970x125
When a client comes into my office and says “I am struggling with [insert presenting problem], the language of my response is important—it must be ethical and realistic. My obligation is not only to treat within my scope of practice, but also to formulate a realistic, achievable, and clinically-backed treatment plan in an effort to support and assist the client in the most effective way possible. There is an important reason why we shy away from terminology like “we can cure that” or “this is the exact solution for that problem.” Using this type of language can create false hope and unreasonable expectations. One of my breakthrough moments in my own therapy was when a therapist said to me, “It is impossible to completely rid yourself of anxiety.” It was a course correction that helped me learn to be more reasonable with myself and with my expectations of the therapeutic process.
I think many in the mental health profession would bristle at sweeping promises or guarantees of treatment outcomes. Leaving politics and political loyalties aside, it is important that we view recent statements by the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as questionable and potentially harmful to clients with serious mental health conditions. His statement that eating a ketogenic diet rich in red meat, whole milk, and animal fats has “cured schizophrenia” would be ethically problematic regardless of what party currently holds majority power. Kennedy went on to say that there are studies showing that people “lose their bipolar diagnosis by changing their diet.” It is important to view comments such as these with a broad lens: a 2025 study in The Journal of Inflammation Research did indicate through small pilot studies that diet may improve some symptoms of the disorder, but to label it a “cure” is not only premature, but also ethically questionable and clinically irresponsible.
Professor Jeff Volek of Ohio State University, who has extensively studied ketogenic diets, says he is unaware of any published clinical trials that show the diet can cure schizophrenia, but adds that it is not out of the realm of possibility that for some people, improvement in schizophrenia symptoms could be attributed to the diet. The main point here is that it is clearly far too early to release such sweeping, conclusive conclusions about the effect of diet on psychiatric diagnoses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Worse, this type of premature conclusion can result in significant psychological harm to those struggling with these disorders as well as to those who provide care and support to the diagnosed.
Severe psychological problems come with layers of challenge: from coping with the maladaptive behaviors and daily challenges of the disorder to navigating a complicated, overburdened and under-resourced mental health system to working through the maze of insurance coverage. The journey to support and healing is neither linear nor simple. Of course, this is unfortunate and, perhaps, we all have a human desire to make difficult things easier—but to offer nebulous and somewhat dubious “cures” or guarantees of eradication of symptoms is to set people who are already struggling up for disappointment and further psychological pain.
In the mental health profession, codes of ethics exist for a simple reason: to ensure that professionals competently and ethically deliver clinically-oriented, research-based interventions. If we shirk these ethical requirements by giving undeliverable promises, we risk inflicting long-term psychological harm on those who are already vulnerable. If a medical doctor promised a client that they could cure the patient’s cancer, for instance, many ethical and scientific red flags would immediately be raised. Professor Volek points out “that there are nuances here. As a scientist, I personally would not use such strong language [as ‘cure’] without more definitive evidence from rigorous scientific studies. Herein lies the main issue: There simply have not been rigorous scientific studies to support the Health Secretary’s claims, and his strong language does little more than create a narrative that is, as of now, unsupported by science or research. The first principle of my Social Work Code of Ethics is “to help people in need.” What help am I truly offering by making a promise that is not only unfounded, but that also may cause further harm?
The Secretary’s comments highlight a larger issue: a general misunderstanding of how psychiatric diagnoses can be effectively treated. Unlike some medical issues, mental health problems are often ongoing and, while they can be treated and managed, they are unlikely to be “cured.” This is important in the general understanding of psychological and psychiatric treatment. What helps more than a promise of complete eradication is a realistic, ethical, compassionate, and research-based assessment of and response to a presenting issue.
