.


Well it seems the UK "Therapy Wars" have broken out at last and the Band of Therapy Brothers has lit the battle torches :
Press Release 17th April 2009
THERAPISTS REFUSE THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANS FOR THEM
At a packed meeting in London on April 5th, the newly formed Alliance for Psychotherapy and Counselling took the next steps in its campaign against the Government's plans for the regulation of psychotherapy and counselling via the Health Professions Council. The Alliance is an umbrella organisation for qualified psychotherapists and counsellors from all traditions to develop their case that therapy work is not a 'health profession'.
Addressing the meeting, Professor Brian Thorne said: 'No convincing proof exists that state regulation protects clients from abuse. Therapy is not a medical or usually a medically associated activity and regulation by the Health Professions Council consequently makes little sense. The uniqueness both of persons and relationships indicates the inappropriateness of a state regulatory process which must inevitably encourage uniformity and militate against creativity of practice.'
Already, over 2,000 qualified psychotherapists and counsellors have signed a petition calling for a
rethink by the Government. A Coalition Against Over-Regulation of Psychotherapy has launched its own petition, supported by well-known artists, writers and intellectuals, which has also called for the abandonment of what many now see as a misguided policy on the part of the Government.
Speaking for the Coalition, Professor Darian Leader said:
'All the major psychotherapy and counselling organisations rejected HPC as regulator when it was proposed two years ago. HPC is designed for healthcare delivery in a business framework and not for the relationship based practice of psychotherapy. It is also unable to deal with the complexity of complaints in this field.' One of the main psychotherapy organisations - the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy - has made it clear that it will continue to register psychotherapists who, as matter of principle, do not sign up to the HPC's register. HPC itself also recognises that its register will be far from comprehensive and that there will be many legal loopholes.
Calling for a campaign of Principled Non-Compliance, Professor Andrew Samuels said: 'All psychotherapists and counsellors concerned about the Government's proposals should announce publicly that they will refuse to register with the HPC and remain in membership of one of the existing - and good enough - psychotherapy organisations to which all therapists belong'. Samuels went on: 'All such organisations have well-developed codes of ethics and conduct bringing with them disciplinary procedures including withdrawal of recognition or publicly announced expulsion from the organisation ("striking off") as a last resort'.
It is very important for the public and media to understand that the Alliance in no way supports
anyone working outside of a code of ethics and conduct without accountability. Therapists are not so irresponsible and it is insulting to suggest otherwise.
We feel that the approach taken to these matters by the HPC is going to prove disastrous. Many complaints against psychotherapists and counsellors are not about clear cut matters such as sexual or financial exploitation, or false claims to qualification. All therapists agree that exploitation and deception are utterly unacceptable, though, regrettably, the extent of such abuse has never been properly researched. Sadly, as all agree, no system - not the HPC's nor the ones already in existence - will deal with the problem of the 'bad apple'.We have seen this in the experience of the medical profession.
Because of the nature of this work, many complaints are best resolved via conciliation, negotiation and, where appropriate, apology and a change of approach on the part of the therapist. However, true to its understanding of a 'health profession', the HPC's approach to ethics and discipline is bureaucratic, adversarial, utterly devoid of the emphasis on conciliation, mediation and mutual understanding that characterizes the best contemporary approaches
to ethics and discipline in the therapy field. In this, and in other ways, far from raising standards,
the HPC has embarked on lowering them.
Those psychotherapy and counselling organisations who support the HPC process know this perfectly well but remain silent for fear of jeopardizing the advantages and benefits that will accrue from compliance. So, whatever the stated intention to protect the public, the HPC register will only benefit those therapists who sign up to it.
Following the launch of the Alliance's campaign, the number of HPC 'refuseniks' is going to be substantial. We call on the Government to convene a conference of all the parties and organise a poll of the professions concerned.We are dismayed at the flat refusal of the HPC even to discuss such a poll.
For more information contact: Denis Postle 020 8995 6181 denis@postle.net
Professor Darian Leader 07952 520 540 darianleader@hotmail.com
Janet Low 020 8244 4549; 07780 697160 janet.low@mac.com
Professor Andrew Samuels 020 7272 1292; 07768 662813 andrew@andrewsamuels.net
PRESS RELEASE
Released on 17th April 2009
2 of 2
http://www/allianceforcandp.org
Lord Brett
Silvis Rivers ! Your 1% per cent disagreement figure here !
There's a sketch of a mental health User colleague - Yep - a neck bolted cogbottery success story
SEE HERE : So seee I have an evidence base Lord Brett
However , Welfare and Reform, and CBT supply eh ? .. Oh yes, many do know they are all woven policies
The supply sides of therapy up and down the country available through PCT's , Trusts and GP surgeries are coming on stream with the £173 million of Govt funding over several years.
The Govt took it upon themselves to push CBT – it was endorsed of course as part of the welfare to work reforms by Dick Layard (LSE) to get people back to work and some very simplistic things were claimed of it like 10 – 12 sessions would see many thousands go back to work as CBT successes.
I believe this approach was flawed at many levels both therapeutic and at the recognition of individualised need for therapy help and personal pace. Personalised services were the kinds of things we were promised which have been overtaken by large planning and system delivery gurus ..
There was plenty of supply sides (unharnessed) for therapies already in the private sector and if MH patients had had a patient choice culture through say local purchasing (GP level) then slowly a culture of decent therapies would have taken root and the useless practitioners would have been weeded out by patient satisfaction being measured at a local level ..
There's no competition with the State so the State cannot claim a Patient Choice culture and in mental health as I say we were promised Patient Choice and better personalised budgets for recovery and we've seen bagger all that cuts the mustard, and now we are getting welfare deformed-reform oppression
The Mild to Moderate depressive category of those out of work who were going to be the first candidates of CBT is another example the strange language of system driven welfare reform bureacracy . People with depression present differently with different reasons for being depressed and many (excluding Bipolar) have years of compressed misery and likely or not special events they need to emotionally alleiviate and resolve ..
CBT as its promoted is simplistic and its going to be played with by graduate-workers employed by the NHS… That is wrong …
After 36 years of seeing mental health suffering of all varieties I can honestly say I think that's a mistake and there are plenty of skilled practitioners out their in the market place where Patient's could get a real choice to find ways to resolve their pain , depression and misery .. The money was there in 2004 but the Govt saw fit to create NIMHE (now defunct) which went on to spend in excess of £100 million. I see that as a major loss of treatment opportunity for people who needed therapy choices years ago .. The market was left untapped and even alienated by the insistence it come under Govt control through the Health Professions Council despite bodies like UKCP and BACP and others having adequate ethical comittees and complaint processes.
CBT is not Patient Choice - its being used for State dominion - Neither in my opinion is it a depth approach to resolve difficult emotional pains and states by actually feeling them towards resolution and integration, which is an emotionally realistic way to deal with most of the human condition.
Its a lightweight application with limited scope and I think many MH patients and people in the community will be shortchanged by it - if its allied to deeper emotional approaches and acceptances of peoples feelings, and feeling states towards resolution, then maybe it will become useful because then it creates a place for recognition of feelings - proportionality of reaction, and past and present and how one can serve to whip up reactions in the other .
I do hope you like my evidence base ..
Silvis Rivers
USERWATCH & COGBOTTERY EVIDENCE BASE
LORD BRETT :
Silvisrivers
yes I like your `evidence-base`. It made me smile and that is always welcome in my book.
I share your scepticism at the new use of CBT and the almost factory-style production of `fast-track` IAPT practitioners who will be as limited in their ability in all likelihood as their rushed training implies.
However, those of us who trained a while ago and took many years to do it, including starting with a nursing qualification and many years of experience in that field too might feel slightly irritated that because CBT has been co-opted by NuLab, many people including sad to say, your good self view it as lightweight and trivial as the politicians who seem to push its use.
This view of CBT as not addressing `real issues` and a `quick fix` simply reveals a lack of knowledge of the subject and is in a sense, as lightweight, uninformed and thin a dismissal as the behaviour of those you claim to despise.
SILVIS RIVERS :
Lord Brett
Hey if you feel you are adequate fine ... I have not personalised this issue - and your sadness is noted but so is the pain of others in my community of mental health Users that are shortchanged by system top down thinking and would be welfare reform applications
Welfare Reform and the top down way its being planned included CBT jackboots too or maybe they should be called "Dick-boots" after a certain person who is economical with therapy .
Personalisation of services has gone out of the NHS window and welfare reform has become the new psycho-work-alot religion . Even Job Centre staff hover in and and around NHS mental health Trusts.. Its intimidating and upsetting people . Some of us are so affected by the assault of the planning gurus that we do wonder if death is better . Now that's being hurt .
But on therapy there should have crucially been choices not just one favoured application (CBT) and all the training money to my mind gone to it is wasted when its obvious we could have enjoyed monitored patient choices years ago using available local supply sides . God knows some of us could have grown into more functionality .
The whole point for me and others in the User-community was to believe in a patient recovery led by choices and incremental growth . Its what we were all promised . I've seen CBT used by "practitioners" in the NHS where they expect the patient to do"homework" to identify negatively co-reinforcing thought and feeling patterns and the poor boggers have been lost .
I've talked to these people and discovered so many are seriously wounded people from life and they need deeper more empathically providing applications
After your post I have taken a decision to ask USERWATCH to make an exception against CBT slagging off and therefore you have been offered a Dogology .. Now this is rare
I'd swipe a copy of it quick ..
SEE HERE A special dogology to Lord Brett ..
Seeeeee now I do have the power of magical smiling and wickedish therapy which makes Lords laugh ..
Silvis Rivers
USERWATCH