Loading....

The Disgraceful Silence of Our Professional Bodies on Vaccine Mandates – We Need Your Help!

In February, Therapists for Medical Freedom submitted our open letter about vaccine mandates to the professional bodies. The letter has been signed by 132 counsellors and therapists in the UK. We asked each professional body for their response to our concerns and for clarification on their position on vaccine mandates.

Vaccine mandates have been dropped for now, but with the WHO Pandemic Treaty currently under negotiation, they remain an ongoing threat to medical freedom in the UK.

As such, it is vital that governing bodies of counsellors and psychological therapists now clarify their stance around mandatory vaccination within our profession.


Tumbleweed….

To date, we have not had a single response to our letter (or timeline for a response) from any of the UK’s professional bodies for counsellors and psychological therapists.

The silence is deafening. 

This is all the more concerning when you consider that these are governing bodies for talking therapies. By definition, they should be modelling a commitment to dialogue around tricky issues – especially ones which could involve job loss and potential de-registration for affected members.

As counsellors and therapists, we are passionate about resolving conflict and difficulties through empathetic communication and ‘talking things through’. For our concerns to be met with radio silence is deeply disappointing – and simply not good enough.


Take Action to Break the Silence – We need your help! 

We need to push the professional bodies to address our concerns and not attempt to sweep this issue under the carpet. To help build a sense of urgency around this issue, Therapists for Medical Freedom really need your help. 

Please help us to engage with the professional bodies by emailing them to request a response to the concerns we have raised by the end of April 2022, expressing disappointment that they have not responded to such an important issue.

Please share this with anyone you know who might be willing to write to the professional bodies as a therapist, client or concerned member of the public.

Thanks for your help!

A Therapist’s Duty of Care…

Sarah Waters is an adult psychotherapist who also specialises in Dyadic Developmental Practice (DDP) 1 which is attachment focused family therapy.  She is a member of  HART Group 2 (Health Advisory Recovery Team) and is on the steering group of Therapists for Medical Freedom3. Both include psychological experts that share concerns about policy and guidance relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The following is a story presented in a particular form of narrative research, where findings from the therapy room are presented in a fictional format to explore clinical processes and ethical dilemmasall of the characters and the situation itself is entirely fictitious – no client confidentiality has been compromised.

Within the piece, Sarah has explored what it might have been like to encounter the behaviours and rituals required by COVID-19 health advice & mandates in a world before COVID-19. What would we have made of them in 2019 as counsellors and therapists? If you were to strip away the fear of a virus and the media-led normalisation of the bizarre rituals that have now become part of our everyday landscape – what might our reaction have been to encounter a fixation with mask-wearing, germs, constant handwashing, testing, surveillance and enforced social distancing?

Without the endless media messaging which links the behaviours to virtue and safety, might we have been able to see more clearly the profound harms being caused by the measures, and been more honest with ourselves as a profession about the way they can be detrimental to both client and therapist in the relational work we do?

These are important questions to sit with as you read the following piece:


A therapist’s duty of care……

It is January 2019, and I am waiting in my therapy room for a new client, Daisy, who is 12 years old and being brought in by her mother. I am an experienced therapist, working for a charity supporting children and adults who are affected by Domestic Abuse:  

When they arrive, I am startled and alarmed to see them both wearing masks, plus mum has brought her 6-month-old baby with her.  Daisy looks pale, thin and her eyes are full of fear. They both seem terrified to take their masks off when I gently ask if they would like to. They sit down on the small sofa opposite me and huddle together.

The masks create a barrier and I find it very difficult to hear what Mum is saying, let alone start to forge a therapeutic relationship, as face coverings are so alien to human interaction and psychological safety4.

Daisy sits quietly and holds the baby whilst mum explains why she feels her daughter needs support. Daisy was once lively and vibrant, Mum says, but has lost her joyful zest for life. She spends most of her days in her room either behind a screen, or listlessly, lying on her bed. Even when she is ‘allowed’ out Daisy feels fearful being around other people, in case she infects them.

“Infects them with what?” I gently ask her. Daisy looks down, lacking the confidence to speak. Mum explains that her partner, J, has increasingly become obsessed with illness and dying, demanding that they all wear masks and stay away from people. J says they must sanitise everything they touch and test ourselves repeatedly with some plastic, test kits that had been ordered from China.

J expects all in the family to stick these tests up their noses and down the back of their throats, sometimes every day.  Mum is worried that Daisy is now starting to show signs of OCD and health anxiety. Mum also explains that she’s concerned about what is in the test kits5, and whether they even worked? Some days they tested positive but had no symptoms at all and on other days if one of the family had a cold or felt a bit unwell, the tests would show a negative result. Mum sounded so very confused by it all….

As the story unfolds, I become more concerned by the minute.  I’ve done a lot of Domestic Abuse, Attachment and Trauma training over my 20 plus years of working as a therapist and all my alarm bells were ringing, very loudly. The description of their daily lives just gets worse:

..J, who before this had been outwardly trustworthy and caring, insists it is for their own good and that if they don’t follow the rules they might die or kill others. J told them that the illness didn’t really affect young people6, but that Daisy could pass it on easily, particularly to the elderly, even if she didn’t have symptoms herself. Mum explained how bewildering it all was, as she had never known of an illness before that could be passed on if you didn’t have any symptoms. However, Mum and Daisy have always trusted J, so they go along with what they are told to do, even though it was damaging Daisy’s mental health and was making Daisy’s asthma much worse.

The fear messaging never stops, Mum continues, it is repeated, every day, all day. Life is dangerous, they must follow the rules or very punitive measures would be put in place. Posters have been put up in the house telling them what to do, they couldn’t get away from it.  The messaging has been going on and on for months and months without break. Neither Mum nor Daisy are allowed to speak to any friends or family who don’t believe in the illness. J even tracks their phones to make sure they don’t go anywhere or speak to anyone who doesn’t think like they do – it is a living nightmare.

Several things are running through my mind at this point as I try to understand the story that comes tumbling out, muffled behind the white paper mask. Is this a case of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another7 (Which used to be known as Munchausen’s by Proxy) in which a parent fakes or induces illness in their child? Or is this a form of narcissistic abuse8, in which reality distorting, isolation and learned helplessness are well-known hallmarks and something I hear about on a day-to-day basis? My heart goes out to Daisy and the baby, who should surely be protected from this abuse, and to her mother, who seems completely hypnotised9 by her partner.  A web has been spun around them all, justified to keep them and others safe:

Mum goes on to explain that J is a good person, has provided for them financially and has always seemed to have their best interests at heart. Plus, J speaks with such urgency and conviction. Mum had trusted this person for so long and yet now many things just do not make sense. Why would J want to harm her and her two daughters after looking after them so well for so many years?

I wonder how Daisy’s mum can allow this to happen and not see the terrible damage that it is doing to her daughters. Her fear levels are so high she doesn’t seem to be able to rationalise what’s going on. I remember a video I watched the week before about the reptilian brain10 and how being in fear limits being curious, open, and engaged. It keeps us stuck in survival mode. I also know how difficult it is for those subjected to narcissistic abuse to have a real grasp on reality.

Even if there is an illness out there that affects mainly the elderly, treating a young person like this must surely be a form of child abuse?  What I am witnessing feels so manipulative that Daisy and her mum are oblivious to the fact they are experiencing abuse at all. The more I think about it and the more Daisy’s mum speaks – I know that this is a very clever form of narcissistic abuse. However, the physical masking and constant testing is something I have never heard of before. It does chillingly remind me of Baderman’s Chart of Coercion11. This describes communist methods for eliciting individual compliance used by the Chinese and Koreans against the American soldiers in the 1950’s. It is so cruel and potentially damaging on every level of development – both physical and emotional. Treating a young person like this is just not acceptable in the year 2021, surely?

My trauma training (and intuition) emphasises the necessity for safety, love, acceptance, connection, close relationships, play, empathy and most importantly, the absence of fear. All these are necessary for healthy emotional development. What I am witnessing here is the total opposite of that. Bowlby, plus all child development experts that have followed him, have emphasised time and time again that children are extremely vulnerable, but they must be resilient to survive. I can’t help thinking that he would be turning in his grave! Poor Daisy and her baby sister are clearly adapting in various ways to the hostile environment they are in, to ensure their own survival.  They may be permanently damaged by this. I feel sick to my stomach.

Looking at the confused face of the baby as it searches its sister’s and mother’s masked faces for comfort, my mind flits to the attachment workshop that I attended a few years before and I remember watching the video of the Still Face Experiment12. It showed the devastating effects, in a very short time, on a baby whose mother stops smiling at it for only a few minutes.  This poor baby would have great difficulty in determining what facial expressions J, Daisy and Mum would be exhibiting behind their masks which surely will present severe challenges for it as it grows up. Babies particularly depend on their parent’s facial expressions, coupled with tone and/or voice to regulate their reactions toward others.

I wonder if J understands the potential effects of prolonged mask-wearing? Or has thought about the potential long-term impact on the baby’s development? Maybe the threat of getting ill overrode all these concerns, but in my book, this is just not good enough. Surely baby’s emotional development must come first. The room soon fills with crying as the baby becomes completely dysregulated and inconsolable, unable to feel safe in the room, as it cannot read the cues of its mother’s blank and expressionless face.  A baby’s worst nightmare has, it seems, come true.

I switch my concern from the baby to Daisy, common sense telling me that wearing a mask all day, or even for a few hours, could surely not be good for her13, emotionally or physically. It must be restricting her breathing and reducing her oxygen intake plus possibly infecting her with expelled germs. Goodness knows how it will be affecting her immune system. On top of this, not being allowed out much to breathe fresh air and being separated from her friends and family, is a complete and utter recipe for disaster. With the persistent use of toxic sanitiser and being full of fear, I can’t think of a worse breeding ground for sickness.

My mind is racing about all the physical consequences that it hardly has space to think about the emotional. What must this poor child be going though? Surely her emotional development will also be affected, especially as her mother and partner are also wearing the masks. My mind flits to Steven Porges Polyvagal Theory14 – a subconscious system for detecting threats and safety and what he terms ‘neuroception’. Poor Daisy’s sympathetic nervous system must be being constantly activated by the fear messaging she is subjected to, day in day out.  The potential long-term consequences of this make me shudder.

Surely this is not all being done on purpose I think to myself – no one could be so cruel, surely?

I now recall my knowledge around narcissistic abuse and emotional blackmail. It is another tell-tale sign that I know from experience is intended to elicit feelings of fear, guilt, and compliance.  This is precisely how Daisy, and her mum are feeling. They are being gaslighted, which leaves them second-guessing, doubting reality, and their own judgements or perceptions. It sounds highly psychologically abusive, and dangerous to me. J is trying to isolate the family by keeping them away from others and demanding they stay 2 meters apart if they do meet anyone.

I know from my experience that this gives abusers a sense of control and power. It describes the split and alienation the narcissist will create to set their victims apart from others. This is often done through division and bullying. This serves to weaken and isolate leaving it easier for the narcissist to maintain control in the dynamic of the relationship. Abusive partners (or governments), aim to achieve this in a variety of ways. These include: trying to be seen to have another person’s best interests at heart, but through negative judgements and manipulation, slowly aiming to keep them away from loved ones. This creates an unhealthy over-reliance/dependence on the perpetrator.  This behaviour instils a form of trauma bonding15that is very difficult to break. The conditions for this to take place are to be threatened with, and to believe, that there is a real danger. This is coupled with harsh treatment interspersed with very small kindnesses, isolation from other people’s perspectives and a belief that there is no escape.

Everything Daisy’s mum is pouring out to me in our session suggests to me that this is what is going on.

Judging others is another defence mechanism commonly seen in narcissistic abusers: they will comment, both negatively and harshly, on other people’s actions, choices, speech, and beliefs. Passing judgement on others serves to make them feel better about themselves and helps them to maintain a position of superiority. I am thinking about this at the same time Mum is telling me that J had more recently started criticising everyone outside the family that doesn’t believe in what J is saying and about the illness. Apparently, J is making out that everyone that doesn’t follow the same safety practices as them are are unclean, spreading germs and should be locked up! The list of narcissist characteristics goes on and on. Finger-pointing, lying, projecting, not taking any responsibility, slander and withholding. This is really one of the worst cases of psychological abuse I had ever heard about.

As we come to the end of our session, I gently ask Daisy’s Mum if she has thought about leaving J and taking her daughters with her. From her passive response, it is obvious that she is in a state of learned helplessness16.  This occurs when an individual continuously faces a negative, uncontrollable situation and stops trying to change their circumstances, even when they could do so. I gently explain to her that I will have to report what she has told me to the local safeguarding team as a matter of urgency.  This is my duty as a therapist when told about any form of abuse towards a child or young person. She was informed of our safeguarding policy prior to our appointment so is aware that confidentiality is waived in such circumstances. She looks at me with her large, fearful eyes and I can see that deep down she knows that what is happening is very, very wrong.  I can sense she feels grateful and relieved, as finally a trained professional is now going to take charge and call out the abuse.

Mum, Daisy and the baby leave the session and I immediately pick up the phone, my inner supervisor telling me this must be done straight away, no questions asked. I make the call and it is recorded.  I am assured that it will be dealt with as a matter of priority. The trained social worker at the other end of the phone is as shocked as I am. At last, I reassure myself, this young family will now get the help and support they deserve in the face of such shocking violations of everything it is to be human.


Covid Rules are blamed for 23% dive in young children’s development – with face mask rules among possible culprits17

Only six healthy children died of Covid in a year, but lockdowns fuel a youth health timebomb.6

The damage of masking children could be irreparable.13


REFERENCES

  1. https://ddpnetwork.org/about-ddp/dyadic-developmental-practice/
  2. https://www.hartgroup.org
  3. https://www.therapists4medicalfreedom.org
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1460-6984.12578
  5. https://www.steris-ast.com/techtip/overview-ethylene-oxide-residuals/
  6. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/11/six-healthy-children-died-covid-year
  7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/factitious-disorder-munchausen-syndrome
  8. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/toxic-relationships/201709/how-spot-narcissistic-abuse
  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLDpZ8daIVM
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXhpailcs0&list=WL&index=5
  11. https://safeguardingchildren.salford.gov.uk/media/1438/biderman.pdf
  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
  13. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-damage-of-masking-children-could-be-irreparable/
  14. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1d025fb27e390a78569537/t/5ccdff181905f41dbcb689e3/1557004058168/Neuroception.pdf
  15. https://paceuk.info/child-sexual-exploitation/what-is-trauma-bonding/
  16. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/learned-helplessness
  17. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10247315/Face-masks-harm-childrens-development-Study-blames-significantly-reduced-development.html

An Open Letter to the Professional Bodies of Counsellors and Psychological Therapists in the United Kingdom: BPC, BACP, BABCP, BPS, HCPC, NCS and UKCP

17th February 2022

We write as a group of registered counsellors, psychotherapists and psychologists in clinical practice in the United Kingdom.

We are contacting you to express our grave concerns around Vaccines as a Condition of Deployment (VCOD) mandates for health and social care professionals, and the implications that these could have for our profession.

Whilst we welcome the recent suspension of the NHS vaccine mandate [1]We use the terms COVID-19 vaccines/vaccinations, injections and jabs interchangeably throughout this open letter. Whilst the COVID-19 jabs do not represent traditional vaccine technology and many of us consider the term ‘vaccine’ ethically problematic, we have used it here for clarity. to allow space for further public consultation, we are also aware that Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, has made it clear that the debate on mandatory vaccination is far from over. He was quoted in The Times on 7th February as demanding that medical regulators send the “clear message” that healthcare workers must be vaccinated against coronavirus. [2]https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sajid-javid-tells-medical-regulators-to-insist-staff-get-jabs-q5z6wzv2f

The implication here is that the onus of enforcing and policing the vaccination status of healthcare workers could be shifted from employers to professional/regulatory bodies. We are concerned about the silence of our professional bodies on this matter and now seek urgent clarification on their positions.

We call upon our professional bodies to publicly reject any policy of mandating COVID-19 vaccines as a condition of registration and/or deployment amongst their membership – either now or at a future point. Furthermore, we urge them to commit to protecting the right to informed consent and bodily autonomy, both for their professional membership and the clients we serve.

In particular, we would like the professional bodies to consider and respond to our professional concerns on the following points:


1. Mandatory vaccination policies conflict with our professional ethics as counsellors and psychological therapists.

One of the core principles common to the Ethical Frameworks of all our professional bodies is that of upholding client autonomy and their right to informed consent to treatment.

As health practitioners, we rightly understand that no medical or clinical intervention can be considered universally safe. We know from our own practice that even authorised, regulated and ethically sound medical treatments can still pose significant risks and have the potential to cause harm at an individual level.

As such, suitability for any medical treatment needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and can only be authorised with informed consent from the client (so long as they have the capacity to do so), after they have been given full and accurate information around any potential risks.

This principle of informed consent is not only vital to our ethical practice, it is upheld as a central principle within wider medical ethics and international human rights law. For example, in the UK all medical interventions in the NHS must be fully voluntary and in line with this principle of informed consent:

The decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family… If an adult has the capacity to make a voluntary and informed decision to consent to or refuse a particular treatment, their decision must be respected. [3]NHS: Consent to Treatment – https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/

In March 2015, a significant judgement about the nature of informed medical consent was made in the UK Supreme Court. [4]Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board The court clarified that doctors must: “take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any treatment,” in which, “a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it”. 

The court ruled that UK doctors can no longer rely on simply sharing the consensus of a body of medical opinion (‘the Bolam test’) as a basis for a patient’s informed consent, but a personalised risk assessment must be given. In the case of COVID-19 mandates, this means that generic claims that ‘the science is settled’ or ‘vaccines are safe and effective’ – cannot be used to justify their safety for an individual. [5]https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0136.html

The public and professional discourse on COVID-19 vaccination mandates are an example of how social pressure can be exerted on individuals to have a particular health intervention, even without a full individual risk assessment or any long-term safety data. As such, mandates can be considered medically coercive and in direct violation of the legal principle of informed consent.  

We call on our professional bodies to recognise that coercion does not equal informed consent.


2. COVID-19 vaccines are far from universally ‘safe and effective’.

COVID-19 vaccinations use novel technologies which have been in widespread use for little more than a year, are still in clinical trials and for which by definition no long-term safety data is available.

Since the start of the vaccine rollout, we have already seen a significant shift from the COVID-19 jabs being promoted as being ‘safe and 100% effective’ [6]BEST SHOT: AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is 100% effective against serious disease, US trial shows: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14414291/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-effective-us-trial/[7]Pfizer vaccine ‘safe and 100% effective’ in children as young as 12: https://news.sky.com/story/pfizer-vaccine-safe-and-100-effective-in-children-as-young-as-12-12261697[8]Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-confirm-high-efficacy-and-no-serious[9]Pfizer vaccine for 12-15 year olds: Your questions answered: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57389353.amp – to a recognition that there can be serious, even fatal side effects for a small minority of people. Their overall efficacy, especially in reducing transmission and preventing the spread of Coronavirus, is also far from what was originally hoped for.

Furthermore, since their general release, some COVID-19 injections have now been discontinued for use within certain demographics due to safety concerns. For example, the AZ and Moderna vaccines have been discontinued for young people in several countries after safety concerns arose around the risks of blood clots, following several high-profile deaths. In more recent months there have been emerging scientific studies showing the risks, particularly to younger males, of serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination, as well as ongoing concerns about the impact of vaccines on the female menstrual cycle. Both concerns have led to the commissioning of major safety investigations through additional clinical trials.

Whatever the outcome of these investigations, the fact remains that our understanding of these novel COVID-19 vaccines and the risks they pose to human health is far from comprehensive or complete.

Whenever there is risk of significant harm from a medical intervention, especially when the treatment is newly developed and those harms could be life-threatening, it is imperative that there is free choice for the individual to refuse that treatment without fear of negative consequences.

For professional bodies to require mandatory vaccination as a condition of professional registration, for acceptance on professional training courses, or as a condition of employment, would amount to unethical coercion of its professional members. To do so would place the professional bodies in direct violation of the principle of informed consent.

We ask that the professional bodies join us in speaking out against the unethical nature of mandatory vaccination policies, and publicly affirm their commitment to the ethical principle of informed medical consent.


As counsellors and therapists, we recognise that assessing the safety profile of a specific intervention is only one aspect of the complex decision-making process that informs our consent to medical treatment.

An individual’s moral, spiritual and political beliefs, as well as their cultural practices, life experiences and approach to managing their health, will also have an impact on their willingness to give, or withhold, informed medical consent.

Many of us take a holistic, person-centred approach to working with our clients. As such, we believe in the validity, authority and importance of these broader factors that can be drawn upon to inform medical consent. We see these wider factors as valuable, essential and equal; individuals have a right to refuse a medical treatment on wider grounds than its official safety profile or potential side effects. We are particularly concerned about the impact of mandates on those who have complex health conditions, those who have prior experiences of being harmed by medical treatments, those who favour their natural immunity, and those with religious or ethical concerns about the development process of the vaccines.

Current government guidelines for vaccine mandates only grant ‘medical exemption’ to staff with a tiny number of officially permitted medical conditions [10]UK Government COVID-19 Vaccination Medical Exemption Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/covid-19-medical-exemptions-proving-you-are-unable-to-get-vaccinated, with no allowance for many broader concerns that could be central to someone deciding not to consent to a COVID-19 injection. We believe that the government has no lawful right or moral authority to draw up a set of very limited medical criteria and then insist that these are the only permitted circumstances in which someone can be officially ‘exempted’ from vaccine mandates without facing redeployment or job loss.

As counsellors and psychological therapists, we uphold the right of every individual to make an informed choice about whether to take a COVID-19 vaccination, or indeed any other medical intervention, based on their own personal circumstances and medical history. We call on our professional bodies to uphold that right for practitioners and the clients we serve.


4. Professional bodies are failing in their duty of care to members who are affected by NHS vaccination mandates.

It would be incongruent for professional bodies to enshrine the principle of informed consent within their ethical codes of conduct for working with clients, whilst their professional members are not permitted to make autonomous decisions about their own medical treatment.

Mandatory vaccination policies, and the loss of the right to informed medical consent, is causing significant psychological distress to many UK counsellors and therapists, especially those working in the NHS. Many of these affected practitioners have been loyal, paying members of their respective professional bodies for decades. The silence and seeming lack of engagement from our professional bodies around this issue is both disturbing and disappointing given how severe the consequences are for members who face job loss. 

The exact number of counsellors and psychological therapists who stand to be affected by NHS vaccine mandates is uncertain, as to our knowledge, there has been no formal consultation process around this issue by any of the professional bodies.

However, Therapists for Medical Freedom have now facilitated numerous free, volunteer-run support workshops for affected therapists, which have often been full to capacity. We have also had hundreds of communications from distressed members who are under significant stress from the vaccine mandate process. Many have complained to us about experiencing an utter lack of clarity, guidance or support from their professional body.

Professional bodies have a duty to represent the interests of their paying members, especially at times where their human and employment rights are under threat in a professional context.

Therapists affected by vaccine mandates deserve better treatment and representation than they are currently getting from professional bodies. This situation must change, and we appeal to professional bodies to address this with the utmost urgency.


5. Vaccine mandates will have negative consequences for clients accessing therapeutic services.

NHS England estimated that had the vaccine mandate policy been implemented in April as planned, this would have left the NHS down by at least 80,000 staff, as many planned to leave the profession rather than comply with the policy. [11]Covid vaccine mandate: 80,000 NHS workers still completely unvaccinated against Covid: https://inews.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-nhs-workers-lose-jobs-jab-mandate-1415486. This number would increase exponentially if vaccines were mandated as part of the professional registration process, thereby affecting health professionals working outside of NHS services, which applies to most therapists and counsellors in the UK.

To lose a significant number of counsellors and therapists at a time of national crisis could pose significant harm to clients. COVID-19 and the wide-ranging impact of restrictions on the population has left a legacy of new and worsening existing mental health problems. The Centre for Mental Health estimates that 8 million adults and 1.5 million children will need mental health support in the years following the pandemic. [12]Covid-19: understanding inequalities in mental health during the pandemic: https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-07/CentreforMentalHealth_CovidInequalities_0.pdf

Those of us who have worked to provide psychological therapies throughout this challenging time are now seeing an unprecedented rise in demand for NHS and voluntary sector counselling and therapy services, to the point where people in need now face dangerously long waiting times. [13]Strain on Mental Health Care leaves 8 Million people without help: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/29/strain-on-mental-health-care-leaves-8m-people-without-help-say-nhs-leaders Across the UK, even private therapy services and individual practitioners are in short supply, with many having to make difficult decisions to turn away people in need because they simply do not have the resources to treat them. At a time of increased mental health need, vaccine mandates would therefore be detrimental for current and future clients.

We call upon the professional bodies to provide reassurance that clients’ access to therapeutic support will not be restricted based on vaccination status, either now or in the future. We also call on them to reject policies that will risk the loss of experienced practitioners, put further strain on existing services and staff, and potentially dissuade others from training to enter the field.


6. It is essential to consider the wider context to mandatory vaccination policies and to remember the lessons of history.

As counsellors and psychological therapists, when faced with an ethical dilemma, we are encouraged to look beyond the issue itself and consider the wider field and context – including any relevant historical, sociological and political factors. Therefore, when considering the ethics of vaccine mandates, we must consider more than just the risk posed by COVID-19 vs the benefits and risks of vaccination.

When we step back and consider the wider socio-political context, we can clearly see that:

In the context of our collective history, as ethical health practitioners, we have a responsibility to ask difficult questions if we see draconian policies such as vaccination mandates being introduced in our society. We must continue to think critically about who would profit and benefit most from such policies. Might there also be vested interests, whether in government, science and medicine or the pharmaceutical industry, that could stand in the way of open and transparent discussion? [29]Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity[30]Meet the 40 New Billionaires who got rich fighting COVID-19: https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/

It is not the terrain of ‘conspiracy theory’ for therapists and other health professionals to demand that government and medical experts are scrutinised and held to account for the policies they impose upon the public. As a profession, we must make room for alternative perspectives and difficult questions without these legitimate concerns being dismissed or slandered as ‘anti vax’, ‘dangerous disinformation’ or even more alarmingly, as ‘far-right extremism’.

It is not acceptable for our Professional Bodies to simply dismiss or silence any dissenting voices within their membership, or to ignore these difficult questions. Nor is it acceptable for heavy-handed policies such as COVID-19 vaccine mandates to be supported and justified by our professional bodies on the sole basis that they are acting in line with ‘official legislation or government guidance’ without any independent analysis of the actual effectiveness, ethics, or impact of the guidelines – or any acknowledgement that governments do not always act solely in the public interest.

Our professional bodies have a duty to carefully scrutinise any mandated public health measures that compromise our medical autonomy. They must not be accepted on face value as being in the public interest simply based on the assurances of government and its approved health advisors, or pharmaceutical companies with vested interests.


It is time for the professional bodies who represent counsellors and psychological therapists in the UK to show courage and break their collective silence on the issue of mandatory vaccination in our profession.

In light of all the above, we call on our professional bodies to:

  1. Uphold the values that are written and protected within their own ethical codes by publicly affirming their commitment to protecting the right of therapists and clients to freely give or withhold their consent to medical treatment without fear of coercion or punishment.

  2. Affirm that their commitment to upholding the right to informed consent will stand regardless of the emergence of new future variants, waves of disease or novel medical treatments.

  3. Engage with Therapists for Medical Freedom and other groups of concerned professionals in a process of dialogue around the ethics and legality of vaccine mandates in our profession.

  4. Pledge to protect the rights of therapists and clients who have exercised their lawful right to informed consent to refuse COVID-19 vaccinations.

  5. Use their authority as professional membership bodies to prohibit the implementation of discriminatory policies around COVID-19 vaccinations within their organisational membership and associated training institutes – and to publicly speak out against such discriminatory practices in the wider field.

  6. Remind their members that we each have an ethical responsibility to think critically for ourselves when assessing any government health advice, especially when it is mandated. Professional bodies should help facilitate this broader risk assessment process within their membership, especially the potentially negative impact that any existing or future public health advice might have on practitioners and clients. 

  7. Take into account the broader historical, social and political context when assessing the ethics of mandatory health interventions. We cannot forget the harm that has been caused to human health and civil liberties when the right to refuse medical treatment has been denied to populations at other times in history.

We await to hear your considered responses on these important matters of professional ethics, legislation and human rights, and look forward to beginning a process of dialogue with you.

Yours sincerely,

Therapists for Medical Freedom


Principal Signatories:

Jennifer Ayling, Psychotherapeutic Counsellor, UKCP

Clare Beatson, Counsellor, BACP

Elizabeth Bentley, Psychotherapist, BACP

Paula Charnley, Counsellor, BACP

Ben Harris, Psychotherapist, MBACP

Julie Horsley, Counsellor, NCS

Frances Kandler-Singer, Psychotherapist, BACP

Naintara Land, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Rachel Maisey, Counsellor, BACP

Kate Morrissey, Psychotherapist, BACP

Melanie Pickles, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Bruce Scott, Psychoanalyst, UKCP & CP-UK

Dr. Gary Sidley, Clinical Psychologist (Retired)

Deborah Short, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Elizabeth Smith, Psychotherapist, Pre-Accred

Leanne Ward, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Sarah Waters, Psychotherapist, MBACP


Supporting Signatories:

Dr. Elena Alexandrou, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Marc Allen, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

Emily Barber, Psychotherapist, BACP

Dr. Alison Bates, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

John Bates, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Tonya Bathe, Psychotherapist, BABCP & BACP

Dr. Faye Bellanca, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Stephen Biggs, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Paul Birch, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Vanessa Blackmore, Psychotherapist, BACP

Dr. Claire Bone, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Rosemary Boon, Psychotherapist, APS

Anne Booth, Counsellor, BACP

Antoine Bowes, Counsellor, BACP

Matthew Bowes, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Jacqueline O’Brien, Psychotherapist, (retired)

Jeremy Brooks, Psychotherapist, BACP & UKCP

Jo Bull, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Sheila Burchell, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Johann Burton, Counsellor, NCS

Charles Campbell-Jones, Psychotherapist, BPC & BACP

Ruby Chance, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Liz Cobb, Psychotherapist, BACP

Dr. Theresa Comer, HCPC, Clinical Psychologist

Jo Conrad, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Jo Coombs, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Kim Cooper, Counsellor, BACP

Helen Cowan, Counsellor, BACP

Danielle Crawshaw, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Kate Dalton, Psychotherapist, BACP

Gemma Davies, Psychotherapist, BACP

Emma Davis, Psychotherapist, UKCP & HCPC

Kadi Debbah, Counsellor, BACP

Vagelis Dimitriou, Counsellor, BACP

Miriam Donaghy, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Laura Driesen, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Timothy Dunne, Clinical Psychologist, Associate Fellow of BPS

Davina Elsen, Counsellor, BACP

Gillian England, Psychotherapist, BACP & BABCP

Audrey Elliot, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Erika Filova, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Zac Fine, Psychotherapist, BACP

Katherine Franklin-Adams, Psychotherapist, BACP

Angela Gilchrist, Clinical Psychologist, BPS & HCPC & ACP-UK

Gemma Gilham, Trainee Therapist, CPCAB

Sara Godoli, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. June Golding, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Mr. John Gordon, Psychotherapist, BCP

Heather Graham, Counsellor, BACP

James Graham Corscadden, Clinical Psychologist, BPS

Dr. Nicola Graham-Kevan, Counsellor, BPS

Dr. Tracey Grant Lee, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Federica Graziano, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Diane Griffiths, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Jan Haghverdi, Counsellor, BACP

Sarah Harber, Psychotherapist, Pre-Accred

Renata Harris, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Andy Halewood, Psychotherapist, BACP & BPS

Andrew Harry, Counsellor, UKPTA

Mark Hartshorn, Psychotherapist, BACP

Andrea Hazlett, Trainee Therapist, FHT

Susan Hayes, Psychotherapist

Laurie Hole, Counsellor, NCS

Michael Horgan, Trainee Therapist, Pre-accred

Jessica Horton, Counsellor, BACP & BPS

Ruth Hoskins, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Isla Hunter, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Leiah Ikafa, Retired Therapist

Miranda Jenkins, Counsellor, BACP

Rebecca Jesty, Counsellor, BACP

Andrea Jordan, Counsellor, RCM

Natasha King, Psychotherapist, HCPC

Lena Kornyeyeva, Clinical Psychologist, EATA

Cabby Laffy, Psychotherapist, UKCP & CORST & NCP

Gabrielle Lake Mitchell, Trainee Therapist, BACP

Rosey Lawrence, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

Sophie Leader, Psychotherapist, BACP

Maggie Leathley, Psychotherapist, BACP

Jane Lewis, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Samantha Lewis, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Jane Lindsay, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Maya Mamish, Clinical Psychologist, BPS

Jane Margerison, Psychotherapist, BACP

Jonathan Martin, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Rufus May, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Fiona McAlister, Psychotherapist, BACP

Conor McCafferty, Psychotherapist, BACP

Gary McKeever, Counsellor, BACP

Fiona McNally, Psychotherapist, BACP

Aysem Mehmet, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Maria Michalakopoulou, Counsellor, MBACP

Jason Middleton, Psychotherapist, BACP

Caroline Montanaro, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Suzanne Moore, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Christopher Morris, Psychotherapist, BACP

Anne Murphy, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Naomi Murphy, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC & A-CP

Mark Murray, Counsellor, NCS

Anna Murray Preece, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Dr. Rachel Newton, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC & BPS

Katie Neylan, Psychotherapist, BACP & BABCP

Malgorzata Paliszewska, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Lauren Parker, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

Sue Parker Hall, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Kay Parkinson, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Darshna Patel, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Dr. Helen Payne, Psychotherapist, UKCP & ADMP UK

Dr. Nicholas Peckham, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Dr. Kirsten Perkins, Clinical Psychologist, BPS & HCPC

Carolyn Polunin, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Livia Pontes, Clinical Psychologist, BPS, HCPC & BABCP

Dr. Kate Porter, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Rob Preece, Psychotherapist, UKCP (retired)

Rebecca Quick, Clinical Psychologist, PBS

Dr. Andrew Rayner, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Sasha Reay, Counsellor

Tracy Rees, Trainee Therapist, Pre-Accred

Becky Ridgewell, Psychotherapist, MBACP

Marijke Roberts, Counsellor, NCS

Dr. Helen Ross, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Antonella Russo-Ball, Psychotherapist, UKCP & MBACP

Jane Sanders, Psychotherapist, UKCP

David Scott, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Paige Sessions, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Jeremy Slaughter, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Leah O’Shaughnessy, Counsellor, BACP

Sara Simon, Psychotherapist, HCPC

Regina Sinkovicz, Psychotherapist, BACP

Dr. Helen Startup, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC & BABPC

Karen Sturch, Counsellor, BACP

Eileen Sullivan, Counsellor, BACP

Cath Sunderland, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Patricia Taddei, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Vicky Talbot, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Angela Taylor, Counsellor, BACP

Lori Thackham, Counsellor, BACP & NCS

Gem Thomson, Psychotherapist, BABCP

Marsha Towey, Clinical Psychologist, BPS & HCPC & BACP

Dr. Lucie Turner, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Philippa Vaizey, Psychotherapist, UKCP

Marc Venner, Counsellor, BACP

Dionne Ward, Counsellor, BACP

Dr. Alice Welham, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC

Anna Westwood, Counsellor, BACP

Georgia Whyte, Trainee Therapist, BABPC

Debbie Williams, Psychotherapist

Tracy Williams, Counsellor, BACP

Robert Wills, Counsellor, BACP

Lee Wilkes, Counsellor, BACP

Tracy Wood, Counsellor, BACP

Sarah Worth, Counsellor, ACC

Dominique Wynn, Psychotherapist, (Retired)

Dr. Clare Young, Clinical Psychologist, HCPC


Sign the Open Letter

Are you a Counsellor, Psychotherapist or Clinical Psychologist based in the UK who is concerned about the impact of vaccine mandates on the profession? (whether you are personally vaccinated or not).

If so, please sign the letter below along with your professional body and we will add you to our public list of signatories:

Professional Bodies Open Letter

165 signatures

References[+]

Can a Trauma Informed Approach and COVID Guidelines Ethically Co-Exist?

Sarah Waters is a psychotherapist experienced in working with the effects of abuse, neglect, and childhood trauma. She also specialises in the Dan Hughes family therapy and parenting model, Dyadic Developmental Practice (DDP) 1

Sarah is a Steering Group member of Therapists for Medical Freedom, as well as a member of HART 2 (Health Advisory Recovery Team) where this article was originally published. HART is a group of highly qualified UK doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists, and other academic experts who came together over shared concerns about policy and guidance recommendations relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.  This paper examines trauma informed principles and practice, particularly in relation to babies, children and young people and asks:

Can any therapist, practitioner or organisation that calls itself trauma informed ethically do so if it is adhering to Covid-19 guidelines?

  • Half of 16–25-year-olds said their mental health has worsened since the start of the pandemic.3
  • As many as 10 million peopleincluding 1.5 million children4, are thought to need new or additional mental health support.

What is Trauma Informed Practice?

Trauma informed practice8 has been a popular concept over the last 10 years particularly within schools. Councils, charities and even police forces have also fully embraced the idea and adopted the venerated tagline. Trainings of between a few hours or a few weeks have been provided, after which trainees have considered themselves trauma informed. While it is acknowledged that some of these practitioners will have undertaken more rigorous and in-depth trauma/child development training, many will have not. Despite the claims by trauma training organisations that children and young people’s wellbeing, mental health and social/emotional needs are top priority, in a Covid world of unchallenged restrictions can they still claim this to be true?  

To put things more into context, a programme, organisation, or system that is trauma informed8,  as defined by the US Government (also used as the benchmark in the UK):

  • realises the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery
  • recognises the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients, family, staff, and others involved in the system
  • responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices
  • seeks to actively resist re-traumatisation

Rather than following a prescribed set of policies and procedures, a trauma-informed approach adheres to five key principles:

  • Safety 
  • Trustworthiness 
  • Collaboration
  • Empowerment
  • Choice

The struggle to prioritise children’s emotional needs 

It was only at the beginning of this century that neuroscientists were able to visibly identify (through fMRI scans) the devastating effects of trauma9 on children’s brains. And only then was it acknowledged by governments who, rather than support families to try to mitigate it happening by investing in early intervention10, ploughed their resources into trying to deal with its devastating effects. This strategy however has huge financial and emotional implications, outlined most recently and extensively by the Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood11 set up by The Duchess of Cambridge. The devastating consequences, such as an increased risk of long-term mental health difficulties and the intergenerational repetition of abuse, has already been proven, but persistently ignored, or dabbled in then discarded, such as the Sure Start Initiative12 launched in 1998. Today Sure Start has dwindled to a shadow of its former self, a reminder of the lack of foresight/care that politicians and councils have around the importance of supporting parents at the most critical point in a child’s development – pregnancy and the first 2 years of life.

Numerous psychologists since the 1950’s, most notably John Bowlby13, have campaigned diligently to reform antiquated and abusive child rearing attitudes and practices, particularly focusing on the very early years in a child’s life. Experiences of loss, fear, control, abuse and neglect, often caused by what are now termed ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE’s)14 have been scientifically and irrefutably proven to inhibit the development of children’s brains and to negatively affect their emotions, behaviour, relationships and life chances. It is now widely accepted amongst psychologists and psychotherapists that, if children and young people are to thrive, these harmful factors need to be avoided at all costs.

It is also widely accepted that if this has not been possible, these harmful factors need to be fully understood and mitigated in a trauma informed way as children get older. Considering this, those of us in these professions (and others), have felt a huge relief over the last 10 years that children were finally starting to be treated humanely at last. The grim, genetic-deterministic view of human relations seemed to be fading into the past. The greatest contribution that Bowlby and all that have followed him have made to the wellbeing of our culture, is the understanding that children are extremely vulnerable but must be resilient to survive. Most importantly, we have learnt that this resilience, in its most damaging form, means adapting in various ways to a hostile environment to ensure this survival.

For the first time in history, the idea that a society’s destiny rests upon how it treats its children had scientific foundations and was being acted upon and promoted – at least in schools and other trauma informed organisations. Children’s needs were at last being put first and professionals (but unfortunately to a lesser extent parents) were trained to understand, recognise, and promote these needs as, after all, how we treat our children will shape our future. A trauma informed army was born – championing the necessity for safety, love, acceptance, connection, close relationships, play, empathy and most importantly – the absence of fear.

Then along came Covid 19

And with it a catalogue of guidelines (not laws), taken up at great speed, without any psychological risk assessments whatsoever. All trauma informed knowledge and practice was abandoned as adults, some fuelled by unions, demanded that they were kept ‘safe’ – despite what this might mean emotionally for the children and young people in their care. A disease that has a median Infection Fatality Rate15of 0.05% for under 70-year-olds globally seemed to derail trauma informed practice entirely. There was no mention of how emotionally damaging the measures potentially would be, at all, in the back-to-school trainings (that I attended) provided by numerous child development/trauma ‘experts’ across the UK. What happened to the trauma informed principles of realising, recognising, responding to, and most importantly resisting trauma inducing practices?

It does not seem to matter that babies, children and young people are having to bear the emotional brunt of a pandemic that mainly affects the over 80’s16. In fact, it even feels as if some schools relish in masking and segregating their pupils, acting as if the guidelines were in fact law and that they have no choice in the matter. No one can deny that the mental health of the young17 has been catastrophically impacted over the last year and the question I would like to ask is how can children’s emotional needs so easily be set to one side like this? My understanding is that adults are meant to protect children and not the other way around. Why aren’t trauma informed practitioners and organisations recognising this devastation and standing up for the children in their care? It is astonishing and heart breaking that children’s emotional needs have been so quickly trampled upon and disregarded after the long-fought journey to get these needs recognised.

From new-born babies to teenagers – all are potentially being made to emotionally suffer in their own way. One of the most pernicious and potentially damaging practices that I can see is the routine wearing of face masks around the very young. Anyone who has done any trauma informed training will know of the Still Face Experiment18. It shows the devastating effects, in a very short time, on a baby whose mother stops smiling at it for only a few minutes. A recent discussion paper in The Journal of Neonatal Nursing19 highlights the difficulty in determining what facial expression a person is exhibiting behind a mask which may present severe challenges for infants and young children. They depend on their parents’ facial expressions, coupled with tone and/or voice to regulate their reactions toward others. They advise that health professionals should understand the potential effects of prolonged mask wearing to minimise any potential long-term impact on neonatal development and optimise psychological outcomes for babies, infants, children, and their parents. I have not seen one piece of literature that warns of the dangers of this distressing practice. Everywhere I go, every day I go out, I see evidence that this message is not being passed onto parents by those that are trained to know better. 

Blissa charity for babies born premature or sick, have stated that 70% of parents20 have said they are more likely to have found it difficult to bond with their baby if the neonatal unit where their infant was being cared for had put time limits in place, as part of Covid parent access restrictions . Equally I have heard distressing stories of women being made to wear masks when in labour. Many of us know of the devastating restrictions that were put in place around partners and family being allowed to be with women when they were giving birth, often leaving them vulnerable and distressed. This will have a knock-on effect to the birth and bonding process, which can have lifelong affects. These same women have been denied face to face support after the birth, leading to an increase in Post Natal depression and loneliness. All for a disease that, as of March 2021, sits at no 24 in the UK as the leading cause of death21.

Enough has been written in other studies about the numerous detrimental  effects, both emotionally and developmentally,  on school children over the past year22 particularly around the wearing of face masks and social distancing. The trauma informed might find it interesting revisiting Steven Porges Polyvagal Theory A subconscious system for detecting threats and safety23 and what he terms neuroception; a subconscious system for detecting threats and safety. No wonder there is an explosion of psychiatric disturbances, learning difficulties and dysregulated behaviour in children whose nervous systems have been activated by the fear messaging they have been subjected to in schools (and almost every other environment) every day for over a year. And what is the governments answer to this trauma reaction, again with little protest from the trauma informed professionals? Behaviour Hubs24 – as “parents and teachers know that orderly and disciplined classrooms are best”.

Being exempt from facemask use brought its own traumas with it – it is excruciating for a young person or teenager to stand out at school and be different to everyone else. I have heard numerous stories of coercive and bullying behaviour, from teachers and other pupils, against the very few with the strength to stand up for their human rights and not wear a facemask or be invasively tested every week. The list of indignities goes on and on – with the lateral flow/PCR testing pantomime throwing up enormous efficacy, safety, and ethical considerations. Children’s and young people’s lives and education are being continuously disrupted by a flawed system that seems to fish for positives25 amongst this age group and cause misery and loss of income for the adults in their lives. The indignity of being tested and the potential dangers26 from the ethylene oxide used to sterilise the tests again are ignored or deemed worth the risk so that adults can feel safe and damn the effects on the children.

New groups quickly mobilise to safeguard the young

Groups of concerned parents have had to set up campaigning groups, such as UsForThem27 to fight for our children’s human rights and to try and safeguard them. They very quickly realised last year that the professionals, trained and paid to look after our children’s mental health weren’t and aren’t realisingrecognising, responding, or resistingthe traumatic measures being put in place. The wearing of face masks in therapy sessions28 is another example and a practice that was also taken up speedily by charities and agencies who support traumatised children and young people (and adults). Again, this was a guideline and not a law, yet therapists put their own physical safety concerns over and above the psychological safety of the children and young people under their care, despite the fact they could sit 2m apart and supposedly ‘keep safe’. Research has shown that wearing face masks in sessions could have a highly detrimental effect upon communication success, with a plethora of undesirable consequences. These include reductions in safety and wellbeing, impacting upon overall clinical outcome levels. Is this another example of adult’s fear levels superseding the emotional needs of young people and therapists putting their own fears higher on the agenda than the psychological safety of their clients?

Government use of a Psychological Campaign to Effect Compliance 

Maybe the psychological campaign29 orchestrated by the government’s behavioural unit, Spi-B (of whom members openly admit to ‘ethically questionable’ use of fear tactics to encourage mass compliance of the UK populace) has something to do with all of these extreme measures being so rapidly put in place? Have professionals who are trained to recognise and be alert to psychological and abusive tactics been as unable or unwilling as the rest of the population to spot the psychological behavioural tactics? One theory is that the vast majority of the population are now so fearful they are operating from the reptilianpart of their brain30 that limits being curious, open and engaged and merely keeps us stuck in survival mode. But again, brain development and its workings are a large part of trauma informed training, so it is extremely puzzling as to why this is not being recognised or challenged.

The decision by the government to scare us into submission was a strategic one. The minutes31 of a meeting of the Government’s expert advisors (SAGE) on 22/03/20, a forum that includes psychological specialists, displayed a clear intention: ‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent’ by ‘using hard-hitting emotional messaging‘. They knew that a frightened population is a compliant one. And haven’t they delivered. Just like a highly abusive parent or partner our government is employing coercive, gaslighting, fear mongering tactics to seemingly scare its citizens into complying. Isolation, restriction of movement, threats, intimidation, occasional indulgences, humiliation (shaming those who don’t comply/making us stand in line) and enforcing of trivial demands have all been used. The list is endless – and is exceptionally traumatising – and unquestionably highly unethical. 

Those of us who work or have worked within the field of domestic abuse will recognise these tactics within families and try to protect children (and adults) who are under threat. Being trauma informed needs to be all encompassing, not only considering the effects of trauma, but also understanding, challenging, and trying to change any psychologically manipulative behaviours we are witnessing.  Why are trauma specialists, psychologist’s, therapists, teachers, and child behaviour experts not recognising and challenging what is going on now?  These are the questions that need to be asked as the UK’s children and young people hurtle towards the ultimate sacrifice for the adults in their lives – being psychologically coerced, and therefore unable to give Informed Consent (let alone be Gillick Competent), into taking a highly controversial, experimental ‘vaccine’32 for an illness that they are at very low risk from that has a 99.997% survival rate33.

Conclusion

Considering the authorities and organisations that have implemented the Government’s suggested Covid-19 guidelines and medical interventions for young people impulsively, without risk assessment, reflection, or critical analysis; I wonder if trauma informed practitioners and organisations are denying their experimental nature alongside the potentially long term, harmful, physical, and psychological effects. The long awaited and so warmly welcomed trauma informed world, that championed children and young people’s emotional needs, is now, in my opinion, supporting them, in collusion with the government. They are supporting them to adapt to a hostile, fearful, abusive, and hence traumatic environment that inhibits the long awaited healthy emotional development that we have all be waiting for. It is imperative to remember:

THE UN CONVENTION ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

ARTICLE 3: THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD MUST BE A TOP PRIORITY IN ALL DECISIONS AND ACTIONS THAT AFFECT CHILDREN

TRAUMA INFORMED PRACTICE:

  • SAFETY FIRST – ENVIRONMENTS & RELATIONSHIPS
  • PLAY
  • THE IMPORTANCE OF TOUCH
  • BEING SOCIALLY ENGAGED
  • ENRICHED ENVIRONMENTS
  • CONNECTION
  • ACCEPTANCE
  • CURIOSITY
  • EMPATHY 
  • LOVE

COVID MEASURES:

LOCKDOWNS:

  • Isolates and deprives children of social support/play
  • Being forced to stay at home creates tension and fear
  • Threats of fines/criminalisation causes emotional & psychological distress
  • Isolation/loneliness affects sleep and physical health
  • Increases risk of and escalation of all types of abuse/family discord
  • Lack of in person support – one to one or in groups (although support groups of up to 15 have been ‘allowed’ throughout)
  • Takes away support of school and potential safeguarding measures
  • Disproportionately affects/sets back learning more for the vulnerable/ disadvantaged
  • Minimises opportunities for outdoor exercise and vitamin D (needed for healthy immune function)

FACE MASKS:

  • Activates the fear system (threat/death/contamination/danger)
  • Less socially engaged adults/minimal social engagement system (hostile face)
  • Activates the social defence system (neutral/cold/blank face)
  • Interferes with neuroception: detecting cues of safety
  • Minimises emotional availability/Increases the chances of miss attunement/not connecting
  • Offers lowest level of safety cues and signals “All is not well in my world”
  • Creates minimal pro-social environment
  • Minimises “Connection as a biological Imperative” (Dr Stephen Porges) 
  • Minimises playful atmosphere
  • Signals people are dangerous

BEHAVIOUR HUBS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

  • Not understanding what vulnerable children need
  • Isolation rooms as places of punishment will trigger rage/fear and/or panic/grief systems
  • Threat of being punished/expelled creates anxiety and despair
  • Enforcement of more ‘rules’ develops habits of compliance
  • Led by behaviour advisors – not trauma experts
  • Will more young people who aren’t able to manage their behaviour be expelled & recruited into County Lines? 34

SOCIAL DISTANCING

  • Play opportunities are diminished and isolation increases
  • Law of propinquity = the less we interact with each other the less we perceive psychological safety
  • Isolation/restriction of movement and gathering is a form of coercive control
  • Making young people stand on circles/between lines/stay apart develops habit of compliance and is humiliating
  • Minimises social support and connection
  • Enforcing trivial demands such as having to stand apart, limiting how many people are allowed to be together reinforces who is in control
  • Not being allowed to get close/hug family members creates fear, guilt & a lack of emotional closeness

MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS/ INFECTION CONTROL

This issue begs a final question:

Is the impact of Covid-19 governmental guidance the ultimate ACE 14 that is going to tragically reverse the upward trajectory of young people’s fortunes just as it had started?

REFERENCES
  1. https://ddpnetwork.org/about-ddp/dyadic-developmental-practice/
  2. https://www.hartgroup.org
  3. Laura Dodsworth. A State of Fear p231. Pinter & Martin Ltd 2021
  4. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/27/covid-poses-greatest-threat-to-mental-health-since-second-world-war
  5. https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/news/10-million-people-england-may-need-support-their-mental-health-result-pandemic-says-centre-mental-health
  6. https://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/panorama-domestic-abuse-lockdown/
  7. https://civitas.org.uk/publications/what-price-lockdown/
  8. https://napac.org.uk/trauma-informed-practice-what-it-is-and-why-napac-supports-it/     
  9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYBUY1kZpf8
  10. https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/case-investing-early-childhood-interventions
  11. https://centreforearlychildhood.org/research/
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure_Start
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowlby
  14. https://www.adversechildhoodexperiences.co.uk
  15. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3
  16. https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband
  17. https://www.hartgroup.org/covid-policies-and-harms-to-children/
  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598570/pdf/main.pdf
  20. https://www.bliss.org.uk/news/2021/bliss-research-shows-devastating-impact-on-bonding-with-their-baby-when-parents-are-locked-out-of-neonatal-care-due-to-covid-19-restrictions
  21. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales/latest
  22. https://usforthem.co.uk/potential-harms-of-face-coverings-in-schools/
  23. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c1d025fb27e390a78569537/t/5ccdff181905f41dbcb689e3/1557004058168/Neuroception.pdf 
  24. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/behaviour-experts-to-support-schools-with-poor-discipline
  25. https://www.hartgroup.org/covid-19-testing-trap/
  26. https://www.steris-ast.com/techtip/overview-ethylene-oxide-residuals/
  27. https://usforthem.co.uk
  28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1460-6984.12578
  29. https://www.coronababble.com/post/how-the-mean-psychologists-induced-us-to-comply-with-coronavirus-restrictions
  30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSXhpailcs0&list=WL&index=5
  31. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf
  32. https://www.hartgroup.org/covid-19-vaccination-in-children/
  33. https://www.nbc26.com/news/coronavirus/cdc-estimates-covid-19-fatality-rate-including-asymptomatic-cases
  34. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/county-lines-how-drug-dealing-works-in-uk_uk_6033d072c5b66da5dba32b2c

Counsellors, Psychotherapists and Coaches COVID-19 Support Workshop

Steering Group member Sue Parker Hall is facilitating a free support workshop for psychological therapists and coaches to discuss COVID-19 concerns

She is offering a facilitated, one-off, morning online workshop to support counsellors, psychotherapists and coaches who are taking an alternative view to the official or mainstream explanation of COVID-19, and who might be feeling isolated or lacking in support.

The workshop is for practitioners who are exploring alternative sources of information about the issue and who, as a consequence, are uneasy about the measures that have been introduced and are wondering how helpful/harmful, ethical, practical and legitimate they are.

It aims to offer a space to speak freely about personal and professional concerns and the opportunity to take emotional support. The workshop is being held on Saturday the 6th of November 2021. Tickets are available here and the workshop is free to attend.

Take Action: Consultation on Health and Social Care Vaccine Mandates

The government consultation on mandatory vaccination for health and social care workers, including all NHS workers is now open, via means of a public survey. The consultation is open to anyone with a concern around this issue and is open to public consultation until 11.45pm on the 22nd of October 2021.

Therapists for Medical Freedom are opposed to any kind of vaccine mandates or ‘jab-for-job policies’, on the grounds that these are a violation of the principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical freedom.

The COVID-19 vaccinations use novel technologies, were developed less than a year ago, are still in clinical trials and are only authorized in the UK for emergency use. To mandate a medical treatment of this nature as a term of employment is unprecedented in the UK.

Medically Coercive

We believe vaccine mandates are medically coercive. This is deeply problematic on many levels, both ethically in terms of the human rights implications and in terms of safety, given the limited long-term data for these treatments.

Furthermore, there is little evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing transmission of COVID-19, nor do we have enough long-term safety data for many people to make informed consent around whether they are safe for them to take. You can read more about our stance on Vaccine Mandates in our open letter against vaccine passports.

We also believe that vaccine mandates are potentially in breach of various international laws, conventions and human rights legislation. We are aware there are multiple legal challenges to vaccine mandates being made in the courts on both a national and international level on this basis.

Wider Public Health Costs

There are also likely to be significant public health costs to the implementation of the Health and Social care of vaccine mandates.

In countries where COVID-19 vaccines have been mandated for health care workers, there has been a significant loss of staff due to people being forced out of their roles. This is already happening in the UK in the sector of residential care homes, which is now facing a staffing crisis and many vulnerable residents have been negatively impacted.

We believe that the last thing the UK needs during winter 2021 is the loss of thousands of highly qualified medical and social care staff. This is especially concerning when the NHS and other health and social care services are already at risk of overwhelm.

The wider public health implications of vaccine mandates for Health and Social Care are significant and could put many lives at risk. These must be considered as part of the consultation process and factored into a publically available, comprehensive risk assessment of the issue.

To take part in the public consultation, simply complete the online survey by 22nd October 2021.

What’s Wrong with Vaccine Passports?

The following is a talk given by Therapists for Medical Freedom Co-Founder Jen Ayling at the public meeting held by the Coalition Against Health Passes, on the 18th of September 2021 at Manchester Friends Meeting House.

A video of Jen’s talk can be seen here:

Introduction

My name is Jen Ayling. I’m a UKCP registered psychotherapeutic counsellor, and a co-founder of Therapists for Medical Freedom.

We are a collective of psychological therapists who have deep concerns about the current response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact it’s having on human health, civil liberties, and social connection. We’ve written an open letter against vaccine passports which is open to the public to sign, please do check it out if you’ve not already seen it. But today I’m not representing a collective position or speaking for anyone else but myself.

So, what is wrong with Vaccine passports, and how did I end up stood here talking to you about them? And at what point did I as a therapist start to question the government’s narrative, and the direction of our national pandemic response?

Well, let’s go back to the beginning. In the initial stages of the pandemic, like a lot of people, I was really bought into the idea of sacrificing three weeks of my personal freedom to help flatten the curve, to protect the most vulnerable. It’s a sensible measure, I thought, let’s all be in it together. That seems so long ago now, doesn’t it?

But I suppose my work as a therapist meant that quite early in the process, maybe just a few weeks into it, I started to feel concerned about the statistics and stories that we were not being told. I saw on the news each night this endless data stream of case numbers, ICU beds, transmission rates and deaths. But what I didn’t see being discussed, to nearly the same extent, was what I was seeing on the ground as a therapist.  What I was witnessing each day was the hugely negative impacts of these public health measures, that were supposedly put in place to protect us. The lockdown restrictions, the masks, the social distancing. I saw the profound loneliness and isolation they were causing. As the months rolled on, I saw that on so many levels, these things were having a catastrophic impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing, especially amongst the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

Fear Beyond Reasonable Proportion

I’ve watched with horror as the government and the media have continued to whip up this fear of this virus beyond all reasonable proportion. It’s true that it’s a very nasty respiratory illness, and each life lost to COVID is a tragedy, I am not trying to downplay or deny any of that. But for the sake of proportionality, it’s worth noting that globally, Covid-19 has an infection fatality rate of 0.15% and in the UK most of us in this room would have a roughly 99.5%-99.8% chance of surviving it, even without any vaccinations. Like many other respiratory illnesses, the vast bulk of fatalities are in the elderly, and clinically vulnerable.

Yet sometimes it seems as if this nasty respiratory virus has been transformed almost into a plague in our public imagination. COVID-19 has somehow become so high up in our global health priorities it now eclipses anything else, even infectious or preventable illnesses with a far higher mortality rate. The measures we’ve brought in, have often been at the expense of many other vital services that are essential for public health. Over the last 18 months the governments pandemic response has crippled our economy in a way that will likely take decades to recover from, and whilst social distancing will have protected some people, these drastic public health interventions have also directly caused the loss of many lives.

A Mental Health Emergancy

As just one example, we now have a mental health crisis of epic proportions in this country. Anyone working in my profession will tell you that mental health services are currently on their knees.

Crisis care in hospital goes beyond ICU beds and ventilators. Time and time again over the pandemic I’ve tried in vain to get clients who are suicidal or acutely unwell into mental health crisis services. But those services became completely overwhelmed and almost non-functional about 12 months ago, under the weight of the pandemic and the lockdown restrictions.  Even getting a GP appointment for mental health issues is increasingly difficult. And because of this, people are now dying in record numbers, of suicide, of drug overdoses and alcohol addiction, of treatable mental health conditions that were recognised far too late, or there wasn’t the right care available. But I’m not seeing billions being pumped into mental health crisis care. I’m not hearing about that every night on the news.

The Cost of Hyperfixation

I believe that this hyperfixation with protecting everyone from one single virus at all costs, is in itself becoming a disease process. It’s like we are all stood in the corner of a forest, worrying about the health of one single diseased tree. We’re so distressed by it that we’re throwing everything at it to save its life, throwing all of our resources, throwing millions, billions, trillions of pounds to protect it, when all around us the entire forest is on fire, and many of us haven’t even noticed, so fixated are we on saving this single tree.

So, when I think about what’s wrong with vaccine passports, I can’t separate it from this wider context of our national pandemic response. What I fear is that these vaccine passports are a kind of crystallisation of this very fearful and completely disproportionate set of public health priorities. We’re adding fuel to a system already obsessed with case numbers and transmission rates and vaccination rates and deaths from covid, and this will amp up our fixation on this virus. Vaccine Passports will provide a technological infrastructure to embed these strange and skewed priorities into the structural fabric of our society, with increasing penalties and restrictions for those who disobey the health mandates of the government.

The Danger of Vaccine Passports – Polarisation and Social Division

I fear that vaccine passports will be a hugely divisive force in our world. They have the potential to split our entire society in two. They will create a two-tier society, dividing us into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. And then, slowly over time, we will be turned against each other.

You can already see this happening.

In recent months in the media, we have seen an increasing rise of judgment and blame towards unvaccinated people, for allegedly prolonging the pandemic, although there is no evidence of this. We now see newspaper headlines decrying the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” or that “Jabbed Brits celebrate after unvaccinated get sick pay cuts.” This is a profoundly dangerous turn of events. As autumn turns to winter and the rates of infection and transmission begin to rise, this narrative is likely going to be ramped up further and further. The great turn against the unvaccinated is only just beginning.

This isn’t just an issue about social justice, or discrimination.

If this starts to happen to us, it will have a profound impact on our collective mental health.

These social divisions are going to make us all suffer, not just the people who don’t get vaccinated, all of us will suffer if we split and turn against each other in the name of eradicating a virus.

Because this kind of polarisation, this two-tier society, isn’t just an abstract concept.

These divisions, this social split between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated will play out in the arena of real human relationships, and this will be profoundly damaging to us all.

Already we are seeing families splitting over their different takes on these issues. Spouses are divorcing, children and parents no longer talking, loyal staff members are suddenly being shamed, then threatened, then fired. Lifelong friends are blocking each other on Facebook, people insulting each other, doubting each other, calling each other crazy, selfish, brainwashed, sheeple – losing all sense of each other’s good intentions and our love for one another.

And as these polarisations intensify, all these ruptured relationships will have a profound mental health impact on society as a whole. Because, as a relational therapist, I believe that good mental health is rooted in strong, healthy, contactful human relationships. It isn’t just about chemicals in the brain. And if you create a situation where across the country, we are being systemically turned against each other, and thousands, millions of relationships are needlessly rupturing over this one issue – then we are all going to be impacted. Relationship breakdowns are a primary cause of stress, depression, anxiety, attachment difficulties, and many other social harms. If our society becomes profoundly divided and polarised to the extent that I fear it might, we are all going to suffer.

Exploring Solutions

So, before I end, I just want to talk a bit about the solutions.

If Vaccine Passports do come in this winter, as most of us sat here probably quietly think they will, then what can we do to help minimise the harm they might cause to society, and what can we do to protect our own mental health?

If or when vaccine passports are introduced, I would say firstly, if you possibly can, then simply don’t use them. Don’t download the app. Don’t start showing your ‘papers’ everywhere. Don’t buy into the system in the first place. Boycott vaccine passports where possible, boycott the businesses that implement them, and instead support businesses and services that are supporting the boycott. Because if enough of us do this, it will make a difference.

But if for some reason you do need to use a vaccine passport, then I believe the second most important thing we can do is not to buy into the narratives that come along with them.

Defending Individual Rights and Freedoms is not Selfish!

The biggest mistake we can make in this situation is to start to internalise that standing up for our individual rights and freedoms is selfish, that it’s the polar opposite of caring for each other, that fighting to protect our individual rights is the antithesis of being community minded. I would say that is a false and a very dangerous dichotomy.

Individual freedoms are precious and worth protecting because they benefit society as a whole. Our right to our individual subjective opinions, to free speech, bodily autonomy, informed consent, freedom of movement, the right to a private life, these things are precious human rights, and with the introduction of vaccine passports, they are all now under serious threat. Wanting to protect these rights does not need to be at odds with a sense of collectivism or social responsibility.

When our individual rights and freedoms are protected as part of a free society then they generally benefit the health and wellbeing of everyone. To lose them will cause us far greater harm than COVID-19 could ever do. Historically, societies which have removed individual rights and freedoms in the name of a greater good, even in the name of health, usually end up being profoundly sick societies, this is the hallmark of most totalitarian regimes. It is not selfish to or uncaring to want to protect your own individual rights. Don’t buy into that polarisation, it’s an utter nonsense.

Resist Polarisation

On a relational level, it’s important not to let the vaccine passports divide us. To not allow ourselves to become two warring groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Whatever your individual medical choices happen to be, don’t let this poisonous narrative split you from with your friends and your family or anyone who matters to you. However much the media, the politicians are trying to turn us against each other, let’s not let ourselves be split from each other, or turn against each other, because that way madness lies.

Protect the things that Support Joy and Connection

And finally, as a humanistic therapist I hold that to truly support mental health and human flourishing, then we must have free and unrestricted access to the parts of life that have always been central to human joy and flourishing throughout the course of our collective history.

Dancing together, smiling at strangers in the street, travelling to new places, eating a meal together with friends, being present at births of new family members, nursing our loved ones through illness and death, grieving together, watching theatre, listening to orchestras, singing, jumping up and down in a mosh pit, arguing in the street when we’ve got too drunk, having a really good snog with a total stranger – all of these things matter.

Acts of joyful, creative, social connectedness – the little rituals and big milestones of human life – these are not optional extras that we can just suddenly live without for months on end, nor we should we grant our government the power to them take from us in the name of keeping everyone safe.

I believe that now is a time for a collective, creative, civil disobedience, to push back against these draconian and ineffective public health interventions, in whichever ways best fit our own unique situation.

Conclusion

If there is an opportunity in this situation, it is to not ‘build back better’, to embrace a paranoid and atomised ‘new normal’. Instead, I believe the current situation offers us an opportunity to gain a new appreciation for the joys and sorrows, the agonies and ecstasies, the possibilities and limitations of being fully human.

Like it or not, this situation gives us a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the human rights and freedoms that really matter to us, and a chance to fight to defend them. And finally, and I think most importantly, this situation will give us a chance to break out of our echo chambers and to make new friendships and learn new skills. It’s a chance to stand united with our friends and loved ones whatever our differences might be, in the face of this unfolding tyranny – and the many ugly attempts to divide us.

Thank you.

Back To Top