Fake Psychologist Found Guilty. Oh, and by the way ... she was a stripper!
The Boston Globe (and my guess is every other single media outlet in the city will too) seems to not be able to get over the fact that Louise Wightman was a stripper once upon a time. Who cares? Well, The Globe does! Read to the last paragraph.
During the trial, there were few mentions of Wightman’s celebrated past as a stripper, which included an engagement to pop singer Cat Stevens. She kept an unassuming appearance in the courtroom, wearing eyeglasses, slacks, and modest sweaters.
An unassuming appearance! Modest Sweaters!!!! I feel ripped off! It cracks me up that that this concluding paragraph talks about how the proceedings didn't focus on her past... but we sure will! And the best part is the seeming hint that they were disappointed that she wasn't wearing nipple tassels and grinding the bench with her crotch.
Whether or not she was a truck driver, and ice cream salesperson or a stripper has nothing (in my opinion) to do with the fact she was fraudulenty representing herself as a trained psychologist.
(edit: just for fairness, and not because I work in the media, the Herald makes a point of talking about what she used to do too. But they make no mention of her boring in-court behavior and modest clothing (read: lack of tassles).
Comments
our second 'credentialism' story in a week
It's worth asking the same question here as many did about Marilee Jones: Did she do her job well? A lot of people say yes (in both cases).
One of my colleagues knows
One of my colleagues knows her, and has said that there are some clients who have thought she's wonderful, while others haven't cared for her. That could probably be said of most therapists. The problem is that any good she's done is completely undermined by her fraudulent representation of her self as a licensed psychologist. That's a huge deal. It does such a disservice to clients and to the profession that makes it difficult to say that she might have done her job well. I think it might be more fair to say that "she helped some people" than to say that she did it well- doing a job well includes adhering to a code of ethics, legal billing practices and representing oneself appropriately.
She's also lucky.
And it's particularly unethical...
...because you don't legally need any sort of license or degree to do private-pay therapy. It's only illegal if they claim to have a credential or degree they don't actually have.
This is actually a good thing, because it allows people to practice as a religious therapist or chakra therapist or palmreading therapist or any other kind of therapist whose practice isn't regulated by the state. People should have the right to go to any sort of healer they choose, so the state allows this, as long as they aren't claiming to have a credential they don't (and aren't doing anything blatantly abusive or illegal).
She could have just called herself a generic counselor or healer or whatever, and if she was good, she'd get private-pay clients based on reputation. I've gotten most of my clients from word-of-mouth from families and teachers and case managers who were happy with my working style. I imagine some of my clients would have ruled me out if I weren't licensed and conventionally trained, but I imagine that most of them were more concerned about recommendations than credentials.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com