The Honorable Theodore C. Speliotis
House of Representatives
State House, RM 146
Boston, MA 02133
August 15, 2007
Dear Representative Speliotis,
I am writing to you in regards to House Bill H203 – An Act to Protect Psychotherapist Patients.
For the past 14 years I have been seeing an unlicensed psychotherapist and have also had the opportunity to see licensed therapists before that. The work I have done with my unlicensed psychotherapist has by far had a greater impact on my life. It has been a significant part of my life and has helped me to achieve a healthier quality of life.
If Bill H203 were to pass it would prevent consumers from making their own choices for therapists, therefore violating their right to choose. Some consumers will not be able to have access to the care they are most comfortable with.
I am in opposition of this bill and would recommend allowing consumers to continue to be able to exercise their right to choose their preferred quality of care.
Sincerely,
Susan
CC: Senator Frederick E. Berry
Senator Richard R. Tisei
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Peter's Letter
The Honorable Brian P. Wallace
State House
Room 472
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative:
I am a consumer of psychotherapy and as such am deeply concerned about House Bill H203, "An Act to Protect Psychotherapy Patients." I spoke with your Administrative Aide Kimberly on the phone today, and I am putting my thoughts on paper for your consideration.
The act would do the exact opposite of its stated purpose for the following reasons:
1. The act is too restrictive. It would exclude the many valuable psychotherapeutic alternatives now available to the consumer.
2. In this time of great need for mental health services, the number of available providers would be reduced by this act.
3. The act would put many earnest, conscientious, experienced, well-trained and helpful psychotherapists out of business.
4. Licensing would not guarantee the quality of psychotherapy because the field has no commonly accepted standard of care, either in theory or in practice.
5. My wife and I have been strengthened as individuals and as a couple by therapists, who though not licensed, are well-trained, experienced, warm, and loving human beings.
6. Therapy I have received from licensed therapists was not as helpful as what I am now receiving.
As a mental health therapist working on a locked psychiatric unit at Whidden Hospital, I am deeply aware of the need for therapists with a variety of personalities and interests. I am also aware of the need to protect patients from incompetent, manipulative care-providers, but this bill is not the way to meet that goal. The public can be protected from fraudulent providers by means other than H203.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and I urge you to argue against H203.
Sincerely,
Peter
State House
Room 472
Boston, MA 02133
Dear Representative:
I am a consumer of psychotherapy and as such am deeply concerned about House Bill H203, "An Act to Protect Psychotherapy Patients." I spoke with your Administrative Aide Kimberly on the phone today, and I am putting my thoughts on paper for your consideration.
The act would do the exact opposite of its stated purpose for the following reasons:
1. The act is too restrictive. It would exclude the many valuable psychotherapeutic alternatives now available to the consumer.
2. In this time of great need for mental health services, the number of available providers would be reduced by this act.
3. The act would put many earnest, conscientious, experienced, well-trained and helpful psychotherapists out of business.
4. Licensing would not guarantee the quality of psychotherapy because the field has no commonly accepted standard of care, either in theory or in practice.
5. My wife and I have been strengthened as individuals and as a couple by therapists, who though not licensed, are well-trained, experienced, warm, and loving human beings.
6. Therapy I have received from licensed therapists was not as helpful as what I am now receiving.
As a mental health therapist working on a locked psychiatric unit at Whidden Hospital, I am deeply aware of the need for therapists with a variety of personalities and interests. I am also aware of the need to protect patients from incompetent, manipulative care-providers, but this bill is not the way to meet that goal. The public can be protected from fraudulent providers by means other than H203.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and I urge you to argue against H203.
Sincerely,
Peter
Rebecca's Letter
RE: House Bill #203 - An Act to Protect Psychotherapy Patients
This bill seeks to restrict the practice of Psychotherapy to a specific and limited group of licensed health care providers.
Dear Representative Douglas Peterson,
I am a voting constituent and would like you to consider my opposition to HB 203. Although it sounds well-intentioned, I am dubious of its value to consumers.
What is the impetus for such limiting legislation? I am not aware of sufficient evidence supporting the need for the protection of psychotherapy patients.
Many people will be left without the help they need as the bill will eliminate (or make illegal) the practices of some of the best psychotherapists in Massachusetts.I will be directly affected; my psychotherapist being among the unlicensed.I have been greatly helped by my work with her (as has my family) and want to stress that this relationship has been and continues to be one of the most important and beneficial relationships of my life (I am 48).
It is my opinion that HB 203 cannot possibly accomplish its intent and, even worse, I believe it will have serious unintended negative consequences and costs. There are a number of studies and writings that speak to the issue: The Regulation of Psychotherapy by Daniel Hogan - The Case Against Credentialism by James Fallows - Of Foxes and Hen Houses by Stanley J Gross –Colorado Grievance Board Sanctions, by Mitchell H Handelsman, to mention a few.
The best protection we have as consumers is information.
The action I recommend is more research and thought be given to the idea of educating the public about psychotherapy and the mental health field, perhaps providing a registry whereby people will have access to the information they need and the freedom to choose the best care available.
Let’s keep the spirit of Massachusetts alive with an adequate supply of human resources and a continuing flow of new knowledge and approaches.
Respectfully,
Rebecca
This bill seeks to restrict the practice of Psychotherapy to a specific and limited group of licensed health care providers.
Dear Representative Douglas Peterson,
I am a voting constituent and would like you to consider my opposition to HB 203. Although it sounds well-intentioned, I am dubious of its value to consumers.
What is the impetus for such limiting legislation? I am not aware of sufficient evidence supporting the need for the protection of psychotherapy patients.
Many people will be left without the help they need as the bill will eliminate (or make illegal) the practices of some of the best psychotherapists in Massachusetts.I will be directly affected; my psychotherapist being among the unlicensed.I have been greatly helped by my work with her (as has my family) and want to stress that this relationship has been and continues to be one of the most important and beneficial relationships of my life (I am 48).
It is my opinion that HB 203 cannot possibly accomplish its intent and, even worse, I believe it will have serious unintended negative consequences and costs. There are a number of studies and writings that speak to the issue: The Regulation of Psychotherapy by Daniel Hogan - The Case Against Credentialism by James Fallows - Of Foxes and Hen Houses by Stanley J Gross –Colorado Grievance Board Sanctions, by Mitchell H Handelsman, to mention a few.
The best protection we have as consumers is information.
The action I recommend is more research and thought be given to the idea of educating the public about psychotherapy and the mental health field, perhaps providing a registry whereby people will have access to the information they need and the freedom to choose the best care available.
Let’s keep the spirit of Massachusetts alive with an adequate supply of human resources and a continuing flow of new knowledge and approaches.
Respectfully,
Rebecca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)