I suspect you are disingenuous in your agreement with me. I suspect you are trying to use my words against me in that I objected to some therapists being inadequately trained and using untested methods that have no more basis to them than that their originators claim efficacy. If you are willing to accept one so-called method of therapy as just a legitimate as any other, if follows that you see no value to training, licensure, and education for becoming a therapist. If everyone is free to be a therapeutic innovator with no standards to be guided by, then anything anyone ever does to anyone can be justly called "therapy." This is, in fact, not much of an exaggerated description of the situation that prevails today. Perhaps you are right, of course. Perhaps there are no worthwhile standards for therapy at all, and perhaps, therefore, no kind or amount of training is of any value to theapists. You may actually be correct on this point, and you could probably make a persuasive case for that point of view of the futility of training--a point of view which is clearly the implication of your own claim that no school of therapy knows better than any other how to do therapy. If you happen to be correct, it must follow that training and codes of conduct and licensure for therapists must all be done away with, for they could only remain as fraudulent using your stance that any method is as good as any other.
Replies:
There are no replies to this message.
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.