Therapists Should Never Play God in People's Lives

When Healing Becomes Tyranny

As I read Nicholas Purcell's article—where he candidly admits to advising couples to end their marriages—I was struck not by his recognition of abusive relationships, but by the disturbing implication that therapists might possess the moral authority to make such life-altering decisions. That's not just concerning—it's dangerous.

"If we begin to regard ourselves as knowing which marriages should live and which should die, we risk replacing our clients' judgment with our own."

This is more than a philosophical debate. It's an ethical minefield that threatens the very foundation of therapeutic practice. Therapists are trained to guide, not dictate; to empower, not dominate. When they step into the role of arbiter over another person's intimate choices, they become not healers—but moral gatekeepers.

The Power Dynamic at Play

What makes this issue even more chilling is how deeply imbalanced the power dynamics already are in therapy. Clients come to therapists when their lives feel out of control—when relationships have failed, when self-worth has eroded, when fear and confusion cloud judgment.

In such vulnerable moments, they place trust in someone who is supposed to offer clarity, not impose decisions. But Purcell's approach—whereby he sometimes tells couples that their marriage should end—suggests a dangerous inversion of this dynamic. Instead of empowering the client to choose, he places his own judgment above theirs.

I've seen it firsthand in my years as a psychosexual and relationship therapist: clients who come to therapy often feel trapped, manipulated, or emotionally drained by their partners. Their struggle isn't about whether they should stay—it's about reclaiming agency, understanding what's happening in their relationships, and ultimately, deciding what feels right for them.

Abuse is Not a Justification for Intervention

Purcell makes no distinction between abusive behavior and merely difficult dynamics. That's a critical flaw in his reasoning. While I wholeheartedly agree that abusive relationships are harmful and often require intervention, therapists shouldn't be making the call about whether a client stays or leaves.

Instead, we must support clients in recognizing abuse for what it is—manipulation, control, coercion—and help them explore the safety plans they may need to implement. If separation is necessary, that decision should come from within them—not from us.

The Ethics of Agency

Therapy's core function isn't to save people from their choices; it's to help them understand those choices better. When therapists assume the role of judge, they strip away a person's ability to grow, reflect, and ultimately make decisions for themselves.

In fact, one of the most important roles of therapy in abusive situations is to restore agency. If a client has lost their sense of self due to coercion or emotional control, therapists must help rebuild that inner strength—not substitute their own certainty for it.

"It would be a troubling tragedy if, in attempting to free a client from someone else's certainty about what is best for them, the therapist substituted their own."

This isn't just about marriage—it's about dignity, autonomy, and human rights. Every person has the right to define their own path, even if it means failing. And every therapist must resist the urge to take that right away.

The Broader Implications

If therapists begin to believe they are experts on when relationships should end, we open the door to a broader ethical crisis. We risk undermining the entire field of mental health and counseling by placing too much weight on individual therapists' subjective beliefs rather than evidence-based practice.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to relationship distress. Every couple's situation is unique. Every client's journey is personal. And only they, with the support of trained professionals, should decide what comes next.

This isn't about dismissing the importance of therapy or the role of therapists in helping people navigate complex emotions. It's about preserving a crucial ethical boundary that keeps therapy grounded in healing, not control.

Our Duty to Preserve Client Autonomy

I've been privileged to work with countless individuals navigating the stormy seas of relationship trauma. What I've learned is that people are resilient, even when they don't feel it. They have deep wisdom within them—and therapists must be vigilant about not silencing that voice.

When we allow ourselves to become the ones deciding what's best for another person's life, we become complicit in their disempowerment. That is not the work of a healer; that is the work of a destroyer.

We must resist the temptation to play God. The clients who seek us out are not broken—they are human beings trying to live authentically, often in pain. Our job is to help them see clearly, not to dictate what they should do.

Conclusion: The Moral Imperative

Nicholas Purcell's willingness to advise couples to end their marriages may seem like a compassionate act—but it's actually an unethical overreach. As therapists, we are bound by a sacred duty to empower, not control. When we lose sight of that, we betray the very trust our clients place in us.

Let's not forget: the best therapy doesn't make choices for people—it equips them to make their own, informed ones. And when that choice is to leave a relationship, that decision must be theirs alone.