CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), on the platform of NICE, is riding the political wave of popularity... still.
I was interested, though, to listen to a segment on Radio 4 recently. A psychoanalyst took a rare opportunity to present a robust defence of non-CBT therapies. The fact is that the Evidence presented on CBT is matched by other therapies; additionally, the 'gold-standard' methodology of the randomised-controlled-trial is easily questioned by intelligent minds.
Why, then, do people still think of CBT as 'better' than other therapies?
Why do national services favour cognitively-based work (apart from the cost of short-term treatment, of course...!)
Think of the world of supermarkets. You can buy a product because you know it's what you need, or you can be told what you need by smart packaging, clever ad campaigns, and because everyone else says it's great.
Sooner or later, the hype might just wear off. Clients are smart, and will eventually vote with their feet.
Infrequent musings and general comments on life, from the perspective of a UK psychotherapist.
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Monday, 4 October 2010
Be This The Verse? ... Parents, Parenting, Families
Recently, for personal reasons, I've been revisiting the wonderful poem by Philip Larkin, "This Be The Verse". It's one that most psychotherapists are familiar with; we appreciate its truth and its irony.
It also makes me think about being a parent. I'm a little uncomfortable with Larkin's final rejoinder "And don't have any kids yourself", which to me speaks of Larkin's well-known glumness, his tendency towards polarized views, and a kind of lack of hope for humankind. He seems to suggest that the handing on of misery cannot be avoided.
This might be true in some ways; no parents are perfect, after all. But I wonder if it's also true that some of the misery can be turned into something else, or even quarantined, so that Larkin's dark outcome can be (at least partially) averted.
People can change. They can decide to do things differently, if they want to and realize they have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, they may be able to achieve some of this in therapy.
I guess what I'm saying is, Mr Larkin made an astute observation, but I have more hope - for me as a parent, anyway, and for people who work on therapeutic change in themselves and others.
.
It also makes me think about being a parent. I'm a little uncomfortable with Larkin's final rejoinder "And don't have any kids yourself", which to me speaks of Larkin's well-known glumness, his tendency towards polarized views, and a kind of lack of hope for humankind. He seems to suggest that the handing on of misery cannot be avoided.
This might be true in some ways; no parents are perfect, after all. But I wonder if it's also true that some of the misery can be turned into something else, or even quarantined, so that Larkin's dark outcome can be (at least partially) averted.
People can change. They can decide to do things differently, if they want to and realize they have the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, they may be able to achieve some of this in therapy.
I guess what I'm saying is, Mr Larkin made an astute observation, but I have more hope - for me as a parent, anyway, and for people who work on therapeutic change in themselves and others.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)