Therapy Near Me Mental Health Articles

In the diverse field of psychotherapy, most therapeutic approaches are designed to support and enhance the well-being of individuals. However, not all therapies prove beneficial, and some can be outright harmful or dangerous. This article delves into the realm of controversial therapies that have been criticized for their lack of scientific support, potential for harm, or unethical practices, drawing upon scientific research and literature to underline the importance of evidence-based practice in mental health treatment.

Attachment therapy is a controversial and potentially harmful treatment purported to treat attachment disorders in children. The therapy sometimes involves “re-birthing” techniques, where children are physically restrained to simulate birth as a form of rebonding with the caregiver. Such practices have been associated with severe emotional and physical distress, and in some cases, fatalities have occurred. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) has issued statements warning against the use of coercive practices in attachment therapy, emphasizing the lack of empirical support and the dangers associated with these methods (Chaffin et al., 2006).

Recovered memory therapy (RMT) involves techniques purported to recover repressed memories of traumatic events, often of childhood abuse. Critics of RMT argue that the therapy can lead to the creation of false memories through suggestive techniques, causing harm to individuals and families. The British Psychological Society (BPS) has highlighted concerns regarding the reliability of recovered memories and the potential for RMT to lead to psychological harm, recommending the use of evidence-based practices that do not rely on memory recovery techniques (British Psychological Society, 2008).

Primal therapy, developed in the 1960s, is based on the premise that re-experiencing and expressing repressed feelings from childhood can lead to emotional release and healing. Critics argue that there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of primal therapy and that the intense emotional experiences it promotes can be psychologically damaging. The practice has been criticized for its potential to exacerbate mental health issues rather than resolve them.

The controversies surrounding harmful and dangerous therapies highlight the critical importance of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy. Therapeutic approaches should be supported by rigorous scientific research, demonstrating their safety and effectiveness. Mental health professionals are ethically obligated to provide treatments that adhere to the highest standards of evidence and to avoid practices that may cause harm to their clients.

In addition to the controversial therapies already discussed, several other treatments have raised significant concerns within the mental health community due to their unethical practices and potential to cause harm. Here are additional examples that underscore the necessity of adhering to evidence-based principles in therapy.

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique that was initially introduced as a communication aid for individuals with autism and other communication impairments. The method involves a facilitator who supports the hand or arm of a non-verbal person while they type on a keyboard. However, numerous scientific investigations have shown that the messages produced through FC are often generated by the facilitator, consciously or unconsciously, rather than by the person with the disability. The use of FC has been associated with false accusations of abuse and has been discredited by a range of professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association, due to the lack of empirical evidence supporting its validity (Mostert, 2001).

Cold Therapy, not to be confused with medical treatments involving controlled exposure to cold temperatures, refers to psychological interventions that involve subjecting individuals to severe emotional or physical distress. The premise is that exposure to extreme stress or discomfort can lead to breakthroughs in personal growth or healing. Such practices have been criticized for their potential to cause psychological harm, including trauma and worsened mental health conditions. There is a lack of scientific support for the efficacy of these methods, and they are considered unethical by mainstream mental health professionals.

Thought Field Therapy claims to treat psychological problems by manipulating the body’s energy field through a sequence of tapping actions on various parts of the body. Despite anecdotal reports of effectiveness, there is a significant lack of rigorous scientific evidence to support TFT’s claims. Critics argue that any benefits derived from TFT are likely due to placebo effects or general relaxation techniques rather than the specific tapping sequence. The American Psychological Association and other organizations caution against the use of unsubstantiated techniques like TFT in psychological treatment (Pignotti & Thyer, 2009).

The therapies listed above, along with those previously discussed, highlight a broader issue within the field of mental health: the proliferation of pseudoscientific therapies. These treatments often offer quick fixes or unconventional solutions that appeal to individuals seeking relief from psychological distress. However, without the backing of rigorous scientific evidence, these therapies can lead to misdiagnosis, worsening of symptoms, financial burden, and erosion of trust in mental health professionals.

The critical examination of harmful and dangerous therapies underscores the importance of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy. Mental health professionals have an ethical obligation to provide treatments that are supported by scientific research and recognized as safe and effective by reputable medical and psychological organizations. Individuals seeking therapy are encouraged to inquire about the evidence supporting any proposed treatment and to consult with licensed, reputable professionals to ensure the highest standard of care.

• Chaffin, M., Hanson, R., Saunders, B.E., Nichols, T., Barnett, D., Zeanah, C., Berliner, L., Egeland, B., Newman, E., Lyon, T., LeTourneau, E., & Miller-Perrin, C. (2006). Report of the APSAC task force on attachment therapy, reactive attachment disorder, and attachment problems. Child Maltreatment, 11(1), 76-89.
• British Psychological Society. (2008). Guidelines on Memory and the Law: Recommendations from the Scientific Study of Human Memory. British Psychological Society.
• Mostert, M. P. (2001). Facilitated Communication Since 1995: A Review of Published Studies. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(3), 287-313.
• Pignotti, M., & Thyer, B. A. (2009). The use of novel unsupported and empirically supported therapies by licensed clinical social workers: An exploratory study. Social Work Research, 33(1), 5-17.

How to get in touch

If you or your patient/NDIS clients need immediate mental healthcare assistance, feel free to get in contact with us on 1800 NEAR ME – admin@calmandcaring.com.