To those who have been harmed by the "therapeutic relationship"

Once again, neither I or others, who describe our experiences, are trying to "define" anything here. We simply tell our stories and we say that something felt how it felt to us. That's all. We are not claiming that our experiences are objective definitions. I am not interested in defining anything objectively here. This is not what this thread is about. If it's difficult for you to grasp and if you feel "gaslighted" by what is being posted here, there are many other threads that would suit your personal needs better than this one

Not sure it's been the main ingredient. That's probably been my own damn hard work. But it's been instrumental. I get why you wouldn't want to go through it again. I think if I hadn't have struck lucky this time, it would have been difficult to try again.

I had to laugh at this because I've observed this type of behavior in Ts outside of therapy settings so many times. They are such an insecure bunch outside of their comfortable space (therapy room).

Just remembered how my son at some point had an inspiration to follow my steps and to enter the profession. He did a job search of mental health agencies and went through a training at one of them.Though he completed the training and worked there for a couple of years as unlicensed counselor and case manager for some time, he completely rejected the idea of pursing the mental health career path. He said that the therapists he worked with were the most arrogant and insecure people with a God complex he ever encountered He is in a completely different field now.

I just started reading the article. Will comment when I am done.

Finished. I have to admit, I've read 1/3 of it carefully and skimmed through the rest. It's way too convoluted to follow their train of thought.

It is clearly a litreview research paper and though I applaud the authors's courage to take on the subject no one in their profession wants to talk about, I have to say they didn't do a good job delivering their points. Which is unfortunate because this is one of the reasons why such needed topics like this one can't find broader audiences.

Also, in order for things to start shifting this topic should be brought to the attention of the general public much more that to the professional audience. The mental health system won't need to change anything as long as its flaws are not exposed publicly. Only public exposure and embarrassment and the subsequent loss of profits force changes upon flawed systems, any system really. If we had a discussion like this one at least on social media, let alone corporate establishment media, things would start changing rapidly.

The concept in question is emotional rape, not literal physical rape. Emotional rape is a metaphor. There is a difference between suggesting a likeness between two things, and suggesting one equals the other.

But the flaws are only apparent to those (of us) who have experienced them. For what I expect are a lot of reasons, people who haven't looked for "help" in the mental health system don't identify with those of us who have. They can't see themselves in the kinds of situations we've experienced and tend to assume that the authorities are more believable. Understandable. And can probably be addressed, but I'm not sure how.

What are the parallels? The dangers of smoking? Discrimination against LBGTQ people? The sex abuse in the Catholic church?

I believe the society as a whole suffers by marginalizing people with emotional distress and treating the distress as something to be avoided, rather than understood. That has gotten worse in the last 50 years in my opinion, not better. Consequently, any additional distress which we experience in the "treatment" is also to be avoided by those who are safely not affected by it.

Understandable. But . . .

You actually responded to your own points with the questions you ask next

Yes, these are all parallels.

Could the majority of straight people see themselves in situations where LGBT folks were a few decades ago? No. The majority of straight folks were unable to empathize with them and to demand changes.But it changed, didn't it? It took a long time because such big changes always happen over a long period of time because the nature of the human mind is such that consciousness arises very slowly.

Did people change attitude towards smoking because the new information came out? Yes, they did.

Were people outraged by the Catholic church sex abuse because they all could identify with the victims? Not at all. Most people weren't victimized in that way. And yet they were outraged when the news broke out.

Being unable to identify with someone's experience is not necessarily a predictor that you won't empathize.

I understand that the examples you've given are much easier for the public to understand because they are pretty obvious, especially child sex abuse. Also, the info about the dangers of smoking came from credible sources a.k.a "authorities" and that's why the public accepted it right away. The case with LGBT is more suitable for comparison because they, as a group, were marginalized for a very long time. And not just marginalized. In the old times they were murdered or prosecuted. This is the case where it took very long for the public to empathize with them. I assume it'd also take long for the public to empathize with us because, as you've said correctly, most people, who haven't had any experience with therapy aren't even aware of what's going on in the field. The only way to change it is through education and the only way to start this education is through going public with our stories. I don't see any other way. Last, but not least, since awareness comes very slowly and people's minds understand things very slowly, we have to accept that the desired changes most likely will not come in our life time. I accept that and I'd rather die knowing that I did speak up than keeping it all inside. If I keep my experiences inside or just rant about them on forums then I'd feel that I was traumatized for nothing. I don't want to feel victimized for the rest of my life. That's why I am doing what I am doing.

I believe too that marginalization of people with emotional distress got worse and I attribute it to the influence of Big Pharma that wants to push the psych drugs on as many people as possible for understandable reasons. They are the ones who benefit the most from the biological theory of "mental illness" that implies that any emotional distress is just the result of some "genetic" brain imbalances that could be mitigated by their wonder drugs. There has been no scientific evidence up to this point that supports the "genetic" theory and there has been no evidence that their drugs do anything beyond the placebo effect. Yet, everybody unquestionably accepts their claim as a "scientific" fact.

In that regard, one of the things I can credit talk therapy for is the premise that distress has to be understood, not medicated. The fact that their attempts to understand don't work is a different subject. In fact, it's the subject we often bring up here because we know from experience that their methods of understanding fail. And it's the subject we are discussing right now.

But I think it has to be acknowledged that therapy often does a lot of good for a lot of people. If you were to go public and try to discredit the profession you would be unlikely to be taken seriously, not just because the public don't understand the nature of therapy, but because many people have had positive experiences of therapy. When you dismiss the profession as a whole, your opinion contradicts people's lived experience.

Would a better course of action not be to try and fix what is broken in therapy by working to understand why harm occurs and changing the system? You are a therapist aren't you? Why not become a trainer? You could lecture, teach therapists about their potential to do harm. But I don't think you can do that while you are dismissive of the profession as a whole. I think you are on a hiding to nothing because you are asserting something that people's experiences tell them is objectively false.

I have acknowledged that therapy does good as well as bad. I have said many times on this forum that my therapy experience was a mixed bag and that I gained a lot of useful insight from therapy, but I didn't feel like it was worth the price of getting so severely traumatized.

People have positive lived experiences not with the "profession" but with the therapy process and outcomes. I am not trying to discredit the idea of talk therapy. I am criticizing the methods that, I believe, have proven themselves to be harmful. And, if the profession doesn't have any interest in self-reflection and self-examination, it deserves harsh criticism. I don't see criticizing and discrediting as the same thing, but, again, as long as the profession, as a whole doesn't put their methods under objective scrutiny, I will have no problem discrediting it while still not rejecting the main premise of their practice.

This is exactly what I am trying to do. I want to change the system.by initiating the discussions that aim to understand why harm occurs and by providing the consumers of psychotherapy information on my blog that they are entitled to know but won't find anywhere because no one gives it to them.

I'd LOVE to do that. The problem is no one would express interest in that kind of training. Every single therapist I have tried to enlighten about the issue of harm in therapy would give me a weird look and was never in contact with me again.

I am dismissive of ignorance as a whole. I am not dismissive of the need for many people to have professional psychological assistance. I do believe that such a need is real for many people. I am dismissive of the culture of the profession, not the idea of the profession.

I am not on a hiding to nothing because my blog has already helped many people. I've received many letters from people saying that my blog was the only source that helped them to make sense of their therapy experiences. This is only the beginning and I am certainly not planning on stopping at that, but this is just to let you know that what I do is not just an empty talk.

As far as the experiences of those who were helped by therapy, as I've stated already, I am not asserting that everyone is harmed in therapy so I am not invalidating anyone's positive experience with therapy.

What I am saying is not "objectively false" just because others had different experiences. It may be subjectively false for them because their subjective experiences were different from mine. Just like mine were subjectively true for me.

These discussions often boil down to the fight about whose subjective reality is more objective - those who've experienced therapy as generally positive or those who've experienced it as generally negative. None of them are objective. What is true and false for you is true and false for you and what is true and false for me is true and false for me. We can argue about it till we are blue in the face and it won't change anything.

I am proposing to treat all subjective experiences as valid and deserving consideration when we are deciding how much credibility the profession deserves. As far as the objective data is concerned, we will never know the real picture of how many people have been harmed by the system vs those who've been helped vs those who've had mixed experiences until someone cares enough about this issue to conduct an independently funded research. Until then, we all will have to deal with the anecdotal evidence only.

Did this article come in time or what?
New Study Investigates Negative Side Effects of Therapy

Please, note that the study was conducted among therapists and by therapists, so the results, as the researchers themselves correctly suggest, might have been influenced by the therapists'' bias (dah!). But, even given into account a "possible" (ha-ha) bias, the results are striking. I would love to see the same study done with the clients, as it's supposed to be. Can only imagine the difference in results.

Okay, well it sounds like you are clear about the benefit of what you're doing and that's great. I think what I am responding to is the comparison with LGBT rights, where I feel the position society used to have is morally reprehensible, I don't feel a pro-therapy stance is either right or wrong, it's just a valid opinion like disliking therapy is. And there's a lot of room for nuance in between, which I don't think is the case in the example of homophobia.
I think I also had a visceral reaction to the comparison with prostitution which seems sensationalist to me. I think that kind of comparison doesn't help you to engage with a wider audience and convey your perfectly valid concerns.
I want to make it clear that this is not an attack on you. I think it's a good thing that you are engaging with this stuff and giving others the courage to speak out too. I just think, this is a divisive subject, that's why so many of these threads turn to chaos (actually quite surprised this one hasn't!) so comparisons like those in this thread probably will turn people away from listening, rather than engage them. It's just my opinion. I hope I've explained it better.

interesting that the study was only done on the side effects of CBT. i would love to see what kind of results they would get if it was psychodynamic therapy, especially if it was from the clients side.

I feel like I have to clarify my position and my intentions once again.

I do NOT hold either anti- or pro- therapy stance. As I've said before, I am not against the idea of therapy, I am against the culture of the psychotherapy profession that seems to have no problem with the fact that therapists are operating with scientifically unfounded methods that proved to be harmful to many people.

I know that many people who've been harmed in therapy hold a strong anti-therapy position. I don't. But just because I don't see abolishing therapy as a solution to the problem doesn't mean that I can't empathize with their experiences and their righteous anger. I can and I do. The metaphors and the analogies they use to describe their experiences do not disturb me no matter how dark and sensational they may sound because those were their REAL lived experiences of victimization and they have the right to tell it exactly how it felt to them without self-censorship for the sake of not offending anyone.

Conversely, many people who have mixed experiences in therapy hold a pro-therapy position. I don't. But just because I don't share their view that the suffering that therapy often inflicts on people is worth the outcome doesn't mean I can't empathize with their experiences and can't understand where their views are coming from. I can and I do.

I don't want to address those who have only positive experiences in therapy because to me it's highly unlikely that they would bother to hang out on forums like this one to begin with, and if they do occasionally come here to ask a question or two it's highly unlikely that they would bother to engage in discussions like this one because "harm in therapy" is something they don't know anything about, don't understand because it's never been part of their therapy experience so these types of discussions would hold no personal interest to them.

Back to my position, I don't address the issue of harm/abuse in therapy within the frame of anti- vs. pro- therapy positions. I am trying to steer away from that frame completely. To me, at the time we live now, when the public at large isn't even aware of how the mental health system operates in general, to go out and introduce the "to keep or not to keep therapy enterprise" dilemma to them wouldn't get any traction anywhere, as most people won't even know what you are talking about, as HT noted correctly. To me, at this time, the most important thing is to bring the stories of harm to the surface, because without it nothing can ever be changed. Making transparent something that has been operating in secrecy is the starting point. And I believe in taking one step at a time. We don't have the ability to solve major problems at once or to predict how things will unfold in the future. We can think how it may unfold but we will never know. Therefore, I prefer to live in present, to take one step at a time and do what's effective in the moment.

I understand your point and I completely respect your visceral reaction.

People will react how they will. There is nothing I can do about it. I can bend myself over backwards trying to explain my true intentions for saying this or that, for making this or that comparison and so on and there will always be those who still won't believe me. I can't present my experience in any other way than how I've experienced it whether others like it or not. There will be those who'd resonate with what I say and there will always be those who won't, and that's okay. As time goes by, hopefully, more and more people will be able to understand that I am not trying to sensationalize my experience by making certain disturbing comparisons and that it was exactly how I say it was for me. In any case, when I try to raise awareness about something personal to me, I have to stay true to myself. Can't do it any other way and I don't believe that anything of value can be done any other way.

I don't feel you are attacking me. As I've said here before, I draw a distinction between the difference of opinion, which I welcome, and personal attacks. What you've expressed here was the difference of opinion, even if it was about my actions. You didn't attack my character in any way and didn't bring up irrelevant personal identifications like gender and such as some other people did here. You just expressed a different view which I have no problem with.

Yes, the subject is divisive just like any important subject that people personally care about. I see nothing wrong with its divisiveness. It's natural. Every single issue, including those mentioned here like LGBT rights and many others were divisive in the beginning. If people always tried not to rock the boat, I don't think the humanity would progress far beyond the Stone Age.

Yep. That's what I'd love to see as well.

A professional who sells caring and/or intimacy by the hour, in a private room... prostitution is one of the most obvious parallels. It's only sensationalist if your starting point is the image of therapy that the industry itself sells.

Are people supposed to refrain from such valid and obvious and instructive comparisons because it might bother some people?

I think it's condescending to tell IDIMW that she ought to present her concerns differently.

I personally think that discussions like this thread are some of the best / most useful features of PC. Why should we all agree on things, including what areas of life we appreciate or condemn, analogies we like, interpretations of experiences? I also think it is inevitable that there will be personal and heated elements in good debates, including that different people will have different perceptions of reactions (e.g. what counts as an attack). I think it is also fine to be protective of something that is working well for someone, as well as criticizing things we had negative experiences with. Isn't this all healthy, especially considering how many people cannot openly express their concerns in their therapy? At least there is a place to discuss it.

I think it could be construed as condescending to feel the need to step in and speak to me like this, seemingly on IDIMW's behalf when she has already done a perfectly good job of explaining why she presents her opinions in the way she does, which I totally respect.
I am not sure why you have responded so confrontationally to what I clearly stated was "just my opinion" and certainly not telling her what she "ought" to do. She's perfectly capable of making her own decisions on that, and she is also capable of responding to me herself, as she has ably demonstrated here.

Actually, I don't feel that Echos was condescending towards me. I feel she or he?? ( I am so sorry, I don't know everyone's gender here because it's not stated on their profile) genuinely cares about changing the way that therapy operates because it affected them negatively as well. I feel like they really believe that presenting this issue differently might help to change things. I don't see it that way, but I also believe that Echos concern was sincere.

Thank you. I was and am sincere I sent you a PM with a link I thought you might find interesting.

ETA - I'm female, but don't mind gender-neutral pronouns so don't feel you need to remember that!

Thank you. I really hope people on "many sides" (quoting our president) will stop perceiving any viewpoint that differ from their own personally. It's natural for emotions to get stirred up and for the pain to get triggered when discussing such sensitive topics that are so personal for many people.

But I would highly encourage all of us, no matter what our individual views are, to take this as an opportunity to master our emotions in such a way that we could still feel them and respect them but don't let them control us to the point that we are unable to see things outside of our individual subjective perspectives. The bigger picture that includes the variety of experiences, the variety of subjective realities is desperately needed to address such personally painful things. I believe, everyone's experience and view holds some piece of the bigger objective reality that needs to be understood and integrated if we want to stop going in circles (which is what we've been doing so far) and move somewhere. Therefore, everyone's perspective is valuable

For me too it's challenging sometimes to accept that my subjective reality is not the only reality out there and to give space to others to introduce theirs. But I am taking on the challenge because I believe that it's ultimately for my highest good. I do, however, take the liberty to use my subjective judgment on my threads and my other platforms to determine what is a personal attack and what is a simply different view. You have to use your own personal judgment somewhere As a human, you can't go completely outside of your own inner world, nor should you.

I wasnt speaking on IDIMW's behalf. I'm saying I take exception to the admonishments along the lines of... how dare you mention therapy and prostitution in the same sentence.

Selling caring or love to paying customers is a form of prostitution. We're all adults, why not say it like it is.

Therapists preach self-awareness and self-honesty yet most seem deluded about their own work. I figure they all avoid looking too closely at what they do fear of feeling debased. I think this is one reason they turn on clients and terminate aggressively or lash out, because they see the client getting strong feelings and it creeps them out and they don't like what this implies about the process.

But pointing any of this out is forbidden across therapy culture, and instead everyone must speak in euphemisms and indulge the delicate feelings of therapists themselves. And with all due respect, but this permeates into the client-base and nobody will tolerate straight talk.

I certainly didn't say that or even think it.

This was the thrust of my earlier posts - that I don't feel that I am buying love. I'm happy to agree to disagree on that.

I think it's true that some or maybe even many do avoid looking at the harm they can do because it can be an existential threat to consider how their work can do the opposite of what it is supposed to. I would like therapists to be more open to thinking about and discussing it because with awareness they are less likely to do harm, I think. (Some or many isn't the same as all, of course)

I don't think this is true across therapy culture (depending on your definition of therapy culture). I see that the tide is beginning to turn on the issue which I welcome. I feel it should be an open discussion. People are welcome to their views and their analogies and other people are welcome to their responses to them. This should be a dialogue. Not an argument.

Thanks for this! The full text of the original research paper is here.

An interesting finding mentioned in the background/intro is that when therapists are asked about their own treatment experiences, 20 to 40% recall negative side effects.

It was also interesting that only clients who had attended for 10+ sessions were eligible for consideration in this study, because 10 sessions was considered long enough to manifest any negative effects that were likely to occur. I think the researchers were only considering adverse reactions related to specific therapy techniques (say, imaginal exposure or role-playing). They weren't really thinking about harms arising from the relationship itself, which would tend to occur after a longer period of time. They had this huge database of clients to choose from, so they could have restricted this to clients who had been going for over a year, let's say -- they had the numbers for it -- but I just don't think they were focused on client-T relationship issues.

And needless to say: If they are looking at very recent clients as in this study, they are excluding clients' experiences of termination entirely! Not even the part of termination that's observed by the T would be included in this study.

Equally needless to say: This forum proves that a great deal of clients' negative experiences related to therapy go unknown and unobserved by the T, so this study's 43% adverse effects rate is an underestimate for sure.

Amen to that.

This quote says a lot:
"Despite historical recognition of psychotherapy’s side effects, there is currently little data on their features and rate of occurrence."

Therapy studies are red herrings. The medical-ese and statistical analysis imply science, when in fact therapy is largely pseudoscience or religion. The studies themselves are pseudoscience too. If you look at the methodology described in the linked article, it's total farce.