As longstanding members of the BACP, we are writing to you concerning the recent, quite shocking article ‘To resist is to exist” in March Therapy Today.

As professional therapists it is not our role to enter into political debate in Therapy Today. Our aim is solely to highlight the discrepancies between the aforementioned article and the BACP’s own constitution/Ethical Framework.

The BACP Ethical Framework states: ‘Practitioners should not allow their professional relationships with clients to be prejudiced by any personal views they may hold about lifestyle, gender, age, disability, race, sexual orientation, beliefs or culture...’

We are quite simply outraged at the hypocrisy displayed by BACP’s authorisation of the printing of the said article in light of this statement. We feel that there has been a gross error of judgment by your editorial department in sanctioning an article that has no place in any journal covering this profession.

Any member of BACP will be aware that the concept of therapy is solely to offer a neutral, safe and non-judgmental environment within which to assist and facilitate their clients’ emotional and psychological wellbeing. Hence, BACP has shown itself to be an ethically responsible and disciplined body to its members. Yet, having carefully read the aforementioned article, we have been left with feelings of betrayal resulting in a loss of faith in BACP’s ability to govern both itself and its members according to its own guidelines and constitution.

It is our firm belief that a political article has absolutely no place in a therapy-orientated publication. A discussion concerning issues of human emotional dilemma and suffering may certainly have a place in the said publication. However, it is blatantly apparent that this is not the message that the authors wish to convey.

We therefore feel that BACP’s comment with regard to the temporary withdrawal of the article in order to collate opinions ‘from the other side’ is completely irrelevant – looking for another side to the argument denotes that there has been detection of bias and bigotry, to say the very least. Instead of offering an unreserved apology for the gross offence and distress that this article has caused many therapists, BACP has chosen to perpetuate a political argument through inviting counter arguments.

BACP further failed to note that part of the research behind the article was not in accordance with BACP’s own ruling over ‘research’: ‘All research should be undertaken with rigorous attentiveness to the quality and integrity both of the research itself and of the dissemination of the results of the research...’ (BACP Ethical Framework)

The authors have evidently not undertaken their research in accordance with this principle. The dissemination of any publication carries with it a need for responsible journalism.

In light of the above, our continued membership of BACP is under serious consideration, as is that of our colleagues. Our final decision rests on BACP’s actions in pursuance of this matter, and we have full confidence that the organisation will conduct itself in response to this matter with the integrity that has hereto been the hallmark of its governance.

J Fine and S Goitein

Additional signatories:
R Minsky, M Nadler, Jacqueline Ullmann, Rosalind M Share, Devorah Gelley, Rebecca Aharon, Rachel Landau, Sharon Swaden, Lily Galandauer, Rabbi Sholom Bloom, Reitzy Diamant, Pearl Rubin, Bayla Brandeis, Vivien Rosenblatt, Ann Lopian, Nechama Rechnitzer, Regina Hirsch, Toni Dzialowski, Katy Curtis, Yvonne Leigh, Evelyn Wells, Nichole Hass, Hannah Flax, Malka Taub, Karen Taylor, Reba Domnitz