G . O . R . I . L . L . A .

home

Personal Communication
An Internet mailing list exchange:
Nick Totton, Robert M. Young and Digby Tantam

From: Nick Totton, selfheal
To:        Denis Postle,
Date:      Mon, Feb l0, 1997, 2:28 pm
RE:        UKCP, Bob Young, Internet



For reasons of his own, Bob Young has posted this to four psychotherapy mailing lists:

>The Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) exists to promote and maintain the profession of psychotherapy and high standards in the practice of psychotherapy for the benefit of the public, throughout the United Kingdom. Therefore the National Register of Psychotherapists is published annually, and only psychotherapists who meet the training requirements of UKCP and abide by its ethical guidelines are included.

The Council has as its members the great majority of reputable psychotherapy organisations in the United Kingdom and welcomes applications from new organisations which are rigorously scrutinized. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society are Special Members of Council.

There are at present 75 member organisations. They are grouped together in autonomous Sections representing all the main traditions in the practice of psychotherapy. In a few short years UKCP has evolved into being the indispensable national umbrella organisation for all the psychotherapies.

The UKCP's Web site includes a selection of official documents, our Mental Health Fact Finder, a resource providing information on psychotherapies and psychotherapists, problems and disorders, mental health organisations, and academic institutions and clinical units throughout the world, and the site is also host to a mirror of Mental Health Metasearch, which provides a link to most of the Internet's major mental health search engines.<

I have replied as follows:

>I'm not quite sure why Bob Young has decided to tell us all about UKCP, but let me offer an alternative view.

The UK Council for Psychotherapy is a self-serving oligarchy, a trade association of training organisations concerned to guarantee their own position and income. Its main concerns is to establish psychotherapy as a 'profession' on a par with law, medicine, architecture etc - rather than as an occupation like plumbing, farming, baking; the essential difference being about status and money. In order to do this it has to create an endlessly prolonged training process with hierarchical ranks of trainers, supervisors, training supervi5ors, etc etc; and it has to set up an unreal bogey figure of the dangerous 'wild therapist' outside the walls. Although some of the intentions are sincere, the effects have been almost entirely negative - paranoia, conformism and anxiety of all kinds.

It is by no means true that UKCP has been universally accepted as the one true way. To find out more about the alternatives, visit G.O.R.I.L.L.A. at
http://www.lpiper.demon.co.uk/index.htm


here's Digby Tantam's response:

I am replying as an individual who happens to be Chair of UKCP: that is I claim to have some knowledge of its workings, but I do not claim to speak for all those involved with it. I welcome alternative views of our work, and criticism from which we can learn and change.

>
> The UK Council for Psychotherapy is a self-serving oligarchy

It does not seem to be particularly oligarchical to me, but is based on representative democratic principles. Most professional bodies can be viewed as self-serving, but UKCP is clear that its main aim is to serve the public, and that may sometimes mean doing things that put this principle ahead of serving our member organizations.

a trade
> association of training organisations concerned to guarantee their own
> position and income. Its main concerns is to establish psychotherapy as a
> 'profession' on a par with law, medicine, architecture etc

Quite true

- rather than as
> an occupation like plumbing, farming, baking; the essential difference
> being about status and money. In order to do this it has to create an
> endlessly prolonged training process with hierarchical ranks of trainers,
> supervisors, training supervisors, etc etc; and it has to set up an unreal
> bogey figure of the dangerous 'wild therapist' outside the walls. Although
> some of the intentions are sincere, the effects have been almost entirely
> negative - paranoia, conformism and anxiety of all kinds.


The implication is that mere occupations are deregulated, do not require
training, and should be open to anyone who just hangs up a sign. This is
more true of occupations than it is of professions. Farmers, an
occupation of which I have some experience, have many European and
national regulations to which they have to conform, and they have to keep
records which may be inspected, in some cases by satellite. As an
example, it is not possible to buy organophosphorus sheep dip (the
traditional kind which has been around for years) without showing a
certificate of completed training. If psychotherapy can do harm-- and
there is at least as much evidence that it can as there is about sheep
dip-- then it is completely consistent with how society deals with gas
fitters (who can gas us), farmers (who can pollute streams, introduce BSE
into the human food chain, allow ramblers to be harmed by dangerous
machinery..), and bakers (who can spread E. coli in their meat pies)
that there is an expectation of adequate training and regulation of
practitioners.

> It is by no means true that UKCP has been universally accepted as the one
> true way.

True. But let's continue to debate how to regulate psychotherapy, not
whether or not it's fine for anyone to call themselves a psychotherapist
irrespective of their previous experience and training, their personal
suitability, and their commitment to ethical principles.

And here's my reply:

Digby Tantam writes
>It does not seem to be particularly oligarchical to me, but is based on
representative democratic principles. Most professional bodies can be
viewed as self-serving, but UKCP is clear that its main aim is to serve
the public, and that may sometimes mean doing things that put this
principle ahead of serving our member organizations.<

All it will take to convince me that you are right is for UKCP to withdraw its support for statutory registration of therapists. (It would also help for you to stop organising registration around training, which automatically creates income for your member organisations; but I could even live with that, so long as you accepted my right to do something else.)

>The implication is that mere occupations are deregulated, do not require
training, and should be open to anyone who just hangs up a sign. This is
more true of occupations than it is of professions. Farmers, an
occupation of which I have some experience, have many European and
national regulations to which they have to conform...<

This was not my implication (and 'mere' is the opposite of what I am saying!) The point about status - profession v occupation - is quite separate from the issue of regulation, and of what _kind_ of regulation is appropriate and effective. On a more positive note: I am personally grateful to UKCP for having forced upon therapists' attention the whole issue of safeguarding the public. I and others have thought much more about this in recent years than before, and that is definitely a good thing. I do believe, though, that the vertical/pyramidal model of protection used by UKCP is not a good one, and that a horizontal/multi-centred model is much better. I'd like to say to Digby Tantam: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to debate this issue with you on the Internet, and thank you for joining in - let's set up a proper debate in real life, where supporters and opponents of registration can thrash the issue out. Isn't it incredible that this has never happened!

Regards Nick Totton

Unfortunately this seems to have ended the debate! Nothing's been posted on the topic for several days now. Tantam's message replied to mine about ten days after it was sent, and ignored all intervening messages.