Quote
corboy
If a therapist screws up with a client by using an untested modality (such as Byron Katies stuff or Eckhart Tolles stuff), that therapists ass and license are on the line.

In theory, yes. But if an actual complaint is made, the client has to 1) figure out which modality was being used on them (the therapist may never have named it, just did it anyway), 2) provide some evidence that this modality was in fact being used (which could be difficult, it's the therapist's word against the client's) and 3) show that the client was never informed and therefore never consented. Plus the complaints board/committee must agree that the modality is in fact untested, potentially harmful and so on. Psychotherapy is eyeball-deep in untested modalities - heck, some therapists are still doing Freudian psychoanalysis - and for the most part not too worried about it.

Using an untested but popular modality is pretty small potatoes as far as complaints to regulating agencies go. Every year agencies get complaints about therapists having sex with clients or getting free labour out of clients and similar, and yet little is done to really prevent it. So a complaint about an untested modality could just be chalked up to a "bad fit" between client and therapist and dismissed out of hand.

I think I may be drifting off topic here....but you get the gist: licensing doesn't offer a potential client much protection.

Margarets, I wouldn't be in the business of speaking for mental health professionals. You're trolling for something other than LGATs. If you have problems with psychotherapy, use the "therapy abuse" section. Corboy is pretty spot-on about what any ethical therapist knows. You ever hear of a letter of standards & practices? I didn't think so.

Do some homework and come back sometime.

Quote
margarets

Quote
corboy
If a therapist screws up with a client by using an untested modality (such as Byron Katies stuff or Eckhart Tolles stuff), that therapists ass and license are on the line.

In theory, yes. But if an actual complaint is made, the client has to 1) figure out which modality was being used on them (the therapist may never have named it, just did it anyway), 2) provide some evidence that this modality was in fact being used (which could be difficult, it's the therapist's word against the client's) and 3) show that the client was never informed and therefore never consented. Plus the complaints board/committee must agree that the modality is in fact untested, potentially harmful and so on. Psychotherapy is eyeball-deep in untested modalities - heck, some therapists are still doing Freudian psychoanalysis - and for the most part not too worried about it.

Using an untested but popular modality is pretty small potatoes as far as complaints to regulating agencies go. Every year agencies get complaints about therapists having sex with clients or getting free labour out of clients and similar, and yet little is done to really prevent it. So a complaint about an untested modality could just be chalked up to a "bad fit" between client and therapist and dismissed out of hand.

I think I may be drifting off topic here....but you get the gist: licensing doesn't offer a potential client much protection.

Margarets- You DO realise one can't practice psychotherapy without a license and malpractice insurance, right?

Quote
Vic-Luc
You DO realise one can't practice psychotherapy without a license and malpractice insurance, right?

Actually that depends on the jurisdiction. In my jurisdiction you absolutely can practice without a license - there is no license to get, no authority to give one or take it away. "Malpractice insurance" is a non-issue for psychotherapists here.

I have done my homework on this, and everything I'm saying is true. Check out, for example, the Yvonne Bates video on YouTube, or David Smail's website. Or Kenneth Pope's website. Not that they discuss LGATs specifically, but they definitely discuss the flawed premises of psychotherapy that can lead to exactly the situation described in the original post on this thread (and worse).

And anyway, like I said, every year there are complaints made about licensed therapists, and every year settlements and payouts are made from malpractice insurance - and those are just the cases that come to light. There are whole law firms that specialize in psychotherapy malpractice, that's how common it is. So my point stands: licensing offers very little protection to clients. I suppose it offers clients recourse when things go wrong, assuming the client is willing or able to undertake that process. But bad stuff can still happen in the first place. Complaints come after the misconduct.

Quote
Vic-Luc
You ever hear of a letter of standards & practices? I didn't think so. Do some homework and come back sometime.

This seems needlessly antagonistic. I'm making totally valid points. Do you really believe a "letter of standards & practices" will keep a person from acting unethically? Every licensed therapist found guilty of misconduct would have signed such a document, and it didn't stop them.

In the case of therapists who refer to LGATs, if they don't know it's an LGAT or what an LGAT even is, or what the risks are, they might really believe they are helping their clients. It might not cross their minds that they are doing anything remotely questionable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2010 09:39AM by margarets.

Its absolutely accurate that people do NOT need any kind of license in certain areas, to practice therapy, or psychotherapy, or counseling. They can even paste silly internet diplomas on their wall, and charge whatever they want, in certain areas. They can do anything they want in certain areas, that is the scary thing. They can charge $300 an hour if they want.

In other areas where they cannot do that, then they do what Byron Katie and everyone else does. Just call it coaching, or a conversation, or spiritual Angel channeling, or whatever.
Its an easy loophole to get around for them.


And just because a person has an MD or a PhD and is licensed, does not make them safe. There are plenty of hacks and quacks out there. There are plenty of licensed shills for LGAT's.

But its far better to start with a properly trained and licensed Psychologist for example, who is registered, and who is up front about their methods and training.

But that does not mean one should be blind. Check them out, ask them questions, check their online record for complaints.
Pay one session at a time, and if they are crappy, fire them.

Critical thinking skills are just as important for a licensed shrink, as for anyone else.

One Buddhist Center's Advice to Members Who are Therapists and Helping Professionals

A licensed therapist should not use membership in a church, dharma center or ashram as a way to shop for clients/business. Ditto for yoga teachers, etc.

As an example of an unusually detailed examination of this by one Buddhist center, here is a quotation from guidelines that, in my opinion, ought to be considered a gold standard--and something worth discussing in courses for therapists as part of clincal training and continuing education.

Quote

Ethics Guidelines for Berkeley Zen Center

Adopted October 1, 2006 by the BZC Board

(Page 4)

Therapists and Helping Professionals

Sangha members are discouraged from using the community as a source ofbusiness or professional clients. We request that BZC (Berkeley Zen Center) teachers and sangha members who work as psychotherapists, physicians or attorneys avoid entering into professional relationships with sangha members.

Others in the helping professions are asked to be sensitive to the delicate balance between workerand client, and the possible complexity of dual relationships when both partiespractice at the same dharma center.

If by chance a therapist and client happen to be members of the same church or spiritual project, a therapist MUST be prepared to put the clients well being first and foremost, even if it means going against a guru or pastor or group. If a therapist refuses to imagine there could ever be such a conflict--that therapist is already compromised.

A very good remark from the ethics guidelines from the Berkeley Zen Center is as follows:

'In certain situations it is unethical to do nothing.'

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

This is not to say action is futile, but we have to keep pushing. And I think that clinical programs and continuing education programs for therapists HAVE to get it out there that therapists are high value recruits for opportunists who do not have licenses but do have lots of charisma and will use therapists and then ditch them when the going gets tough.

Some clinical supervisors may have been inspired by charismatic guru types to go into therapy as a career and may have unexamined counter transferance issues and blindspots as to their own entanglements in the cultic fog of the Human Potential movement 30 to 40 years back and may be passing this on to younger therapists whom they train. If a therapist is trained entirely within the cultic mileu, he or she may be unable to apply ethical guidelines in a conscious manner to his or her own relationship with a guru and may be unable to imagine his or her guru could do anything harmful even when trying to get access to the theapists clients.

But...we have to keep bringing this issue up. There is a dignity and necessity in continuing to try.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2017 07:15PM by rrmoderator.

Just as an example, in my jurisdiction a complaint was made to a regulating agency (closest thing we have to a licensing board) about a therapist who had sex with, exchanged nude photos via email with, showed porn to, and did drugs with a client who was a minor at the time. A monstrous violation of psychotherapy ethics if there ever was one.

The therapist's discpline was: to be prohibited from providing psychotherapy for at least two years, though they could engage in related activities like 'psychoeducation', and to undertake insight-oriented psychotherapy for two years under the regulating agency's supervision. When the two years was up, assuming there were no other violations or issues, that therapist could go straight back to doing psychotherapy, behind closed doors, one-on-one, just like before.

A prospective client of this therapist would have no way to find out about their history; their name was never published and the agency does not provide this info even on request.

Imagine doing therapy with a shrink who had THAT in their past. If you knew you'd run a mile.

Bringing this back to LGATs - if sex with a minor client isn't enough to get your registration yanked and put you out of the therapy business for good, referring a client to a questionable 'personal development course' or similar probably wouldn't get you in much trouble either.

Sane Again, it would be very interesting if you reported this psychologist to their regulating agency, just to see what happens.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2010 02:17AM by margarets.

No regulating body? You must be in Australia or Asia. HERE, in this country, you can review a therapist's disciplinary action and/or warnings for FREE. BEFORE you visit! Google is a great thing.

Quote
margarets
Just as an example, in my jurisdiction a complaint was made to a regulating agency (closest thing we have to a licensing board) about a therapist who had sex with, exchanged nude photos via email with, showed porn to, and did drugs with a client who was a minor at the time. A monstrous violation of psychotherapy ethics if there ever was one.

The therapist's discpline was: to be prohibited from providing psychotherapy for at least two years, though they could engage in related activities like 'psychoeducation', and to undertake insight-oriented psychotherapy for two years under the regulating agency's supervision. When the two years was up, assuming there were no other violations or issues, that therapist could go straight back to doing psychotherapy, behind closed doors, one-on-one, just like before.

A prospective client of this therapist would have no way to find out about their history; their name was never published and the agency does not provide this info even on request.

Imagine doing therapy with a shrink who had THAT in their past. If you knew you'd run a mile.

Bringing this back to LGATs - if sex with a minor client isn't enough to get your registration yanked and put you out of the therapy business for good, referring a client to a questionable 'personal development course' or similar probably wouldn't get you in much trouble either.

Sane Again, it would be very interesting if you reported this psychologist to their regulating agency, just to see what happens.

btw- even lawyers carry malpractice insurance. In this country.