--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > These points are interesting to me. There are two places > > > > > > to start that end in the same conclusion for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. You believe that "chakra energy" experiences are real, > > > > > > valuable and can be distinguished from the possible mental > > > > > > disorders in a patient who has studied these concepts and > > > > > > describes his or her symptoms using the vocabulary from > > > > > > this belief system. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. You don't believe that this category of experiences is > > > > > > a sign of valuable "spiritual progress" and is a > > > > > > manifestation of a mental disorder or perhaps for some > > > > > > people a benign experience that we do not yet understand. > > > > > > (Not accepting the often contradictory explanations found > > > > > > in scriptures.) > > > > > > > > > > False dichotomy. > > > > > > > > I wasn't presenting them as a dichotomy but as a place to > > > > start the discussion. > > > > > > As a place to start the discussion, it's inadequate > > > because it leaves out a major perspective. > > > > Thus the term "start". > > > > > > > > > There's a whole field of psychotherapy > > > > > in which chakra experiences are used to help diagnose > > > > > various disorders (not necessarily mental illness per > > > > > se, but the kinds of emotional problems that most people > > > > > seek psychotherapy for), and working with chakras is used > > > > > as a treatment modality for the disorders, typically > > > > > along with standard psychotherapy. > > > > > > > > > > So these are licensed mental health professionals who > > > > are using this model in their practice or spiritual > > > > people with psychotherapy training? > > > > > > I haven't checked their credentials, Curtis. I got the > > > impression at least some of them were trained in > > > psychotherapy and licensed and have chosen to use this > > > approach in their practice. > > > > > > > I wonder about the ethics if the first > > > > > > OMG, that is hilarious. > > > > People whose trust by the public is based on their > > credentials certified by the state as a mental health > > authority adding in a field of speculation that has > > no oversight or even standard definitions is a > > violation of the ethical trust their position holds. > > How you find this funny is beyond me. > > It's funny because you don't know what the hell you're > talking about.
Your point adds to the discussion which I appreciate. The attitude that comes along with that addition, not so much. Ignoring that... For me the question does come down to ethics. And although you are focusing on the more freewheeling psychotherapy I was including all mental health professionals including psychiatrists. Your point is that there is no legal oversight over psychotherapists and it is left up to them what is ethical. Point taken. I don't know which states would actually call a person out if they felt the practices had gotten too wacky or got complaints. But again this is more of a legalistic side. The boards only go so far to insure that a person had been properly licensed. You seem to be equating ethics with enforceable legality. I am not. Someone may have the legal right to do something that is still unethical in my view. For me, using a thoery that is as contradictory in its details from different sources would be unethical. Vaj has made a case that someone could gain experiences from a person who themselves can show where they learned it seems like a step in the right direction. I wonder about the actual exposure to "chakra thoery" of anyone combining it in their practice. These are ethical questions that remain. > > From an article on the standard of care in psychotherapy > and counseling (be good to read the introduction too, > but the quoted paragraphs are specifically relevant here): > > ----- > The standard of care is a particularly difficult > issue in psychotherapy, as there are hundreds of > different orientations and approaches to treatment > (Lambert, 1991). Each is based on a different > theoretical orientation, a different methodology, > philosophy, belief system and even worldview. Beyond > the agreements of do not harm, and do not have sex > with current clients, and always respect clients' > dignity, autonomy and privacy, there is no consensus > on how to intervene, help or heal. For example there > is no one standard, or method or way for the > treatment of anxiety. Psychoanalysis, cognitive- > behavioral, existential, biologically based > psychiatry, Gestalt and pastoral counseling all > define, explain and treat the anxiety in very > different terms. Not one of them will follow the > others' standards.... > > The "respected minority" doctrine also applies to > new techniques, which as yet do not have well > established scientific or research support. This > provision allows for new or "experimental" > psychotherapeutic techniques to be carefully, > cautiously and ethically employed even though the > theories and/or practices are still being developed > and tested. Most successful and effective techniques > started out as "experimental or "alternative" > techniques prior to being tested, validated, > recognized, and employed on a broad scale.... > ----- > > http://www.zurinstitute.com/standardofcaretherapy.html > > It's simply not the case that state mental health > authorities say you can do A, B, C, and D kinds of > therapy, but not W, X, Y, and Z. It's just not an > ethics issue which approach a therapist uses. As long > as the basics--"do not harm, and do not have sex with > current clients, and always respect clients' dignity, > autonomy and privacy"--are observed, you get to > choose your own approach; you aren't required to pick > from a list of state-approved therapies. Great clarifications. I don't know how much of this applies to psychiatrists. And again, states differ in how much monitoring is being done. I suspect if someone was really going off the rails in their practice their would be an attempt to talk with them and perhaps even revolt their license. You are welcome to take more delight in finding my lack of familiarity with the relationship between mental health professionals and their oversight boards. IMO it still is not ethical to use your training in one area that can be documented to give credibility to what you are actually practicing for which you might have just read a book. YMMV >
