- 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
Last week I posted about the appalling case of Derek Gale, struck off as an arts therapist for rampant misconduct and abuse, but simply setting himself up as a “psychotherapist and counsellor” instead. He can do this because arts therapists are regulated by the Health Professions Council but psychotherapists are not. Anyone can call themselves a psychotherapist, regardless of their qualifications or background.
The government is working to close this loophole, but there’s a campaign mounted to keep psychotherapy unregulated by the HPC. Let’s have a look at who’s doing this and why.
The Coalition Against Over-Regulation of Psychotherapy is petitioning against the proposed legislation. Its list of signatories reads like a who’s who of the chattering classes.
Lisa Appignanesi, Jake Arnott, Homi Bhabha, Christopher Bollas, Alain de Botton, Rosie Boycott, Susie Boyt, Victor Burgin, Georgia Byng, Martin Creed, Tracey Emin, Sophie Fiennes, Bella Freud, Esther Freud, Peter Gabriel, Anya Gallaccio, Antony Gormley, John Gray, Christopher Hampton, Gary Hume, Lee Hall, Susan Hiller, Oliver James, Anish Kapoor, Beeban Kidron, Hari Kunzru, Hanif Kureishi, Darian Leader, Lucasta Miller, Phil Mollon, Andrew O’Hagan, Joseph O’Neill, Michael Nyman, Susie Orbach, Cornelia Parker, Adam Phillips, Jocelyn Pook, Marc Quinn, Will Self, Richard Sennett, Jonathan Sklar, Gillian Slovo, Ali Smith, Gavin Turk, Jane and Louise Wilson, Slavoj Zizek.
In there you’ve got artists like Tracey Emin and Anthony Gormley, writers like Will Self and Hanif Kureishi, the psychoanalysts Slavoj Zizek and Darian Leader, philosophers Alain de Botton and John Gray, musicians Peter Gabriel and Michael Nyman, the film directors Christopher Hampton and Beeban Kidron….Wow, it’s a real smorgasbord of intellectual literati.
Of course it’s also worth noting who’s not there. I don’t see any endorsements by major mental health charities. Mind? Nope, they’re dead in favour of the proposed legislation. Also, other than the psychologist Oliver James, I don’t see any prominent mental health professionals other than psychotherapists and psychoanalysts on that list. No psychiatrists, no prominent psychiatric nurses like Phil Barker or Kevin Gournay…it’s just wall-to-wall intellectuals and artistes.
So, why do these highbrow intelligentsia so oppose the regulation of psychotherapy?
The new proposals have shown a serious and bizarre misunderstanding of the nature of talking therapy. They see it as a definable technique to be applied with predictable outcomes. Yet the key to talking therapies is the nature of the relationship between the parties rather than the performance of any particular procedure. Analytic work involves an open-ended relationship, where results may emerge that were never predicted or even thought of beforehand. The proposed regulation leaves no room for the unknown, as if the solution to each person’s problems were known in advance: therapist and patient will be expected to adhere to a clear predetermined agenda. Government intervention thus threatens the very foundation of analytic work, compromising both its creativity and authenticity.
Sorry, but this is bilge. Complete and utter bilge. And the reason it’s bilge is because the one form of psychotherapy that’s already regulated by the HPC is arts therapy.
Arts therapy is a “definable technique” with “predictable outcomes”? Oh, come on, what’s definable and predictable about handing someone a set of art materials and inviting them to see what comes out? If you wanted “an open-ended relationship, where results may emerge that were never predicted or even thought of beforehand” then you couldn’t wish for a more suitable example than arts therapy – and they’re doing fine in being regulated by the HPC. The Coalition’s argument is pure hogwash.
The silly arguments continue on the Coalition’s news page.
The generic standards that all HPC registrants must conform to are based on a very specific view of ‘health’, ‘well-being’, personal conduct and ‘best practice’ that many schools of psychotherapy would not accept. This is a market-based vision in which therapy is a service the therapist delivers to a patient rather than a work that is jointly created and that is unpredictable and risky. The HPC framework is designed for disciplines such as physiotherapy and radiology, and cannot accomodate the complex nature of psychotherapy.
Best practice and well-being are “market based” concepts?
Yes, that’s the reason the HPC wants to ensure psychotherapists maintain confidentiality, keep proper records and observe appropriate professional boundaries. It’s because the HPC are Thatcherites. Do me a favour. Derek Gale wasn’t struck off for being insufficiently Thatcherite. He was struck off for tweaking patient’s breasts, discussing his sexual fantasies with them, failing to keep accurate records and smoking cannabis in front of patients.
But in railing against this supposed market-oriented concept, the Coalition sound distinctly Thatcherite themselves.
Human relationships are seen as transactions, and a patient’s wish to pursue a particular therapy that does not offer any set outcome will no longer be taken seriously. Instead, they must be protected from their own beliefs, and consult only someone chosen by the State.
The HPC has already declared that it will launch a public advertisting programme to warn the public not to use those therapists who do not sign up to its narrow medical healthcare model of therapy. This has serious consequences, not only for the public, effectively restricting their access to the therapies they might wish to pursue
In one breath they’re arguing against a supposed market vision of therapy, and in the next they’re calling for unrestricted free choice without any quality control by the state, which in itself sounds an incredibly market-led way of thinking.
All this leaves me wondering what these people think psychotherapy is for. Perhaps the answer lies in the type of people who have signed up with the Coalition – artists, writers, film directors. People for whom psychotherapy is a bourgeois pursuit intended to further their creative output.
Where I work, in an NHS eating disorders unit, the people attending psychotherapy are not highbrow literati trying to get over a dose of writer’s block. They’re deeply troubled, highly vulnerable people who need help to fight the anorexia that is actively trying to kill them. They are not going through a shopping catalogue of therapies like a basket to be ordered from Harrods. They need careful, expert support to help them develop a sense of control in their lives. Above all, they need to know that the therapist is not going to inflict further trauma upon them through misconduct or abuse. That means regulation.
In all fairness to the Coalition, they do state that they’re not against regulation per se, just that they only want internal regulation by the psychotherapy bodies themselves. Sorry, but regulation needs to be robust, and not done by a clique with vested interests. That means public, statutory regulatory bodies like the HPC. We owe the victims of Derek Gale that much.
Now now Z, I don’t think you should characterize those people in such a way. Some of them may well have had the same or even worse issues than the people attending therapy in your service. Being famous and/or middle class and/or arty is not an inoculation against serious psychological problems.
Seems to me most of the famous arty farty intellectual types mentioned come from the chattering classes, who object to any regulation of their right to chat to anyone who will listen to them. I suppose they think if they pay for it they can see whatever kind of therapist they like for as long as they like, and why not, so long as their therapists don’t call themselves psychotherapists. It shouldn’t be beyond the likes of Alain de Botton and other philosophers to come up with a new brand name for expensive private therapists who don’t want to be regulated.
Hmm – so class stereotypes are AOK for some then?
Oh for goodness sake, Beakie, you’re the one who mentioned “middle” class in the first place, I was simply trying to point out that the chattering classes are not part of the usual class warfare, coming as they do from right across the spectrum.
Thought you might like to know that I am an arty farty intellectual myself, but unfortunately disabled and with no private income, so you can keep on putting your jackboot in your mouth with your snide and pathetic remarks.
Jackboot eh? Nice. Well, this is no longer fun, everyone, so cheerio.
It should be worth noting that Derek Gale is also a member of the UKCP and the UKAHPP. A complaint was registered with the UKAHPP before it was taken to the HPC. The UKAHPP consistently stalled the process, chased off witnesses (ex-clients) and could not manage to find a panel of three independent individuals who did not have connections to Derek Gale to oversee the process.
If the “coalition against over-regulation of psychotherapy” are so adamant that the only way forward is internal regulation, it could be suggested that it would be helpful, or even enlightening to have a discussion about their internal processes to manage regulation. There seems to be more discussion about the inappropriateness of the HPC regulation, yet no discussion about the suitability of their own processes.
Why, to this date, have neither the UKCP or the UKAHPP commented on the Gale Case? A letter from the UKAHPP was presented as part of Gale’s case stating there had not been any complaints against him – a interesting stance to take given a complaint in place with the UKAHPP and they have yet to progress this – almost two years later. Is this the sort of regulation the coalition is proposing?
What steps are they proposing to stop the next Derek Gale. Have they allowed therapists to join their organisations using the grandparenting scheme? Do they insist on on-going training? Do they insist on a minimum level of training in the first place.
Derek Gale was quoted as saying that he only started keeping records in approximately 2006 because the guidelines from the UKCP changed – are we asked to believe that this is the type of organisation that could manage regulation internally?
Would you now go to see a psychotherapist based on the fact that there are a member of the UKCP or the UKAHPP?
Hi interested.
Thanks for these comments, but can I ask you to provide some sources for your claims? I’m not calling you a liar, just noting that these are quite strong allegations, so some sources would be helpful to avoid accusations of libel.
I do notice that a search of both the UKCP and the UKAHPP therapist registers do not return Derek Gale’s name. Though, unlike with the the HPC’s website, no information is provided by either of those bodies as to whether Derek Gale has ever been struck off by them. This in itself would demonstrate the need for the kind of public hearings that the Coalition seem so horrified at the thought of.
Gale hasn’t been struck off by them, the complaint is still ‘in process’ as it were. As a “Service User” you’d never know though.
@Beakie
I wouldn’t deny that artists may well have mental health problems – after all, Tracey Emin’s on that list of signatories. Even so, it just seems odd that other than psychotherapists, just about everybody on that list (I’ve been idly googling the names) seems to be some sort of artist, writer, philosopher, playwright, musician or film director. You’d think there’d be at least some representatives from other walks of life.
It does suggest a certain rather narrow view of the kind of person they think psychotherapy is for.
Z – I should imagine that this coalition has only publicized the names of supporters who will capture the attention of the public or of the psychotherapy community. Hence the seeming over-representation of writers and other creative types.
A full list of their supporters is available on their website. The names that have been publicised seem to be the only ones who might impress anybody, if they’d ever heard of them. No big household name stars with high profile mental health issues like Stephen Fry or Paul Merton or Ruby Wax, I notice.
I agree with Mr Ian’s comments below.
If the rich and famous wish to pay someone for a cosy chat…. let them.
But the likes of Gale who engaged with the vulnerable – need to be regulated.
The Coalition may have (inadvertently and for the wrong reasons) hit the nail on the head when they said said that anyone struck off as a psychotherapist could simply set themselves up as a “life coach” instead.
If anyone wants to pay £65 an hour for “life coaching” then that’s fair enough. It sounds like they’ve got more money than sense, but it’s their prerogative.
But “psychotherapist” implies an ability to treat mental illness and psychological distress, and therefore people seeking them out are likely to be vulnerable. Hence “psychotherapist” needs to be a protected title.
I was one of the Gale complainants, so I guess I can comment on this based on a bit of experience.
I am aware of the AHPP complaint and the person who made it. What I have heard directly from them would support much of what “Interested” is saying. Based on what I know of how they handled this complaint, it’d be a sad day if the AHPP were to be “the regulator”, and teh same applies to all these groups. Gale himself described those regulators as somethgin like “clubs for therapists” during his examination of me at the HPC hearing. Would I trust a “club for therapists” to regulate therapists? I think not. These organisations aren;t up to it. I was in Gale’s presence when he described submitting his Scuba Diving Lessons as part of his CPD. Perhaps he made that up, perhaps they rejected this as inappropriate (I wouldn’t put money on it though) but it does suggest the contempt that some therapists hold for such “regulators”.
I have tracked the appearance of the case in the media and on websites etc. quite closely and to my knowlegde the AHPP have said nothing about the case despite (or perhaps becuase of) having a complaint against Gale themselves.
Gale did only start to keep records very recently. When I’d left and I applied to get copies of my notes under the Data Protection Act and teh Medical Records act I think i got four sheets of A4. I’d been a client for nearly 16 years, with a short break in the middle.
One of the things about the case that the HPC found difficult was that culture of dependency that is fostered at the Gale Centre. The HPC isolated small examples of what goes on and presented them as specifc allegations. On their own they look slightly ridiculous. When combined, and repeated across the complainants to the HPC they show a much nastier picture.
Still the result was the right one. He was struck off. Now we just need to address the probelm where he changes his title to something the HPC don’t regulate and just carries on. I’m told that in his summing up at the HPC he stated something like “I’ve learned that if I go on holiday with my clients I need to get them to sign contracts”. Somehow I feel he’s missed the point.
If anyone is interested, the HPC hearing was a public hearing. Any of you can apply to the HPC and get copies of the transcripts of all 16 days of session. If you have an interest in regulation, bad therapy, or just want a fascinating read, I’d recommend you get copies. It’ll also address any fear readers here might have about any of this thread being libellous.
Get them regulated! Thanks for listening.
If you are interested in this case,
Thanks for joining this debate, IJ. We may be doing more coverage of this issue over the coming days and weeks.
My name is Howard Martin, I am the original complainant in the Gale case to both the HPC and AHPP /UKCP.
I have never been a client of Mr Gale’s nor any other psychotherapist.
When I became aware of Mr Gale’s activities I instigated third party complaints because he was operating without boundaries and unethically.
The HPC were very supportive of my third party complaint working with me over a number of years to eventually bring the case home.
I instigated the complaints in November 2005. The HPC case is now completed, delayed for about 18 months at my request so that appropriate evidence could be gathered and collated. Upon reviewing the evidence and some of Mr Gale’s responses to it, it was decided between myself, the HPC and their legal counsel that my initial complaint should stand on record but not be used in evidence as it was principly my observations and not my direct experiences.
By comparison to the HPC the AHPP / UKCP self regulation process has been tantamount to being abused, bullied and victimised.
So that you are all clear the AHPP / UKCP case is still outstanding. It was delayed at my request and with Mr Gale’s agreement so that the HPC case could be cleared first since that process has legally defined and protected outcomes and I did not want to give Mr Gale the opportunity to test his evidence in front of his friends and colleagues at the AHPP prior.
You see that is the problem with the self regulation process. The complainant is dealing with the friends and colleagues of the complained against and I can assure you that they have done their damdest to protect Mr Gale and create a friendly and conjusive environment for him. I am not afraid of libel as I have the thousands of pages of evidence that will at some point support my case against the AHPP for their conduct of the Gale case. I am quite happy to name names here and now because I know that what the AHPP are intending to put on is in fact a sham process if they can be bothered to continue the process at all.
The reason that Mr Gale does not appear in the AHPP / UKCP list of members is because they claim to have suspended him. But I have made several formal requests for information concerning this suspension, who imposed it, when and why and most importantly what sanction attaches to the suspension and both the AHPP and UKCP have refused to answer, citing – confidentiality!!!
I have also asked James Antrican the chair of the UKCP why they have failed to comment in anyway on the Gale case – I’ve waited a week and he hasn’t even bothered to acknowledge by request.
Food for thought – Professor Samuels is the media liaison officer for the UKCP. Prof Samuels made submissions to the HPC on Mr Gale’s behalf. Prof Samuels is a personal friend of Mr Gale who declined to be his superviser because he couldn’t get the insurance cover. Hmmmm let’s really rack our brains as to why there might have been no press release from the UKCP! Not even one saying that they couldn’t comment because they had an ongoing case.
I am quite happy to use this forum to convey in detail why the self regulation process is abusive and quite happily give the names of the individual officers of the UKCP /AHPP concerned. The UKCP have repeatedly refused my requests for them to take over the case from the AHPP and have been complicit in their construct of a catch 22 whereby if I succumb to the AHPP bullying and drop the case then the UKCP will not process my complaints against the AHPP because the case was not completed. I kid you not.
If anyone with a genuine interest would like to know more then please let me know.
All I can say is if I had a name like “Jocelyn Pook” I wouldn’t append it to any public cocument.
Actually it’s not all I can say on the subject: this is serious, and need proper consideration, not just by the self-indulgent idle rich who’ve signed up for this.
[...] Regulation of Psychotherapy – Who’s Against it · Mental Nurse Where I work, in an NHS eating disorders unit, the people attending psychotherapy are not highbrow literati trying to get over a dose of writer’s block. They’re deeply troubled, highly vulnerable people who need help to fight the anorexia that is actively trying to kill them. They are not going through a shopping catalogue of therapies like a basket to be ordered from Harrods. They need careful, expert support to help them develop a sense of control in their lives. Above all, they need to know that the therapist is not going to inflict further trauma upon them through misconduct or abuse. That means regulation. (tags: medicine psychiatry quacks) [...]