Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 215–223 | Cite as

Treatment with Unethical Practitioners; Caveat Emptors

  • Robert S. Pepper
Article

Abstract

Therapists who are trained at psychoanalytic institutes often foster unethical relationships between trainees and senior therapists. This practice may pass on the damage to the unsuspecting population of patients at large. One way in which trainees are harmed, at these institutes, is in their failure to develop a clear sense of the importance of boundaries in treatment. In not learning how to develop a secure frame from their own treatment, neophyte therapists are often unable to recognize the need for appropriate boundaries in their treatment of others. As a result, their patients may be in danger. The therapist who does not value the struggle to maintain a healthy balance between independence and dependence in their own treatment will probably not be able to help their patients find the proper balance either. One can only wonder how such a therapist could help their own patients know when the time to end treatment is at hand. My own research seems to indicate that unethical treatment practices at these institutes cut across ideological and theoretical differences within the analytic community. Consequently, the problem is not one of individuals who are poorly analyzed and poorly trained. Rather, the focus is a wider one, in which a serious blindspot seems to be endemic to a system that fosters a lack of regard for appropriate boundaries in treatment.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychological Association (1980). The Ethical Standards of Psychologists. Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  2. Langs, R. (1982). Psychotherapeutic conspiracy. New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  3. Langs, R. (1989). Rating your therapist. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  4. Mullan, H. (1987). “The Ethical Foundations of Group Psychotherapy.” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Vol. 37,No. 3, p. 403–416.Google Scholar
  5. Pepper, R. (1989). “Therapist's Transparency and Multiple Role Relations” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy Vol. 39, p. 131–132.Google Scholar
  6. Pepper, R. (1990). “When Transference Isn't Transference: Iatrogenesis of Multiple Relations Between Practicing Therapists”, Journal of Contemporary Group Psychotherapy, Vol. p. 141–153.Google Scholar
  7. Pepper, R. (1991). “The Senior Therapists Grandiosity: Clinical and ethical consequences of merging multiple roles, Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Vol. 21, p. 6–13.Google Scholar
  8. Pepper, R. (1992). “Psychoanalytic Training Institutes as Cults: An Example of Entropy,” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy Vol. 22,No. 1, p. 35–42.Google Scholar
  9. Temerlin, M., & Temerlin, J. (1982). “Psychotherapy Cults: An Iatrogenic Perversion.” Psychother. Research and Theory, Vol. 40, p. 131–140.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Pepper

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations