- 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
Today the Health Professions Council opened its register to psychologists. Some members of the psychotherapy profession may be horrified by the same thing happening to psychotherapists and counsellors, but the mental health charities Mind and WITNESS are dead in favour. Their press release is as follows:
Patients will continue to be unprotected if statutory independent regulation is not extended to counsellors and psychotherapists, according to leading national charities Mind and WITNESS. On the day that psychologists are to be regulated by the Health Professions Council (HPC), the charities welcome the advancement and urge counsellors and psychotherapists to follow suit.
Psychological therapies remain one of the least regulated areas of mental health practice in the UK, currently anyone can set themselves up as a counsellor or psychotherapist, without formal training or need to join a professional organisation. There is no single body to monitor malpractice and numerous complex complaints systems make it difficult for patients to take up claims. The Government has promised HPC regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors by 2011 but there remains some professional opposition to the plans.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of the mental health charity Mind, said:
“People go to see a counsellor or psychotherapist when they are in distress and it is unacceptable that at their most vulnerable they are not being properly protected. Now that psychologists are to be regulated by the HPC it makes sense for counsellors and psychotherapists to follow suit. We need a robust system of regulation that ensures health professionals meet set standards and patients are offered a central and fair system for making complaints. It is clear that self-regulation is not working and the Government must press ahead with its plans to overhaul the system.”
WITNESS Chief Executive Jonathan Coe said:
“It can be very hard for clients to complain. Not only does it require a great deal of strength of character to report abuse but people have to face over 100 different codes of conduct and organisational complaints procedures, may have to meet their own costs, prepare their own cases and represent themselves at panels made up exclusively of professionals.”
“The existing system is open to abuse. It allows therapists to continue using the same titles, even after they are removed from their own register. HPC regulation can’t end abuse but it can provide a single, unified and unbiased channel for complaints, and if a practitioner is struck off they are then legally barred from operating under that title.”
Professional boundaries charity WITNESS is approached every month by individuals who have been abused by therapists. People like Ed whose psychologist broke patient confidentiality when she divulged to third parties sensitive details of their session. He has attempted to make complaints but has been unsuccessful as it is his word against that of the psychologist, who denies wrong-doing.
Ed said:
“Until it happened to me I would never have believed that someone in that sort of job could, and would, tell a downright lie in order to cover up for their errors. Even so I felt sure I could rely on the complaints process to sort it all out. Now I realise that is not the case which is why I am so convinced independent, transparent and compulsory regulation for the talking therapies, according to a proper code of conduct, is essential”
It probably goes without saying that I’m in full agreement with the views of Mind and WITNESS on this issue.
EDIT: The Guardian website has a few articles published in response to this event, including an account of abuse by a psychotherapist, along with the failure of his professional body to take complaints against him seriously. Meanwhile, on the Guardian’s Joe Public blog there’s a piece by Jonathan Coe from WITNESS making the case for regulation of psychotherapists, accompanied by another piece from the UK Council for Psychotherapy’s James Antrican arguing that psychotherapy needs a “different style of regulation”.
I’m guessing the [HPC] could very easily invite [psychologists] to be officially approved members, and begin a promotional campaign to say why the public should prefer to see a [HPC]-approved [psychologist]. People wishing to speak with [psychologists] can then decide if they want someone who is [HPC]-approved or not.
The HPC statistics provided on the press release suggest that most people like to think they will be protected, yet half “did not know that practitioner psychologists were not statutorily regulated.”
To me, this suggests people are not interested in thinking for themselves and being responsible.
Overall, a very sad day for all concerned.
To me, this suggests people are not interested in thinking for themselves and being responsible.
Because therapists are completely open about the fact they’re unregulated, and mention it to every new client, and people with chronic illnesses aren’t using up all their spoons just getting on with life. Of course.
I agree with Lorna and would further add that most people assume that psychotherapists are part of the NHS, particularly if they had been referred by a G.P.
The relationship between a doctor/therapist/counsellor and client/patient is far more sublime that a simple economic/contractual nexus. This is why Gale and others, who have been reported by other contributors on this site, get away with inappropriate behaviours. If this had been a hairdresser acting inappropriately, this would have been quite different.
The simplistic, reductionist liberal notion of economic/legal relationships is, quite frankly, tosh.
Lorna,
“Because therapists are completely open about the fact they’re unregulated, and mention it to every new client”
Exactly! Why wouldn’t it occur to people to find out?
“people with chronic illnesses aren’t using up all their spoons just getting on with life”
I’m not so sure the argument relies on mental illnesses being legitimate illnesses. Indeed, it would seem odd to exclude other non-diagnosed but allegedly vulnerable people. Or is it just that the mentally ill are but one set of vulnerable people, and therefore state regulation is justified? If that is the argument, then clearly it is an argument about morality, politics and conflict, and not an argument about medicine, illness or health.
jbarber
“The relationship between a doctor/therapist/counsellor and client/patient is far more sublime that a simple economic/contractual nexus. This is why Gale and others, who have been reported by other contributors on this site, get away with inappropriate behaviours.”
But isn’t that an argument against the possibility of effective regulation?
“The simplistic, reductionist liberal notion of economic/legal relationships is, quite frankly, tosh.”
As ever, I’m just not sure quite what you mean. I’ve asked for clarification in the past.
“most people assume that psychotherapists are part of the NHS, particularly if they had been referred by a G.P.”
I totally concede that the argument for consistency (eg anything even vaguely related to health could be regulated), but that does not answer the question of legitimacy. If people are happy to reject responsibility for their health to someone else, they should both enjoy the benefits and bear the costs of their decisions.
Your paragraph about legitimate illnesses makes no sense to me. We’re talking about mental health professionals on a mental nursing blog. Of course it’s about illness.
Exactly! Why wouldn’t it occur to people to find out?
Because they’re too busy trying to deal with the illness that has taken over their life and, in many cases, is trying to kill them. Even if it were a simple matter to audition a therapist, which it isn’t. You better believe I’m critical and suspicious of most things, and try my best to do background research, but there’s a limit to how well I can do that a) while dealing with my illness and, y’know, having a life and b) without getting myself a reputation as hostile and difficult and probably BPD.
And that’s not even touching the illnesses (or, for that matter, the medications) that come with a side of brain fog and/or impaired judgement.
Right! Next stupid question!
“Your paragraph about legitimate illnesses makes no sense to me”.
It doesn’t matter then.
“You better believe I’m critical and suspicious of most things”.
So why not of psychiatry? One possible answer is that when the belief in mental illness as a medical illness existing beyond the individual is suspended, the rest of the supporting infrastructure falls away. That was in part how it worked for me, anyway.
“there’s a limit to how well I can do that”
Is it really that hard to find out what qualifications and professional bodies a therapist has and belongs to? We live in an age of information. I wouldn’t for a second consider paying someone to talk to if they were not open about who they are.
In other news, a brief look at the BBC news website tells me that trichotillomania “is a recognised but little understood medical condition.”
No doubt £serious will be spend looking for the chemical and biological causes of said medical condition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8136874.stm
HAHAHAHAHA.
Oh, Ted, don’t try and talk about what you don’t understand. The idea that I am blindly swallowing psychiatry, trusting whatever a medical professional tells me… oh, dear. Anyone who knows me in real life, or just puts up with my rants on the internet, would die laughing at the notion. I have dismissed almost every healthcare professional as too incompetent to bother with. I am a picky, hostile nightmare to treat.
And we still need regulation. Because, as you seem incapable of understanding, healthcare is not shopping. And seriously, take me up on my challenge. If regulation is so awful, stop seeing regulated healthcare professionals. No doctors and no dentists who have regulation. See how far you get. Actually, ditch everything. Don’t buy things with kitemarks. Get your gas and electrics done by unregistered randoms. Put your money – and indeed your safety – where your mouth is.
Trich’s a little self-harm and a little OCD, as I understand it. If you’re holding it up as an example of silly fake conditions, I actually know someone who pulled all her hair out. It was neither trivial nor funny.
“The idea that I am blindly swallowing psychiatry, trusting whatever a medical professional tells me… oh, dear.”
Here are the events in order. 1) You say you are critical, yet accept psychiatric coercion and the excuses it requires. 2) I gave an example of how I (in part) came to reject this position, pointing out that when a physical standard of illness is maintained, the surrounding body of excuses falls away. My point was that using “illness” to refer to almost anything has implications that go beyond medicine.
“Because, as you seem incapable of understanding, healthcare is not shopping”
I understand only too well that healthcare is largely a state monopoly. The problem is precisely the lack of a free market and the inability of people who do not want treatment to walk away. I reject coercive psychiatry and its related excuses.
“If regulation is so awful, stop seeing regulated healthcare professionals.”
If I had a choice, I would prefer to see someone who is not a paid up servant of the state. The state makes this largely a criminal activity. You are arguing that such measures are legitimate, and I disagree.
“Get your gas and electrics done by unregistered randoms.”
Haven’t we previously been over why state regulation and non-state regulation are not the same thing? Your point simply does not follow.
“Trich’s a little self-harm and a little OCD, as I understand it. If you’re holding it up as an example of silly fake conditions, I actually know someone who pulled all her hair out. It was neither trivial nor funny.”
I mentioned it because it was in the news that day, and because it is clearly not a medical illness under any sensible definition of illness. As it irrelevant as it is, I too happen to know somebody who “has” the “illness”. I did not say nor imply that such behaviour is trivial or funny, and it is a mistake to think/imply that people such as myself hold such views.
1) You say you are critical, yet accept psychiatric coercion and the excuses it requires.
I think I’ve found someone whose definition of coercion is even broader and more paranoid than mine. And they said it couldn’t be done! No, I don’t “accept psychiatric coercion”. I just try and find a mid-ground between mostly hating them and the rather bitter knowledge that I would be worse and possibly dead without them. I think pharmaceutical companies are evil parasitical scum and I take my five a day. I read my Masson and I show up for therapy anyway. You’d probably call it Stockholm Syndrome; I’d call it trying to have a life worth living. It’s a balancing act requiring compromise on both sides. Tedious, ambivalent and difficult, and not easily reducible to a catchphrase.
Haven’t we previously been over why state regulation and non-state regulation are not the same thing?
Yeah. And you couldn’t come up with a regulatory system that would suit your needs and would also get the job done.
I mentioned it because it was in the news that day, and because it is clearly not a medical illness under any sensible definition of illness
Media In Lazy Mental Health Reporting Shock. Yawn. That article is also an example of ‘let’s look at the freaks while pretending to be concerned’ coverage, as brilliantly parodied by Mitchell & Webb. It ain’t exactly a medical journal.
“I think I’ve found someone whose definition of coercion is even broader and more paranoid than mine.”
My definition of coercion is the same one used by Thomas Szasz and the vast majority of political theorists. Coercion is not persuasion. I’m not sure how I gave you such an impression.
“No, I don’t “accept psychiatric coercion””
Unless, like Thomas Szasz, you reject all psychiatric coercion on principle, then clearly you do accept it. Whether you have minor quibbles with certain uses is not the point.
“And you couldn’t come up with a regulatory system that would suit your needs and would also get the job done. ”
I don’t know what you mean. How do you know what my needs are? And what job is meant to be getting done?
“Media In Lazy Mental Health Reporting Shock”
Lazy journalism clearly isn’t the point I was making.
I do my best to respond directly to what you say, but I can’t say I find you making the same efforts.
There are certain professions wereby trust is conferred upon them regardless of the individuals within them eg doctors, lawyers and teachers, at the same time, the people whom they serve, are likely to be vulnerable, this is why state regulation is neccessary to counter the effects of this special trust. It creates sanctions/deterrents against professionals who may abuse/exploit vulnerable individuals by taking away their ability to practise.
In fact it took a great deal of state regulation to create what we have come to recognize as a free-market (most historians agree that in the UK, this free market lasted until 1815). State intervention was necessary because different localities operated different laws and systems eg. weights and measures and it was necessary to unify the competative base and make all things equal (as near as possible). Consequently if one is regulated all should be regulated, if not, it is quite illiberal and gives an unfair advantage.
But restriction and regulation also protects producers and providers, eg who would invest millions of pound/dollars to research and develop clozapine or even a playstation without the protection of licensing and copyright laws. It would be possible to set-up business utilizing another’s name and their goodwill.
The fact is all regulation is fair and equal as it applies to all (or should do), anyone can become a doctor or teacher providing they fulfill the entrance qualifications and all will be governed by the same regulations. Anyone can use copyright laws to protect an invention. So Ted, what makes you special and why do you believe that you should have an unfair advantage?
“the people whom they serve, are likely to be vulnerable, this is why state regulation is neccessary”
Is that reason your opinion, the official opinion, the legitimate opinion, etc?
“It creates sanctions/deterrents against professionals who may abuse/exploit vulnerable individuals by taking away their ability to practise.”
I agree.
“In fact it took a great deal of state regulation to create what we have come to recognize as a free-market”
‘What we recognise’ is of course up for debate. I have taken care in my answers here to refer to a lack of coercion being the definitive aspect of my position, rather than whatever-is-said-to-be-the-free-market. Of course, a statist free-market is an oxymoron.
“most historians agree that in the UK, this free market lasted until 1815″
*Most* historians? Not quite, I imagine. Anyway, glad to see you agree we have nothing approaching a genuine free market.
“State intervention was necessary because different localities operated different laws and systems”
That sentence sounds like you are repeating, without a second thought, whatever you read in a textbook or by some court historian. Clearly there is some truth to the existence of competing systems, and clearly state intervention was a way to standardise. This in no way justifies it actually happening.
“Consequently if one is regulated all should be regulated, if not, it is quite illiberal and gives an unfair advantage”
I agree.
“But restriction and regulation also protects producers and providers”
It provides protection to some, and harms others.
“eg who would invest millions of pound/dollars to research and develop clozapine or even a playstation without the protection of licensing and copyright laws”
The pro-IP case is so often put by people who think all innovation would grind to a halt without IP laws. The trouble is, the evidence points the other way. In any case, it even the point of the discussion.
“So Ted, what makes you special and why do you believe that you should have an unfair advantage?”
Non-sequitur! As someone who has used the term classical liberal in the previous discussion, you should be aware that an important part of that school of thought is the notion of equality under the law. Even the super-statist egalitarian political theorists sometimes take the time to discuss what exactly they want to be equal.
Btw, you missed/ignored all of my previous comments to you. You may not agree with me, but I’m having a hard time figuring out why.
Ted – What comments have you made that I haven’t addressed?
What evidence do you have that creating new products/inventions in today’s economy would continue without the presence of copyright laws?
Why then do we need them?
Classical liberalism does indeed represent equality under the law, that is why I pointed out that regulation applies equally and fairly to all – we are all able to use copyright laws, we are all able to enter professions which are regulated provided we hold the right qualifications, the law enables us all to access those qualifications, and further, we can all reject entering those professions..
As far as repeating from a history book, I will have to own up to the fact that historical texts are my source of information, this is on the basis that I wasn’t around to personally observe the events in question. In fact some writers argue that peasant production was more akin to a free-market and that the term ‘laissez-faire’ emerged just has it no longer existed.
And finally, my opinions are based on fairly extensive study of the subject, do you have a problem with this?
jbarber:
“What comments have you made that I haven’t addressed?”
These, for example: http://www.mentalnurse.org/ind.....ment-15642
“What evidence do you have that creating new products/inventions in today’s economy would continue without the presence of copyright laws?”
For example: http://blog.mises.org/archives/010257.asp
Laws such as IP, antitrust, etc obviously benefit some people and harm others. We “need” them only to ensure certain people benefit and certain people are harmed. Anyway, what has this to do with the debate?
“Classical liberalism does indeed represent equality under the law, that is why I pointed out that regulation applies equally and fairly to all”
You did that, but then you failed to acknowledge the fact that without such regulations we are all equal under the law. That is, people can call themselves psychotherapists (or whatever) and contract voluntarily with other people to provide a service that both parties expect to benefit from.
“As far as repeating from a history book, I will have to own up to the fact that historical texts are my source of information, this is on the basis that I wasn’t around to personally observe the events in question.”
So you are arguing that because you weren’t around at the time, you must take the word of certain historians at face value? My point, as I outlined previously, is that someone saying something doesn’t make it true. For example, many historians are quite willing to talk about economics without even a basic understanding of the subject. This often leads the official history to merely repeat whatever justifications were given by politicians at the time. A more recent example is the Iraq war. Did we need to spend £billions killing people in a foreign land? Hardly.
“And finally, my opinions are based on fairly extensive study of the subject, do you have a problem with this?”
I have presented arguments for certain positions which have not been met with any real response. I am talking about the legitimacy of certain state actions, which is a political matter. From your responses I can only think you have misunderstood what I have said or the subject to hand (or both).
Ted, you say in response to Jbarber…
““But restriction and regulation also protects producers and providers”
It provides protection to some, and harms others.”
I’ve yet to grasp what the harm is in the form of regulation that the HPC is putting forward. Could you enlighten me?
IJ:
All you need to ask yourself is what the regulations actually consist of, what activities are brought under state control, and what voluntary interactions have been criminalised. It may be true that certain regulations are less intrusive than others, but again, that is not the point.
Maybe I’m being a bit slow here, but it feels like you are talking in riddles. Can you just state what the problem is? It’s impossible to argue one way or another unless the actual issue is made clear.
IJ You are not being slow, Ted is going around in circles and adding the odd riddle here and there
Ted Regulations do not prevent people from entering into a voluntary contract, ‘contract’ is actually part of statute.
The point is – regulation is compatible with liberalism providing that it is equitable.
In the UK there are certain groups/institutions which do not conform with a liberal framework, eg. the royal family, defence, children and the MH Act, it is illiberal to section a person and enforce treatment, but compelling psychotherapists to be subject to the same regulation as other MH professions is liberal.
Whilst regulation is compatible with liberalism and free-markets, paradoxically, laissez-faire is not compatible. I have already mentioned the huge amount of regulation required to unify systems and you have made a fleeting reference to antitrust, and in a previous thread, the monopolies commission was mentioned. In fact Marx, in the mid 19th century, pointed-out that the natural outcome of competative markets was monopoly (the antithesis of liberalism), it has taken state regulation to prevent this.
Liberalism still lives, but it has evolved with the changing economic and social changes, but all you do is quote from the old texts whenever anyone challenges your opinion.
btw regulation and law are quite interchangable, both are state generated.