We should view this as what it is:
Ministers should introduce statutory regulation for counsellors and psychotherapists to protect the public from abuse, according to a report that has been hailed as a “watershed moment” for the profession.
Unlike most other healthcare roles, including doctors, midwives and osteopaths, “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected titles nor statutorily regulated professions in the UK.
It is an attempt to set up a cartel. That’s what licensure is. We, the privileged with our licences, don’t have to face competition from those who have not gained such licences. Aren’t we special and privileged and our word, don’t we all deserve a pay rise?
As with doctors and nurses more generally, as Milton Friedman pointed out:
By being able to firstly insist upon licensure, then secondly limit entry into the profession, a group has managed to become the gatekeepers to something like 18% of the American economy.
There are times when licensure is wholly the correct answer. We’re really very happy with the idea that only those trained and licensed get to have their own tank division. Checking that bridge designers can count seems useful too. Thus the question is not whether licensure should exist, it’s when should licensure exist?
Given that no one is really sure whether counselling - or psychotherapy - works and if it does, how, we’d say our initial reaction here is no. Face free to enter markets red in tooth and claw.
Tim Worstall