Abstract
In response to one element of Berk and Parker's paper [1], I would point out that, logically, the sexual exploitation or abuse of a patient cannot be considered a ‘side-effect’, or even an ‘adverse outcome’, of psychotherapeutic treatment, for the obvious reason that the sexual exploitation of patients is not treatment. This applies whether the treatment is psychotherapeutic, psychiatric or medical. By the authors’ logic the sexual abuse of a patient by a physician could be deemed an ‘adverse outcome’ of the pharmacological treatment. In their Discussion the authors allude to the problematic nature of the logic of their argument, suggesting it is ‘akin to an individual criticizing religion on the basis of disliking their local minister’. Despite this they have chosen to ignore their own caution.