Small Steps

Wow. By analyzing In Treatment underlined with her own experience, Cantor has moved the dial on those paralyzed by the concept of therapy as its own neurosis. One step further from removing the shame to understanding the process and promoting acceptability.

Can't wait to read what's next from this writer

Love the show too and absolutely agree with your take on it. Sophie hit home with me as well, and I think he was brilliant with her. I also thinks he's great with Oliver - maybe he's better with children than adults. Or maybe adults are just more difficult patients.

This is a fabulous posting, and probably one of the best things I have read about this television show and about talk therapy. This was a big help to me, and I would think to many others. Thanks!

While it is important to sing the praises of In Treatment for dragging therapy out of the closet and into the light, it is important to note some serious (potentially damaging) flaws in this show.

The first flaw, or perhaps pet peeve, is the fact that Dr. Paul refers to the people with whom he is working as patients. I do believe that Dr. Paul (correct me if I'm wrong) is a PhD not an MD. He should be referring to them as clients not patients.

The second flaw is how the fact that a professional psychologist attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with a client. Come on! If a layperson were to view that, he or she may be completely put off the idea of therapy. I understand that it is a television show and it was probably done for ratings, but it makes it no less offensive to the people who work hard everyday to uphold the standards and the ethics of the profession.

While it is important to sing the praises of In Treatment for dragging therapy out of the closet and into the light, it is important to note some serious (potentially damaging) flaws in this show.

The first flaw, or perhaps pet peeve, is the fact that Dr. Paul refers to the people with whom he is working as patients. I do believe that Dr. Paul (correct me if I'm wrong) is a PhD not an MD. He should be referring to them as clients not patients.

The second flaw is how the fact that a professional psychologist attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with a client. Come on! If a layperson were to view that, he or she may be completely put off the idea of therapy. I understand that it is a television show and it was probably done for ratings, but it makes it no less offensive to the people who work hard everyday to uphold the standards and the ethics of the profession.

While it is important to sing the praises of In Treatment for dragging therapy out of the closet and into the light, it is important to note some serious (potentially damaging) flaws in this show.

The first flaw, or perhaps pet peeve, is the fact that Dr. Paul refers to the people with whom he is working as patients. I do believe that Dr. Paul (correct me if I'm wrong) is a PhD not an MD. He should be referring to them as clients not patients.

The second flaw is how the fact that a professional psychologist attempted to initiate a romantic relationship with a client. Come on! If a layperson were to view that, he or she may be completely put off the idea of therapy. I understand that it is a television show and it was probably done for ratings, but it makes it no less offensive to the people who work hard everyday to uphold the standards and the ethics of the profession.