 |
The most overlooked aspect of therapy is that it is
for the therapist a source of income. The therapist must claim to have
special knowledge or skills to justify receiving payment for his
services. This affects the therapist’s assessment of the value of his
services, regardless of whether he engages in biopsychiatry or a
different form of therapy.
Research on the efficacy of various treatments based on clients’ evaluations is rarely done. Even when it is, accurate criteria are non-existent and the researcher’s vested interest in the results raise suspicions of bias. My own investigations into client satisfaction, which I honestly claim to be unscientific, reveal that clients’ responses usually fall into three categories, in descending order of frequency:
The second sits uncomfortably with the views of those of us who oppose biopsychiatry. The fact of the matter is that some people like feeling numbed by drugs. If that were not so, there would be no drug addicts. Let’s approach drugs from the position of the client, who is not bound by the oath: “First, do no harm.” A drug can be legitimate when the provider of the drug meets the same requirements that the provider of any other product, say, a lawn mower, must meet: the product must be accompanied by instructions for proper use. In addition, the client should be fully informed of the effects of the drugs, i.e. addiction and various forms of brain damage. Furthermore, the client should be warned that once having begun use, he may never again be fit to engage in activities requiring maximum consciousness, such as raising children or driving an automobile. Needless to say, drugs should not be available, let alone offered, to children or adults who are incapable of making an informed decision. The question arises, if the manufacturer provides full information, instructions, and warnings regarding the product, what is the role of the doctor? Truth be told, none. The physician is an intermediary established by the government to limit the freedom of the individual citizen to access drugs. As such he has also slipped into the role of propagandist for the drug companies. Without the authority granted to the physician by the government for the purpose of curtailing citizens’ liberty “for their own good,” physicians would have less earning power. They would be needed less by both those who take the drugs as those who manufacture them. What about the third, most infrequent answer? What is the role of the therapist who is liked because he is nice and listens to the client? “Listening” implies not talking, so not giving advice. Indeed, these clients will claim that they received no benefit beyond having had someone listen to them. If listening is all that is required to satisfy the client, perhaps he would be just as satisfied by telling his problems to the wall, a recording machine, or the family dog? In fact, that third suggestion does sometimes suffice. An advantage the therapist has over the wall is that he occasionally nods and seems to “understand.” Clients often report that the therapist who is liked had experienced similar problems to the client’s in his private life. Thus the true benefit that the client has derived from this therapist is not previously unavailable knowledge or insight, but a feeling of emotional satisfaction. This benefit is characteristic of friendship. But a therapist who offers friendship is by definition behaving unprofessionally. The client, too, would no doubt acknowledge that true friendship cannot be bought. The relationship between this therapist and his client could therefore be characterized as pseudo-friendship. The therapist resembles the prostitute who offers the pretense of love in return for financial reward. A difference is that the prostitute’s client usually does not – and the prostitute never – deceives him/herself about the nature and purpose of the relationship. Another characteristic of the “listening” therapist is that his service is completely useless to the vast majority of clients who seek help for themselves or family members. Many of us who oppose biopsychiatry prefer to ignore or deny that many people do have neurological aberrations which cause difficulty to them or the people around them. Even if they didn’t have them before being exposed to biopsychiatric treatments, they have them after. What do such people need? They need, in fact, the same as people with no neurological aberrations: friendship. The more severe the problem, the less well pseudo-friendship can relieve it. Only someone truly devoted to the person will be able to provide the understanding, acceptance, and practical assistance that such a person needs. Such devotion can usually not be bought. An exception might be the wealthy family who can afford to support a devoted companion, such as Ann Sullivan famously was to Helen Keller. The vast majority of people in need of such companionship are dependent on family, friends, and volunteers. The existence of a vast body of paid and licensed professionals who are believed to have knowledge and skills which in reality they do not have, discourages lay people from providing the assistance they very well can. “Leave it up to the professionals who are trained for it” is common but bad advice. It is probably unavoidable that people present themselves as experts and offer their services in return for money. Quacks have been with us since time immemorial and no doubt will be as long as money is. A step in the right direction might be that the state would stop sanctioning some of them with licenses, or worse, employing them. To achieve this, however, we must convince the public at large of the painful truth that much of the professionalism in which they invest their faith is a fraud. There is no sign of the tide taking such a turn. To date, the public at large demands more and more state funds for professionals.
|
