Littwin: Colorado law allows unlicensed psychotherapy -- but why?

By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published April 26, 2001 at midnight

Text size

More News Columns & Blogs

Somebody help me here, because I'm confused. In the wake of the Candace Newmaker trial, I was sure that unlicensed therapy itself would go on trial, too.

Clearly, it has not. But why not?

Look, I almost understand -- well, almost almost -- why we permit unlicensed psychotherapists to practice in this state.

It's the mountains.

It's the inalienable right to embrace the weird.

It's the sense that the mind should not be completely fettered by the rules of science, not to mention the rule of law.

In other words, if an unlicensed clinical hypnotherapist tells me she can relieve my symptoms (believe me, I've got symptoms) by releasing trauma through my cells, I should have the right to try it out.

That's exactly what Dr. Carol Jones -- president of the Colorado Association of Psychotherapy, which represents unlicensed therapists -- is telling me over the phone.

Maybe cellular release therapy sounds strange, she's saying -- I'm with her so far -- but she adds, "It can help you grow; it can help you change."

OK.

If I want to grow and change, there are, by one count, 240 kinds of unlicensed therapists among the 3,000 that are registered in Colorado to help me out.

I've got choice. I don't need to invest in fancy titles. Cellular therapy release just might be the answer for me, although many in the licensed crowd of psychotherapists might disagree.

Alternative therapies exist everywhere. But it's in Colorado that licensed and unlicensed therapies are somehow lumped together. As Jones, who has a doctorate if not in psychology, puts it, "People should have the right to choose."

Do you buy this pro-choice argument? Amos Martinez, who is program administrator for the Colorado Grievance Board, buys only part of it. The market, he says, is not entirely sufficient. In 1988, the legislature saw the need to regulate an unregulated market.

"Prior to 1988, unlicensed psychotherapists were totally unregulated," he points out. "It was buyer beware. It was consumer beware. Anyone could practice, and there was no oversight. Now, unlicensed psychotherapists have to disclose their qualifications. Now, there is a grievance procedure. We are far better off than we were before 1988."

The board hears grievances against licensed and unlicensed psychotherapists. But the 3,000 unlicensed psychotherapists -- as opposed to 8,000 with licenses -- account for half the sanctions.

If you're a caveat emptor guy and you note the law requires full disclosure somewhere in the fine print, maybe you think that's OK. Still, it doesn't address the question that no seems to be able to answer.

If the state does not allow a child to see an unlicensed pediatrician, why is it perfectly comfortable allowing that same child to be treated by an unlicensed psychotherapist?

Jones tries to answer.

"A pediatrician is a doctor," she says.

Well, yeah. It would be lunacy to allow, say, an unemployed construction worker to diagnose kids. And yet, in Candace's case, the unemployed construction worker/intern was right in the middle of, uh, treatment.

We can all agree that children must be protected at a higher level than adults. The legislature just passed a law saying a parent's religion is no excuse for not providing proper medical care to a child. If a child needs psychotherapy, we can assume the child needs proper care, too.

There are standards for psychologists and family counselors and others in the field. Psychotherapist sounds, to the uninitiated, very much like psychologist. It certainly doesn't sound like a palm reader. Psychotherapist sounds official, and not just a person who has registered with the state. It suggests real expertise.

Under the law, I could register. According to Martinez, the law does not allow me to practice psychotherapy at my whim. I have to be trained. There should be some peer review of my specialty. I'm not allowed to harm anyone.

For just these reasons, Martinez says, this form of rebirthing was illegal even before Candace's Law. You may be relieved to hear that. It's nice to think that in Colorado one cannot torture children under the guise of psychotherapy.

On the other hand, Martinez has three investigators for the entire state, and the practice of rebirthing is hardly a secret.

Am I missing something here?

There is one powerful argument that Jones offers. Julie Ponder, she notes, was licensed to practice pyschotherapy in California. Ponder, who was convicted along with Connell Watkins, would soon have been licensed in Colorado.

It's a powerful argument, but it's not an entirely persuasive one.

Nearly everyone -- Jones, Martinez, you, I, the state legislature -- believes rebirthing is not legitimate psychotherapy. Maybe Ponder missed that lesson. But at least she had the lesson. How can we entrust our children to someone who, as far as we can tell, may know even less?

Mike Littwin's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Call him at (303) 892-5428 or e-mail him at littwinm@rockymountainnews.com.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News