Indeed, I think this is getting at a much larger and more fundamental problem in clinical practice. The status quo and our assumptions and biases might obstruct our ability to approach thinking and behavioral issues logically. But if we look around, there is no shortage of evidence that the foundations are weak.
For example, some of the practitioners here provide CBT as part of court orders in criminal cases. Sometimes it is for an NGRI or related case or due to a judge's demand for "treatment" in a bizarre case. More often, it's mandated by law for people convicted of sex offenses. It's actually quite lucrative. The presumption - and since this is a legal assertion it cannot be challenged - is that the conviction of a qualifying sex offense, no matter how mundane or the context or the nature of the person, the defendant is a 'predator' with distorted thinking and must be 'contained'. The problem with that, which quickly becomes apparent when actually getting to know these guys, is that it's more often than not unnecessary and irrelevant. There is some data that shows that "sex offender treatment" reduces recidivism, but there is more data that shows no discernable effect, and there is no data that shows any positive difference being made by "sex offender treatment", which is partially defined by law, as opposed to anything else.
Interestingly, this legal trend got its start with a Psychology Today article describing bunk claims about danger, motivation, and effectiveness of one doctor's new "program" that he was pitching not to a medical audience, but to legislators.
I think CBT has an allure to it. It allows us to point at a behavior and assert that there must be medically validated wrongthink motivating it, especially when it's something unpleasant. Doing so often obscures real underlying issues, and can compound upon them. We've had more than a few individuals express that they feel manipulated (ironic, since it is often assumed and asserted that they are inherently manipulative) and mistreated, frustrated and unsure of how to respond to treatment. In any other context, there would be no question about labelling the treatment itself as abusive.