SPOILER ALERT: This article contains some spoilers from Shrinking Season 1! (I’ve tried to steer clear of season 2 spoilers for those still watching…)
As an experienced clinical psychologist, I was eager to dive into Shrinking, the Apple TV+ series featuring the personable Jason Segel as Jimmy Laird, a grieving therapist who upends convention in his practice. With Harrison Ford as the cantankerous Paul and Jessica Williams as the spirited Gaby, the show promised humour, heart, and a fresh take on therapy, and it delivered - but not without some glaring ethical missteps that made me cringe as much as laugh.
What Shrinking Gets Right
First, credit where it’s due. Shrinking does a commendable job humanising therapists. Jimmy, Gaby, and Paul are far from the stoic, all-knowing stereotype of my profession that the media often portrays. Like in real life, these therapists are flawed, complex individuals who struggle with their own issues, often just as much as their clients. Watching them navigate grief, ageing, parenthood, and relationships felt refreshingly authentic.
For instance, Jimmy, in his grief after losing his wife, frequently falls short in being there for his also grieving teenage daughter, Alice (Lukita Maxwell), in spite of knowing from his clinical training what healthy parenting looks like. And his mentor, Paul, frequently avoids emotional intimacy in all his close relationships for a significant chunk of the series, in spite of giving his clients advice to the contrary.
Shrinking’s humour is another highlight. Therapy isn’t always heavy; sometimes a well-timed joke can open doors for connection, and lighten a client’s relationship with their thoughts and emotions, allowing room for growth and flexibility. I’ve seen firsthand how laughter can help clients breathe through pain and find new perspectives. In this respect, Shrinking captures something real.
But let’s get to the messy part: the breaches of ethical boundaries that pepper the series. As much as I enjoyed the humour and heart, I couldn’t ignore the way these lapses misrepresent my profession. Many of them, frankly, would get a therapist struck off in real life. Here are five examples of this:
Jimmy and Grace
Jimmy’s interactions with his client Grace (Heidi Gardner), a woman trapped in a toxic marriage, are a masterclass in what not to do. Frustrated by her indecision, and allowing his unprocessed grief to hijack his clinical judgment, Jimmy bluntly tells Grace to leave her husband. While this might make for dramatic storytelling, it undermines the essence of therapy: empowering clients to make their own decisions. By prescribing a solution, Jimmy robs Grace of agency and fails to explore the deeper reasons for her hesitation to leave (which may stem from cultural, financial or familial expectations, as well as past attachment traumas). It also sets her up for failure when Grace, having not addressed the core issues behind her resistance, ultimately returns to her abusive husband. Knowing Jimmy’s opinion about him, she then hides this information during their sessions, which shows how Jimmy so directly expressing his opinion has damaged Grace’s sense of emotional safety within their client-therapist relationship.
Jimmy also encourages Grace to lean into her frustration and anger towards her husband without exploring what this might look like in practice or how this might help her – leading her to push her husband off a cliff and end up in prison. Somehow Jimmy manages to avoid any serious professional repercussions from this and continues to see Grace as a client when she is released - something that, in reality, I highly doubt would be allowed to happen.
Jimmy and Sean
When Jimmy invites his client Sean (Luke Tennie), a traumatised young veteran, to live in his pool house, my professional alarm bells rang off the charts. This blurring of personal and professional boundaries creates three conflicts of interest - Jimmy becomes not only Sean's therapist, but also his friend and landlord - a clear ethical violation. It risks Sean becoming too dependent on Jimmy, muddles objectivity, and could lead to Sean feeling abandoned when the inevitable fallout occurs. His mentor/friend/colleague Paul’s eventual solution, to see Sean as his own client, is equally problematic, as his own dual relationship with Jimmy further complicates an already fraught situation. It also took Paul one entire season to call Jimmy out on his unethical behaviour with Sean - which I would expect a real-life professional mentor would have done much earlier than this.
Paul’s Gossip Sessions
Paul, the seasoned veteran of the group, repeatedly discusses his clients in casual, gossipy tones with Jimmy and Gaby. While peer consultation is a legitimate, valuable and necessary practice in the psychology profession, it’s governed by strict rules: discussions must take place in private, anonymise client details as much as possible, and focus solely on improving care. Paul’s approach feels more like watercooler chatter, undermining the confidentiality, objectivity and respect that should be at the core of the client-therapist relationship.
Paul and Alice
Paul’s quasi-grandfather / therapist role with Jimmy’s teenage daughter, Alice, is well-meaning but ethically murky. His dual role as Alice's father's mentor/friend and eventually also her therapist complicates things. Is his advice to Jimmy influenced by his bond with Alice? Does Alice view him as a trusted authority figure? These blurred lines can have unintended consequences, especially when emotions run high in therapy-adjacent relationships.
The Myth of the Quick Fix
Finally, Shrinking perpetuates the myth that therapy is about dramatic, immediate breakthroughs. Jimmy’s unconventional interventions often lead to quick resolutions (though admittedly, not without also creating more problems). This is satisfying to watch, but many of the breakthroughs portrayed are wildly unrealistic. Real-life therapy is a slow, collaborative process of self-exploration, practice, and setbacks. It’s not about telling clients what to do but guiding them to uncover their own values and solutions, and improve their self-awareness and resilience. The show’s depiction risks giving viewers false expectations about what therapy involves and how progress is achieved.
Why Professional Boundaries Matter
Professional ethical codes aren’t just technicalities; they’re fundamental to the therapeutic process. Ethical boundaries ensure:
Client Autonomy: Therapy isn’t about solving problems for clients but helping them develop the confidence to make decisions aligned with their values and needs.
Trust and Safety: Predictability and professionalism create a space where clients feel secure to explore their vulnerabilities.
Ethical Accountability: Boundaries safeguard against the exploitation of power imbalances inherent in the therapist-client relationship.
Final Thoughts
Despite its flaws, Shrinking is an enjoyable, heartfelt series that sheds light on the humanity of therapists and the complexities of mental health. But for those of us in the field, it’s a reminder of why our ethical codes exist. They’re not there to make therapy rigid or impersonal; they are there to protect clients, foster trust, and ensure the work we do is as effective as it is compassionate.
So, if Shrinking inspires you to seek therapy, fantastic - just don’t expect your therapist to show up at your place, move you in with them, or tell you exactly what you should do. Real-life therapy might lack the Hollywood drama, but its slow, steady process can still, over time, lead to true and sustained growth.
Images courtesy of Apple TV+ (2024).
Commentaires