Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chelsea Arnold, Clinical Psychologist and Research Fellow (Lead Clinician), Monash University
In the Netflix show Nobody Wants This Morgan begins a relationship with her therapist Dr Andy.
Morgan’s sister Joanne and the rest of Morgan’s family are concerned about the relationship. But the TV show does not appropriately grapple with the severity of Dr Andy’s actions.
Dr Andy is not reported to the regulator, nor does a senior psychologist counsel him such a relationship is inappropriate and unethical.
The show raises an important issue about psychologists dating their clients. And Australian psychologists are now receiving fresh advice on what is and is not appropriate.
In particular, a new code of conduct to be implemented from today provides updated guidance that it’s almost never OK for a psychologist to date someone who’s been a client, even if that was years ago.
Here’s what the changes mean for clients and psychologists in Australia.
Why is dating your psychologist a problem?
The main reason prohibiting psychologists from dating their clients is the inherent power imbalance.
First, there is the nature of knowledge and status. Someone seeks a psychologist’s services due to their clinical experience and expertise. This specialised knowledge can place them in a position of greater authority.
Clients also tend to share very personal and emotionally charged personal information. But psychologists disclose relatively little personal information. This disparity can further make clients particularly vulnerable.
Maintaining appropriate boundaries between psychologist and client is particularly important. These boundaries provide clear expectations and a greater sense of safety in the therapeutic relationship. These boundaries aim to protect the client, who is in the more vulnerable position.
Even if a client is attracted to their therapist, which studies show can be common, the same principles apply.
A psychologist engaging in a romantic or sexual relationship with their client, such as Dr Andy and Morgan, represents a clear and significant violation of these boundaries, and an exploitation of power.
The power differential between Morgan and Dr Andy is clear.
First, Morgan refers to him not by his first name but as Dr Andy, signalling his position of hierarchy, and status.
Morgan says Dr Andy knows “all of my trauma and all of my baggage” and accepts her nonetheless. But Morgan has very limited information about Dr Andy and his background.
Dr Andy also brings up Morgan’s difficult childhood experiences to speed up how their romantic relationship progresses.
What the new code of conduct says
Australian psychologists’ new code of conduct makes it clear psychologists should “never establish or pursue a sexual […] relationship with a client”.
This recognises relationships with current clients are always unethical, consistent with the previous code of ethics and international guidelines.
However, the new code of conduct has changed regarding relationships with former clients.
The old code said psychologists should not engage in sexual activity with a former client within two years of the professional relationship ending. After two years, psychologists needed to consult a senior psychologist about the potential relationship to consider the vulnerability and risk of exploitation to the previous client.
In the new code, this two-year prohibition is removed.
The new code states sexual and intimate relationships with former clients are “mostly inappropriate” and should be avoided until a senior psychologist has been consulted.
This change was introduced because power imbalances can persist beyond two years of a professional relationship ending. However, the absolute protection provided by the previous two-year rule has now been removed. There is now more ambiguity about which relationships would be considered unethical.
Under the new (and previous codes), Dr Andy’s behaviour clearly represents a violation of his ethical responsibilities. He and Morgan discontinued their therapeutic relationship the week before meeting her family. However, there appears to be no consideration of Morgan’s vulnerability or the inappropriateness of their romantic relationship.
Indeed, we find out Dr Andy had dated another of his former clients. If Dr Andy had consulted another psychologist, it would quickly be evident his behaviour was inappropriate and unethical.
Why is this important?
Knowing about these expected standards can better equip people to spot potential exploitative behaviours.
So, if like Joanne, you find a family member or friend entering a relationship with another Dr Andy you’ll know this isn’t OK.
Serious concerns, such as this form of unethical behaviour, can be raised with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). The agency has supports and processes for reporting health practitioner sexual misconduct.
If you’re a psychologist, it’s a reminder that sexual and intimate relationships with your clients are not OK. And if you are thinking of entering a relationship with a former client, it’s crucial you raise this with your supervisor first.
Chelsea Arnold does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. Why dating your therapist is never OK – https://theconversation.com/why-dating-your-therapist-is-never-ok-269512






Tucker Carlson ‘tuckered out’ with Donald Trump and Israel – insights for New Zealand rightwing politics
COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell
The origin of the expression “tuckered out” goes back to the east of the United States around the 1830s.
After New Englanders began to compare the wrinkled and drawn appearance of overworked and undernourished horses and dogs to the appearance of tucked cloth, it became associated with people being exhausted.
Expressions such as this can be adapted, sometimes with a little generosity, to apply to other circumstances.
This adaptation includes when a prominent far right propagandist and activist who, in a level of frustration that resembles mental exhaustion, lashes out against far right leaders and governments that he has been strongly supportive of.
This came to my attention when reading a frustrated far right lament reposted on Facebook (27 November) by British-Pakistani socialist Tariq Ali.
If anything meets the threshold for a passionate expression of grief or sorrow, this one did.
The lament was from Tucker Carlson, an American far right political commentator who hosted a nightly political talk show on Fox News from 2016 to 2023 when his contract was terminated.
Since then he has hosted his own show under his name on fellow extremist Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). Arguably Carlson is the most influential far right host in the United States (perhaps also more influential than the mainstream rightwing).
He is someone who the far right government of Israel considered to be an unshakable ally.
Carlson’s lament
The lament is brief but cuts to the chase:
There is no such thing as “God’s chosen people”.
God does not choose child-killers.
This is heresy — these are criminals and thieves.
350 million Americans are struggling to survive,
and we send $26 billion to a country most Americans can’t even name the capital of.
His lament doubled as a “declaration of war” on the entire narrative Israel uses to justify its genocide in Gaza. But Carlson didn’t stop there. He went on to expose the anger boiling inside the United States.
The clip hit the US media big time including 48 million views in the first nine hours. Subsequently a CNN poll showed that 62 percent of Americans agree with Carlson and that support for Israel among Americans is collapsing.
But Carlson went much further directly focussing on fellow far right Donald Trump who he had “supported”.
By focussing the US’s money, energy, and foreign policy on Israel, Trump was betraying his promises to Americans.
This signifies a major falling out including a massive public shift against Israel (which is also losing its media shield), the far right breaking ranks, and panic within the political establishment.
It should also be seen in the context of the extraordinary public falling out with President Trump of another leading far right extremist (and conspiracy theorist) Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. In addition to the issues raised by Carlson she also focussed on Trump’s handling of the Epstein files controversy.
Far right in New Zealand politics
The far right publicly fighting among itself over its core issues is very significant for the US given its powerful influence.
This influence includes not just the presidency but also both Congress and the Senate, one of the two dominant political parties, and the Supreme Court (and a fair chunk of the rest of the judiciary).
Does this development offer insights for politics in New Zealand? To begin with the far right here has nowhere near the same influence as in the United States.
The parties that make up the coalition government are hard right rather than far right (that is, hardline but still largely respectful of the formal democratic institutions).
It is arguably the most hard right government since the early 1950s at least. But this doesn’t make it far right. I discussed this difference in an earlier Political Bytes post (November 3): Distinguishing far right from hard right.
Specifically:
…”hard right” for me means being very firm (immoderate) near the extremity of rightwing politics but still respect the functional institutions that make formal democracy work.
In contrast the “far right” are at the extremity of rightwing politics and don’t respect these functional institutions. There is an overlapping blur between the “hard right” and “far right”.
Both the NZ First and ACT parties certainly have far right influences. The former’s deputy leader Shane Jones does a copy-cat imitation of Trumpian bravado.
Meanwhile, there is an uncomfortable rapport between ACT (particularly its leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour) and the far right Destiny Church (particularly its leader Brian Tamaki).
But this doesn’t come close to meeting the far right threshold for both NZ First and ACT.
The far right itself also has its internal conflicts. The most prominent group within this relatively small extremist group is the Destiny Church. However, its relationship with other sects can be adversarial.
Insights for New Zealand politics nevertheless
Nevertheless, the internal far right fallout in the United States does provide some insights for public fall-outs within the hard right in New Zealand.
This is already becoming evident in the three rightwing parties making up the coalition government.
For example:
These tensions are well short of the magnitude of Tucker Carlson’s public attack on Israel over Gaza and President Trump’s leadership.
However, there are signs with the hard right in New Zealand of at least starting to feel “tuckered out” of collaborating collegially in their coalition government arrangement and showing signs of pending laments.
Too early to tell yet but we shall see.
Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.
Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz