A good question, Ivan, thank you.

I’m a private counsellor who does not store client-related data (notes, personal ID) on computer. The provisions of the DPA 98 apply to some manual and
all computerised records, and was challenged by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I have deliberately chosen not to store information on computer and, as such, the ICO confirms that I do not have to be registered under the data protection act.

Clinical notes may be about my view of the case, not about the client’s personal information. For example, BACP’s G1 archived guidelines (“Access to records of counselling and psychotherapy”) state: ” Access to information identifying contributions by third parties, e.g. family members, may be withheld to protect the confidentiality of these third parties. Access to information may also be withheld where access would result in ‘serious harm’ being caused to the data subject, or to another person. Serious harm relates to the physical or mental health or condition of the data subject or third party concerned.”

Each request for information will be different, of course, and as you see the consideration to reveal notes or not can be quite involved.

A chap from Pakistan was asking on a Social Network group (for professional counsellors) if anyone could recommend a 3-month training course to become a counsellor.

He had “dabbled” in counselling people a bit, and so thought he would be a good counsellor because he “listened well”.

His qualifications were in a scientific field (beyond degree-level).

It was put to him that he was a danger to his clients. That counselling was not “done” to people, like the approach a scientist would employ. That he didn’t know… what he didn’t know… about why he would be dangerous to people’s mental health. That he aught to be looking at several *years* (not months) of training and practice before qualification.

His reply was: “LOL, but I become bored after a few weeks”.

In the UK this person would be allowed to practice in without any legal restrictions for claiming to be a counsellor (maybe there are laws that could be manoeuvred to fit the damage he would cause in retrospect).

I’m not a fan of regulation – but if this is what we who have worked to become qualified, to become experienced, who have obtained professional membership accreditation, who continue with monthly supervision and CPD, practice in an ethical manner, would have to go through in regulation to prevent Mr Pakistan from setting up shop and causing harm to others… then I’d go through regulation.

Unfortunately, this leaves the general public vulnerable, especially those with mental health issues and enduring complex needs. At best they are being financially abused; but at worse could experience inappropriate practice, behaviours and interventions, which have potential to harm.

Interestingly, practitioners with little or no qualifications will protect their lack of academic backgrounds and qualifications by giving the impression that this is not essential, whilst caring and having insightful intentions is more valid.

Most will not be aware of the need to have a DBS, CPD, Mandatory training including life saving, H+S, data protection/FOI, ethics, insurance and supervision.

I believe this issue should be addressed without delay to protect the public and the profession.

Thank you for your feedback, Anonymous.

It’s interesting that on re-reading my words, I do find that I’m expressing both the client’s and the therapist’s positions and participation in this phenomena.

Specifically, whilst I define counter-transference as the therapist’s response to unconscious material; I still consider that the C/T manifests within a relationship – it’s both the client’s material and the therapist’s material combined, rather than, as you suggest some counsellors take the position of, it’s just the client’s stuff.

I’m unsure about my own position holding “blame” over the client, per se. If the client experiences the therapist as attacking, and the therapist is not (intending to be?) attacking, I would find that an interesting manifestation of the client’s transference and the therapist’s (possible unconscious) response and participation within this. Something important is happening.

My take on psychodynamic practice is that I don’t consider this example as being a fault of the client, so it’s not really my thing to hold blame over the client for what therapist and client are manifesting together. Yet, when a client cannot – at all – see the therapist as anything other than the distressing object into which he has (been?) transformed, then some may say that the therapy is clearly failing. Yet, maybe, in these circumstances, this was always the intention of the client’s unconscious: to find an object that can be the mantel for a past object/past experience, and be destroyed (enough) for the client to be able to move on (as the client couldn’t have done in the past).

Your comments here are very valuable, Anonymous, and I’m pleased to be challenged by positions and thoughts that I haven’t primarily considered in writing my post.

Thank you 🙂

Where is the counsellor in all this, both points you mention here are about the client’s inability to hold on or of feeling too hurt by the counsellor getting it wrong. This is part of this profession (which I am a part of unfortunately). The client is usually always blamed, in psychodynamic counselling there are just words and theories to support the blame of the client. Person centered counsellors usually tend to find psychodynamic reasons when the client ‘just wont listen, or just cant hold on to the fact that it is all happening in the transference.’

I would suggest a third point, and this I feel is the most important point as it happens many times between counsellor and client and leads to breakdown of the therapeutic frame- the counsellor is still stuck in his/her own past. And by this I am not talking about obvious abusive cts done to her/him by adults that should have known better, no. I am talking about abuse (Alice Miller called it Poisonous Pedagogy)that is seen as normal, acceptable behaviour in society and also the psychotherapeutic schools. In the name of the child’s good the child is abused, in the name of the client’s own good the client is abused.