tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2518731414526924239.post1470436155464320423..comments2024-01-23T01:25:02.164+00:00Comments on Amanda Williamson Coaching and Counselling Service in Exeter, Devon: Regulation - a client and therapist friendly way forward? Amanda Williamson (She/her)http://www.blogger.com/profile/14685203130859349559noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2518731414526924239.post-80682658610875401762018-02-23T21:40:52.995+00:002018-02-23T21:40:52.995+00:00Thank you for your message, Anonymous. Yes I am su...Thank you for your message, Anonymous. Yes I am supportive of the work that PODS do in terms of raising awareness of the full spectrum of working with trauma in therapy. I have not come across anything that would indicate that they are controversial or causing harm. If I came across something of substance to that effect then I would certainly review that information.<br /><br />I would agree that a therapist insisting that a client has DID when this is not the client’s lived experience is reckless, dangerous and abusive. I am also aware of the skepticism around DID. This is not enough for me to outright deny the reality of some of the people I know who’s lived experience is that they very much identify with DID. It is my opinion that in the context of a therapeutic relationship to do so might also be abusive.<br /><br />I am very sorry that you have experienced therapy that has been harmful to you.Amanda Williamson (She/her)https://www.blogger.com/profile/14685203130859349559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2518731414526924239.post-60314483329409312162018-02-23T16:25:15.735+00:002018-02-23T16:25:15.735+00:00You seem to be a counsellor who is well aware of t...You seem to be a counsellor who is well aware of the dangers of bad therapy and therapeutic malpractice but I notice, with deep concern, that you have allied yourself with the controversial organisation Positive Outcomes for Dissociative Survivors (PODS). <br /><br />I am astonished and dismayed by this and wondered whether you have done this because you have failed to read any of the sceptical, rationalist, evidence based material relating to DID? Is it because you have met one or more people who identify as having DID and you have taken an unquestioning stance? <br /><br />I am genuinely interested to know as a former client of an abusive therapist who had convinced her clients that they had DID after recovering memories of incest and satanic ritual abuse. <br /><br />Have you ever read, for example Making Monsters by Richard Ofshe? Have you ever read any of the very informative threads on the International Skeptics Forum? <br /><br />Serious questions, please do reply<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2518731414526924239.post-19819215260833541802014-11-14T10:01:42.799+00:002014-11-14T10:01:42.799+00:00The idea that professionals will simply call thems...<i>The idea that professionals will simply call themselves something else sounds reasonable in theory but in practice this doesn't seem to be a problem for others professions with protected titles such as doctors. I have never come across a case of someone pretending to be a doctor by calling themselves something similar".</i><br /><br />The problem is not people pretending to be a doctor by calling themselves something else, the problem is people offering medical consultations and avoiding regulations by pretending <b>not</b> to be a doctor by calling themselves something else. One example would be unqualified individuals offering complementary health services. To quote the NHS website:<br /><br /><i><b>Unregulated complementary and alternative medicines</b></i><br /><br /><br /><i>In the UK, there is currently no statutory professional regulation of any other complementary and alternative medicine practitioners.</i><br /><br /><i>This means, for example, that anyone in the UK can legally call themselves a homeopath and practise homeopathy on patients, even if they have no training or experience. These practitioners are not legally required to adhere to any standards of practice. If you have a complaint about treatment you have received from a homeopath, you have no special legal rights beyond normal civil and criminal law.</i><br /><br />http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/complementary-alternative-medicine/Pages/complementary-alternative-medicine-CAM-regulation.aspx<br /><br />Other professions also have similar problems, e.g. unqualified "legal advisors" not being regulated as Lawyers. On their own protected titles protect <b>professionals</b> from being tainted by the same brush as these individuals by distancing themselves from them, but they don't protect the public from incompetent and unethical individuals offering these services. <br /><br />It's also significant that it's not just doctors' titles that are protected but some of the functions that a doctor carries out are protected as well, such as prescribing drugs. So if a doctor is struck off and sets himself up as a “Health Consultant” he wouldn’t be able to carry on his practice as he had done because there would be things (such as prescribing drugs) that he could no longer do.<br /><br />This wouldn’t be the case for psychotherapists and counsellors if their titles were protected, if a counsellor struck off the counsellor’s’ register set himself up as a “Talk Therapist” he could offer exactly the same services just so long he didn’t use the word “counsellor”.<br /><br />A well-publicised and widely understood system of statutorily accredited voluntary registers offers exactly the same level and type of protection to both professionals and the public as a well-publicised and widely understood system of statutorily protected titles. <br /><br />The AVR system has the potential to be a robust and effective form of regulation, just so long as the general public learns to look for the AVR logo when choosing therapeutic services and organisations recognise it and demand that the professionals they engage with are covered by it. (Exactly the same could be said about protected titles.)Patick Killeenhttp://headandheart.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2518731414526924239.post-50332895773772834432014-11-06T11:26:47.631+00:002014-11-06T11:26:47.631+00:00BACP's response is surprisingly open to - or a...BACP's response is surprisingly open to - or at least non-critical of - a statutory (not voluntary) regulatory system, given that the current BACP Chair, Amanda Hawkins, wrote in Therapy Today that she was 'confident' that ‘statutory regulation won’t be happening on my patch [sic]’! ('From the Chair' vol.22, issue 9; accessible for BACP members here: http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/2773/ ). Note that she wasn't just talking about H(C)PC, but 'statutory regulation' itself.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com