Online Therapists - What Do You Think?

[Mobius]

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/07/07/therapists-online-a-new-norm/

"Therapists, psychologists and even psychiatrists are dotting the online landscape with websites, blogs and even with their activity on social networking sites!  Has a new norm in our field been established?"

What do you think of online therapy?

I think it should only be a last resort - an option for those who are physically unable to go to therapy, but not for those who are simply too lazy or fearful to seek face-to-face help. Were I a licensed therapist, I would include it as an option, but discourage its use. If you were traveling without access to a phone, for example, I could see the usefulness of it there. Otherwise, I think it takes away some of the most powerful analytical and healing abilities a therapist has by being in the same room as their patient. If the patient was using Skype, that might be a different story, bu there's simply no spontaneity in typing a message - even in IM.

[Kaynaz]

Hello....

I do feel the same way....Online should be the last option if at all the person cant find one for him/her at a considerable distance...Else, a face to face discussion with an expert is always advisable and more fruitful as compared to an online one..

Regards
Kaynaz

[SWM]

The type of therapy being delivered would also be relevant to the efficacy. Certain therapies are particularly suited to particular modes of delivery.

[RWPossum]

It's controversial but there seems to be support, at least for serving people who are separated from therapy geographically.  What interests me more is self help augmented by phone contacts.  If necessary, a professional who is supervising a self help program can arrange greater personal contact, and that could be online.   

[voodoo scientist]

There are pros and cons, and enough mental health issues in the world to go around, that it's better to apply them where appropriate than stick with or prefer any one. Being an "online therapist" and a "face to face therapist" is still worse than just being a therapist who actively evaluates and picks a tool for the situation.

Face-to-face therapy is more effective, but it's also more time- and information- (and thus, money-) intensive for the therapist. It requires more motivation on the part of the patient, and the time/money to commute to therapy. This is great when all those conditions don't pose a problem, like if the patient is middle class, but a vast amount of people are effectively cut off from therapy because the barrier to entry and the net cost is too high, and not just financially.

Remote therapy reduces the time and financial costs significantly, whether through the phone or online. When the tangible and intangible costs of face to face therapy for the patient-therapist relationship exceed its predictable benefit over remote therapy, it's more appropriate to apply remote therapy. The best easily becomes the good's worst enemy if one obsesses over quality.

[KyoZero]

I would have a difficult time with this. I feel you would lose some of the translation and feeling of being in the moment with the client. I would have to agree this could be an absolute last resort.

[psyco2004]

Hi, as a therapist who also endeavors to serve a remote rural community, I can see the benefits of on-line counselling.  I think something like Skype would be more advantageous - real time, speaking to each other. 
The other option that occurs to me, is when I have thought of travelling and still being able to work, Skype could be a good option for this also.