Why Doing Nothing Can Feel Safer (Even When It Isn’t) |
I repeatedly see omission bias (OB) in my consultations with EMDR therapists, supervision meetings, listservs on EMDRIA, and increasingly, in conversations about AI and therapy, and financial decisions. OB is our tendency to judge harmful actions as worse than equally (or more) harmful inactions. For example, if I do something and harm occurs, that feels like my fault. If I don’t do something and harm occurs, it can feel somehow less blameworthy, cleaner, less personal, and less likely to be litigated. The unspoken message and/or assumption of OB can be: “I just want to be careful.” This message is well-intended, but ultimately, impact often matters more than intention. Here are three pertinent and illustrative examples.
1. The high cost of playing it safe: When "being careful" becomes a clinical risk
More than half of my professional time is spent training, consulting, and conducting EMDR therapy. Over the years, I can readily recall countless clinicians I’ve worked with who, after spending money and days learning EMDR, remain deeply uneasy about using it. They frequently worry about destabilizing clients, opening something they can’t contain, and doing it wrong. And to be clear: Some of these worries are legitimate. EMDR is powerful; it’s not a scented candle and a feelings worksheet. But here’s what fascinates me: how rarely those same clinicians talk with equal seriousness about the harm of not using EMDR when it’s indicated. Examples I've seen:
In all three cases, the harm of inaction is real, but OB can just not feel as morally loud. When a client deteriorates after an intervention, it feels like something happened. When a client stagnates for years, it can feel misleadingly like........