Earthquake in psychology. The recordings with the therapist Ion Duvac shake the guild and call into question the trust in therapy

The recordings with the psychologist Ion Duvac, accused of sexually harassing his patients, shook public opinion, because we are talking about an extremely sensitive field: the therapeutic relationship, which should represent a safe place. The case raises essential questions about trust, boundaries, professional ethics, but also institutional power and the need for resettlement within the psychologists' guild. It is also a mirror of how a part of society continues to relate to victims. I discussed all this with Sorina Brif, clinical psychologist.

PHOTO Shutterstock

The truth: What effects do you think may occur after the recent revelations? Ion Duvac is not only a psychologist with decades of practice, but also a university professor who should train professionals, as well as a member of the Commission on Deontology and Discipline of the Romanian College of Psychologists.

Sorina Brief: It is very important to have the presumption of innocence even outside the legal system. But if you listen to those audio recordings, it's hard not to ask yourself serious questions about what happened in that office and, above all, how it was possible.

I've been thinking about this ever since the revelations about Cristian Andrei, when the focus was on the lack of credentials and training. “He's not even a therapist,” said the Internet. But this issue, in his lordship's case, was not so relevant. Very little was said about the serious violations of professional ethics in the cabinet. This ethical pudibondery made us revolt at an incomplete CV, but not at what is really important: the behavior of the professional towards the vulnerable people who asked for his help. The present case does not allow the same luxury. We cannot divert the conversation to technical details when the professional profile is impeccable on paper and the very structures that should have sanctioned any deviations had it inside. If the allegations are officially confirmed, we are not talking about a lack of a degree. We are talking about institutional power used as a shield.

Investigations of this type have a double effect, but at the same time are extremely necessary. In the short term, they can deepen the distrust of people who were already reluctant to psychotherapy, they will find in this case a confirmation of their fears, and this is a reality that we cannot ignore. In the long run, however, they are the caustic soda a profession needs to clean itself. I'm making visible what the guild has sometimes preferred to handle quietly without real consequences. Unfortunately, I think we're talking about a systemic problem here.

Sorina Brif is a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist in systemic family and couple training

What measures do you think can be taken within the guild so that such cases do not exist anymore? How can it be cleaned?

It's complicated. Cleaning in a guild is difficult, but not impossible. Mr. Duvac also invoked a political dimension to this whole story, and without spoiling the record of the audio recordings, it is not entirely wrong that such cases can be instrumentalized. The guild usually knows what its weaknesses are and who its problem characters are.

That is precisely why “cleaning” cannot be done through declarations of intent or through waves of public indignation, however justified they may be. It is done with structures that work regardless of who the accused is. First, clear incompatibility. No one proven accused of ethical misconduct should serve on commissions that adjudicate ethical misconduct.

Second, accessible and safe referral procedures for patients. Not bureaucratic, not intimidating, not dependent on knowing an opaque system. And, perhaps most difficult to build, a guild culture in which colleagues protect each other not out of caste solidarity, but out of respect for the profession they represent and for the people who have the courage
to ask for help.

What do you say to people who are now afraid to go to a psychologist?

That their fear is legitimate and that they shouldn't ignore it. Going to a psychologist takes courage and vulnerability, and learning that that space can be a place where abuse is allowed is traumatic in itself.

And yet: there are good psychologists. Many! Professionals who deeply understand the responsibility they bear. A few things that can help in choosing a psychologist: check if he is certified by the College of Psychologists and, most importantly! listen to your discomfort if it arises. A good psychologist will never make you feel unsafe, ashamed, or confused about relationship boundaries. The right to quality psychological services does not disappear with a case of abuse. And patients' right to be cautious and informed must prevail.

And if you don't know where to start, have questions, or just want to feel like you're not alone, there are online communities where you can interact directly with psychologists and ask questions in a safe space. We are one of them – Ask a Psychologist, on the Reddit platform, but we have also seen groups on Facebook where the discussion can be developed. They do not replace therapy, but they can be a first step, a place to inform yourself before making a choice.

On the other hand, there are those who choose to ignore such accusations and legitimize the abuse. Despite the clear and explicit audio recordings, there are still people who defend Professor Duvac and invoke either smear strategies or attack the victim for speaking out “after 8 years”. Why do you think this phenomenon persists?

I insist that the discussion of the presumption of innocence is very important here. Public lynching is the easiest and most unconstructive angle from which to look at this situation. What is clear, however, is that, in general, abuse does not operate in a vacuum. He operates in networks of power, affinity and identity.

When a person in authority, be it a teacher, mentor, or whatever, respected figure is accused, those around him don't just process a piece of information. It processes a threat to its own narrative. Maybe even of his own identity: “I was his patient. I recommended him. I learned from him. If he's an abuser, what am I now?”

The abuser's defense mechanism is often closely related to the self-defense mechanism of those around them. Added to this is the well-documented phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The clearer and harder the evidence is to ignore, the more vehemently some people reject it, precisely because accepting it would involve a painful reconstruction of their own perspective.

What does the fact that his supporters include psychologists and former patients show?

It shows that the transgression of boundaries in power relations is complex and that witnesses never react uniformly. A former patient defending the therapist does not deny this violation. It can only illustrate, on the contrary, how effective the therapist's idealization process can be, which is itself a phenomenon studied and known in psychotherapy, called transference.

For fellow psychologists who publicly support him, the situation is ethically troubling. Guild solidarity is not value neutral when exercised at the expense of victims (even if a formal guild trial has yet to take place). A psychologist who minimizes, however, accusations supported by audio recordings is not making a gesture of loyalty, he is making a gesture of betrayal towards his profession and towards all vulnerable people who have the courage to ask for help. Before I would have told you to let the Board of Ethics and Discipline of the College of Psychologists do their job, but now….

“Why didn't she speak up immediately after it happened” – is a question we unfortunately hear often. Let's explain. What does a woman who has faced abuse go through?

But why would he talk? Do you know what generally happens to a sexually abused person after they confess? And don't imagine what that looks like in practice when we actually try to reach a victim of sexual abuse….what it means to unfreeze someone who has built their very survival around silence.

Imagine going to a psychologist, a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher. You mustered up some courage to slowly start talking about what hurts you the most. And the person in front of you, the only person to whom you have no masks at that moment, breaks the boundaries of the relationship and makes use of that very openness. The first thing you feel is not anger. It's freezing. The brain does something very specific when abuse comes from an authority figure: it turns on the victim. “Maybe I got it wrong. Maybe I caused it. Maybe I wanted it. Maybe I had a more provocative blouse.” It's not weakness, it's the way the mind tries to survive an unacceptable reality: that the very space where you came to heal, to help yourself, to seek support, hurt you the most.

Next comes the sticky, bodily shame that doesn't go away with a shower. And on top of it, isolation: to speak is to relive, to be questioned, to become a subject of public verdict. And we know well, in Romania, how the authorities treat in various fields, but also public opinionvictims of sexual abuse. That's the conversation we really need to have. Because the years of silence are not proof of a lie. I am the exact proof of everything I have described so far and of a system that makes survival easier than the truth.