Religious agendas disguised as counselling

Last month I wrote about a counsellor, Lesley Pilkington, who aims to turn gay people straight as part of a thinly-veiled religious agenda. She’d previously been struck off by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Until recently she was instead with the Association for Christian Counselling, probably the only professional body that would have her. Now she’s been kicked out by them too.

It turns out Pilkington and her ilk are not the only “counsellors” who are motivated by religious beliefs at the possible expense of the client. This was pointed out to me by Dr Brooke Magnanti, who you all know as Belle de Jour of blog, books and TV series fame, though these days she’s an academic researcher rather than a sex worker. A recent Telegraph investigation recorded counsellors at so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centres telling women that if they have an abortion they’re more likely to become a child sex abuser or to develop cancer. Needless to say, neither of these are true.

Magnanti points out that these counsellors are employed by an organisation with a very clear social agenda.

The vast majority of such ‘clinics’ in the UK (scare quotes because the counsellors are neither medical nor mental health professionals) are run by CareConfidential, an offshoot company originally founded by Christian Action Research and Education (CARE).

What are CARE’s other big interests? Well, they are also the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade. This APPG aims to promote the so-called Swedish Model, beloved of both the far right and radical feminists…

They were also deeply involved in supporting Section 28, the law which served to effectively silence any mention of homosexuality in schools and other public institutions until 2003.

A bit of Googling also reveals that they funded interns to 20 MPs and, as with Pilkington, they’ve promoted gay-to-straight conversion therapies. They’ve published research criticising the lack of tax breaks for stay-at-home parents.

This is an organisation that has a very specific idea of how society should be, and is actively campaigning for  it….no gays, no sex workers, no double-income families…and of course, no abortions. And that’s how one ends up at a situation where a “counsellor” is telling someone that if they have an abortion, they could become a child sex abuser.

Counselling is, in theory at least, supposed to be an emancipatory process that enables individuals to understand their own thoughts and feelings, to reflect upon and effectively make life choices. It should be to empower the client in relation to their own self, not to be railroaded along somebody else’s agenda.

But organisations like CARE can still call their staff counsellors because neither “counsellor” nor “psychotherapist” are protected titles, though Geraint Davies MP has a private members bill for regulation of counselling and psychotherapy. I’m aware that if his bill passes then CARE’s staff and the likes of Lesley Pilkington will simply call themselves coaches, advisers, mentors, whatever – and carry on practicing. But they won’t be able to use the word “counsellor” with all that’s assumed to mean by people who seek one out.

In the meantime, if you see a counsellor or psychotherapist, you should only use one who is with an accredited voluntary register such as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.

 

Advertisements

It’s all about the training! CQC and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Inveraray Jail

Today, as Community Care reports, the CQC has published its annual report into the operation of ‘Deprivation of Liberty’ safeguards for 2010/11.

Deprivation of Liberty safeguards are a particular part of the Mental Capacity Act which allows a legal process of authorisation where there is felt to be a ‘deprivation of liberty’ in a care home or hospital related to someone who lacks the capacity to make a decision about whether they remain there or not. The process of decision-making relating to whether a Deprivation of Liberty is authorised revolves around the managing authority (the organisation which is potentially depriving the person of their liberty) and the supervisory body (the local authority or PCT (or whatever they are called now) where the person is or who is responsible for the care of that person (if, for example, they have been placed out of the local area the responsibility remains with the placing authority).  The decision is made on the basis of a number of assessments (six actually) which are undertaken by at least two people, one of whom must be a doctor and one of whom must be a ‘Best Interests Assessor’ (who can be a social worker, nurse, occupational therapist or psychologist).  The Best Interests Assessor, unsurprisingly, makes a recommendation not only on whether the deprivation is in the person’s best interest,  but whether the framework and care plan constitutes a deprivation of liberty at all.

So that’s DoLs in a nutshell. What have the CQC got to do with it? Well, amongst other things, monitoring these Deprivation of Liberty authorisations is another part of their work.
Continue reading

Care Quality?

Another day, another report. This time, Which? has done some undercover work into the quality of homecare delivered to older adults as reported by the Guardian.

The team at Which? asked 30 families to make notes and diaries over a week in January and feed back the information, some of it is horrifying but the sad thing is that it doesn’t shock or even surprise me. That’s the real shame of the system.

One elderly woman was left alone in the dark for hours unable to find food or drink. Another was left without a walking frame, leaving her unable to get to the bathroom, while one man was not given vital diabetes medication, the watchdog said.

Which? has not named the agencies which I feel is wrong. I hope they are going straight to the Care Quality Commission (CQC)  with this information because for a consumer organisation which is supposed to be behind us as consumers of care services (oh, it’s coming in health care too – just wait) I’m surprised they feel they need to protect the names of those companies involved.

The reason they do is that those companies will not be removed from their positions of providing care to those who have been subject to institutional abuse such as that meted out in the examples given, because yes, this is institutional abuse.

These companies are probably tied into long term extensive contracts with local authorities than are bound in law and allow for a certain level of ‘default’ that makes them difficult to replace.

So what should and can be done?

1) However admirable Which? is, the fact that we have to rely on  Which? and Panorama to do the job of council quality assurance teams and more importantly the Care Quality Commission is not acceptable.

2) Embedding advocacy into the system far more fully. These people monitored were the ones who had families to complete the diaries. What about those people without families particularly those who may have cognitive impairments. We have to replicate the ‘checking’ role that involved families have to those who don’t have family support and for me I see that as happening through greater advocacy.

3) Commissioning (again, apologies to Guilty Commissioner who I know does things differently). The people who buy into and commission these block contracts aren’t the people who use them. They award on the basis of cost where quality has to have a greater impact on quality of life and quality of care provision.

4) Politicians. People go to their MPs about Forests but not about social care. The people who need the changes aren’t the people who are most likely to be politically active and that’s why this area has slipped so far down the political agenda. Politicians of worth need to advocate for electors who might not be clamouring at their surgery doors. They need to think of those who may be disenfranchised and take the advocacy and representation role more seriously to affect change.

Let’s hope we stop seeing these reports soon but i remain sceptical.