3 ms·
CBT has succeeded in its public relations battle at being labeled the "scientific" treatment - but as the parent article notes, there is no actual scientific ba
by thelettere 11y ago
CBT has succeeded in its public relations battle at being labeled the "scientific" treatment - but as the parent article notes, there is no actual scientific basis for that contention. Governments and industry certainly prefer the it though, as your links show.
Out of curiosity, why do you believe that making sure a therapist is a member of the BACP is important?
- DanBC 11y agoParent article is low quality rant with little substance. Exactly the same claims can be made of pain medications (ranging from opiates to paracetamol) but we don't get anti-analgesia rants similar to this anti-psychology stuff. I don't think membership of BACP is important - I'd far rather get therapy from the NHS. The BACP register is accredited by Department of Health, so has some credibility. BACP accreditation means practitioners meet some minimal levels of competence, experience, and safety. (And some people lie about their registration, so that's a useful sign that they're probably not the right person to get therapy from.)
- thelettere 11y agoThat the same claims can be made of pain medications (and indeed most of medicine) was one of the primary points of the parent article - which makes me question whether you even read it. Your second paragraph I don't know what to say in response to, other than that all the research I've seen indicates that there is no relationship between any of the (NHS or whatever) accreditation requirements and outcomes, or any that indicate that accredited therapists (by any licensing body) achieve better outcomes than those who are unaccredited.