Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Want some opinions

Yes I think this is a very important point. I believe that psychotherapy involves more than 'talk therapy' for instance: hypnosis, biofeedback, systematic desensitization, behavior modification, play therapy. would like to see if anyone disagrees before i modify this aricle raspor 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

you might be hard pressed to cite that hypnosis is part of a regular psychotherapy routine. JoeSmack Talk 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
never said it was 'part of a regular psychotherapy routine' however i do believe it is psychotherapy.
has hypnosis been used to treat mental illness: yes and still is used many times with just as much success as biofeedback, talk-therapy etc. that is in the literature.
well let me know. do you think biofeedback, systematic desensitization, behavior modification, play therapy are psychotherapy?
if you can site it with reliable sources i of course have no objections. one thing i would suggest steering clear from is making a massive section to it: perhaps something like Hypnosis#Hypnotherapy has to Hypnotherapy. biofeedback, behavior mod and play therapy all appeared in my textbooks, but not hypnosis - thats all. :) JoeSmack Talk 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

well thanks for your input. but i dont get what you are saying 'in my textbooks'.

the point i am trying to make is that 'psychotherapy' should be the collective term for all therapies that 'heal the mind' that to me would include biofeedback, behavior mod and play therapy, hypnosis, and much more. anything that heals the mind other than methods that physically change the body in order to heal the mind: for example electro-shock, drugs, lobotomies. do you see my point? the definition here that state that psychotherapy is 'talk-therapy' is wrong. for instance can dogs get psychotherapy?

and you said 'if you can site it with reliable sources i of course have no objections'

i saw no cites for the assertion that psychotherapy only included talk therapy. why is the burden on me to provide cites while i dont see ones there already?

raspor 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK another point:


"Maybe it was to be called a "Psychotherapist" you have have a PhD in clinical psychology. It starts to get confusing when you step into 'therapy/couselling/psychotherapy' land...but everyone else can't be 'directive' -- i.e. a social worker cannot practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, right? JoeSmack (talk) 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)"

well in Ohio a social worker can do psychodynamic therapy, biofeedback, hypnosis, theraplay, attachment, rolfing, whatever kind of therapy. there are no legal limitations. which i think is wrong.

raspor 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

ok one more. i just looked thru the ohio code and from my conversations with social workers i am fairly confident that a person can charge for being a 'psychotherapist' without a license. believe it or not in ohio a person who claims to be say a LISW and is not licensed can charge for fees and as long as the one who has been charged the fees does not care there is nothing illegal about it. i know it sounds strange but i have actually talked to the state board about it. there are people here who do this quite often. the worst that would happen is that if the client sues the person they could get the fees back. its different than practising medicine without a license.

raspor 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Charging for being a psychotherapist without a license is not at all uncommon; in fact, in order to be eleigible for licensure at all one must have obtained a certain number of clinical hours (i.e., hours spent practicing psychotherapy). Licensure allows you to oeprate without direct supervision, and to bill at a higher rate to certain insurances (e.g. medicaid). I think you may want to read up on the field a bit more. siafu 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually that is not correct. To get a license, one must meet the specific standards of that state for that profession. So, for example, to be a licensed Social Worker, Psychologist, Licensed Professional Counselor, etc. in various states, one must have a Masters or Doctorate degree from an accredited University, an internship (for Social work and psychology), and, depending on the level of licensure, a certain number of supervised hours of practice, ranging from beginner with no experience to up to three to five years. DPetersontalk 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As can be clearly seen above, I did not anywhere say that obtaining the requisite hours was the only requirement. siafu 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Want some opinions

I am new here. I added the below to 'effectiveness of pscyhotherapy' and it was said to be 'vandalism' by the person removing it.

NPOV: seems to indicate that we are allowed to show the bad side along with the good side of things. what i am saying here is that 'psychotherapy' is often over prescribed and many times is dangerous and harmful. and it IS and industry. anyhow i believe my adding comments are not 'vandalism' but simply show another side of the story.

gruch told me to put things in the discussion area and see if anyone objects and then add if no one seems to object to it.



Also in 1996 Dr. Tana Dineen published "Manufacturing Victims" in which she suggests that much of the 'psychotherapy industry' is more interested in financial gain than helping clients. She demonstrates that psychotherapy rarely does more than what the placebo effect, passage of time, and working things out on your own accomplishes. - - Considering the very high cost of psychotherapy and the fact that most heath insurances are required by law to provide it seems to indicate that the economic value of psychotherapy is in question. Since health insurance costs are forcing many to be unable to afford it, indicates it might be time to review the lucrative incomes of some psychotherapists who have such insurance funds easily available. At least allowing people to opt out of the mandatory psychotherapy insurance requirements might help to lower health insurance costs without major harm to the mental health of most.

raspor 12:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"...the lucrative incomes of some psychotherapists..." I'm not sure which planet you're from, but on this one, the average salary of a licensed (LCPC, LCSW) psychotherapist is around $30k/year. It was much lower at my former place of employment, actually, around $25k/year. Also, insurance is not usually "required by law" to provide mental health services, and they often don't-- Medicare, for example, does not cover psychotherapy (though it DOES cover psychiatric visits). Lastly, insurance funds are never "easily available" in any branch of medicine-- payment from large insurance companies (BCBS, United, KaiserP, &c.) is frequently delayed up to six months, and medicaid reimbursements are much lower than the market cost of services.
This is also somewhat beside the point, however. Find some more sources besides Tana Dineen and write a well-researched and well-referenced criticism section that does not itself espouse a POV and no one will argue for its removal from the article. siafu 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Accurate

"Given that psychotherapy is restricted to conversations, practitioners do not have to be medically qualified,"


I am new here and told to be 'bold' but I am afraid to change this even tho i am postivie it is not accurate. there are many types of 'psychotherapy' that go beyond conversation: attachment therapy, biofeedback, and the eye movement therapy. should I be 'bold'and change this or will that be considered vandalism '

Good Article?

I have delisted this article from "Good Article" status. I find this article to be not at all "well written," "factually accurate" or "broad in its coverage." Consider:

  • It is full of grammatical errors and unclarities, a few of which I have spent the afternoon correcting.
  • The section on Cognitive Therapy consists entirely of the following:
"Cognitive behavioural therapy is particularly common where the mode of psychotherapy is dictated by the demands of insurance companies who wish to see a financially limited commitment."
Source? Evidence? Relevance to this article?
  • There is a section called "History" which is separated into different schools, and then a separate section called "Schools and approaches" which is divided into schools in a different way, mixing specific schools (Psychoanalysis, Cognitive therapy) other kinds of distinctions (Medical and non-medical models, Adaptations for children) and other information about schools (Effectiveness). Why not put the history of each school within the subsection for that school, and reserve the history section for general history? Why not describe what makes the schools different from one another instead of just linking to the article about each school?
  • The introduction goes into too much detail about distinctions in terms, obscuring the goal of a broad summary of the topic.
  • The Schools section is not just missing new and minor variants, but very major ones. Some are mentioned in General Description or History, but they should be organized together, with a brief description of each major category and how it differs from the others.

I don't know nearly enough about this subject to fix the article myself. (I was hoping to learn more by reading it.) Given the importance and profile of this subject, perhaps it should be the subject of an Article Improvement Drive (I will nominate it, click here to vote.)

— Adam Konner 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


I entirely agree with these comments, having just tried to edit part of it. Clicked to vote but couldn't see psychotherapy listed, must've missed it. I'm going to try keep editing in line with above. EverSince 05:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rogerian psychotherapy

Can't something be said about this type of psychotherapy? Having a redirect to the main psychotherapy article is a bummer since it doesn't describe it at all. —Frecklefoot 17:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the list of types of psychotherapy, it lists "Rogersian" psychotherapy, which redirects to Carl Rogers, the inventor of Rogerian psychotherapy. I'm going to change the Rogerian psychotherapy redirect to a redirect to Carl Rogers, since it seems like that article is more useful to people looking up Rogerian psychotherapy. —AaronW 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rogerian therapy is often called person-centered therapy/counseling.whicky1978 talk 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC) I see somebody has redirected it to person-centered psychotherapywhicky1978 talk 16:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Rational emotive therapy

I changed "rational emotive behaviour psychotherapy" to "rational emotive behavior therapy" simply because the link already exists, although this only redirects to Cognitive_therapy, of which REBT is a type. I think a separate enty should be considered because the information required for a good stub is already in Albert_Ellis, although I would be inclined to include the concept that REBT confronts patients with their irrational beliefs, and I would also suggest checking the information at http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/ellis.html for a good outline. In the meantime, a redirect to Albert_Ellis might be preferable. The rearrangement involved is more than a total newbie such as myself should be trusted with.

Cognitive therapy

There is a NPOV issue with the cognitive section. It claims that this approach is preferred in a list of situations but does not say by who and give any references or facts. This is more appropriate for an advertisement than an encyclopedia.

Obsoletism

Can we move away from having an article that's very heavy on "alternative psychotherapy" (gestalt, rolfing, etc.) and expand towards a more realistic representation? There's a single paragraph about Cognitive-behavioral psych that mentions treating a "number of symptoms", but no mention of the fact that this is basically an Individual Treatment Plan, and almost every single psychotherapy client is required to have one, not just those being "constrained" by private insurance companies. Even clients without insurance ("self-pay clients") will have treatment plans at all CMHCs, and with most private providers as well. We might do well to split off and have a "history of..." article if it's important to have Freudian psychotherapy and the like in here, but the use of such obsolete modalities is exceptionally small relative to more modern techniques that I don't think it should have more than a quick reference here on this article. Any thoughts, counterarguments? siafu 20:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you've got the energy and knowledge then go ahead. This articles been stuck for a long time . Lumos3 11:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Maybe rolfing and others could be moved to the List of techniques used, Gestalt, however is still a widely used modality, just as is logical positivism which is at the base of many modalities, ie: PCT. I do agree that the list is stretching. # chance0(talk)
I'm struggling to understand what you are saying. It makes no sense at all. What do you mean by 'heavy on gestalt, rolfing'? They are only mentioned in passing. CBT is such a simplistic approach - there isn't much to say about it. The detail is covered on the CBT page. Going into detail about treatment plans and when and when not they are given is inappropriate for a high level page like this. It is important to stick to a neutral point of view and not to describe current mainstream approaches as obsolete just because it is not your area of expertise. 14:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit unsure if gestalt therapy should be considered alternative psychotherapy, but I do miss a small section on Transpersonal directions. Anyone having any thoughts on that? Stenjo 22:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Massage vs bodywork

Many relaxation techniques are used in an Individual Treatment Plan, massage tharapy is one such type, so prob deserves a space, both here and on the massage page. I think that adding 'bodywork' might be confuse.. maybe with autobodywork (unless the stub makes it clear what is meant by the term. # chance0(talk)

Unfortunately, since "massage" is not covered by insurance (including medicare and medicaid in the US), especially not for treatment of mental illness, its use as a psychotherapeutic technique is exceptionally limited. That is, only those who are willing and able to pay the full fee (~US$80-$200/hour) and who believe in the psychotherapeutic value of massage (very small subset of the above) would contract it. I think, if anything, it should be made clear in this article, if its to be included, that this sort of treatment has a "fringe" status similar to homeopathy or other more accepted "alternative" treatments.

I would like to add that Massage Therapy *IS* considered a valid form of relaxation & or stress relief here in Canada. Although our provincial insurance companies do not cover it in most provinces, nearly anyone with group health benefits through their emplyer is covered for anywhere from $300-$500 worth. Most of these companies do not even require a Doctor's referral - patients may self-refer if they feel it is necessary.

Also, it should be noted that other physical treatments, like ECT for example (which IS covered by major medical) are not listed on this page because, presumably, they are "physical therapy" not "psychotherapy". "Massage therapy", as much as such a thing exists, might also be subject to the same distinction. siafu 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did say 'Many relaxation techniques are used in an Individual Treatment Plan, massage tharapy is one such type' and as a part of the Treatment Plan would be covered by the major "Modality" as well as paid for ... think ??

I know you said that, but the fact is that just because something is put on the ITP and signed off on does not mean that any insurance company is compelled to pay for it. One could write "slaphappy facial therapy" on an ITP, have it signed, and it would be "valid", as a treatment plan though someone at the medicaid office would have a laughing fit if one attempted to bill for it. siafu 20:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A thought

would something like this work better??

psychotherapy

Psychodynamic;
Freudian,
Adlerian,
Jungian,
Kleinian,
Self-psychology etc.
Systemic (including Family Psychotherapy);
Behavioural;
Humanistic;
Client-Centred,
Gestalt,
Transactional Analysis
Somatic
Reichian,
neo-Reichian,
Bio-dynamic,
Bioenergetic,
Biosynthesis,
Hakomi
Body psychotherapy’
Body therapy;’
Feldenkrais,
Alexander Technique,
Rolfing,
Hellerwork,
Biodynamic massage
Psychotherapy;
Transpersonal.

etc

I like this approach, but any ideas on how to implement it in the article? Perhaps we could use them as sub headings in the list of modalities. Lumos3 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a better approach, also, but the list is still rather incomplete (Interpersonal? DBT? CBT?). Also, Feldenkrais (in particular) et. al don't belong in an article on psychotherapy, being massage therapies; psychotherapy has a bit more of a narrow definition, IMHO. siafu 22:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is incomplete, very. I just put it forward as a possible form that might include the modalities as well as the stubs used for relaxation, particularly ones that assist in the alignment of neurological pathways, but thats another review.... Now, I was just wondering if we could use such a form...
thanks
As for the listing of any particular item we can notice that 'Feldenkrais (in particular) et. al' are rightly listed under Somatic/Body therapy/. We might want to consider if Somatic types should be included or not, perhaps they would best be suited for the (natural healing arts)

Improving this article

We don’t have to wait for this article to become accepted for an improvement drive, we can just start doing it.

My suggestions.

  1. The lists are put out into secondary articles.
  2. We establish a section structure . My suggestions would be
    1. Description - Build a consensus description of what Psychotherapy is
    2. History - Narrative of psychotherapy development, (with timeline as separate article)
    3. Categorisation of therapy types - with alternative views
    4. Criticisms of Psychotherapy
    5. References
    6. See also
    7. Links

Lumos3 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm in. Let's do it. JoeSmack (talk) 13:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I just added a brief description of brief counseling. I'm a bit concerned about trying to be too inclusive, which will likely lead to an article that is long on specifics but short on context. Separate articles on specific approaches seems to me a more sensible tact. NHBaritone--Nhbaritone 03:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We need to keep this article at a general high level . I think Brief counselling is better placed in its own article with a link from the List of psychotherapies. Lumos3 09:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. --204.97.16.243 03:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC) --Nhbaritone 03:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I just put in a blurb in the beginning about drugs being over perscribed these days...now i realize very POV. Anyone have some good sources to throw at this one? JoeSmack (talk) 15:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This definitely needs qualification, as, IMHO, this only applies to certain drugs and the problem is not so much the overprescription as the systematic misdiagnosis. i.e., ADD and ADHD are diagnosed way too often and Axis-2 disorders (e.g. Borderline Personality Disorder) way too rarely, replaced instead with a nice insurance-billable Axis-1 diagnosis (e.g. Major Depression) for which the treatment involves psychopharmacology. siafu 15:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added some googled studies, one on anti-d's and one on adhd drugs -- two commonly known as overperscribed. siafu, you might want to throw in a bit on that in critisisms...although it is kind of a psychiatry commentary, i guess it could still be extended into psychotherapy as all psychiatrists perform psychotherapy but not all psychotherapists are psychiatrists. phew. tounge twister. JoeSmack (talk) 15:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm speaking from personal experience, so adding that would be original research. However, I have discussed this with a few of the clinicians I know, and I'll see if one of them can refer me to a source that's actually investigated the under-diagnosis phenomenon with personality disorders. siafu 04:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Awesome. Let us know, I'd love to find a peer reviewed Journal or two dedicated to empirical studies involving Psycotherapy and its utility - most seem to try to involve cognitive since it's easier to measure but psychodynamic and humanistic studies would be most valuable as well. JoeSmack (talk) 15:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the psychiatrist has been too busy to chat with me, but a little poking about found me [1] which discusses the shortcomings of DSM-IV causing an underdiagnosis of Axis II disorders, [2] which discusses the complications involved in diagnosing substance abuse disorders causing underdiagnosis of Axis II disorders, and [3] states:

Coexisting illness may contribute to the underdiagnosis of BPD in several ways. When another disorder is primary, many clinicians will ignore Axis II diagnoses, concentrating only on treating the Axis I malady (which usually is easier to treat, since the emphasis is on medication and not on complicated, extended psychotherapy). Additionally, managed care companies sometimes discourage continued therapy for personality disorders, since such patients characteristically more intensive- and more expensive- long-term treatment. Some insurance companies will disallow coverage for BPD altogether, stating that the required, expensive treatment is not part of the policy. Paradoxically, some insurance case managers refuse certification based on the erroneous assumption that borderline patients never get better, that therapy doesn't help, and therefore treatment attempts waste resources. Thus many doctors avoid the borderline label to minimize hassles with managed care companies.

... which is really just what I'm talking about, but I'd like to find some sources that apply this to all personality disorder diagnoses, and I might disagree that it's erroneous to say that borderlines never "get better". I'm going to do a bit more research, but if you think there's a good way to include this info as is in the interim go ahead and I'll add what I come up with later. siafu 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC) I should add that "some insurance companies" also happens to include both medicaid and medicare, neither of which consider Axis-II diagnoses to be billable. siafu 18:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Counselling has been directly linked through to psychotherapy. 'Counselling' is not just an activity, it's the trading name of a company registered in England & Wales No. 3501792, which was founded in 1998, verifiable at the Companies House website. Initially, Companies house suggested that the company name 'Counselling' wasn't specific enough, however because the company intended to work mainly though the internet, it did not wish to be associated with any specific geographical area, the name was later accepted. Since that time it has achieved charitable status No.1068940 which can be verified on the Charity Commission website. http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=1068940 'Counselling's' website can be found at: http://www.counselling.ltd.uk Since 1998 'Counselling' has consistently increased its membership numbers year on year and as of January 2006 there are 2500 Registered Counsellors who have agreed to work in accord with the CCC, more commonly known as the Counselling Code of Conduct. Membership of Counselling is only open to trained counsellors who reside within the British Isles. In its early days, 'Counselling' was seen to be an alternative to joining the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, a larger membership organisation of around 25,000. The purpose of establishing the Counselling charity was to bring together those who were involved in the activity of counselling; this was achieved by establishing a simple Code of Conduct that would integrate with any other bodys Code of Conduct or Ethics. Counselling has never charged for membership, which typically lasts for 36 months. This inclusive approach benefits those counsellors who are unable to pay the increasing costs of membership and accreditation fees with other similar counselling organisations. 'Counselling' is managed on a budget of less than 10k per year. Due to the nature of the charity being mainly internet based, the company has been run from Leeds, Manchester, Wakefield and currently is currently operated from Bradford, West Yorkshire. Registered counsellors may use 'CCC Reg.' after their name. Registered counsellor are also subject to an Independent Complaints Procedure, which differentiates from approaches that have been adopted by other professional bodies in the UK where judgments are being made against fellow members 'in house' by other members. The concept of 'Counsellings' Independent Complaints Procedure was to move away from the model of working which was open to be used as a mechanism to silence others and have the member removed from their respective organisation. Therefore, in case of complaint, Counselling members have their case examined by non-members of the organisation who are involved in and have an understanding of people related professions. 'Counselling' has maintained a free counselling referral project using it's affiliate network of counsellors as local community points of contact and support. The charity aims to help those sections of society who are statistically more disadvantaged, namely those in receipt of income support and minimum income guarantee, these are specific state benefits.

The criticism section at the moment just reads like a bunch of Scientologist propoganda. You probably want to find some legitimate studies that indicate real concerns, rather than a rambling paragraph of supposition and FUD.

Section on Criticism

There are not references cited for this. I have deleted the section...but put it below in case someone can find sources and references to support the statements. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2006)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Critics of psychotherapy are skeptical of the healing power of a psychotherapeutic relationship. Since any intervention takes time, critics note that the passage of time, without therapeutic intervention, can result in psycho-social healing despite the absence of counseling.

Critics note that there are other resources that are available to someone suffering: the friendly support of friends, peers, family members, clergy contacts, personal reading, research, and independent coping and so suggest that therapy is not necessary for everyone. These critics note that humans have been dealing with crisis, navigating problems and finding solutions since long before the advent of therapy.

The incoming president of the American Psychological Association, Ronald Levant, Ph.D., has assembled a task force to address current controversies in the field. Included are growing number of voices similar to David Burns, M.D., a psychiatrist who trains residents at Stanford University School of Medicine, "... there is a kind of narcissism in our field to say, 'I'm so great, I know what I'm doing,' and it puts us back 2,000 years to a time of cults, when every snake oil salesman's got something and the parade just goes on."

Rebuttal

There have been hundreds of controlled studies in professional peer-reviewed journals demonstrating the efficacy of various types of psychotherapy and which control for maturation or the passage of time. [1]

Legal Practice of Psychotherapy

You guys are right that cousellors/nurses can practice psychotherapy, I don't remember what I was thinking.

Maybe it was to be called a "Psychotherapist" you have have a PhD in clinical psychology. It starts to get confusing when you step into 'therapy/couselling/psychotherapy' land...but everyone else can't be 'directive' -- i.e. a social worker cannot practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, right? JoeSmack (talk) 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

At least in the United States, there is no legal prevention from anyone at all practicing "psychotherapy", unfortunately, like there is for practicing medicine (including psychiatry) and law. The issue usually is one of insurance billing and accreditation; that is, medicaid will only pay those with certain credentials to do certain services, with the requirement of being supervised by individuals. In my own state (Illinois), the medicaid setup was recently changed to open up credentially even further, allowing individuals with only high-school educations to be able to bill for case management services (called "service coordination" in other parts of the country) and group therapy (also called PSR, partial hospitalization, or therapeutic behavioral services). Private insurance companies are even more strict. The most important constraint, really, is that without a license (LCSW, LCPC, etc.) a provider cannot become a member of any of the national organizations (ACSW, APA, etc.) and without at least a licensed clinician/psychiatrist (or a number thereof) facilities providing these services are liable to lose or not receive accreditation from CARF. So, strictly speaking (AFAIK), there is no law preventing one from opening up "Joe's house of psychotherapy" and taking people's money in exchange for meaningless conversation, though referrals would be unlikely, billing a nightmare, and accreditation impossible, not to mention the issues of liability and one's own malpractice insurance. siafu 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in parag. 4 of the article that psychotherapy is regulated in most Western countries, that is questionable. In this jurisdiction (Quebec), psychotherapy is not regulated and anyone can adopt the professional title psychotherapist. Marty55 15:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pastoral Counseling

The lack of clarity about what constitutes pshcchotherapy versus counseling, and who is allowed to do what is one of my major pet peeves. Where I live I can use any and all methods (except for prescribing medications or performing surgery) to treat any and all mental illnesses, enegage in long term family and marital counseling--without benefit of a professional license or any education whatsoever. I can hypnotize large groups of people perform age regression, recovered memory therapy. I can legally prescribe primal scream therapy, group sexual encounters, or sexual intercourse with myself as a treatment for career disatisfaction, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, incest trauma, PTSD resulting from battlefield injury or domestic violence, or as a treatment for batterers--all fair and square legal eagle.

All I have to do is log on to say the website of the Church of Universal Life and click the "Ordain Me!" button and call myself a "Pastoral Counselor."

And if my clients are harmed by me, they had better recover their mental health get their wits about them in time to sue me within three years, otherwise they are screwed. Cyclopiano 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Reorganize sections?

I added a section on the "therapeutic relationship", but the whole page is badly organized and I'd like to move some sections around. Most of the content in "history" looks like it belongs in "schools and approaches", and there's yet another list of therapies under "general". Even some of the stuff under "criticism" overlaps with what I just added. My references should be moved to the reference section, but I'd like to see the page reorganized first (I just expanded on a paragraph that was at the end of "Schools and Approaches", and made it a separate section).

I'd like to see the parts that apply to all therapies at the top of the page (for NPOV), followed by the discussions of each type of therapy. Something like:

  • General (including features common to all therapies)
    • Therapeutic Relationship
  • History (much shortened, more like a timeline)
  • Criticism (maybe could use some references here)
  • Schools and Approaches (including most of what is now under "History")
    • subsections for each type of therapy
  • see also, references, links, etc

I think I could do this without changing the actual content, but I'd like to see some discussion before I make such a major reorganization. -Rbean 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea except for shortening the history section. Since the popular (flawed) understanding of psychotherapy is heavily influenced by a high-school understanding of freudian psychoanalysis, it's very important to clearly show the evolution of the field since then. siafu 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hawol, can you, please, write some sentences about s.c. common factors.

Dear friends, I wait for continuation e.g. to family therapy, or is this enough.


I have added sub-categories under "schools and approaches", I have also peer reviewed the article and made many edits, and added some information such as adaptions for children. whicky1978 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of intro?

Having just reviewed this article for Version 0.5, I noticed that the intro could probably benefit from a rewrite. The current intro is rather clumsy and wordy, I think it could probably lose 20-40 words and improve clarity. In addition, these sentences are unclear to me:

  • "Often there is overlap in philosophies and techniques that both psychotherapists and counselors employ. In this article the term can be taken to be the same as psychotherapy."

I'm not an expert in this area, otherwise I'd do the rewrite myself. Could someone more knowledgable than me have a go at this? Meanwhile, I have approved it for Version 0.5. Thanks, Walkerma 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded it.whicky1978 talk 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NLP is the most effective so far

Hello all. I don't see how people here could have overlooked it. NLP is by far the most effective. A cure in a single session! Nothing else can beat that. Mindstore 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Universal miracle cure claims are neither reliable nor encyclopedic. -- Beland 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ext Links

The external links section is overflowing and getting to the stage where it is of no use to anybody. If there are no sensible objections, in a few days i might clean it up so that only links that give the reader more info about psychotherapy are there, not all the ones telling the reader where to find a psychotherapist. This isn't the yellow pages. Sparkleyone 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. One request, can you list the removed ones below, perhaps with a brief note on each (or in groups) so its visible what criteria or why various links were secondary? Thanks! FT2 (Talk | email) 05:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah no problems with that. If anyone wants to put some of the links back go ahead, I have been pretty ruthless, but with good reason I think. Basically, if i could not find decent info about psychotherapy itself within a page, or it was purely commercial, or it wasn't in English, it got scrapped in this run. A suggestion for people wanting to put any back - link directly to the sub page or sub-sub page that is related to psychotherapy, readers shouldn't have difficulty finding the information.Sparkleyone 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Primarily lists of psychotherapists

Useful only for professionals

Charity/commercial

Non-english

Other

No direct info about psychotherapy and poorly designed page making it v.v. hard to read.