--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: <snip> > > > > > 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. > > > > Yeah, well, my objection is to *your* attitude as > > expressed above, that you're somehow qualified to > > evaluate the ethics of practitioners in a field of > > which you have little knowledge. > > Well if that is the new standard then I'll look forward > to seeing your posts restricted to editing in the future. > I seriously doubt you have any more insight into the > validity of "chakra knowledge" than I do.
I meant the field of psychotherapy in general. I don't have any insights at all into the validity of chakra therapy, nor did I claim to. But I do know enough about the field of psychotherapy, just from reading and observation (and plain common sense), to be aware that there are far too many different approaches being used besides those that are mainstream for a layperson to state with assurance that their use by a licensed practitioner violates any ethical trust. I was pretty sure that state boards wouldn't have any say in what approaches were permissible on an ethical basis either, went and checked, and found I was correct (the quotes I posted). <snip> > > > 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. > > > > Well, we all have different views as to what we consider > > ethical. Some might consider that medicating a client as > > the sole treatment is unethical, for example. Some might > > think the whole "disease model" of psychotherapy is > > unethical. That's basically what the quotes I posted were > > trying to get across, that even within the profession > > there's little agreement. And I'd suggest that the views of > > laypersons as to what is and isn't ethical cover an even > > broader range and are clearly not as well informed. > > I think I am more well informed about what might > constitute reliable knowledge than some of the wackier > therapists. That is my complaint with them. It has > been my experience with the whole medical profession > that they are not trained in good thinking skills in > medical school so I need to participate in any > decisions for therapy that concerns my health. They > are just as subject to thinking to cognitive errors > as any of us and seem clueless that this is a factor > to consider. I don't disagree, but is this what you call an "ethical issue"?? <snip> > The only test I have seen that compared therapies seemed > to suggest that the only measurable quality that related > with outcome satisfaction with the therapy was the rapport > the patient has with the therapist. Exactly, as I went on to say. > I guess it all depends on what we are talking about. > Some of the psychiatric conditions that seem to appear > in people who attribute the symptoms to chakras seem > to be severe enough that egging them on that this is a > natural growth would be as unethical as telling a > person YES, there is a demon inside you. I don't know that anybody, client or therapist, "attributes the symptoms to chakras." And I have not gotten the impression from anything I've read about chakra therapy that clients are "egged on that this is a natural growth." Rather, it seems that negative chakra experiences are viewed as a reflection in the physical/energetic system of the psychiatric condition, and that they represent something *having gone wrong* with "natural growth" that needs to be attended to and put back on track. Not really all that much different from, say, various physical pains that don't have an organic cause, i.e., negative chakra experiences involve somatization of psychological disturbance. > > An editing client of mine with whom I later became > > friends was a psychotherapist. She had devised her own > > method of therapy and claimed (to me, don't know if she > > ever told her clients) she received guidance in > > applying it from certain discarnate entities. I don't > > think she was licensed, and I don't recall where she > > received training, but she had quite a bit, including > > in Gestalt and Rolfing. Don't think she used chakras > > specifically, but she would have been familiar with > > the theory. > > > > In any case, she had more clients than she could > > handle, many of whom practically worshipped her > > because of what they felt she had done for them. She > > was constantly getting referrals and would have to > > turn some of them down because her schedule was > > aready full. > > > > By the time I made her acquaintance, she was in her > > 60s, with decades of work behind her, and she > > continued seeing clients well into her 80s. Far as > > I'm aware, she never had a complaint filed against her. > > Is there an ethical issue here? > > For me yes. Same as with faith healers that people are > happy about. But for the practicer, they are being > sincere and the people are happy so who cares? Still > that would be me. We don't have a way to assess how > this advice impacted certain people who were mislead > about the source of her information. I don't know whether they were misled. And judging by the size of her clientele, the impact was broadly positive. (Plus which, for all we know, there are also mainstream practitioners who feel they're receiving some kind of otherworldly guidance. And anyway, how exactly is that different from a practitioner using their own intuition? I'd bet very few psychotherapists, mainstream or otherwise, would deny that their intuition plays a significant role. And boy, if I needed psychotherapy, I'd stay far away from any therapist who denied ever using their intuition.) > And finding out is too much trouble for anyone so they > only go after the most egregiously unethical people and > even then professional shielding exists to prevent even > that. But I am more idealistic in what I expect from > professionals in healing professions so I don't expect > others to adapt my standards of ethics. I think your standards are pretty substantially unrealistic. <snip> > > What I object to, Curtis (what I was laughing at), is > > your making definitive-sounding pronouncements about > > issues with which you have little or no familiarity, > > especially with regard to ethics. Your lack of > > familiarity itself isn't a problem. Nobody can be > > familiar with everything. > > I was starting a discussion by stating my opinion. What I was objecting to was in your next couple of posts, not the first one; and you didn't state it as an opinion, you made pronouncements. I am > amending it from feedback. Laugh away if that process > amuses you. I don't play it as safe as you do here. Oh, wait, I thought you said above that I should restrict my posts to editing if I wanted to play it safe. Oooooopsie... > > > 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 > > > > Well, that's kind of a reductio ad absurdum. Just > > having read a book doesn't qualify anyone to do > > anything in the psychotherapeutic realm, so that isn't > > an issue here, unless you can show that most chakra > > therapists have only read a book. > > I'm not sure we have any way of evaluating anyone's > claims of knowledge here. Sure we do. If a practitioner to have trained at certain institutions or studied with certain experts, we can fairly easily verify whether they have done so. <snip> > I am willing to believe that intuitive people which > excellent emotional intelligence could use almost any > thoery to support their practice and help people with > common complaints like anxiety. I totally agree. > I am not so sure that some of the cases I have read > about which seem extremely painful are best served by > these guys. YMMV But remember, they also have training in mainstream psychotherapy. > > I'm not *advocating* chakra therapy, by the way. It's > > interesting that we got off into this ethics thing. My > > original point was that the two viewpoints you presented > > as a "place to start" were of two opposite and exclusive > > poles--chakra experiences are "real" and are signs of > > spiritual advancement; or they aren't real and instead > > are signs of a mental disorder (or are perhaps benign); > > whereas there's a significant viewpoint according to > > which chakra experiences are "real" and can be signs > > *either* of spiritual advancement (if positive) *or* of > > a mental disorder (if negative, e.g., "blockages"). It > > seems to me this third viewpoint throws a very different > > (and much more interesting) light on the topic, but it > > seems as though it got hijacked by the ethics issue in > > connection with psychotherapy. > > Filling in the details between the extreme examples I used > was why I posed it as a question. But Curtis, you *didn't* pose it as a question. As far as you were concerned, those were the only two choices. In fact, you went on to ask this question: "First who has the training in both mental health and chakras to a level that there can be a definitive diagnosis of one or the other paradigm?" There wasn't even a hint, throughout your entire long post, that there could be anything outside the two paradigms as you stated them, much less that you were interested in knowing about it. That's why my first response began, "False dichotomy." Maybe that wasn't what was in your mind, but it sure sounded that way in what you wrote. > And of course I don't know how useful any of the many > Chakra theories may turn out to be in explaining us to > ourselves. It may turn out to be the biggest breakthrough > in the history of mankind. I was pointing out that there > are some issues concerning how such a system of thought > might be applied in the real world. These concern how a > person could evaluate a person's expertise in this area > for one and how they would finance the treatment since it > falls outside most health plans. You have solved the > latter problem a bit by pointing out that some therapists, > who might get paid by insurance companies might be able > to fill the need. > > But it isn't going to happen in a checking session by a > TM teacher as was suggested by the student in her question > to Bob. Was that the question, whether it could be done during checking? I haven't yet seen the videos. It wasn't described that way here; Buck said it was "about more guidance with chakra energy work and hoping for services at MUM with this for people who would need help with that, besides meditating." "Services at MUM" sounds like something more substantial than coverage during checking. (It would hardly be suitable for a checking session in any case.)
