This morning, over breakfast I came across a posting by the British Association for Counselling: “Only 12% of the UK population realise that anyone can call themselves a counsellor or psychotherapist …People need to know why to choose a therapist who is on a Professional Standards Authority accredited register”.
Not unlike the current conservative government which appears to lament that some of its own systems are “broken”, we need to remind ourselves – and our profession – who broke it? Why do only 12% of the population know of our existence?
The BACP is the largest counselling and psychotherapy body, together with the UKCP and since the days of the Rugby Standing Conference, several decades ago, seem to monopolise the debate, and which it needs to be said, have done very little to fix this sorry situation. And yes, the BACP is right, the profession in the UK remains somewhat undefined and, what is worse, its professionals operate in some kind of no-mans-land, ill-defined and hence unprotected.
I believe it gets worse for my own sub-section within this profession: psychosexual and relationship therapy. No less important than its generic sibling, equally unrecognised and hence unprotected. If only 12% of the UK populace know that anyone can call themselves a therapist, what might that figure look like for sex and relationship therapists? Does anyone know we are there?
This is not to say that my colleagues (or I) work unethically, certainly within the lead bodies, but it is clearly concerning that both psychotherapists and psychosexual and relationship therapist remain largely unsupported and recognised disciplines. This is not the case for psychologists, and medics, whose titles – disciples and discourses – are protected.
I am left wondering how sex and relationship therapy might be considered inferior and less in need of protection than, say, medicine.
The reasons for this marginalisation of PRT I suspect lies in a few misapprehensions: firstly, it is assumed that we are a form of medical practice. We are not. Although it has taken our accrediting bodies some time to say so. Secondly, it is somewhat assumed that, because sexuality appears in the consulting room, that PRT involves touch, sex, or some form of surrogacy. It does not and never has. We are a talking cure and therefore utterly congruent with other forms of talking therapies
Perhaps not so difficult to understand?
Thirdly – and this one must be placed firmly at the feet of our professional body – there is a lack of definition of what PRT is, what it does, what it doesn’t and how it might be effective. This is perhaps not through want of trying, but perhaps because psychosexual and relationship work is younger than generic psychotherapy as a profession, its registered and qualified practitioners’ number comparatively very few and whilst there is much anecdotal evidence of its efficacy there is little empirical evidence.
Bernd Leygraf
Course Director LDPRT
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.