As a therapist living with schizophrenia, I’ve walked both sides of the mental health landscape—as a clinician and as someone who knows what it means to navigate psychiatric crisis firsthand. This dual lens has made me skeptical of the constant influx of new therapies, trendy modalities, and ‘breakthrough’ approaches that flood the mental health field.

I often wonder: Are these methods truly revolutionary, or are they rebranded versions of what we, as therapists, have always done?

The Misunderstood Line Between Crisis and Spiritual Emergency

There is a clear, legal, and clinical boundary that dictates when someone needs to be hospitalized. When imminent harm to self or others enters the equation, our hands are tied—for good reason. This isn’t about subjective interpretation or spiritual growth; it’s about preserving life.

Yet, I also acknowledge the gray area that exists—where clients face deep psychological or spiritual crises that don’t meet the threshold for hospitalization. These experiences, often labeled ‘spiritual emergencies,’ can be disruptive but don’t necessarily warrant psychiatric intervention.

What frustrates me is how often clinicians conflate these two realities or fail to recognize the difference. We assess for risk constantly, and the decision to hospitalize should not be complicated by theoretical debates or personal discomfort with uncertainty.

When it’s clear that life is at stake, there’s no room for ambiguity.

But when self-exploration or trauma processing brings about distress that isn’t life-threatening, we need to slow down, listen, and meet clients where they are—without resorting to involuntary interventions.

The Overcrowded Table of ‘New’ Modalities

Let’s address the elephant in the room—the proliferation of new therapies with flashy names, acronyms, and certificates promising to transform practice.

I recently came across a training titled:

“Making Meaning from Visions and Voices: Supporting Altered States.”

The premise? Helping clients embrace altered states as pathways to insight, healing, and creativity. This is marketed as progressive, person-centered care.

Here’s the thing—it’s not new.

Good clinicians have been doing this for decades. We’ve always honored clients’ lived experiences, integrated their unique narratives, and recognized the potential for insight even in distressing psychological states.

So why do these ‘new’ methods get packaged as game-changers?

•Is it for CEUs?

•Is it about capitalizing on the next big thing in mental health?

•Or is it filling a void for practitioners who feel disconnected from the fundamentals of therapy?

I question whether these trainings are even meant for clinicians. They seem better suited for the general public or peers looking to better understand their own experiences.

For therapists, the core message is redundant. We already know that being present, curious, and person-centered is essential to our work.

The Disconnect Between Theory and Practice

One of the more frustrating realities in the mental health field is the gap between what we know and what we practice.

I suspect that much of the obsession with new therapies stems from a lack of confidence in our existing tools. Instead of refining and mastering the skills we already possess, we chase after the next acronym or shiny modality.

But what if we simply…

•Deepened our person-centered approaches?

•Re-examined our biases around diagnosis and treatment?

•Listened more carefully to our clients without needing a certificate to do so?

The constant reinvention of the wheel leaves us more disconnected from clients—not closer to them.

Stigma and the Responsibility of Lived Experience

I understand the internal conflict many peer professionals experience. As someone with schizophrenia, I recognize the stigma that silences voices in the field.

Yet, I also believe this:

If you have lived experience and choose to work in mental health, it is your responsibility to use that experience to advance the field.

Holding back insight that could help others—whether out of fear or discomfort—limits our collective progress. The public already misunderstands psychiatric conditions. The least we can do is bridge the gap between personal experience and professional practice.

If peer professionals speak openly about their journeys, the result is not only destigmatization but real progress in treatment approaches.

Defining ‘Help’ in Mental Health

One of the biggest challenges we face is agreeing on what “help” actually means.

•Is it stabilization?

•Is it fostering independence?

•Is it simply sitting in the discomfort with clients and letting them lead the process?

Our field is riddled with contradictory approaches. We operate in silos—each discipline bringing its own language and priorities to the table.

Until we establish shared definitions of progress and recovery, the systemic fractures in mental health treatment will persist.

Real Progress Isn’t Trendy

Progress in mental health care doesn’t come from the latest modality or certification. It comes from:

•Stripping away unnecessary jargon.

•Refining the basics—listening, reflecting, and empowering.

•Ensuring clients feel seen and respected, regardless of their diagnosis.

Therapists don’t need to attend the next big conference to make a difference. We need to return to the heart of therapy, stay curious, and engage authentically.

Let’s stop chasing buzzwords and focus on creating genuine, lasting change—one session at a time.