Reimagining Healthcare

Marianna Jaross

Late last year, I allowed my registration as a psychologist to lapse, and it wasn’t because I was jumping into something new and shiny.

It was the quiet space required for me to think about my career, and to recalibrate my body and what I want moving forward. I reflected on the fact that I had tried to make this career work for me in a variety of ways over several years, and how clinical practice did not always seem like the right fit.

My body was also giving my clues. (I’ll probably write about this later).

I recently read a post about how therapists shouldn’t talk about burnout for risk of alienating our clients, or making it harder for people to seek help if they are afraid of the impact the work has on their therapist. After all, we have training (and potentially experience) to help us mitigate the risk, supervision, and other methods of self-care. From my perspective, there is a way to talk about the impact of the work so that therapists and healthcare workers can navigate these conversations. I am attempting to write thoughtfully moving forward, even though I am currently not registered.

For me personally, it has taken some time for me to take a step away from the career that has defined most of my adult life. I care deeply about supporting people, but I also care about the bigger conversations, the systems we operate in, and being able to speak freely.

Here are my thoughts:

We are at an interesting point in history regarding psychiatry, psychology, and therapy: Personally, I sense that we are existing between two worlds where the foundations of the current system are crumbling, and some of what we are advocating for has not fully taken root across the board. I feel qualified to speak on this because I have accumulated degrees, worked across sectors as a counsellor and psychologist, and have both a lived and professional lens to contribute.

Recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) has provided a roadmap and strategic direction for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), which has long been deemed the ‘bible’ of psychiatrists and psychologists alike. There has been some commentary around this already. Dr Kim Grandland (a psychologist in Australia) posted on LinkedIn 01/02/2026: “…when you spend so much time actually treating patients you realise the importance of treating the patient and not the DSM diagnosis, or often, multiple multiple diagnoses that have accumulated over time, many of which are redundant and do not take into account neurotypes, social conditions, and trauma perspectives.”

This sentiment echoes many psychologists in the profession from my interactions. I have noticed the sense that one has to operate within the bounds of a diagnosis-heavy system, that this may be a ‘frame’ for the person one is working with, whilst acknowledging that the ‘real work’ occurs behind a diagnosis, working with the human and their circumstances. It is like practitioners are colluding — perhaps rightfully so — against the very system that the profession is built upon. 

I find this fascinating.

Dr Jessica Taylor has long been a thought leader in providing an anti-pathologising and trauma-informed approach. In her article “How psychiatry traps women forever” on Substack she has stated the following: “The medical model of mental health is concerned with defining and positioning behaviours, emotions, experiences and sensations as mental disorders that arise from a biochemical cause in the brain. Despite this only being a theory, and never successfully proven, millions of people believe this to be a scientific, proven position, rather than a theory of mental health. This is where most people have heard myths about ‘brain chemical imbalances’ and ‘genetic causes of mental disorders’.

She continues: “My focus and expertise is in the abuse, victimisation and trauma of women and girls, and as women and girls are twice as likely to be diagnosed mentally ill, and being female correlates with diagnosis of every single mental disorder listed in the DSM-V, this article will explore the ways women and girls become trapped in the medical model, sometimes for their entire lives.” (The entire article is referenced below). 

So, the DSM is being recalibrated, advocacy is occurring for trauma-informed care and what this means, and there is also another phenomenon: People are seeking alternatives to talk therapy, and we are not acknowledging the opportunities in this.

Social media is flooded with information: Trauma healing workshops, retreats, breathwork, and meditation are all provided as alternative or complementary avenues to healing with varying degrees of professional credibility in this space, if professional credibility is required at all. Importantly, the people who are seeking alternative approaches to healing outside of talk therapy may not have found traditional talk therapy models helpful; and at worst, found them narrow, detrimental, and invalidating. They may have even been labelled (unfortunately) as ‘treatment-resistant;’ a term I’m not thrilled about as an ex-clinician. Because we know that trauma processing often requires moving beyond cognitive approaches; it is curious that perhaps the people who may be in most need of trauma-informed approaches are looking outside of traditional healthcare. 

Perhaps my perception is a bit black and white, and indeed there are qualified practitioners who work in thoughtful ways outside of talk therapy. But the overall silos do still largely exist. Personally, I have sat in the intersection of many conversations: Counselling vs. Social Work vs. Psychology vs. Psychiatry. Lived experience vs. Clinical experience. Talk therapy vs. Creative arts therapies. The problem, from my perspective, is that we are not acknowledging the strengths, capabilities or insights offered by each; as well as their potential limitations or blind-spots.

As we sit firmly in our respective camps, we are not enquiring and acknowledging how we can work together, shift systems, and create long-term change from a ‘traditional’ system that many people are now looking outside of. In a world where people are becoming more educated on trauma, trauma-informed practice, body-based and somatic approaches, and ‘therapy language’ has entered our lexicon; one would hope that the mainstream system would take notice and act further on this. Not doing so is losing an opportunity. So, I am positing that collaboration is key; but we need time, funding, and open-minded people sitting in these spaces rather than siloed boards and communities who don’t talk to each other.

I understand that my perspective of ‘why can’t we all just be friends’ may seem naïve; but I also think that there is a larger shift happening that we would do well to consider. The combination of DSM changes, trauma-informed care being advocated for, and evidence base for creative arts therapies is telling us something. As is the gravitation towards spiritual approaches towards healing in the collective, and the importance of lived experience. 

What we have been doing historically has gaps, and perhaps we need to work together in order to make our system better instead of collectively sticking our head in the sand of our respective camps.

From my perspective, health professionals who understand the importance of somatic, body-based, or expressive arts therapies have been not particularly well integrated within the mainstream. I have witnessed the impact of expressive arts therapies across the lifespan, how art can support or be a tool for healing, and how movement can increase wellbeing. There is enough research to justify such programs and positions as not merely add-ons or adjunct supports, but as an integral part of healing.

I see interesting things occurring in pockets: Griffith University is looking for a PhD topic in Intergenerational Healing — A Creative First Nations Approach to Wellbeing. Advocacy is happening through the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA) stream of College of Creative and Experiential Therapies. What is odd to me, is that (to my knowledge) there is no overall system connecting the different boards or partnerships in how we take things forward whilst acknowledging that these are all part of a healing system. Meaningful collaboration in the face of significant change and advocacy is lagging. Together, we could be thoughtful about what we keep, what we remove, and make collaboration and learning from each other the cornerstone of what comes next. 

I have been told not to present problems without a solution. This is what I would do moving forward:

- Have meaningful debate and continued conversations about depathologisation, with a deeper understanding that the human comes first, and a potential diagnosis second. (If relevant at all, some may argue). 

- Training and university programs could be embedding more subjects around the philosophy of healing between the helping professions including looking at the history of the DSM, where it is now, and alternative approaches to healing. Not doing so in a time of such change, from my perspective, is not setting up thoughtful practitioners for the current and emerging climate. 

- Board partnerships should be occurring acknowledging the values of our respective professions, and how we can work together to create meaningful change moving forward. This could result in more thoughtful and considered policies to implement now and in the future.

- Embedding creativity, the arts, and creative arts therapies into mainstream healing: We are ignoring major opportunities for individual and community change, and more funding and programs in these areas would be supportive. 

Overall, there is a shift in the air of healing. Practitioners need to acknowledge trauma-informed care, depathologising approaches, and that people are turning outside of traditional therapy rooms for healing. From my perspective, this is not just because there are waitlists, but because healing does not always occur via words, and we are spirituality starved for healing that goes deeper.

But we still need to do this safely.

When we ignore this and continue working in silos, we suppress important conversations and ignore potent opportunities to be deeply involved in meaningful change.

The key is to bring safe practice, curiosity, collaboration, and experimentation to the table. Change is here, and it is important that professionals and boards allocate time, energy, and resources to drive it for the better.

© Marianna Jaross 2026 

References

Taylor, J. (2022). How psychiatry traps women forever. Substack. https://whatwouldjesssay.substack.com/p/how-psychiatry-traps-women-forever