In a recent article posted posted on the "Interesting Psychotherapy Articles" thread, a therapist likened her profession to stockbrokers.

A apt analogy. While there are many clients who like their brokers and feel they have gotten good financial advice from them, there are others who feel their brokers, and by extension, the whole job is basically a scam.

In going to a stockbroker, I felt I understood the risks and likely complex motivations of the broker. And when I felt that the cost was more than the value to me, I went to a low cost brokerage and managed things myself.

In going to therapists I feel I did NOT understand the risks and I was not there in therapy observing the therapist for signs of complex and mixed motivations. My bad, of course. But it was a risk that I did not understand I was taking, in part because of issues I went into therapy with.

I was looking at therapists more as what is known in the financial business as a "fiduciary", someone who is legally bound to act in my best interest. Stockbrokers, on the other hand, are primarily salespeople.

What does anybody else think? Contrary opinions and disagreements are welcome.