Right, but psychotherapy traditionally does not belong to the realm of psychiatry, but rather psychology. And many psychologists (and therapists) are severely critical of psychiatry and it's dogmatized system of diagnosis.
It depends on the therapy. Psychoanalysis was restricted to psychiatrists for a time. Nobody else got training. I think that rule is no longer maintained though.
Psychologists have an advanced degree. Psychiatrists are MDs. Other counselors may have other qualifications.
This is NOT about the moral or ethical character of most practitioners. Its about the validity and efficacy of treatment.
The most problematic issues arise in psychiatry, not psychology or general counseling.
Yet people do research in these areas. They promote them. Its incumbent on them to use appropriate rigor.
Most people receive their training and go out to help patients. They do not usually get to be involved in continued research, nor defining their field. It is the people who do research, and especially those claiming scientific authority, who need to be held to account. This includes those advising governments and government bodies on policy - they need to act responsibly.
Yet who is it who decides the validity of the training received? Psychiatrists are MDs but the psychiatric training lacks scientific rigor. Psychologists at least often have some research qualifications, though not always.
Many of the whisteblowers in this area are psychologists, with quite a few psychiatrists thrown in. Even a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist might be unaware of how major decisions are made, especially diagnostic definitions.
I am in favor of expanding counseling, and downgrading psychiatry. Psychiatrists for the most part deal with clinical pathology, but the diagnoses are problematic and increasingly found to be about how the body affects the brain, not thoughts.
Psychologists are about thinking processes, emotions etc. They usually do not deal with clinical psychopathology, though sometimes that happens.
Sociologists have a different perspective again. Some schools with sociology seem to have a much better understanding of the issues than most psychiatrists. Yet to be clear I would regard any claim that clinical mental health issues are due to social context as problematic. Yet there is no doubt that many problems people have arise due to social interactions and environment.
Counselors often deal with the full range of issues, but more pathological cases will usually be referred to a psychiatrist.
I think psychiatry does not belong as a
medical discipline. I am still thinking about this though. It may be that its far too premature to do away with psychiatry in favour of neurology, psychology etc. Biopsychiatry in particular usually involves drugs, and typically the prescription of most drugs is limited to doctors.
Yet the issue on this thread is CBT as a scam. Yes or No? I don't think a straight yes or no can be accurate.
Victims or perpetrators? Let me expand on this point. Academics decide on therapeutic doctrine. They research and teach it. Is a counselor, psychiatrist or psychologist who learns this to blame? I think not. This does not however mean what they are being taught has any substantive validity. They are not to blame. That does not mean that, for the most part, they are not responsible. Responsibility and blame are different. Yet the circumstances are such that individuals have diminished responsibility. No such claim can be made for large professional bodies, such as either APA. They are responsible as a body, though again with diminished responsibility for individual members. Coming back to the idea of victims, its probably valid to see most using these methods as victims - this is what they were trained in, and in some cases the trainers might be considered as victims as well.
Clearly the large professional bodies have failed, and continue to fail. This also applies to general medical bodies . It is also the case with those promoting therapies, especially to government or government agencies. Anyone deliberately misrepresenting claims in this context are to blame, not just responsible.
One last point. Generally speaking most claims about psychotherapy have little or no scientific validity. However its possible some might gain some scientific credence in the future. That should not be forgotten. Its also the case, just as with drugs, that while the theory might be wrong the therapy might still work and is lacking appropriate theory.
