Related articles
Therapist column - The limits of training |
| "Having received my copy of the recent letter from the Chair of BACP, Dr Lynne Gabriel, regarding the proposed differentiation between counselling and psychotherapy in the lead-up to statutory regulation, I thought I might use this space to reflect further on whether there is a difference between the two activities, and if so, the nature of that difference." |
Learning zone
Dilemmas
This month's dilemma: Would you break confidentiality if a reluctant client fails to attend, or respond to letters while owing money?
Read moreCounselling and Psychotherapy Research (CPR)
is a peer reviewed, quarterly international journal. Visit http://www.cprjournal.com/ to read abstracts, receive regular e-bulletins and access the research glossaryHindsights
Why I became a counsellor
What makes a good therapist? What values do you hold dear? Heather Dale responds to our questions
Read moreFeedback
We value your feedback. Like most websites, Therapy Today.net is in ongoing development. If we can make the site more user-friendly or relevant to you, please let us know Leave feedback
After reading Andrew Reeves’ column in the October issue, I am convinced he picked his metaphor of ‘splitting the atom’ with care – that or the psychodynamics of the current regulation arguments pushed themselves unconsciously to the fore.
Splitting the atom
After reading Andrew Reeves’ column in the October issue, I am convinced he picked his metaphor of ‘splitting the atom’ with care – that or the psychodynamics of the current regulation arguments pushed themselves unconsciously to the fore. He intended it to represent an easier task, but the link to regulatory activity is unavoidable.
Splitting an atom is hugely messy in outcome terms, despite its intent of scientific progress, and represents a completely unnecessary demonstration of power with international fall-out. Taking a sledgehammer to do it would imply not only a socially understood excessive choice of a tool but the impossibility of achieving the outcome with such an inappropriate one.
With his acknowledgment that no one knows everything to start with, Reeves seems to me to imply that an extra exam, hurdle or other such proof of capability would be in order at some stage after initial training for both counsellors and psychotherapists who have built up experience in so-called mental disorder. This – or these, where there are other specialisms – would be the differentiation points. I would add to that the overlooked point of training for work with children and young people. Many counsellors and psychotherapists will go on to work with this equally vulnerable population without even the modicum of knowledge or training we would expect at qualification level with distressed adults. I have myself taken half-day ‘introduction to children’s work’ sessions with post-graduate diploma students on an excellent training course and found that interest is awakened, the need for further learning seen, but time for pursuing it within the course timetable simply unavailable. The same applies to any substantial training about more complex mental health problems.
Those who have an eye on the atom, egocentric displays of power and the minutiae of section three-and-a-half, subsection Z have completely lost sight of the huge need to ensure the entire workforce is competent in general at first but required to register levels of specialist expertise later, without which they would not be allowed to work with certain groups. This is surely the only way to safeguard clients and maintain a wider view of what counselling and psychotherapy are all about.Eleanor Patrick
MBACP (Accred), editor of CCYP divisional journal
