Tuesday, July 29th, 2008. Letter to the Times, unpublished.
Sir,
I was sorry to read of Ms B's experience with a therapist
and glad to see it reach the light of day in the Times
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4418189.ece],
it touches on a central point. Is State Regulation of the profession going to
improve the practice or will it simply make it more difficult for
aggrieved patients to get their voices heard? The kind of regulation
that is likely to result from Ms B's demand will probably lead
to two linked outcomes: to scape-goat someone in a public show trial
whilst closing the ranks not only of the practitioners but also of
the bureaucrats who she suggests should regulate them. Actually this
kind of thing is already happening through the work of the Health
Professionals Council and Skills for Health. The perverse outcome is
the creation of rules that claim to define ‘best practice’. This
leaves the poor patient with absolutely nowhere to go – so long as
the rules are followed, the practitioner is safe. It also leads this
country back into the dark ages, for this is neither art not science.
It is the worse kind of bureaucracy. The practical answer can only be
enlightenment: the long slog through the difficult terrain of
analysing the theories that channel the actions of people caught up
in conflict. There are no easy answers, but nor is there need for Ms
B or the rest of us, to give up working on the process.
Yours faithfully
Janet Low
SE27
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Paul Atkinson's response to Malcolm Allen - letter to the Times
From: Paul Atkinson
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:42:50 +0100
To:
Conversation: Therapy requires the right type of regulation
Subject: Therapy requires the right type of regulation
Sir,
Malcolm Allen [Times letters 18th July] is wrong to say that all mainstream professional bodies of psychotherapy and counselling actively support statutory regulation, if he is referring to the Government's current imposition of regulation by the Health Professions Council [HPC]. The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapists [UKCP], the major national organisation of psychotherapists, states on its website that "the HPC is primarily a medical and NHS model of regulation and the UKCP considers that the model proposed cannot effectively regulate psychotherapy". In a recent survey of the individual membership of the psychoanalytic section of the UKCP 48% of respondents were opposed to HPC regulation and only 27% in favour. A poll of the British Psychological Society's membership also rejected regulation by the HPC recently. Psychotherapists opposed to this form of regulation are not opposed to regulation in principle. We are arguing for a regulatory process fit for purpose.
Nor is it helpful for Malcolm Allen to imply that the Skills for Health exercise is confined to 'publicly funded therapy available on the NHS'. The HPC is set to regulate private as well as public sector practitioners and we have no guarantees whatsoever how the bank of Skills for Health competency statements will be used by the Department of Health over time [Andrew Billen's article, times2 July 15]. In light of the impact of constant interventions in the working relationships of say GP's or teachers, are psychotherapists wrong to be fearful for the integrity of their work? The evidence-base of the Skills for Health project has been used to severely restrict and misrepresent the profession's pluralistic culture in the pursuit of political aims, not to guarantee the work's efficacy.
Paul Atkinson
Chair, Guild of Psychotherapists
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:42:50 +0100
To:
Conversation: Therapy requires the right type of regulation
Subject: Therapy requires the right type of regulation
Sir,
Malcolm Allen [Times letters 18th July] is wrong to say that all mainstream professional bodies of psychotherapy and counselling actively support statutory regulation, if he is referring to the Government's current imposition of regulation by the Health Professions Council [HPC]. The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapists [UKCP], the major national organisation of psychotherapists, states on its website that "the HPC is primarily a medical and NHS model of regulation and the UKCP considers that the model proposed cannot effectively regulate psychotherapy". In a recent survey of the individual membership of the psychoanalytic section of the UKCP 48% of respondents were opposed to HPC regulation and only 27% in favour. A poll of the British Psychological Society's membership also rejected regulation by the HPC recently. Psychotherapists opposed to this form of regulation are not opposed to regulation in principle. We are arguing for a regulatory process fit for purpose.
Nor is it helpful for Malcolm Allen to imply that the Skills for Health exercise is confined to 'publicly funded therapy available on the NHS'. The HPC is set to regulate private as well as public sector practitioners and we have no guarantees whatsoever how the bank of Skills for Health competency statements will be used by the Department of Health over time [Andrew Billen's article, times2 July 15]. In light of the impact of constant interventions in the working relationships of say GP's or teachers, are psychotherapists wrong to be fearful for the integrity of their work? The evidence-base of the Skills for Health project has been used to severely restrict and misrepresent the profession's pluralistic culture in the pursuit of political aims, not to guarantee the work's efficacy.
Paul Atkinson
Chair, Guild of Psychotherapists
Tim Brown spots the flaw in HPC rationale
"The Government proposes to impose state regulation of psychological therapies through the Health Professions Council (HPC).
The proposal would grant a closed shop to some of the existing accrediting organisations, and encourage a medical model of psychotherapy. " [click title for full article]
The proposal would grant a closed shop to some of the existing accrediting organisations, and encourage a medical model of psychotherapy. " [click title for full article]
Professor Ian Parker: 10 reasons to resist the HPC
Ian Parker is Professor of Psychology at Manchester's Metropolitan University. He has put together 10 pithy points which make a strong argument against the HPC. Published in full on Ipnsosis, here they are in brief:
"The Health Professions Council (HPC) ... reassured those about to be brought into this regulator that all practitioners need to do is pay their money and carry on much as before. The problem, however, is much deeper than this, for the HPC threatens to close down psychoanalytic practice as we understand it today...
1. Surveillance of each individual's activity against a presumed moral standard
2. A notion of moral character defined by conformity and collusion with current questionable practice
3. Training reduced to the logic of compliance to a programme of study
4. Training reduced to the progression through a course of study
5. Knowledge treated as something packaged and applied
6. Thresholds treated as grounding for practice then operate as limits
7. The subordination of independent trainings to the universities
8. Turning of analytic organisations into monitoring bodies that are compliant with regulators
9. Destruction of existing professional spaces and replacement with individual accountability to regulatory apparatuses.
10. An illusion of safety guaranteed by equally illusory attempts to predict and control innovative human activity
"The Health Professions Council (HPC) ... reassured those about to be brought into this regulator that all practitioners need to do is pay their money and carry on much as before. The problem, however, is much deeper than this, for the HPC threatens to close down psychoanalytic practice as we understand it today...
1. Surveillance of each individual's activity against a presumed moral standard
2. A notion of moral character defined by conformity and collusion with current questionable practice
3. Training reduced to the logic of compliance to a programme of study
4. Training reduced to the progression through a course of study
5. Knowledge treated as something packaged and applied
6. Thresholds treated as grounding for practice then operate as limits
7. The subordination of independent trainings to the universities
8. Turning of analytic organisations into monitoring bodies that are compliant with regulators
9. Destruction of existing professional spaces and replacement with individual accountability to regulatory apparatuses.
10. An illusion of safety guaranteed by equally illusory attempts to predict and control innovative human activity
Lord Alderdice worried whether HPC is fit to practice
quote from Lord Alderdice, House of Lords February 2007 7.35 pm:
"Why this dissatisfaction with the HPC? The membership of the HPC is primarily concerned with those who treat physical illnesses, and the way that they deal with training and skills is much less variable. In general terms—and I know that I am not doing justice here—while there is largely a right way of doing physiotherapy, chiropody or microbiological or histopathological tests, there is much wider variation in psychological treatments. The HPC professions are also much more able to set out their skills in the form of protocols which can be followed by people of a range of personalities. It matters relatively little if one technician or physiotherapist has to be replaced with another. The personality of the therapist and the relationship with the client is, however, crucial—indeed sometimes central—to psychological treatments."
for more of this, click the title - it provides a link to Ipnosis, where Denis Postle has collected together a wealth of relevant material, including this extract from Hansards.
"Why this dissatisfaction with the HPC? The membership of the HPC is primarily concerned with those who treat physical illnesses, and the way that they deal with training and skills is much less variable. In general terms—and I know that I am not doing justice here—while there is largely a right way of doing physiotherapy, chiropody or microbiological or histopathological tests, there is much wider variation in psychological treatments. The HPC professions are also much more able to set out their skills in the form of protocols which can be followed by people of a range of personalities. It matters relatively little if one technician or physiotherapist has to be replaced with another. The personality of the therapist and the relationship with the client is, however, crucial—indeed sometimes central—to psychological treatments."
for more of this, click the title - it provides a link to Ipnosis, where Denis Postle has collected together a wealth of relevant material, including this extract from Hansards.
Marc Seale (HPC CEO) talks to Denis Postle, Ipnosis
Here is a link to an important conversation between Denis Postle and Marc Seale, quoted from eIpnsosis (click the title to link to full report)
Report on eIpnosis meeting with Marc Seale, CEO of the Health Professions Council, October 3rd 2008
"At the end of August eIpnosis received a pair of messages that offered very contradictory views on the HPC's reputation. I emailed extracts of them to Marc Seale, his response was to invite me in for a meeting.
Marc met me in reception and led the way down to a basement room at HPC ‘s Kennington headquarters where we occupied two red settees. Tea was served, and Michael Guthrie, Director of Policy & Standards, joined us. Marc Seale is a genial, vigorous conversationalist and he began with an outline of the HPC’s current process." [click the title of this blog to read the full report. If you would like to make a comment, use this blog...]
Report on eIpnosis meeting with Marc Seale, CEO of the Health Professions Council, October 3rd 2008
"At the end of August eIpnosis received a pair of messages that offered very contradictory views on the HPC's reputation. I emailed extracts of them to Marc Seale, his response was to invite me in for a meeting.
Marc met me in reception and led the way down to a basement room at HPC ‘s Kennington headquarters where we occupied two red settees. Tea was served, and Michael Guthrie, Director of Policy & Standards, joined us. Marc Seale is a genial, vigorous conversationalist and he began with an outline of the HPC’s current process." [click the title of this blog to read the full report. If you would like to make a comment, use this blog...]
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
