your (the therapist’s) clients to rennovate your house for you for free on the basis that it’s a good group bonding activity? how about getting your clients to get up at 4am so they can save you (the therapist) the cost of a taxi to the airport and drive you there?
IJ, I think you draw the line very well. Its quite clear and plain to me (and i think most others would agree) that that is way beyond the line. I agree with you on that one.
Jan
Jan
What research article points to widespread abuse by psychotherapists? Politicians regularly steal money from the coffers via expenses. Does that mean we are all theives?
Nobody here is suggesting that abuse is widespread among psychotherapists…but it is not widespread among nurses, doctors, social workers etc either, but they still have statutory regulation. This is because a few bad apples are a few too many, and they have to be weeded out for the sake of these professions and the people who use them.
Are therapists health care practioners? Some would think not and not call themselves such. I dont personally think careing for somebodies health is the name of the game in therapy.
Okay, there’s plenty of different definitions of what is and isn’t “health”, but is this even a problem? I’m sure plenty of arts therapists don’t stick to a rigidly health/medical-model view of things either (actually, I know they don’t, because I work with arts therapists), and they seem to be doing just fine in being regulated by the HPC. It really doesn’t seem to be causing a problem for them.
See also: occupational therapists. They’re regulated by the HPC too, and they don’t stick to a medical-model view of the world either.
Or, for that matter, how about mental health nurses? Okay, part of what I do certainly does fall within the medical model, but plenty of what’s in my role doesn’t fit that paradigm at all. If I decide a problem would benefit from a psychosocial, or a humanistic, a cognitive-behavioural or a psychodynamic approach I don’t get slapped down by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for it.
They’re not concerned with whether I stick to the medical model. They’re merely concerned with my treating patients/clients with respect and dignity, maintaining confidentiality, working within my competency, adhering to health and safety standards and so on. So long as I do those things then the NMC is happy for me to take whatever approach I and my colleagues deem suitable.