i'm not 100% sure on this... i think that 'councellor' is a trade marked title in the US like how 'psychologist' is a trade marked title in various parts of the world. i guess different training programs have different components that a student has to passed before they are granted completion. i guess different professional organisations (like the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association) have different requirements on what is required for an individual to become a registered member of the association. I am fairly sure that psychologists and psychiatrists do not have to have undertaken a course of therapy before they are granted membership of those professional organisations. It might be that particular programs require more than the organisation requires, however. Students do (of course) have to have supervision on their cases. Part of that involves them talking about their case. Part of that MAY involve them talking about their own personal responses and reactions to the client - but then again it may not. 'Councellor' is not currently a trade marked title in Australasia (though councellors are campaigning for it to be such).

There are probably more reasons for becoming a therapist than those ones that I listed... I'm not sure that I've ever seen a comprehensive list anywhere, however. Those are fairly much off the top of my head suggestions.

With respect to acting out ones pathology... I suppose every therapist has the potential for that with some of their clients. I was thinking in particular of this guy in Queensland who was struck off the register. He was seeing a girl who had issues with S&M. Part of his course of 'treatment' was for her to call him 'Master' and assent to his demands. She was told to bring along a whip and he would whip the couch (and arguably her) if she didn't assent to his demands. He would also (arguably) instruct her to perform sexual acts. He said that this course of therapy was appropriate for building rapport with someone with such severe masochistic pathology. There is no empirical evidence or theoretical models which incorporate any of this, however. Indeed, such techniques would probably not pass ethical approval in order for them to be tested. I think it likely that... He had sadistic traits and was using his client in order to act out his pathology.

'Major league malpractice' (sexual activities with clients) would be another example of acting out ones pathology. One could of course try to justify it as 'helping the client' or being 'what the client really needs in order to get better' but there is simply no evidence that sexual activity with a therapist helps clients and there is a lot of evidence that sexual activity with a therapist harms clients.

Some therapists encourage their clients to be meek and dependent and needy. They can be very supportive and in fact, do too much for their clients when their clients express helplessness. If their clients express independence or assertiveness or anger, then some therapists simply cannot cope, however. Sometimes a therapist can stunt a clients progress because the therapist needs to be needed by the client. This would be another (subtler) case of the therapist acting out their pathology to the detriment of the clients progress.

Some therapists blame the client or otherwise demean them and / or belittle them. Judge them harshly or otherwise blame them for their troubles. This can be blatant or subtle too. In a way subtler versions can be more harmful because they might mimic the clients early environment in such a way that the client thinks that this sort of response is simply inevitable. This could result from narcissistic needs of the therapist to be competent and in control and superior and the like. Acting out their pathology again.

Maybe 'pathology' isn't quite the correct word for the subtler cases of this... Everybody has needs... The crucial thing (IMHO) is whether the therapist has a good insight into the sorts of needs that they have such that they are able to really consider whether they are acting on their needs or whether they are acting in the clients best interests. Being psychologically healthy isn't a matter of not having needs / desires, it is a matter of having an awareness of where those needs / desires come from and having an ability to refrain from acting out from them. When one is a therapist... One needs to be healthy enough and have enough insight such that one can identify urges / responses that are more about oneself than in the interests of the clients progress. Being a good therapist is about having the ability to identify and refrain from expressing / acting out these and instead being able to respond / react / act in the best interests of the client.

It can indeed be hard to be objective about oneself. That is why... It can be important to be in therapy (not for oneself) so much as being in therapy in order to process ones responses / reactions to the client. So that the therapist can help one sort out counter-transference from that which is in the clients best interests. Not many therapists get the chance to have a supervisory analysis, however. Might get a once a week meeting in order to discuss the treatment plan of the trickiest cases is about all...

Sigh...

Funding limitations etc etc etc...