I’ve seen the damage caused by TikTok-trained ‘therapists’

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

Many people assume therapy is like chatting to a friend. They assume it’s all done on a gut feeling, intuition and good intentions. It isn’t. Therapy is very much founded in theory and research.

For similar reasons, the general public often don’t even realise that the sector isn’t currently regulated – or the harm that unqualified therapists can do (“I’m a psychotherapist – you wouldn’t believe the horror stories I’ve heard”, Wednesday 13 November).

I am an accredited and full-time practising member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, as well as a tutor on counsellor training courses – and I can only hope for the statutory regulation of counsellors and psychotherapists.

Imagine being wheeled into the operating theatre, to be informed that your neurosurgeon is self-taught via TikTok but thinks they probably have a “knack for the work”. This is what unregulated counselling can be likened to.

I have worked with too many clients who have had a damaging experience of “therapy” that has left them feeling unheard and shamed, reinforcing their poor view of self. I find students in the early stages of their training are confronted and surprised by the rigour the training demands. It isn’t for the faint-hearted.

I also hope that regulation is coupled with a move away from the expectation that counsellors provide their services for free. The training is lengthy and intense and the responsibility is huge.

Dominique du Pré

Maidenhead, Berkshire

After democracy… what?

People talk about the death of democracy (“Americans said they were worried about democracy… then they voted for Trump”, Wednesday 6 November). I believe that is a total misperception.

Rather, we are living through the final flowering of democracy, which some find frightening and others find liberating.

The basic idea was simple. Every four or five years we would get the chance to vote for someone to represent us in parliament. And whichever group had the greatest number of votes became the government. Job done.

Once the franchise became universal, limited only by age, we could safely preach the gospel to the rest of the world.

What nobody seemed to anticipate was the internet. Suddenly, everyone has a loud public voice. We can say more or less anything through a more powerful loudspeaker than anything that came before.

So far, nobody has found a way to regulate it. If there seems to be a majority view, shouldn’t that prevail, even if people who feel civilised society is under existential threat don’t like it? Isn’t that really what democracy is about?

The real question is, what sort of system of government comes next?

David Buckton

Linton, Cambridgeshire

With assisted dying, we’re asking the wrong question

John Rentoul, whose journalism I greatly admire, writes of assisted dying that “the experience of people in Canada and the Netherlands […] should be a warning of unintended consequences” (“MPs have suddenly got cold feet about assisted dying”, Thursday 14 November).

I’m curious about what informs his opinion about the Netherlands.

In the 40 years since I moved to the Netherlands from the UK, assisted dying was a press topic only once, more than 20 years ago. The minimum requirements – an incurable illness, with no remediation, making living unbearable – have been established for many years and have helped ease the last days of two acquaintances (and their families) suffering extremely painful cancers.

It’s not a topic of controversy among my medical friends. They regard the current regulations and guidelines as giving sufficient protection to the terminally ill, their doctors and families.

Here, they discuss a more general and interesting ethical question: to what extent should doctors always try to prolong life, regardless of the quality of the life that is being medically extended?

Tim Brierley

Utrecht, Netherlands

The trouble with pension ‘megafunds’

Right-wing think tanks appear happy with Rachel Reeves’s plan to merge dozens of local government pensions into a few “megafunds” (“Right-wing think tank welcomes Rachel Reeves’ pension ‘megafunds’ overhaul”, Thursday 14 November). I, however, am a bit bemused that this seems to be a fact, rather than a consultation.

This is not hers or their money. It belongs to the workers in whose pensions the money is invested – don’t we have a say about it?

Private companies have to ask their pension holders for approval on such matters. Surely the Treasurer has no legal right to just take our money and do what she likes with it, without the permission of its owners?

Personally, I don’t want my money going into carbon capture (untested, damaging to the environment, and dependent on fossil fuels) or nuclear energy (outdated and dangerous), thanks very much.

At least within the local government we can influence them to invest it in green projects (and have done).

Is it not less secure to have so few funds handling so many pensions?

This whole scenario sounds like one of those dubious ventures offering higher interest rates in exchange for more risk. No thank you, chancellor.

And the fact that the Centre for Policy Studies approves of these plans, proves it is a bad idea!

Dr Jennifer Poole

Romsey, Hampshire

A mockery of Armistice Day

Armistice Day is for remembrance – of all those poor souls who lost their lives in wars, mostly far away, often needlessly.

While we stand in silence, there are voices who, yet again, advocate for war (“Pro-Palestine protesters block Parliament Square as UK falls silent on Armistice Day”, Tuesday 12 November).

Does this not make a mockery of this day? Is it not time that we seek to resolve our differences through dialogue and diplomacy?

Gunter Straub

Belsize Park, London