A dangerous trend?

Louisiana psychologists will be able to prescribe psychotropic medications. This is a dangerous trend as there is also a movement to allow clinical social workers prescribing privileges.

 

There are many dangerous trends in this field, such as the use of milled doctorates, of doctrates from verbally cognate but far less rigorous fields, and ostensible but self-run associations of practitioners, designed to create the appearance of legitimacy by their similarity to established professional organizations. Thank you for the warning on this reckless step by the state of Louisiana. As always, consumers must beware!

 

You're welcome. This won't stop with LA and NM, I'm afraid.

 

Your warning is well-taken.

Many glory-hound clergy like to cloak themselves in the penumbra of psychology because it has higher secular status than the cure of souls.

Loud and clear disclaimers ought to be the invariable order of the day, instead, *except* where clergy actually have legitimate degrees in psychology, and *especially* where a non-doctoral psych degree plus, say, a DMin or ThD or non-psych PhD in a cleric's credentials might create an unintended confusion in layfolks' minds that they are dealing with a doctor pf psychology when they really are not.

This applies to clergy. Analogous cautions ought to apply to other public practitioners.

Allowing dots to be wrongly connected, so to speak, can be as problematic as making outright false claims. I have never believed that the prestige of any field is diminished by a careful delimitation of its expertise by its practitioners.

Again, thanks for the heads-up.

 

Personally I don't think there is a higher calling or status than that of the clergy.

 

Perhaps.

How, then, do you think that clergy (or social workers or psychologists) should express the distinctiveness of their professions/professional identity and expertise--including the limits of their identifying field AND qualifications beyond the field--in the face of the kind of "category creep" shown by the bad Louisiana decision you mentioned?

How do you personally do this?

 

Forgive me for saying this.....but there are very few and far in between psychiatrists that I would say have a grasp on a patient and their medical condition to perscribe medications. Being a Social Worker in the medical field, I have come across many patients who require medication of some sort, and usually would interview a patient for five minutes or ten minutes, and then ask the nursing staff or myself specific behaviors that the patient has and perscribe the medication. Luckly, I work with two psychiatrists who worked as MEdical MD's before hand, so they were more aware of how the medications interact with other medications that were treating the medical condition and had a good bedside manner - which helps. Beyond the required 2 year residency most psychiatrists do after med school, there is really no intensive education in the psychological arena. Most of the good psychiatrists seek out the intensive education.


Now, do I feel that master's level social workers shoud perscribe medications - NO! They may have the bio-psycho-social expereince but not the pharmecutical knowledge that comes with perscribing meds.

Do I feel that PHD psychologists and PHD level social workers should perscribe medications - not without intensive training in the pharmecutical and medical implications of perscribing medications.

To sum it up: Psychiatric Residents need more training in the schools of psychology and PhD Psychologists and Social Workers would need training in the medical area and additional licensure AND additional liability insurance before being allowed to perscribe meds.

 

Thanks, Gina. I too am alarmed by "category creep" and the inflation of claims to competence beyond the purview of actual rigorous professional training. Your post is a useful reminder that these things can have drastic personal consequences for the clients affected by them.

BTW, I'm still in awe of the semi-Italian (?) "Thacker" post you did on that other thread. Go check out the "Canyon College" current thread for the only other thing on degreeinfo that ever made me laugh so hard (the "Levicoff letter").

 

Why thank you Uncle! I try my best . If you like, I could try and translate the letter into italian as well (or chinese)!

 

Ag shame. I saw your Dutch version. Since I will be spending the day doing research at one of the finest Dutch Reformed theological institutions in the Northern Hemisphere (sometimes one just has to settle), it really calvinized, oops,
I mean galvanized my world-and-life view and pillarized my scholarly resolve.

In the immortal (?) words of Groen van Prinsterer, who shoulda known, "in de heidensche wereld, vreemdeling is vijand."

 

I'm not nearly as concerned about the meds issue as some. If there is adequate training, supervision, and collaboration it will work. This is already common in optometry and dentistry.

If I were a psychologist (and I am not. I don't even play one on television) I think I would be concerned about what this represents as a philosophical shift in the world of psychology. Psychology has traditionally boasted about its ability to help without the use of drugs. This new trend suggests that the psychiatrists were right all along. Such a surrender may be enough to keep most psychologists from taking the dissonant plunge into the murky world of medications.

 

I totally agree. You are absolutely 100% correct. Anyone who does not agree must be a mill shill.

 

supporting PhD in Psych or social workers being able to prescribe drugs? They know no more about the behavior of humans than economists or socialogists (they are ALL social scientists-not medical scientists)...why not just give them all this ability? What is next? allowing brain surgery?

 

Two "mere" nurse practioners, one with the full approval of the VA, prescribe, for myself and two members of my family, a wide variety of medications which include psycho active, anti convulsive , diabetic, and hypertension drug therapy .

 

This is a good post, boydston. The philosophical shift, however, is not recent. This has been a trend for decades going back at least to 1963. We have moved away from "ministering to the soul" (therapy comes from the Greek therapeutikos and psycho comes from the Greek word psyche.) The former means "attendant" or "one who takes care of another" and the latter means, as you know, "soul."

Therefore, psychology/psychotherapy means "ministering to the soul or being or another." Psychiatry has medicalized and corrupted the words to mean "the treatment of mental illness."

We have shifted to the new paradigm, as you mention, of drugging instead of ministering. I repudiate the new paradigm! Because therapy involves healing the spirit or soul, the whole essence of the person, it must draw upon the wisdom and human potential of the therapist, not rely on dangerous medications that have been proven to cause brain damage (tardive dyskinesia), induce psychoses, etc.

The good news is that more and more attention is being focused on the cavalier prescribing of medications, especially to children. Also encouraging is that a number of psychiatrists are beginning to speak out about the abuses in their field and many have begun treating their cleints with psychotherapy instead of medications.

The outcomes are promising, thus far. The Soteria House is a nondrug social treatment home that was compared to a control group of patients going through the regular psychiatric system. Using small, homelike quarters, Soteria outperformed the traditional mental hospital system and neuroleoptic drugs! Soteria's work with those labeled schizophrinia is remarkable!

So, the future looks bright, bright indeed! As Dr. Peter Breggin, M.D., says "Therapy, empathy, and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the new psychiatry."

 

Re: Re: A dangerous trend?

So, Heywood, can I call you James? Or maybe Rod? Or Neil? Or Dennis?

Moreover, why are you here?

 

Re: Re: Re: A dangerous trend?

Do you still go back to degreehints after managing to get yourself banned twice, under 2 different names?

 

Jimmy, how do you explain your fields of professional expertise (and limits) for your parishioners or clients?

 

Uncle Janko,

I have been debating whether or not to answer your questions. I see you have refined your earlier post (questions). Whenever I am approached regarding my therapeutic services or skills I am quite frank.

I acknowledge my 10 year's experience in mental health and/or addictions as a clinical therapist having worked in six agency counseling settings.

I acknowledge my skill and expertise in addictions, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, adjustment disorders, and a few of the psychotic disorders.

I make it clear I do not work with children, couples, or families. I do not work with sexual abuse. As a matter of fact, a church member came by earlier tonight asking me to work with someone who was sexually abused. I told her I would give her a list of therapists Sunday. I am not skilled in these areas and have referred clients to other therapists when working in agency counseling after conducting the initial assessment.

I did not renew my LMFT license this year because I do not like working with families or couples and, as I stated above, am not that skilled in MFT. I have basic skills in MFT but know and acknowledge my limitations. I keep an updated list of therapists on hand in case I need to make referrals.

Working with individuals, 18 and older, is what I prefer, when engaging in psychotherapy. Lately, however, I am very, very selective with whom I work. HIPAA and managed care have practically ruined psychotherapy.

I am not sure I have answered your question (s). I am tired. I have had a long, long day (including a tire blowout) and am developing a study on eschatology for my new Bible class I will begin teaching this Sunday. It's premill/posttrib even though one of our founders, Alexander Campbell, was postmill and many in the independent Christian church/churches of Christ today are amill.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: A dangerous trend?

Unlike that forum that pretends to be the bastion of free speech but bans anyone who disagrees, this forum only bans people for violating the TOS. Which is quite clear, since you are still here.

By the way, the name of that other forum is "Collegehints" not "Degreehints." We can say things like that here. But at that other "free speech" forum, the name "Degreeinfo" can not be spoken. What a fine example of free speech. You and the other doctors should be proud.