University of Central Oklahoma, USA
*Corresponding author: Caleb W Lack, PhD, University of Central Oklahoma, 100 N University Dr, Edmond, OK 73034, USA
Submission: January 08, 2018; Published: May 08, 2018
ISSN: 2637-7802Volume2 Issue4
Although psychotherapy is awash in pseudoscientific therapies and nonsense, one of the most egregious therapies to surface in the past 10 years has to be Induced After-Death Communication. Purporting to be an immensely powerful treatment for traumatic grief, IADC instead takes the already pseudoscientific therapy of Eye Movement Desensitization Retraining and adds yet more improbability on top of that, in the form of seeing and communicating with the dead. As will be shown, this fails to meet even basic assumptions for plausibility and critical thinking, serving as a good case example for the evaluation of new psychotherapy treatments, as well as complementary and alternative healthcare generally. Today’s mental health practitioners (MHPs) are finding themselves under increasing pressure to justify not only what they do (e.g., providing psychotherapy or some other service), but also how they do it. In particular, just as in medicine, there has been a growing trend towards MHPs using evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychological treatment and assessment. EBP is often defined as “the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients” . In the real world, this often translates into using therapies and assessment methods that have been demonstrated to be effective via valid and reliable clinical research.