I would like to raise a question about an aspect of the Human Givens approach, namely their claims about the treatment of trauma. Last year I chaired the plenary of a conference on trauma, attended by 120 people, mainly counsellors and psychotherapists, from all over the South West.

The first question related to the claim in the MindFields prospectus. It is worth quoting:

‘Traumatic memories, post traumatic stress (PTSD) and even the most severe phobias can easily and safely be treated with the skills taught on this workshop. Learn how to de-traumatise bad memories, stop flashbacks, cure phobias, banish nightmares and reduce anxiety.’ It continues: ‘...You can help victims of abuse, rape, violence, car accidents, fire, terrorism and panic attacks, by de-traumatising them, usually in one session, using the precisely targeted psychological technique taught on this workshop (a refined version of the “rewind” technique). It’s easy to learn…’ Inside, under the title ‘How to cut costs yet still improve services’ it claims: ‘Our graduates treat sufferers from PTSD effectively and swiftly – usually in only a couple of sessions, a fraction of the 20 sessions anticipated by NICE guidelines.’

Amazing claims! Yet we find the various Human Givens courses can count towards an MA validated by Nottingham Trent University. The questioner at our conference asked, tongue in cheek, why we had three national speakers, including one from the Maudsley Hospital, giving three perspectives on the treatment of trauma and implying high levels of skill, complexity and in some cases, protracted recovery, and not an HG training day?

The speakers were not impressed by the claims and neither were the audience from what I could see from my position as chairman. One of them remarked that HG doesn’t even believe in the necessity for practitioners to have their own therapy.

I am asking three questions. Is there any independent research to validate HG claims? Are some clients/patients being treated for trauma by people who have had a day’s course? Should BACP be neutral as to the content of such advertising dispatched with Therapy Today journal?

If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, then the sooner we all learn about it the better. Why is it not being promoted by the universities or the Department of Health? If not, should they be making these claims? Many of us have had to deal with traumatised people, and the thought of them being ‘treated’ by people who think one technique and a day’s training makes them competent almost beggars belief. My rational self says this must be unfair as we live in an era of evidence-based treatment – don’t we?

The trauma day course is only one of many courses offered by MindFields and some of them are probably effective and little different from most such courses. If we look further we find that eight seminars and eight workshops, a two-week ‘intensive’ course, some case studies and an assessment with three hours of supervision will gain you a practitioner diploma. However, BACP members, psychodynamic, person-centred or integrative or whatever, need 450 hours of training for accreditation, plus many hours of practice, plus self-development. The Association does not believe we can learn effective counselling in a few weeks or months. MindFields and BACP would seem to have very different requirements.

This is an important issue when we are trying to convince people we are a serious professional body. MindFields’ advertising often arrives with my BACP posting. I am not suggesting BACP actually endorses the content of their claims. However, does this imply our organisation has no problem in distributing the literature of an organisation which claims trauma can be treated ‘usually in only a couple of sessions’? Should it have? Is it just a commercial transaction necessary for the finances of BACP? If so, will Therapy Today be carrying adverts for psychic healing or astrology, if asked? Would anyone like to comment? I would really like to know.