Coming to the defence of CBT – which has been under attack from therapy today readers and more generally in the media – David Veale answers such accusations as ‘the IAPT will be a cheap fix’ and ‘CBT makes people passive automatons’. He presents CBT as a constantly evolving model which is led by research and is careful to say that although evidence for the effectiveness of other psychological therapies is lacking, this is not the same as evidence for their ineffectiveness. But I imagine many readers will be uncomfortable, to say the least, with his forecast for the profession: ‘All future counsellors and psychotherapists should be trained as scientist practitioners so that they can collect and evaluate data, participate in peer review and be part of the scientific community.’ While most people would agree that the days of practising without regard to evaluation are over, we still aren’t used to thinking of therapy in these rather hard and fast scientific terms. 

Richard Worsley is concerned that non-directivity has been misunderstood and misrepresented; in response to James Buckley (December 07), he suggests that CBT interventions may not always be helpful in Person-Centred Therapy. Richard demonstrates very clearly how in person-centred practice, it is crucial to allow a client time and space to show the practitioner how she/he ‘puts her world together’, instead of jumping in with a well-meaning intervention which might block the process of therapy altogether.

I found it refreshing to read about the impact of an Israeli television programme – In Treatment – which focuses on the 50-minute hour and has had the nation glued to their screens five nights a week. Therapists have reported that since the show has been on air their clients have been saying they want someone more like the therapist in the programme – more emotional, open and non-conformist. Interestingly, one commentator on In Treatment sees the central character – the therapist who is seen struggling in supervision with his feelings and boundariess – as being, not a model of the relational stance, but a model of the conflict. Sounds like a case of art being more real than life!