Related articles

• I read with interest Dr Sandy Richards’ letter in December’s Therapy Today. While recognising that CBT can be very effective in dealing with some aspects of depression or anxiety related conditions, I don’t believe it is useful when counselling clients with traumatic past life events, which have impacted them on every level. I give the following example of some more recent dangers of other professions believing six sessions of CBT is the panacea for all ills, when really the underlying motive is cost.
  
  I was recently asked by a social care department to offer counselling to two clients who were in the process of care proceedings. The family court had directed the local authority to procure counselling for these two clients. Both had psychological assessments, based on a one-hour session with a psychologist. CBT was recommended in both cases.
  Social services agreed to pay for six sessions, with the possibility of more if needed. Both clients had traumatic pasts and issues linked to this, which inevitably surfaced during counselling.
  
  Despite the promise of more sessions, the local authority would not pay for more and I have had to voluntarily continue with the sessions, because I felt it was unethical not to do so. I have refused to take any more clients on in these circumstances, but I’m sure there will be plenty of therapists who will do so.
  
  The mantra that six sessions of CBT will provide a fix is a dangerous nonsense and one that non-counsellors won’t understand. As for Dr Richards, as a CBT specialist I could speculate he/ she has something to lose if CBT becomes discredited as the golden egg.

• Name withheld