I haven’t accused you of a ‘breach’. I have no insight into your professional practice. What I’ve seen you doing is loudly asserting your expertise with X years’ experience - albeit not saying much that backs this up - therefore your view carries more weight, as opposed to letting the substance and content of what you suggest speak for itself. In most professions, that kind of attitude would be laughed at or at least discredited. On the internet, someone might take your expertise as given and actually believe you.
Now as to professional ethics: This conversation takes place in the context of a thread in which the OP has concerns about what this therapist has supposedly advised their client to do, without any safeguarding or risk assessment, and without taking into account potentially serious issues which could arise from having a vulnerable client visit someone’s home address (when you don’t know the first thing about the owner). If you disagree that this is a contravention of acceptable practice, then I’m sure I don’t know precisely what you’d consider a breach.
Another problem with the content of your posts is that they take one side of a contested issue and present yours as though this were an authority, backed up merely by the assertion that ‘I am an expert’, but not with any solid information. In the case of this form of exposure therapy, this is a disingenuous stance to say the least, and in any professional context, the ethics of this are questionable. If you’re a therapist of both CBT and EMDR you’ll know all about the contestation between therapists as to where and under what conditions these can most effectively be used.
The peer-reviewed article linked above, which I have accessed in its entirety, suggests in its abstract that practical constraints are one reason many therapists avoid ‘site visits’. The article in its entirely says nothing about visits taking place in private residences. In the body of the article the following point is made:
‘It is also important to leave sufficient time for the visit, including travel, debriefing time for after the visit and extra time to stay with the client in case they are distressed. A plan for after the visit is needed, for example going back to the office for a ‘debrief’, planning another session to discuss the visit, how the client will get home, and what they plan to do after the visit’.
Yet in this case the woman has written directly to the home owner and from the letter she quotes verbatim none of these variables have been put in place to protect this client’s interests in any of these respects. Best practice? In your book maybe, but certainly not in mine.
As to this observation:
‘In a recent training evaluation, CBT therapists who routinely treated PTSD were asked to rate their own competency in carrying out a site visit with a client. Only two (5%) out of the 40 therapists rated themselves as having fully developed this competency’.
Yet here you are, cheerfully telling the home owner in this case on the internet how beneficial this exercise could be for the woman in question, thereby implicitly suggesting she should cede to this vulnerable woman's request. And claiming expertise in order to add weight to that opinion.
Now this might not be a fullscale breach of your professional code of conduct, but as far as anonymous interaction on the www is concerned, it has all manner of risky potential as outlined above. It's amazing, that if you possess the expertise you claim to own, that you should need these fairly elementary factors pointing out.
And you have responsibility for vulnerable PTSD/cPTSD patients?