We can’t move for therapists but do they help or harm mental health patients? | Martha Gill

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Concerns Rise Over Unregulated Therapy Practices Amid Increasing Mental Health Demand"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.1
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Recent reports indicate that general practitioners (GPs) in the UK are increasingly overwhelmed by the rising number of mental health patients, leading them to refer these individuals to unregulated charities for therapy. This alarming trend raises concerns about the qualifications of therapists handling complex cases, as evidenced by the story of an autistic girl with an eating disorder who was directed to a local charity offering support from individuals lacking proper training in psychotherapy or counseling. The mother of the girl, with her background as a psychiatric nurse, became worried that the unqualified treatment was detrimental to her daughter’s well-being, prompting her to end the sessions. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that a significant portion of patients seen by charitable counseling services is referred through the National Health Service (NHS), highlighting the systemic shortcomings in mental health care access and quality. Furthermore, the mental health sector currently operates without strict regulations, allowing anyone to label themselves as a “therapist” or “counselor” without any formal training or oversight. A BBC investigation revealed a concerning proliferation of substandard online training programs, some of which permit unethical practices, thereby undermining patient safety and care quality.

The absence of regulation means that the responsibility to verify a therapist's credentials falls entirely on patients, many of whom may be too vulnerable to navigate these complexities. Alarmingly, only one in ten people are aware of the lack of oversight in therapy. As the demand for mental health support continues to grow, with approximately 1.6 million individuals currently on waiting lists for services, the risks associated with unqualified practitioners become more pronounced. Reports indicate that therapists previously expelled for serious misconduct, such as sexual exploitation or substance abuse during sessions, have continued to practice. This situation underscores the urgent need for tighter regulations in the therapy industry. While some job titles already have legal protections and minimum training requirements, a similar framework for therapists and psychotherapists is essential. Investing in mental health services is not only a moral imperative but also an economically prudent move, as mental health issues significantly impact the UK economy, costing billions annually due to lost productivity and increased disability claims.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights significant concerns within the mental health care system, particularly regarding the lack of regulation in the field of therapy and counselling. The author presents a troubling scenario where vulnerable patients are being referred to unqualified therapists, raising questions about the efficacy and safety of such treatments.

Lack of Regulation in Therapy

The article points out that the mental health industry lacks a unified regulatory framework. Unlike medical doctors who are overseen by the General Medical Council, therapists and counsellors can operate without minimum qualifications. This situation creates a risk for patients who may be subjected to inadequate or harmful treatment. The mention of an autistic girl receiving support from an untrained individual illustrates the potential dangers in this system.

Awareness and Patient Responsibility

A crucial aspect covered is the general public's lack of awareness regarding the unregulated nature of therapy services. The statistic that only one in ten people understands this lack of oversight underscores the need for better public education on mental health services. This dynamic places the burden of verifying a therapist's credentials entirely on the patient, which is problematic given that many individuals seeking help are already in vulnerable states.

Societal Implications

The implications of this article extend beyond individual experiences. It raises broader societal concerns about mental health care accessibility and quality. If patients are being directed to unregulated services, it could lead to increased mental health crises, further straining the already overwhelmed healthcare system. Additionally, this could provoke public outcry for stronger regulations and reforms in mental health care.

Potential Manipulative Elements

While the article effectively highlights critical issues, some may argue it leans towards sensationalism. By focusing on extreme cases without a balanced view of the entire therapy landscape, it risks fostering fear rather than constructive dialogue. The choice of language and the framing of therapists as potentially harmful could lead to stigma against mental health professionals, which might discourage individuals from seeking necessary help.

Trustworthiness of the Article

The article presents valid concerns grounded in current issues within the mental health care system. However, its tone and focus may contribute to a perception that it is alarmist rather than purely informative. The lack of a balanced perspective might raise questions about its overall reliability. Still, the concerns regarding unregulated practices are legitimate and warrant attention. In conclusion, the article serves as a call to action for greater awareness and regulation in the mental health field. It aims to inform the public about potential risks associated with unqualified therapists, thereby advocating for reforms in the system that could better protect vulnerable individuals seeking help.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Iwas struck by the news last week that GPs are so overwhelmed with mental health patients that they aredirecting them to the care of unregulated charities. Complex cases are now in the hands of therapists who are not always qualified to treat them.In one case, an autistic girl with an eating disorder was asked to self-refer to a local charity that offered “one-to-one support” – given by someone untrained in psychotherapy or counselling. Her mother, a former psychiatric nurse, became concerned that the treatment was doing more harm than good and put a stop to the sessions.The numbers aren’t small, either. A counselling charity in Blackpool estimates that about half of the patients its therapists see each week are referred through theNHS.This touches on a wider problem in the world of talking therapies: they are not regulated. Anyone can call themselves a “therapist”, “psychologist”, or “counsellor”. A recent BBC investigation found that dodgy online courses have exploded – some with very basic requirements, others that allowed candidates to cheat. But there is no legal obligation even to do a weekend counselling course before you start taking paying patients.While medical doctors are overseen by the General Medical Council, which can strike them off its register and prevent them practising again, regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors is entirely voluntary. You can choose to get accredited by respected organisations such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) or the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). But if you are struck off, there is nothing to stop you setting up shop again. In short, this is an industry with no unified ethical code or complaints system, and no minimum qualifications, dealing with sick and vulnerable people.The onus to check whether or not a therapist is on an accredited list is entirely on the patientWhat makes this worse is that just one in 10 people are aware of the lack of oversight. The onus to check whether or not a therapist is on an accredited list is entirely on the patient, who might not be in a state of mind to do so. The problem is compounded if GPs are directing people to dubious counsellors, which patients might interpret as a formal NHS referral.This crisis is likely to worsen, as therapy is booming. About 1.6 million people are on waiting lists for mental health services – numbers that have risen almost a third over the past two years. Little wonder that those who can afford it choose to go private. Talking therapies, once taboo, are also increasingly accepted and promoted as life-enhancing. Some companies offer therapy as a perk to employees. With rising numbers of potential clients, more people are looking to counselling as a career. Between 2019 and 2023, the number of students registered with the BACP, training to become therapists,increased by 44%.Therapy can change lives for the better, of course. But amid the success stories lurks horror. Of the 72 therapists struck off by the BACP and UKCP between 2005 and 2015, nearly one in four are still practising. An investigation by theinewspaper reported that therapists expelled from professional bodies for having sex with vulnerable patients, bullying, racism, giving patients illegal drugs or being drunk in therapy sessions werestill offering their services to clients. One psychotherapist who had sexually exploited female patients was struck off for posing an “extreme danger to the public… if he was permitted to recommence practising”. He wasstill practising.Why have we been so slow to regulate? Amid rising awareness of the benefits of therapy, there has been too little discussion of the ways it can also be damaging. After all, treatments of any sort rarely have a neutral effect – if they are powerful enough to help, they may also be powerful enough to harm. One survey from the Royal College of Psychiatrists found that as many as one in 20 say they suffer from a“lasting bad effect” from their therapy. Failed treatments may exacerbate depression, low mood and self-sabotaging behaviours.Therapy by its nature involves vulnerability and a one-way power dynamic, which also makes it dangerous. There is a long history of therapy being used for abusive purposes – whether in religious cults, in which “therapists” employ techniques to manipulate and brainwash members, or as part of “conversion practices”,now on course to be outlawed, that attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation, and in extreme forms can involve exorcism and physical violence.But a practitioner does not have to be abusive to do harm: clumsy approaches can cause damage, too. Consider the fact that several physical diseases – including metabolic and immune disorders and brain tumours – can manifest withpsychiatric symptoms. A talking therapist who does not recognise key signs and continues treating the patient psychologically may be making the situation worse.skip past newsletter promotionSign up toObservedFree weekly newsletterAnalysis and opinion on the week's news and culture brought to you by the best Observer writersEnter your email addressSign upPrivacy Notice:Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see ourPrivacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the GooglePrivacy PolicyandTerms of Serviceapply.after newsletter promotionTighter regulation is needed. Some job titles – including “clinical psychologist” and “occupational psychologist” – are already protected in law, with minimum training requirements. Similar rules could be extended to anyone who wishes to use the word “psychologist”, or indeed “therapist” or “psychotherapist”, to set themselves up treating patients with mental health problems. Many other countries are stricter. In theNetherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, you need six years of trainingbefore you qualify for the title of psychotherapist.Regulating therapy more tightly may deal with one problem at the cost of exacerbating another, however. Mental health services could hardly be more stretched. But that is an argument for greater investment. By the last estimate, mental health problems cost the UK economy£117.9bn a year, much of it in lost employment from patients and their families.We heard last week that mental ill health is behind soaring disability benefits, accounting for44% of claimantsin 2024, up from 25% in 2002. Assigning mental health treatment a greater portion of public funds would therefore not only be humane, but efficient.Martha Gill is an Observer columnistDo you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us atobserver.letters@observer.co.uk

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian