An unsatisfactory lacuna?
JPA Baird responds to The Psychologist article, 'Endings in therapeutic relationships'.
05 September 2023
As outsiders without knowledge of the facts, we cannot comment meaningfully on the particulars of Kate Roberts' experience ('Endings in therapeutic relationships', The Psychologist, September 2023), but her question 'What complaints procedure can clients of private psychologists access for matters which are harmful/unethical/prejudice the reputation of the profession, but below "unfit to practice"?' is one of general importance.
Roberts says that the Society will not comment or act on any breaches of its rules where the threshold for 'unfit to practice' has not been reached. It would be interesting to read a response from the appropriate officer or elected member of the Society whether this is correct, and if so, the rationale for it.
On the face of it, it is an unsatisfactory lacuna in the Society's policies and procedures if it has no sanction against conduct, which although harmful or unethical, falls below the unfit to practice threshold. Inadequate professional service is a concept recognised by, for example, the solicitors' profession, and its professional journal regularly reports instances of solicitors ordered to forgo their fees and pay compensation to dissatisfied clients, short of being struck off. Indeed, the oft-repeated practice management advice is that unhappy clients usually want acknowledgement, apology, restitution and systemic improvement, not striking-off.
I can imagine several possible reasons why the professional body for psychologists may not wish to recognise complaints of inadequate professional service. One may be that the statutory framework does not permit it. The second may be that the nature of psychological therapy can be challenging for both therapist and client, and so more likely to trigger complaints. The third may be that whereas solicitors' errors can usually be quantified in financial terms, the sequelae of psychologists' errors are usually more fuzzy, and calls on the Compensation Fund harder to predict, so the burden should fall on practitioners' indemnity insurers. A fourth may be to avoid prejudicing potential proceedings in the civil court.
Whatever the reason, an explanation would be helpful for practitioners and clients alike. Forcing distressed clients into professional negligence litigation as their only route to redress is undesirable for all concerned, except their lawyers.
JPA Baird
Editor's reply: We have sought a response. We feel that there are several interesting issues around 'endings' in therapy, and we expect to return to the topic in future.
Do contact us with your views at [email protected].
