Our expert says:
Down to one cat nowadays. And she is sly enough to simulate great deotion and love as an excuse for cuddling warmly at every opportunity.
I don't think any professional consensus sees "reparenting" therapy as respectable in theory or practice, and there have been some well documented disasters where it has been tried. I have seen no good ( or even bad ) reseach ) establishing that it is sound or useful or even safe, and thus could not ever recommend it.
Some people seem to choose a therapy ( as therapist or patient ) based on wheher they like the way it sounds, whether an outline of its theory sounds attractice, and whether its claims are enticing. Those of us who profess to be scientists or even rationalists, have to demand more - we need the theories to be explicit and reasonable, and to fit existing data, and to deal reasonably with all questions and challenges that arise, and we need to ask for proerly conducted research to provide good evidence that it is safe and effective. We need to demand this standard from all therapies offered to us, not to exempt our own favourites from these standards.
Currently, I recommend CBT as a mode of therapy because it currently meets those standards better than any other method I have found - SO FAR. SHould comparable quality and quantity of evidence turn up for an alternative form of therapy, I would need to recommend both forms ; and if more evidence emerged of another method being better, I would recommend it in preference to CBT.
Oh, and when anyone describes and offers any new mode of therapy ( just as with a new drug ) it is THEIR duty to provide the necessary evidence, not to insist that their critics must disprove it. We must assume that various therapies and interventions are potentially harmful and/or ineffective until the contrary is proved.
Its not like the legal view of "innocent until proved guilty" - where medicine has applied the latter standards, terrible damage has been done to many patients. For instance, in the last century, in a period in which the seemingly reasonable suggestion that premature babies with breathing difficulties must need as much oxygen as they could get, and they were given pure oxygen, many children were tragically rendered blind for life, because of factors not understood at the time. The intervention was superfiially reasonable and well-meant, but awfully damaging.
The information provided does not constitute a diagnosis of your condition. You should consult a medical practitioner or other appropriate health care professional for a physical exmanication, diagnosis and formal
advice. Health24 and the expert accept no responsibility or liability for any damage or personal harm you may suffer resulting from making use of this content.