"Life Coaches" - time for regulation?

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

No I don't think they can bear responsibility for that, bar bullying or chronic abuse, ultimately the person who commits suicide is responsible for their choice, which is likely linked to an impulse disorder.

See I can't agree with that. Coaches are definitely going to be dealing with vulnerable people, and are in a position where their advice can easily lead to pushing a suicidal person over the edge.
Given the known risks there, coaches have to be held responsible, for having minimal training to at least recognize at-risk clients, and refer them on to a GP - otherwise they are going to be harming people.

I really don't understand the logic, in saying coaches should not bear responsibility for that - which is what regulations would be enforcing (that is the only effective way, as regulations legally enforce that responsibility); it is a known harm that will occur to people, so what is the justification in not regulating to put in place such a responsibility?

That's something that I think is extremely dangerous with unregulated professions like life coaching and alternative medicine and such: Many of those professions are treating very vulnerable people, but are rejecting having any kind of personal/professional responsibility for the wellbeing of their clients - when regulated professions are held to higher standard of responsibility.

zeffabelli wrote: »

People walk into these things, whether coaching or therapy and passively expect the expert to wave a magic wand and fix everything without them having to break a sweat.

It doesn't work that way. It's hard personal work.

That's where I agree that life coaching can be extremely beneficial - even partly filling one of the blindspots, that the mental health industry can't address - so long as it is regulated to minimize potential harm that practitioners can cause

zeffabelli wrote: »

I agree about the cult of the guru, sure, and I do have a kind of opinion that therapists are the new clergy, dispensing a new morality in their confessional chambers, but that is not what coaching is. Very different.

And yes a more gifted or experienced one will recognise underlying issues or disorders, but the whole issue of disorder itself is questionable given the politics of the psych industry.

Problem is there are too many "certificates" floating around in this country and I can't comment on the training.... Dunno anything about it.

I think though, that the key is that even though life coaches is very different, it still involves offering advice - even if this is not the primary part of it, and even if coaches play it down, it is a fact that advice (not 'telling', but advice) is still a key part of it - and this automatically puts the coaches in a position of responsibility for the potential negative effects of that advice.

Even though I share cynicism towards the psych industry, I think there's a risk there of getting too philosophical about psychiatric disorders - as some issues, such as being suicidal, are for the most part very clear cut; there will always be edge-cases/grey-areas with regards to different disorders, but I don't think that's justification for pouring doubt on the idea of disorders overall.

With all the certificates that are around - most of them come from private/unregulated organizations (where they are just 'cert mills', with no real training, just want peoples money for certs), and it is really impossible for the average person to verify their integrity, and nobody is held responsible if the qualifications are of poor quality; all of that can only be resolved with regulation/laws, as that is the only way to ensure/enforce responsibility.

When you take anti-regulation philosophy too far, what it means is that all responsibility for harm to individuals, gets placed on the individuals alone - pushed too far, it basically is victim blaming and allowing gross abuse of people - even when that harm is avoidable by making sure professions/businesses are legally made responsible for part of the harm.

KomradeBishop

Musefan wrote: »

Jusr going back to an earlier post about writing counsellor on your door and starting operating there and then, it is probably useful to note that counsellors who have completed appropriate accredited training and affiliate themselves with a professional body can be easily searched on the Irish association of counselling and psychotherapy website. Similarly, you can search for registered psychologists on the psychological society of Ireland website. It's not to say that counsellors or psychologists who are not registered with these professional bodies are charlatans, but rather, you as a consumer of that service from an unregistered professional, have no guarantee that the professional is bound to operate within the remits of safe and ethical practice. Registered professionals have to conduct all business within the ethical guidelines of their relative organisation.

In terms of life coaching, I do find it worrying to think that life coaches may be working outside their remit and increasing the level of distress clients feel as a result. However, I have two reservations as to why I would be quick to place all the blame on them.

Firstly, as a person, never mind a professional, when someone sits in front of you in distress, our natural reactions often push us towards doing whatever we can to alleviate this distress. I find it hard to criticise a life coach for acting in a human way by possibly probing further with questions and feeling like they may be able to help if they found out a little more. I'm a mental health professional but I might have done the same at some points when I was less aware of best practices. Luckily I went on to develop the skills to both probe further but also support the individual.

Secondly, I think life coaches are operating in an area of health where we as a population are appallingly catered to. Before people go on to develop mental health conditions, we are often a asymptomatic I.e. We're not depressed, we're not anxious, but we have a bad day or two, and we have some niggling worries about some things, and life just can be hard too. These things don't mean we have a mental illness, but it does not mean we don't need help. And when we don't get that help, there is more liklihood that you will become symptomatic and develop a health condition.

Where do we get that health for asymptomatic stuff in Ireland? Not many places. Going to a counsellor, psychologist, psychiatrist often requires that we are assessed on our symptoms. I'd like to see us treating our wellbeing like we do with our physical health. High cholesterol? Chances are you've been given some health advice to stop you developing another more serious condition. Life is tough and your decisions are hard? Sorry, you're not meeting the criteria for a mental health condition but you will get help when you do meet these criteria. See how the logic does not follow from physical to mental health? I think life coaches fit at these asymptomatic points and unfortunately, until we develop a better awareness of how to help at this stage, they remain a part of a limited range of tools, which work for a limited range of people, in what is a very big and non-ignorable area of unmet health need. Rant over

Yes but all of the above regarding clients in distress, life coaches 'understandable' human response to that, and how that can cause harm - you excuse life coaches from responsibility because you view that as 'human', when instead you're actually showing precisely how they can cause harm and why they should be held responsible, for having the minimal mental health training, for allowing them to deal with that in a professional way (just to the point, of being able to refer the patient elsewhere, since they would not be qualified to actually treat the mental health issue).

I totally agree about the blindspots in the mental health industry though, and how life coaches can help to fill those blindspots - one added point though: All of that focuses on the problem being with the clients, which I think misses wider problems.

A lot of peoples problems in society, are actually due to society overall and due to political/economic reasons (so I think a bias towards 'personal responsibility' being put on individuals, or treating things like an issue with individuals, over things that are not fully of their own doing, is a very dangerous concept) - e.g. when unemployment is high, there is nothing any individual can do to help that, but that is well known to cause many individuals to develop mental health, general health and other personal issues - it is impossible to treat anything other than the symptoms of that, on an individual basis, whereas the root cause of that has to be dealt with at a political/economic/societal level (that's why, in other threads, I'm big on the idea of programs that guarantee full employment, even if that means making all of society take part of the hit on quality of life, that the unemployed usually are left with).

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes but all of the above regarding clients in distress, life coaches 'understandable' human response to that, and how that can cause harm - you excuse life coaches from responsibility because you view that as 'human', when instead you're actually showing precisely how they can cause harm and why they should be held responsible, for having the minimal mental health training, for allowing them to deal with that in a professional way (just to the point, of being able to refer the patient elsewhere, since they would not be qualified to actually treat the mental health issue).

I totally agree about the blindspots in the mental health industry though, and how life coaches can help to fill those blindspots - one added point though: All of that focuses on the problem being with the clients, which I think misses wider problems.

A lot of peoples problems in society, are actually due to society overall and due to political/economic reasons (so I think a bias towards 'personal responsibility' being put on individuals, or treating things like an issue with individuals, over things that are not fully of their own doing, is a very dangerous concept) - e.g. when unemployment is high, there is nothing any individual can do to help that, but that is well known to cause many individuals to develop mental health, general health and other personal issues - it is impossible to treat anything other than the symptoms of that, on an individual basis, whereas the root cause of that has to be dealt with at a political/economic/societal level (that's why, in other threads, I'm big on the idea of programs that guarantee full employment, even if that means making all of society take part of the hit on quality of life, that the unemployed usually are left with).

You could say the same thing about anyone's advice, even on PI.

Causing family break ups and depressions you name it.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

You could say the same thing about anyone's advice, even on PI.

Causing family break ups and depressions you name it.

Ya but nobody on PI is offering their advice under the guise of being a professional, or of having qualifications - and even PI has regulations, where at-risk people are referred to GP's and sometimes the thread locked, and certain kinds of harmful advice are banned.

If life coaches want to operate under the guise of enhanced credibility, of being 'experts', to claim they operate at a high standard - then they should be legally held to upholding that high standard, especially where it comes to at-risk clients, where coaches can end up harming people if they are not aware of minimal mental health practices.

I think that basic mental health training - just enough to know when coaches may be a risk to clients, so clients can be referred on to a GP - is a fairly modest and sensible idea here, that would improve the whole profession, and the only way to make it stick really, is to enforce it legally through regulations.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but nobody on PI is offering their advice under the guise of being a professional, or of having qualifications - and even PI has regulations, where at-risk people are referred to GP's and sometimes the thread locked, and certain kinds of harmful advice are banned.

If life coaches want to operate under the guise of enhanced credibility, of being 'experts', to claim they operate at a high standard - then they should be legally held to upholding that high standard, especially where it comes to at-risk clients, where coaches can end up harming people if they are not aware of minimal mental health practices.

I think that basic mental health training - just enough to know when coaches may be a risk to clients, so clients can be referred on to a GP - is a fairly modest and sensible idea here, that would improve the whole profession, and the only way to make it stick really, is to enforce it legally through regulations.

I dont think coaches pretend to be experts at psychiatry or psychology even.

Do you think teachers too should be trained in minimal mental health practises? Sports coaches?

No shrink btw would be held responsible for a client's suicide, unless they partcipated in assisted suicide or told them to go off the meds.

Just as no GP would be held responsible if someone went complaining of depression and the GP refused medications and the result was some haywire behavior.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

You could say the same thing about anyone's advice, even on PI.

Causing family break ups and depressions you name it.

Hard to see a duty of care between people on an anonymous forum.

When someone takes money for a service, everything changes in terms of the payer's ability to sue for negligence and the allegation that there was a duty of care that was not met. Whether they are negligent depends very much on what they hold themselves out as providing and the actual advice provided, and of course the individual.

For example, if they exacerbate a condition - the friend who was devastated after the questioning by a life coach was properly diagnosed as suffering PTSD following an accident that was missed by the life coach - then I think they should be open to being sued and then let the cards fall where they may.

zeffabelli

Deleted User wrote: »

Hard to see a duty of care between people on an anonymous forum.

When someone takes money for a service, everything changes in terms of the payer's ability to sue for negligence and the allegation that there was a duty of care that was not met. Whether they are negligent depends very much on what they hold themselves out as providing and the actual advice provided, and of course the individual.

For example, if they exacerbate a condition - the friend who was devastated after the questioning by a life coach was properly diagnosed as suffering PTSD following an accident that was missed by the life coach - then I think they should be open to being sued and then let the cards fall where they may.

A lifecoach cannot diagnose PTSD nor should s/he be expected to. A psychiatrist is the ONLY person who can diagnose that, and negligence by another professional is silly if there is no pre dating diagnosis.

For example, if I hire you as solicitor, and you trigger panic attacks in me, and you LATER find out- because the diagnosis was made later- I have court room PTSD from some traumatic event, you cannot be accused of negligence and open to being sued? That's insane.

Your friend should not have the right to sue him.

There is a lot of undiagnosed PTSD around.....be careful what precedents you set.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

I dont think coaches pretend to be experts at psychiatry or psychology even.

Do you think teachers too should be trained in minimal mental health practises? Sports coaches?

No shrink btw would be held responsible for a client's suicide, unless they partcipated in assisted suicide or told them to go off the meds.

Just as no GP would be held responsible if someone went complaining of depression and the GP refused medications and the result was some haywire behavior.

You're missing the point again though - the coaches are dealing with vulnerable clients and it is known how coaches can harm them.

Teachers aren't advising students on their personal life (though schools more often have some kind of mental health support nowadays - which is good as it's badly needed in my view), and sports coaches are a good example because they are held legally responsible for advice and the safety of their clients, e.g. in the UK:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/legal.htm

Psych's are held responsible for suicidal patients though - for being trained to recognize the dangers, and to provide appropriate treatment/support - so there is no reason why coaches that may deal with at-risk clients, should not receive basic training for recognizing potential issues/dangers and referring-on to a GP, when otherwise they risk causing harm through their advice (e.g. with at-risk clients ending up in high-stress life situations due to bad advice, leading to suicide, being one example).

You're interpreting responsibility in a very narrow way, as being the direct cause of the suicide, but you're omitting other responsibilities, e.g. for professional negligence - when it comes to suicidal patients, psychs have multiple responsibilities, one of them for example, being that they can't abandon clients who are suicidal.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

A lifecoach cannot diagnose PTSD nor should s/he be expected to. A psychiatrist is the ONLY person who can diagnose that, and negligence by another professional is silly if there is no pre dating diagnosis.

For example, if I hire you as solicitor, and you trigger panic attacks in me, and you LATER find out- because the diagnosis was made later- I have court room PTSD from some traumatic event, you cannot be accused of negligence and open to being sued? That's insane.

Your friend should not have the right to sue him.

There is a lot of undiagnosed PTSD around.....be careful what precedents you set.

A solicitor is not providing general life advice for a client, it is specific advice in the legal area - a life coaches realm of advice, can reasonably be considered, to fall under an area that is guaranteed to overlap with mental health issues (in a way that can directly lead to life coaching advice, causing harm).
We know that advice from life coaches, overlaps with mental health issues in a big way, so that's just not comparing like with like.

There is no good reason that anyone has provided, for why life coaches shouldn't be mandated, to have basic/minimal mental health training, so they know when to refer-on at-risk clients, instead of providing potentially risky life coaching advice.

I don't get the resistance to that idea either? All it can do is help all of life coaches, their clients, and mental health professionals - win win win situation.

When the Sun Hits

Psychologists aren't much better to be honest.

zeffabelli

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A solicitor is not providing general life advice for a client, it is specific advice in the legal area - a life coaches realm of advice, can reasonably be considered, to fall under an area that is guaranteed to overlap with mental health issues (in a way that can directly lead to life coaching advice, causing harm).
We know that advice from life coaches, overlaps with mental health issues in a big way, so that's just not comparing like with like.

There is no good reason that anyone has provided, for why life coaches shouldn't be mandated, to have basic/minimal mental health training, so they know when to refer-on at-risk clients, instead of providing potentially risky life coaching advice.

I don't get the resistance to that idea either? All it can do is help all of life coaches, their clients, and mental health professionals - win win win situation.

Because it's based on a misinformed idea of what a life coach is.

Also I'd say there are plenty of family lawyers who have bankrupted families and driven its members to the depths of despair. They've done far more damage than any psych or life coach can do.

KomradeBishop

zeffabelli wrote: »

Because it's based on a misinformed idea of what a life coach is.

Also I'd say there are plenty of family lawyers who have bankrupted families and driven its members to the depths of despair. They've done far more damage than any psych or life coach can do.

It isn't though - people keep downplaying the 'advice' part of life coaching (or misrepresenting it as 'telling'), but that's an inherent part of what they do, as much as people try to downplay it.

I don't defend family lawyers there, or the messed up family law system - that'd be a case of bad laws/regulations, which needs fixing, rather than no laws/regulations, which is the case with life coaches - not really comparable.

ToddyDoody

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So is it time to regulate this area?

I would think so. Some of them are far too ugly for the job.

my teapot is orange

I would suggest that many of the areas life coaches stray into are already regulated, and the rules just aren't followed. Giving mental health/psychological advice is regulated, giving financial advice is regulated, giving career advice is, to a certain extent, regulated. If you took all these elements out of your conversation with a life coach, what would you talk about.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

A lifecoach cannot diagnose PTSD nor should s/he be expected to. A psychiatrist is the ONLY person who can diagnose that, and negligence by another professional is silly if there is no pre dating diagnosis.

For example, if I hire you as solicitor, and you trigger panic attacks in me, and you LATER find out- because the diagnosis was made later- I have court room PTSD from some traumatic event, you cannot be accused of negligence and open to being sued? That's insane.

Your friend should not have the right to sue him.

There is a lot of undiagnosed PTSD around.....be careful what precedents you set.

The case would have as much merit as going to a doctor for legal advice.

But either way, the Solicitor will be insured and his insurance company would defend the case on the basis that no one would expect a Solicitor to provide advice on panic attacks. I agree the example you suggest would be insane.

I have not heard of this "no right to sue". Of course one has the right to sue a Solicitor for not dealing with PTSD, even if they would lose. Why would a life coach not be liable to be sued? No job is immune from the prospect of litigation.

lisa909asil

I think we should allow life coaches to continue to operate. But it should be illegal for them to take money for their advice. I don't think there is one person in the world qualified enough to take money for evaluating and advising someone else's life. Just look at most people in that profession. They are half mad themselves. So people should share advice and guide people in reference to their own experiences but it doesn't seem very wholesome to set out to make money from it, unless of course they can say they have perfected life. Same as energy healers and psychics and the like. Most of them seem more interested in making money than genuinely helping people.

If it is just advice, then the people listening to it can take it or leave it based on what they feel is best. But if they have paid for the advice then they are going to feel like they have to follow it to justify paying for it.

Cold War Kid

lisa909asil wrote: »

Just look at most people in that profession. They are half mad themselves.

I can't look at most of them because I don't know most of them, so I can't ascertain whether they are half mad themselves.

I went to a life and careers coach - for the careers part. Found her brilliant. I don't know that the likes of her are comparable with psychics et al. She had numerous qualifications from actual colleges (not pretend "correspondence" places) so she was trained.

I've no doubt there are cowboys though.

KomradeBishop

Ya I was acquainted with a counsellor/coach, who believes in 'positive thinking'/'Law of Attraction' stuff, of the "if you believe it strong enough, it will happen" variety - it's fairly quaint in a way, and she's a nice person, but it's worrying to think she is in a position aimed at helping other people.

KomradeBishop

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya I was acquainted with a counsellor/coach, who believes in 'positive thinking'/'Law of Attraction' stuff, of the "if you believe it strong enough, it will happen" variety - it's fairly quaint in a way, and she's a nice person, but it's worrying to think she is in a position aimed at helping other people.

I know a life coach socially. I can safely say that his life is one of utter chaos, and that it shows no signs of improving.

Given that he's well thought of in his field, this puts me off all this stuff. If a trainwreck like that feels he's got enough insight to advice others on their life directions, then include me out.

kfallon

I'd say I'd be a Life Coach's wet dream....but I'd never use one! Especially after watching Peep Show

faceman

The more I'm reading this thread, the more I'm agreeing that coaching should be have some form of regulation. (Not regulation by just paying a fee though)

Some of the comments here, assuming they're based on real experiences with coaches and not assumptions, are either not in the remit of a coach or part of what we do.

I've said it before, coaches don't or shouldn't give advice. Our title is coach, not advisor

benchgrinder

A life coach visited my school recently. I brought my class to the talk. I must say he bored me to death, never mind the students. He kept their attention for a whole 10 minutes and then they (leaving cert students) realised that this lad was talking pure gutter and switched off.

Magico Gonzalez

I've met a few people who decided to take some courses to convert themselves into Life Coaches. Most of whom I wouldn't trust to be able to advise someone how to post a letter or tie their own shoe laces.

Buyer beware. If the person you're paying doesn't have a professional qualification from a recognised public institute it's more than likely a sham.

ps...edit - Ask your life coach what they were before they paid for their qualification to become a life coach.