Julia Evans’ contribution to the Department of Health’s October 2017 consultation

by Julia Evans on January 18, 2018

Julia Evanscontribution to the Department of Health’s consultation was sent on 18th January 2018 at 11:49:14 GMT.

Confirmation of receipt received 18 January 2018 at 15:14:12 GMT.

Julia Evanscontribution has also been sent to Dr Sarah Wollaston MP who is chair of the Parliamentary Health Committee. Confirmation of its receipt was received on 25th January 2018 at 19:30:22 GMT. An article by Dr Sarah Wollaston MP from 2013 is included in the following text.

The consultation document can be accessed online at https://consultations.dh.gov.uk/professional-regulation/regulatory-reform

Or here

Important link : 1st November 2017 : https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/boring-but-important-health-secretary-announces-regulation-consultation/

Further consultation response:

From the Alliance blog : The Alliance for Counselling & Psychotherapy : Regulation, Professionalism and Cultures of Dominance : 25th January 2018 : by Denis Postle : Available here

From : Professional Standards Authority (PSA – www.professionalstandards.org.uk) and available here.

Note : Although I (Julia Evans) originally stated this appears to be a game changer, it is not.

The Government is still operating within the delusion that risk-free, objectively measured, treatments on a cost–benefit basis, can be supplied by robotic practitioners remotely controlled by the PSA, within the Government created and controlled market in treatments for ‘Mental Health’ conditions. The Government also acts to stigmatise anyone who is not a collaborator within this fantasy. So the conditions which created Carrilion are still in place, in the Government’s protected Mental Health clinic.

Lord Judge has updated his remarks – see below for the 2010 version

Lord Judge is quoted in Julia Evans’ contribution, see below,

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-42871004/former-lord-chief-justice-warns-of-the-dangers-of-handing-over-power-to-ministers : 30th January 2018 : ‘Former Lord Chief Justice warns of the dangers of handing over power to ministers

The former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has warned of the dangers of handing too much power to ministers in the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Lord Judge argued that placing regulations within Bills would allow the executive to take control of our laws post Brexit.

The country is “going to sleep” on the dangers of executive power, he told the Today programme.’ See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09pjgh9 for the complete interview at 8.10am. Whole thing lasts from about 2:10:00 to 2:20:00

King Henry VIII’s tyrannical powers are the basis for the Health Professionals Order 2001, which the Government uses to generate its risk-free clinic for the provision of treatments for conditions known as Mental Health. The running of this clinic is then contracted out to G4S (see my submission) and Virgin (see this week’s Private Eye – 30/01/2018), so they can asset strip it.

The provision of this clinic has been forced down by Ministerial decree, as it has been evaluated using cost-benefit analysis (an accountancy technique) and no justification for this change is given. Ministers rule ok. Nothing it seems can now stop this juggernaut rolling.

In its blackening of any other clinic & their different practitioners, it forces taint on those who do not comply with its regulations.


Flat 1, 32 Nevern Square

Earl’s Court

London SW5 9PE

17th January 2018

UK Healthcare Professional Regulatory Reform Team

Professional Regulation

Department of Health

2W09 Quarry House

Quarry Hill




Dear Sirs,

Re: Promoting professionalism, reforming regulation: A paper for consultation (October 2017)

This is Julia Evans’ response.


Julia Evans practiced as a Chartered Psychologist from 1972 for about 30 years. From 1988 she trained as a Lacanian Psychoanalyst and has practiced as such for over 25 years. Her membership of the London Society of the New Lacanian School is shown http://londonsociety-nls.org.uk/index.php?file=Members.html

The purposes of your consultation:

From the announcement to Parliament:

Today I am publishing a consultation on the reform of the regulation of healthcare professionals in the UK.

This takes forward the manifesto commitment to legislate to reform and rationalise the current outdated system of professional regulation of healthcare professions, based on the advice of professional regulators.

The UK’s model of professional regulation for healthcare professionals has become increasingly complex and outdated. It needs to change to protect patients better, to support our health services and to help the workforce meet future challenges.

This consultation is a major step towards developing a modern system of regulation for healthcare professionals.

My Department has worked with the governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as well as the healthcare regulation bodies to develop proposals for reform. We have built on the work of the Law Commissions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK governments have five objectives in taking forward reform:

  • Improve the protection of the public from the risk of harm from poor professional practice;
  • Support the development of a flexible workforce that is better able to meet the challenges of delivering healthcare in the future;
  • Deal with concerns about the performance of professionals in a more proportionate and responsive fashion;
  • Provide greater support to regulated professionals in delivering high quality care; and
  • Increase the efficiency of the system.

This consultation considers the reforms that are needed in order to maximise public protection while supporting workforce development. We want to design a flexible model of professional regulation that secures public trust, fosters professionalism and improves clinical practice, while also being adaptable to future developments in healthcare. [See   [i]]

My starting position

The Government understands that their systematic regulations of healthcare professionals is not working. Instead of looking at why it is not working and not fit for purpose, the Government proposes to continue their blind faith in statutory regulation and tinker within this non-proven delusion they have created. How come a system of regulation has to be modernised? What new has emerged about care, between two human beings, based in a relationship of trust, so it has to be modernised? I understand that your system of regulating has failed, but where is your evidence that tinkering within the system will change anything? The Government, their suppliers of approved systems of care and individual recipients of this systematic provision of care are trapped in your web of legislation. You have no idea why your system of regulation is failing, so you call for a CON-sultation. This is ‘policy-based evidence not evidence-based policy’ [See [ii]].

I have been writing on this topic since 2005 [See [iii] for a list of my contributions to other Government consultations which are available on LacanianWorks.net] and I have been trying to bring you a third party view or critique from earlier – about 2000. I remind you that in the practice of English/British law, it is necessary to relate the matter under examination to other similar cases. It works by comparing individual cases with classes of cases. The legislation emanating from the use of King Henry’s Privy Council power is based on the certainty that those forcing the legislation down, have complete knowledge about what is going on. They measure against pre-fixed standards & case law does not apply.


Quote from Professor Lord Norton’s blog ‘Lord Chief Justice on the Public Bodies Bill’ at:  http://lordsoftheblog.net/2010/12/15/lord-chief-justice-on-the-public-bodies-bill/  on 15th December 2010 : The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, appeared before the Constitution Committee this morning.  It was a very revealing session.  Lord Judge, in a dinner for Her Majesty’s Judges at the Mansion House in July, said that “my deepest concern at the moment is directed to the increased use of what are described as Henry VIII clauses” (i.e. clauses allowing primary legislation to be changed by executive order).  The extent of their use, not least in the 2008-09 session – for which he had the figures – astonished him.  He went on “I do not regard the need for resolutions, affirmative or negative, as a sufficient protection against the increasing, apparent indifference with which this legislation comes into force.”  The proliferation of such clauses, he said, would have the inevitable consequence of yet further damaging the sovereignty of Parliament and increasing yet further the authority of the executive over the legislature.

[Some other quotes here [iv]]


As with King Henry VIII, the Government is inventing a whole new system of law so they can put in place their own beautific vision of a world made of standard human beings, each possessing Lord Layard’s definition of economic happiness, bought cheaply, [See Why the overstretched Carillion finally collapsed : ft.com : 15th January 2018] without any regard to whether what was promised was possible, and must be self-funding so not a cost to Government. The Government uses the accountancy technique of cost benefit analysis to determine which treatments should be used and for how long, until the UK standard human being is produced.

So what are the consequences of inventing this detached blueprint for the ‘good life’. Anxiety, depression, etc are all removed by Government diktat – see NICE clinical guidelines [ [v]].

I quote an Italian Lacanian, Antonio Di Ciaccia [[vi]]

‘From ‘The Other Side of Psychoanalysis’ : Jacques Lacan[[vii]], two tendencies can be isolated:

identification with a fossilised master-signifier which can lead to diverse forms of totalitarianism,

and identification with a knowing-it-all which can lead to various forms of mummified bureaucracy. …

Finally, it divides each one of us.
For how is a community defined, concretely? A community is defined through the exclusion of the other, of the stranger. Paradoxically, even the most open communities automatically imply the exclusion of the other. Lacan reminded us that democracy originated as a democratic community between masters from which the slaves were excluded.’

I contend that all three are in place in the Government’s mental health clinic which produces normal or standard well-being & mental health. (See Health Professions’ Order 2001) The Government, with their supporters who are in it for financial gain, falls straight into the traps of totalitarianism and fundamentalism and divides the UK into those with Government-standard well-being and mental health and those excluded as they are substandard. [Further here [viii]]

I suggest that the master signifier on which the Government’s system of curing un-being & mental dis-ease, is one of evaluation [[ix]]. The Government’s tautological system of provision of health care, has to be seen to work by the provision of numbers indicating success rates. An example of this system in use is given by Jay Watts in her text ‘As a psychologist I see the fantasy of neoliberal values having a devastating effect on mental health treatment’ [See [x]]

To me, the production of mummified bureaucracy is self-evident in Philip Dunne’s introduction for this consultation. The legislation deals with measurables: number of sessions, success rates, standard procedures. It is incapable of following a subject’s path of development, so as it knows it has failed, it produces more legislation. Nice work for the lawyers, both in invention and implementation. It also automatically defines as bad and unreliable and risky those of us who refuse Government registration.

So this legislation, spits out anyone the Government defines as having mental health issues for being sub-standard – and definably so. Here is an example of its use in Work Capability Assessments : ‘People with mental illness need help to get back to work – but coercion is wrong. We have to do more to help find jobs, without setting people up to fail’ by Sarah Wollaston : published in  The Guardian : on Sunday 27 October 2013 18.10 GMT : available here  [See [xi] for more information] Work capability assessments are humiliating & tick-box methods of evaluation doomed to failure. This use of treatments for subjects in distress, is disgraceful and what one expects from a totalitarian government intent on saving money and forcing its population into work.

On collaborators who enable the Government’s treatments to be applied

Some comments from January 2011 which were circulated into Parliament and not preserved on LacanianWorks.net on those who support this legislative driven treatments for mental health issues.

“‘All power has been concentrated in an unrepresentative body.’ This point has been repeatedly made to you. The July 2006 initial survey (available from BACP’s web-site) funded by the DoH found a minimum of 570 training organisations. As reported to you in December 2010, the Government only takes advice from members of the Psychological Professions Action Group. The PPAG includes: British Psychological Society (BPS), United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapies (UKCP), British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP ), British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC), Counselling and Psychotherapy Central Awarding Body (CPCAB ), British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP ). I have named them the Famous Five + their dog (BPS) after Enid Blyton’s heroes. They have recently been joined by a strong academic lobby. Remember a University’s funding is partly dependent on graduates getting jobs. It is in the interest of academic exposition of practices based in relationships, to sew up the market in jobs. They are also interested in grabbing as much research funding as is possible. Anyone who has a psychiatric training (a training in medical or drug approaches) is also given precedence. So let’s be generous: 10 out of the +570 training organisations are consulted.

The Famous Five with their dog and medically trained psychiatrists and academics who need funding, are in control of the Health Professions Council’s Public Liaison Group, National Occupational Standards for Psychological Therapies with the addition of psychiatrists and academics (SfH) (see 8th December 2010 circulation & Note 4), the Savoy conferences which control IAPT –Increased Access to Psychological Therapy or Happiness Factories, input to NICE – see British Psychoanalytic Council’s web-site – and The New Ways of Working (NWW) project for psychological therapists. NWW is a part of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIHME)’s National Workforce programme and has a close relationship to the IAPT programme, especially, according to BPC’s site, around work force issues. This means the outcome is Lord Layard’s economic happiness – people have sickness benefit removed and are placed on the unemployment register.” This saves the Government lots of money. Thus, it must be a GOOD thing. (Irony)

Not only have you, Parliament, not bothered to establish whether this approach to Mental Health is needed, but you are not consulting those affected or most of the practitioners. Further, you are employing advisers who are true believers in the use of King Harry’s despotic power within Mental Health treatment as this enables them to become sole suppliers of operators to the Government’s Wellbeing factories: IAPT & NWW. In my youth, this used to be called restrictive practices. It meant that you were excluded unless you won favour from those in power. And You, Parliamentarians, support this.

From a document circulated generally into Parliament in January 2011. [Further information [xii]]

An example of how the Government’s provision of risk-free therapy is used to taint registered and unregistered practitioners.

The Government’s propaganda that only they know what a risk-free standard therapist looks like, continues. May Bulman [See [xiii]] writing in January 2018 asserts that unaccredited online therapists are “preying” on desperate people with mental health problems. This stuffs taint into unaccredited therapists & those with mental health problems so must be true. So people buy foolish cures for large amounts of money. The Government promises to stop people spending their money foolishly & being exploited. What is the number involved and why cannot existing legislation be used? ‘Currently there is no legal requirement for therapists to be a member of a professional body.’ What does this add to people being conned? Where does this leave practitioners such as myself who are a member of a training organisation but are not registered with the PSA? Automatically spat out by this totalitarian use of legislation.  By the way, it took very much longer than one year for me to train.

So the Government’s approach supports this form of mass paranoia, from which all their loyal subjects can be saved, (see the promise of safeguarding in the Health Professions Order 2001), by entering their totalitarian system of risk-free treatments.

So who is this form of scaremongering benefitting?

Well the ‘famous five’ above, University or colleges department who flog academic courses in ‘quick treatment’, and anyone registered to practice on the Government’s gravy-train in provision of cost benefit analysis treatments. Remember Carillion – the cheapest supplier of Government contract services.

It shows the Government moving towards supporting a totalitarian clinic based in the application of standard procedures and within a total system of knowledge or what is knowable. This knowledge is passed from the Master – the College lecturer – to the Student. When the student has proved that the knowledge is now firmly in place, then they are qualified to go out and treat anyone. So the Government’s clinic moves from a de-subjectivised ideal to its application unchanged onto unique subjects who are treated as standard units. A Lacanian clinic moves in the opposite direction, from unique subject and practitioner being integrated in the developing work of the Lacanian School. [See Posts for the “Lacanian Transmission” category : https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=424 & Posts for the “Changes to Practitioner training” category : https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=43 & Posts for the “Changes to the function of Training Organisations” category : https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=45 & Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=226 ]

The Government 5 areas of concern as defined by the Law Commission

[See [xiv]].

So what is the evidence that these concerns are big enough to warrant more tinkering with unnecessary totalitarian legislation? Is it a few of the collaborators wanting to secure their preferred supplier status in the Government-protected market? Or are articles such as May Bulman’s leading the charge? Are the bad practitioners committing possible criminal offences – in which case easy access to the law must be established? In the case Bulman quotes I would have thought existing laws to protect consumers could be brought into place.

How many of these incidents are witnessed? The police in their criminal investigations seek to establish a pattern of behaviour. If these are one off cases, are we leaping to vilify the practitioner?

What is the evidence that tightening legislation, reduces human bad behaviour?

Has the link to the lucrative insurance industry been investigated? These cases do not go to court, so the insurance pays out what it considers suitable and blackens the practitioner in the process? Just like how Harvey Weinstein kept his activities out of the law courts.

Quote from the consultation : “The UK governments are looking to take this opportunity to design a flexible model of professional regulation which secures public trust, fosters professionalism and improved clinical practice, while also being able to adapt swiftly to future developments in healthcare”.

It is unbelievable. At the base of this transaction, is the offer by a practitioner to a subject. How have relationships between two people changed over the millennia? How many new sins or bad behaviours have been added to the canon since the Old Testament’s 10 Commandments? They appear in different contexts certainly, but does this constitute a development? How can a conversation or verbal exchange between two subjects develop new facets requiring tinkering with legislation?

Why does not the current model of professional regulation secure the public’s trust? Maybe because the public realise that to regulate a verbal exchange between two subjects with the use of Privy Council rules, is bonkers.

Fosters professionalism – so the Government is fixed with the Doctor knows best. The professional is superior because of their professional knowledge. Only this does not work when applied to a verbal exchange between two equal human beings. I am not a better adjusted human being, with superior knowledge, to those who come to see me.

Improved clinical practice. How do you mandate an improvement in a conversation between two people?

  1. To improve the protection of the public from risk of harm from poor professional practice

This risk is invented by the Government by its division of human subjects into us superior human beings and them who are different to us and lack.

This division is applied to practitioners who are safe because they are registered with Government Agencies who promise safeguarding and who are superior because they have THE knowledge’ as opposed to unsafe because they are not registered with Government-approved agencies or who are registered and are criminals. [Further texts here [xv]] The Government therefore shoves taint into those who do not register their practice, involving verbal exchange between two human beings, with Government-approved agencies. The question is, is the provision of protection from risk, any business of the Government, given that criminal laws are in place?

Of course those who commit physical &/or sexual &/or financial harm or harassment, must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Of the other complaints, the use of insurance companies to rule ok or the HCPC, is not satisfactory.

I note that the Governments division of its subjects into ‘subjects who have standard mental health and cope by themselves’ as opposed to ‘subjects who seek help because they are sub-standard and unable to cope or hold down a job or score high enough on Government’s happiness sheets’ is supported by this Government’s approach.

  1. To improve the protection of the public from risk of harm from poor professional practice

Is harm always to be avoided, if you are attempting to change damaging patterns of behaviour?

What is harm when the bases for treatment is a verbal exchange between two subjects?

How do you measure ‘poor’ when each verbal exchange will be unique to the subject/practitioner partnership? There is no such thing as The One Standard conversation.

Are you sure you are capable of conducting this consultation, given you cannot see beyond the enforcement of your own inward-looking totalitarian system of treatment to the world of human beings beyond?

So where is this risk coming from? I suggest it is because the Government through its contracts buys ‘treatments’ from providers who can only make a profit from using cost-benefit approved therapies, such as cbt, and abusing the practitioners by their insistence on success rates, no supportive supervision, and so on. So poor professional practice and the Government-funded provision of treatments are linked. The use of being in paid employment as a success criteria is Government policy. This has no place in the UK and the Government should stop putting the conditions in place which support it. Carillion should be flashing in red in your consciousness whilst you read this.

  1. To support the development of a flexible workforce that is better able to meet the challenges of delivering healthcare in the future

I agree with this aim and would suggest you have more chance expanding using the PSA rather than HCPC which is rigid in its definitions. However, under your current rules and regulations, you are excluding many practitioners such as myself . If you want to include others who insist that there is equality between practitioner and user, who do not practice machine-like in giving standard treatments, and do not recognise the Government’s definition of a standard functioning human being, then your arid, inflexible, totalitarian method of regulating has to be replaced.

  1. To deal with concerns about the performance of professionals in a more proportionate and responsive fashion

I would recommend a division between informing appropriate authorities of possible criminal activity & an approach based on mediation, rather than the use of insurance backed financial settlement &/or a Privy-Council led legal settlements. This is unlikely to emerge if you continue to assert an absolute definition of good and bad.

  1. To provide greater support to regulated professionals in delivering high quality care

In my training organisation, personal work and the use of supervision are mandatory as is working in groups and seminars which prevent the practitioner becoming isolated. These are not mandated in the current Government-defined practice and they do make the therapy more expensive. This needs to be discussed widely outside those with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo. I name the famous five – see above, contractors to the Government to manage for profit treatments, for example, Mind, the benefits payment system, and so on – there are others, both practitioners and users, currently outside capture within your gravy train of Government-approved practice, who must be invited in.

Stop press: G4S according to this information [See here : https://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/cognitive-therapy-for-the-unemployed-g4s-crooks-to-deliver-service-in-surrey-sussex-and-kent/] is also on the inside of this Government-supported closed shop. Is Carillion flashing in red – it ought to be?


The Government, on this matter, has allowed events and powerful lobbies with financial interest, to hold sway. Janan Ganesh [See [xvi] for quotes] states that instead of politicians reacting to lobbyists and events in a manner described as abject,

(HPO2001 was put in place by Tony Blair to prevent another Shipman happening. His instinctive reaction to put things right ignores difference between medical practice and the range of therapy/counselling/psychoanalytic practices),

“Politicians should be clear that government is about more than communing with the people. It requires a degree of separateness from the fray.”

So how does this consultation separate the Government from the fray – lobbyists, those with financial interests, those with influence who air their grievances very vocally, those with mortgages who need jobs? Not at all. Reason : whilst the Government continues to impose regulation via King Henry VIII’s Privy Council, subverting our existing legal system, they are implicated in the way it is operating. Is Carillion flashing red? Is it appropriate for the Government to be implicated in the way G4S operate treatments for mental health issues, employing cheap unsupported labour, using Government guidelines to perfection? I state ‘no’. Or is the Government going to continue cavorting with the fray?

Yours sincerely

Julia Evans

N.B. This response will be posted to www.LacanianWorks.net & elsewhere


[i] From http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-10-31/HCWS206 : Promoting professionalism, reforming regulation by Mr Philip Dunne – Department of Health

[ii] Quoted from: The brashness and bravado in big deals by John Kay: Financial Times: October 16th 2012. Further quote: These commercial decisions often reflect policy-based evidence, not evidence-based policy. Doing the deal is what matters: ….

For more comment see: ‘policy-based evidence, not evidence-based policy’ : John Kay speaks by Julia Evans on October 16, 2012 or here: https://lacanianworks.net/?p=474 . For further posts in the “Other Government actions” category : See https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=8

[iii] Category : Posts for the “Responses to CON-sultations” category : See https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=7

The National Audit Office’s investigation into the performance data of IAPT services. by Julia Evans on August 14, 2017 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=12136

Two letters for your attention: the bps tells Parliament why it should not be swallowed whole into the domain of the Privy Council & Earl Howe, the Government’s Standards Zsar within Health, commands a reply to 3 of my emails. by Julia Evans on November 13, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=621

The exchange between Earl Howe, the Department of Health and Julia Evans during October. My reply will be posted shortly. by Julia Evans on October 30, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=604

CHRE(PSA) trumpets its success in creating a ghetto of wellbeing practitioners who are compliant (for a fee) to the Government’s fantasy of safeguarding. by Julia Evans on October 3, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=457

CHRE (PSA) reports on how they are progressing in their regulatory capture of ‘talking therapists’ onto their ‘voluntary registers’ regulated by statute……. by Julia Evans on September 17, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=416

The ‘Fat Controllers’ in the DoH dictate THE law with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament by Julia Evans on August 13, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=405

The CHRE/PSA receives over 400 responses to its CON-sultation on Accreditation Standards (Voluntary Registers) by Julia Evans on July 20, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=397

The UK Government’s ethnic or practice cleansing of talking therapies: a response to CHRE/PSA consultation by Julia Evans on July 10, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=395

Open Letter to the CHRE/PSA’s consultation on Accreditation Standards by Bruce Scott on July 5, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=391

English context of Autism in relation to medical and other political formulations by Julia Evans on June 30, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=388

The Law Commission’s consultation on regulation of health and social care professionals: a response: 31st May 2012: Julia Evans by Julia Evans on May 31, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=379

For your action (UK):the Law Commission’s CON-sultation which closes on 31st May 2012 by Julia Evans on May 28, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=372

For your participation: The CHRE CON-sults by Julia Evans on April 18, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=324

Sadeian power, the UK Government……… & CON-sultations by Julia Evans on February 3, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=232

So who is in bed with whom (part 1)? & further on the Government’s CON-sultation mechanisms by Bruce Scott on September 28, 2011 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=104

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=226

Reply to CON-sultation: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010 by Julia Evans on October 9, 2010 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=231

[iv] Posts for the “regx2 quotable quotes” category : See https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=58


And by the way, we are already regulated, no one is anti-regulation, we are simply resisting state regulation as it is being undertaken in an unintelligent and brutal way and will benefit no one but the HPC   hallelujah2 @ Guardian Comments 11 December 2010 10.20am <http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/hallelujah2>


Both the kings of old and the potentates of today prefer to create their own reality than to face the truth.

by John Kay  Love the bearer of bad news  Financial Times Tuesday 7th December 2010  http://www.johnkay.com/articles


That suggests that regulation may be part of the problem rather than part of the answer.  Editorial, The Guardian, Tuesday November 9th 2010:


[v] 1.3 NICE clinical guidelines. NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations, based on the best available evidence, for the care of people by healthcare and other professionals. They are relevant to clinicians, health service managers and commissioners, as well as to patients and their families and carers.30 Nov 2012

The guidelines manual | Guidance and guidelines | NICE :  https://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg6

[vi] The Stranger by Antonio Di Ciaccia : Towards EuroFédération de Psychanalyse’s [www.europsychoanalysis.eu] Forum Europeo di Roma : Lo Straneiero – Inquietudine soggesttiva e disagio sociale nel fenomeno dell’immigrazione in Euorpa [www.forumeuropeoroma.com] Sabato 24 febbraio 2018 – Roma : Forum Europeo di Roma : 24th February 2018 : The stranger – Subjective Unease and Social Malaise in the Phenomenon of Immigration in Europe, : Circulated by EFP Mailing List of the EuroFederation of Psychoanalysis : From: EuroFédération de Psychanalyse : Subject: Forum Europeo di Roma – Antonio Di Ciaccia : on Date14 January 2018 at 09:34:51 GMT

[vii] See Seminar XVII: Psychoanalysis upside down/The reverse side of psychoanalysis: 1969-1970 : from 26th November 1969: Jacques Lacan or here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=241 for information and availability

[viii] More on the effects of using this government’s top-down power – Systems used to blame not re-calibrate and prevent (Child care) & the principles underlying Government action by Julia Evans on November 5, 2009 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=616

[ix] For more information on evaluation as used by Government, see Evaluation and Outcome Measurement here https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=54 &

Networking & Politics here https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=215

Also recommended:

Why is the Ideology of Evaluation Pernicious? by Jean-Claude Maleval on April 14, 2010 : See here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=27

[x] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mental-health-treatment-tory-government-nhs-funding-access-work-benefits-a8037331.html

As a psychologist I see the fantasy of neoliberal values having a devastating effect on mental health treatment

The Tories may believe in the ‘dignity’ of work, but not everyone can function as expected. People with serious needs are being punished as a result

  • Jay Watts
  • Saturday 4 November 2017 12:15 GMT

[xi] Work capability assessments for those with NICE/DSM defined mental illness by Julia Evans on October 27, 2013 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=1016 This comments on Sarah Wollaston’s text.

 Work capability assessments are humiliating & tick-box methods of evaluation doomed to failure.

[xii] See Collaborators win: Putting the State Wellbeing Strategy to work….. by Julia Evans on February 8, 2011 : Availability here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=101

Posts for the “Government White Papers & Reports” category : See https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=9

[xiii] From : Online counselling services ‘exploiting’ people with mental health problems by May Bulman : Social Affairs Correspondent :

Sunday 14 January 2018 : The Independent : https://edition.independent.co.uk/editions/uk.co.independent.issue.140118/data/8157781/index.html

‘Unaccredited online therapists are “preying” on the desperation of people with mental health problems as the NHS struggles to meet rising demand, in many cases exacerbating people’s issues, experts warn.

Vulnerable people are being exploited by “unethical” private websites which charge large sums of money for therapy sessions via online chats – with some services even being used as a tool to project religious and spiritual beliefs. There is growing concern many of these websites operate using unaccredited counsellors who are not medical professionals and do not have the minimum training standards to treat serious mental illness.

Currently, there is no legal requirement for therapists to be a member of a professional body. But experts strongly recommend anyone seeking therapy should be treated by someone who is on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. Obtaining this accreditation requires a minimum of around 400-450 hours of college-based therapy training, which usually takes no less than four years.

But there is a growing number of alternative courses available to aspiring therapists which are quicker and less expensive, and can be completed in as little as a year.’

[xiv] Boring but important” : https://www.consultationinstitute.org/consultation-news/boring-but-important-health-secretary-announces-regulation-consultation/ : November 1, 2017

[xv] See Category : Government as guarantor of Practice within Mental Health or https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=227

‘Will you walk into my parlour?’ said the spider to the fly: An invitation from the Government-guaranteed supplier of risk-free treatments. by Julia Evans on December 1, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=637

Category : Posts for the “Other Government actions” category : https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=8

What escapes when regulation is used to address risk… by Julia Evans on March 14, 2012 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=287

Category : Posts for the “Other Government actions” category : https://lacanianworks.net/?cat=8

Does rule through regulatory systems give protection from murderers? – No by Julia Evans on November 6, 2009 : Available here https://lacanianworks.net/?p=617

[xvi] Britain’s political class deserves a breather – Politicians might use this interval to wonder where a decade of retreat has got them by Janan Ganesh : 1st January 2018 : ft.com : Quotes :

Politicians should be clear that government is about more than communing with the people; it requires a degree of separateness from the fray. …

In retrospect, the fact of the referendum was as telling as the result. By demoting elected representatives, it was both the culmination of years of anti-politics and the precedent for more. …

All the same, there is a difference between scepticism of authority and nihilism. A political class that is held in check by press and public cannot abuse its power. A political class under round-the- clock siege, of whom the worst is always thought, cannot function. The question raised in the 1970s by then prime minister Ted Heath is pertinent once more: who governs? …

The modern challenge is ideologically disparate or not ideological at all: just inchoate grievance, united only by a view of mainstream politics as a conspiracy against the people. …

In place of abjection: candour. Politicians should be clear that government is about more than communing with the people. It requires a degree of separateness from the fray.

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

Further texts

Risk & Protection & Safety here

Use of Power here

Ethics here

Of the clinic : here

By Sigmund Freud here

By Jacques Lacan here

Further consultation response:

From the Alliance blog : The Alliance for Counselling & Psychotherapy : Regulation, Professionalism and Cultures of Dominance : 25th January 2018 : by Denis Postle : Available here