How wholesome is CBT?

This isn’t an attack on CBT, but I am having a hard time understanding the ethics of it. Why is it a medical treatment to observe your brain and cognitive behaviors and reduce/replace negative thought patterns, but not solely to explore your psyche and develop a toolset to deal with it on your own? That was the point of psychoanalysis to begin with, but nobody uses that anymore. The most promising tool in therapy is CBT, but it’s entirely dependent on the therapist’s ability to guide you.<br><br>It seems to me that the best way to help people is to give them the tools to analyze themselves, but that would put therapists out of business. So instead we end up with CBT, which relies on a therapist to guide you. I think the alternative approach would be more effective because it doesn’t rely on an external professional. It would be more fulfilling for the patient too, because they have accomplished it entirely on their own. Even if it isn’t as effective, it would be more fulfilling and wholesome.<br><br>EDIT: I really appreciate all responses so far, I want to make clear that I never intended to disparage CBT or therapists. This is an entertaining topic for intellectual discussion. I think that every therapist, therapist-dependent treatment, etc. is good in its own right, but I’m more asking about the fundamental approach of therapy, as opposed to the therapy itself. It’s more interesting to consider the potential effects of taking a different approach entirely. I think that it would be easier to implement psychoanalysis more widely if it were automated - an AI designed to act as a psychoanalyst. And I think that this would be better for people because it would allow them to develop tools on their own. It would be more fulfilling for them, and more effective.