5th Circuit Ruling about Psychology License

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

MCParent

Board-certified psychologist
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
2,013
Reaction score
2,658
Below from Dr. Bray.

Seems relevant to the thread right below now about licensing. The endgame of this entitlement culture is to call oneself a psychologist because you sometimes talk and listen to people, apparently.

****

Dear colleagues,



The 5th Circuit of Appeals ruled against the Texas Licensing Board and stated that its definition of the practice of psychology is “too broad” and unconstitutional. While the opinion is being appealed by the Texas State Board, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by APA. Below is a link from Ms. Serafine who brought the law suite.





http://mlserafine.com/fifth-circuit...f-psychology-law-as-unconstitutional#more-151





James Bray

Division 50
 
Whoa... This is an unsettling precedent to say the least.

Thanks for helping to keep us informed, MCParent. I'm definitely interested to hear people's thoughts about this.
 
Below from Dr. Bray.

Seems relevant to the thread right below now about licensing. The endgame of this entitlement culture is to call oneself a psychologist because you sometimes talk and listen to people, apparently.

****

Dear colleagues,



The 5th Circuit of Appeals ruled against the Texas Licensing Board and stated that its definition of the practice of psychology is “too broad” and unconstitutional. While the opinion is being appealed by the Texas State Board, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by APA. Below is a link from Ms. Serafine who brought the law suite.





http://mlserafine.com/fifth-circuit...f-psychology-law-as-unconstitutional#more-151





James Bray

Division 50

I cant view this cause of VA IT restrictions. Can you elaborate more on this?
 
Erg & others,
Full text below.
-------------------------------------

AUSTIN (February 22, 2016) — Attorney Mary Lou Serafine announced victory today in the federal First Amendment case she brought in 2011 aimed at striking down the Texas law that bans the unlicensed practice of psychology.

“The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its judgment that the central part of the Texas psychology licensing law is unconstitutional because it violates freedom of speech,” Serafine said. “The law defined the ‘practice of psychology’ too broadly. I thought it was unconstitutional because it effectively banned giving advice about the whole of life.”

Serafine continued, “Many states have the same overbroad, unconstitutional law because the APA—the American Psychological Association—drafted the model act. The psychologists’ lobby obviously intended it to be broad. It gives psychology boards too much power to drive others out of business if they offer help with personal problems.”


Serafine quoted the Court of Appeals’ opinion in her case, Serafine v. Branaman, No. 14-51151 (5th Cir.):

“The ability to provide guidance about the common problems of life—marriage, children, alcohol, health—is a foundation of human interaction and society…. By limiting the ability of individuals to dispense personal advice about mental or emotional problems based on knowledge gleaned in a graduate class in practically any context, subsection (c) chills and prohibits protected speech. But that is precisely what the overbreadth doctrine is meant to prevent. Section 501.003(c), and by implication, Section 501.003(b)(2), are overbroad and contravene the First Amendment. [citations omitted].

“State legislators have been gullible,” Serafine added. “They are hurting the public.”

The case started in 2010 when Serafine ran as the Republican nominee against Democrat State Senator Kirk Watson. “On my campaign website I told the voters who I am,” Serafine said. “I wrote, ‘Mary Lou Serafine is an Austin attorney and psychologist.’”

“So the Texas Psychological Association, the Texas Board of Examiners of Psychologists, and the Texas Attorney General invoked the law, which allows a fine of $1000 a day and jail time. If anything can inhibit speech, that would be it.”

Serafine had been giving personal growth seminars and offering counselling sessions. She complied with the law, then sued under the First Amendment.

Speaking about her success at the Court of Appeals, Serafine said, “Countless unlicensed professionals in Texas who give one-to-one psychological advice for a fee should be relieved to be out from under this law’s infringement of their speech. Life and executive coaches, management consultants, health coaches, and anyone with graduate training in psychology, education, or even art, sports, or business are only a few such people.”

Serafine was quick to say the Court left the door open for the legislature to draft a narrower and constitutionally-viable statute.

But asked whether it was possible to draft a narrower definition of the practice of psychology, Serafine said, “No. Because there is no scientific basis for it. There isn’t even a general professional consensus about the correct principles and methods of psychology. The lobby is one of self-interest.”

“Testing the licensing of psychologists under the First Amendment was decades overdue,” Serafine said. “Psychology is not medicine.”

Do other licenses such as marriage and family counseling or professional counseling also suffer from overbroad statutes? “I’m certain they do,” Serafine said, “in fact they are sometimes broader. The bottom line is that the talking professions do just that—talk. The First Amendment protects our right to talk and listen.”

“I do think a state government could legally certify psychologists and counsellors,” Serafine said. “But they can’t license them, I believe, and prevent everyone else from engaging in psychological speech.”

The Court’s opinion, the appellate briefs Serafine wrote, and parts of the trial transcript are on the website www.mlserafine.com.

The Dallas firm of Haynes Boone presented oral argument on Serafine’s behalf at the Court, under attorney Andrew Guthrie.

In support of Serafine’s position, the Center for Individual Rights of Washington, D.C. filed an amicus brief focused on First Amendment overbreadth doctrine.

Serafine said she would like to hear from attorneys in other states facing similar cases.
 
In case people have curiosity and say "who is this person", here's a cut & paste from wikibin on her. Seems she has a phd from Florida in Education.
------------------------------------


Mary Lou Serafine



Mary Lou Serafine is an Austin attorney and psychologist and a former UT San Antonio and UT Austin faculty member.
Biography
Mary Lou Serafine was born in Rochester, New York and attended public schools in the near-by suburb of Webster.
She attended Douglass College in New Jersey, the all-women's college of Rutgers University, where she won the Theodore Presser ] Scholarship in piano and graduated with Honors in Music. She then earned a Ph.D. in education at the University of Florida, where part of her research concerned the effects of Head Start on young children's school success. Her roots in Texas go back to her teaching days in the late 70's, where she served first on the faculty of and then on the faculty of UT Austin. As part of her teaching role, she toured public schools and supervised student teachers. During the 1980's Mary Lou was one of the youngest scholars granted research monies to carry out major scientific studies on children, learning, and music, which led to appointments on the psychology faculties at Yale University and Vassar College. Her scientific research continues to be discussed internationally and is used in teacher education programs in the U.S. and Canada.
At the completion of her research, she began a second career as an attorney and is now licensed in Texas and California, as well as in New York and Washington, D.C. Her law practice has focused on civil litigation. Her cases have extended to the international arena, where she was involved with the estate of Ferdinand Marcos and the return of assets to the Philippine people. She has been both a plaintiff and defense lawyer, practicing both as a sole practitioner and also in major international firms including O'Melveny & Myers, when the firm was headed by later-Secretary of State Warren Christopher. She graduated from Yale Law School, where she won the Cullen Prize in her first year. She likes to say she went to law school with borrowed money that she paid back, and with "no bail-outs and no affirmative action."
Much of her law practice has been in Los Angeles, where she also served as a volunteer criminal prosecutor and campaigned vigorously against affirmative action in the successful passage of "Prop. 209."
She returned to Austin in 2005. In addition to practicing law, she teaches private seminars in Austin related to personal and family issues, including marriage, singleness, and divorce. She now lives in the Hyde Park bungalow she considers a historic restoration project and has owned for 30 years. She has been an active member of the Federalist Society, the Texas Federation of Republican Women, and the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
As of 2010, she has filed as the Republican candidate in Texas Senate District 14 to challenge incumbent Kirk Watson.
Education
She received a B.A,. with honors from Douglass College of Rutgers Universit in , where she held the Theodore Presser Scholarship in Piano, a Ph.D. from the University of Florida College of Education in , and then a J.D. from Yale Law School, J.D., where she was Senior Editor of the Yale Law Journal and won the Edgar M. Cullen Prize.
Legal Career

She began legal practice in Los Angeles as an Associate in the Litigation Department of OMelveny & Myers i (1991-1996), and then as an Associate in the Litigation Department of Chadbourne & Parke, also in Los Angeles. (1996-97), and after that a similar position as Fried, Frank Harris, Shriver, & Jacobson (1997-1999) . She continued a sole legal practice in civil litigation in Beverly Hills, California and Austin, Texas
Academic career
She was Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at the University of Texas at San Antonio (1976-1977), and then Assistant Professor of early childhood education at the University of Texas at Austin (1977-79). She was a Lecturer and postodctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology (1979-83), and Assistant Professor of Psychology at Vassar College (1983-1988)
Publications
Books
Serafine, M.L., Music as Cognition: the Development of Thought in Sound, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. ISBN 9780231057424, found in over 600 WorldCat libraries, cited 173 times according to Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hlen&q%22Music+as+Cognition%22&btnGSearch&as_sdt20000000000&as_ylo&as_vis0]
**Review: by Huron, D. in Psychology of Music 18 (1990)
Articles
She has published 22 peer-reviewed articles in music, psychology, and education. .The most cited are:
*Serafine, M.L., Crowder, R.G., Repp, B.H. "Integration of melody and text in memory for songs" Cognition 16 (3), pp. 285-303, (1984) cited 51 times according to Web of Science
*Serafine, M.L., Davidson, J., Crowder, R.G., Repp, B.H. "On the nature of melody-text integration in memory for songs." Journal of Memory and Language 25 (2), pp. 123-135 (1986) , cited 43 times
*Crowder, R.G., Serafine, M.L., Repp, B. "Physical interaction and association by contiguity in memory for the words and melodies of songs " Memory and Cognition 18 (5), pp. 469-476 , cited 25 times
*Serafine, M.L. "Cognition in Music" Cognition 14 (2), pp. 119-183 (1983), cited 18 times
*Serafine, M.L. "The Cognitive Reality of Hierarchic structure in music" Music Perception 6(4) 397-430 (1989) cited 17 times
*Serafine, M.L., "A Measure of Meter Conservation in Music, Based on Piaget’s Theory." Genetic Psychology Monographs, 99, 185-229 (1979) (based on her Ph.D. thesis) cited 6 times.
She has also published papers in Musical Quarterly," Journal of Genetic Psychology , Journal of Aesthetic Education , Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Journal of Music Theory, Music Theory Spectrum, Perspectives of New Music

She also published two legal articles,
*Note, “Repudiated Compromise After Breach,” 100 Yale Law Journal 2229 (1991)[
*Reeves, B., Boyko, D.R., and Serafine, M.L. “We’ve Got It, They Want It: Companies May Need to Use Caution in Seeking To Control Downstream Markets After Kodak II,” BNA’s Corporate Counsel Weekly, October 8, 1997.
 
I find it odd that she can be licensed as an attorney, yet has a problem with psychologists being licensed as psychologists.

I happen to think the law is too broad, and anyone can give legal advice. Therefore, I am an attorney, and it is unlawful for attorneys to be licensed.
Did I do it right?
 
Not only frustrating but dangerous.

Professions with the propensity to cause harm are dangerous to have unlicensed. Even if a large portion of variance is due to the relationship, there are a myriad of legal/ethical issues (Hippa, protected communication, etc.) at play. This doesn't even go into the fact that certain treatments (e.g, rebirthing, treatments that are expensive and do not provide improvement, etc.) are dangerous and harmful. This is bad and needs a strong response from both APAs and all other licensed service providers involved in mental health.
 
"I thought it was unconstitutional because it effectively banned giving advice about the whole of life.”

This isn't even remotely close to how my state defines "the professional practice of psychology."

The ability to provide guidance about the common problems of life—marriage, children, alcohol, health—is a foundation of human interaction and society…. By limiting the ability of individuals to dispense personal advice about mental or emotional problems...

Ironically illustrating her terribly uniformed notion of what professional counseling/psychotherapy is.
 
She is running for a state senate seat after losing in 2010, and she landed in hot water for calling herself a "psychologist," which runs afoul of state law if you're not licensed.

http://www.haynesboone.com/news-and.../2016/01/20/texas-psychologists-licensing-act

Edit: Having just skimmed the court's decision, it looks like part of the ruling came down to whether you can represent yourself as a "psychologist" in something other than a mental health services context. In other words, misrepresenting yourself as a psychologist is OK as long as it's only to win votes. 😵
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me first state that I agree this is disheartening.

That said, I've voiced concerns before about the fact that psychotherapy IS inherently nebulous and this is just one example of how that can bite us. "Providing guidance" is not psychotherapy, but the boundary between the two is fuzzy at best. Can anyone provide a clear, concise way to delineate the two that doesn't result in a crap-ton of "grey area" in which someone may or may not be practicing therapy? I've been trying to come up with one for years and haven't managed to do so or found definitions I liked.

Please don't construe any of this as me supporting the case, since I think it is ridiculous. I just think its important to acknowledge this issue. We (as a field) tend to get so caught up in the nuances of psychotherapy that we forget the boundaries around it are much less clear than in other areas of healthcare. I think failure to recognize that has hurt us, since we take it for granted that everyone knows what it really means to "provide psychotherapy."
 
That said, I've voiced concerns before about the fact that psychotherapy IS inherently nebulous and this is just one example of how that can bite us. "Providing guidance" is not psychotherapy, but the boundary between the two is fuzzy at best. Can anyone provide a clear, concise way to delineate the two that doesn't result in a crap-ton of "grey area" in which someone may or may not be practicing therapy? I've been trying to come up with one for years and haven't managed to do so or found definitions I liked.

I agree in principle, but this case is so disingenuous. It isn't as though life coaches aren't doing business unchecked throughout the state of Texas and elsewhere. The original issue was that the board had asked Serafine to quit calling herself a psychologist when she very clearly was not one. It appears she tacked on her argument about practice-as-advice-giving as an F-you to the board.
 
I agree in principle, but this case is so disingenuous. It isn't as though life coaches aren't doing business unchecked throughout the state of Texas and elsewhere. The original issue was that the board had asked Serafine to quit calling herself a psychologist when she very clearly was not one. It appears she tacked on her argument about practice-as-advice-giving as an F-you to the board.

Oh, I agree 100%. I just think its important to keep that perspective in mind, since I think it is what allowed things to get to the present state.
 
Oh, I agree 100%. I just think its important to keep that perspective in mind, since I think it is what allowed things to get to the present state.
Is practicing law or practicing medicine more concrete than practicing psychotherapy. My wife comes to me all the time with medical complaints. When I give her my opinion about diagnosis is that practicing medicine? I also talk about legal matters and give my opinions on those in various contexts, sometimes even within the scope of my practice as a psychologist since I do have expertise and training in mental health law. Is that practicing law? I actually do agree that we need to be a specific as possible but the line of psychological advice, legal advice, and medical advice will always be nebulous. I think they fight a lot harder than we do and I think taking the stance that what we do is more nebulous just feeds our weakness.
 
I certainly think medicine and law are somewhat different, though it all depends on context. Obviously prescribing medication and surgery fall under the purview of medicine. Stretch and apply heat? Less so. Similar analogies exist in law. Its not that those areas lack any sort of grey area, we're just talking proportional differences.

Fighting this is of critical importance. I'd hope acknowledging that what we do is more nebulous would inspire people to fight harder and encourage psychologists to help make sure the public is better informed about the differences between the two rather than simply causing them to give up and slink off into a corner to sulk. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.
 
I think a good place to start is with psych assessment and diagnosis. Limiting a hack's ability to assess and diagnose may help identify scope, and then it becomes about shrinking the scope. The hacks could argue that "giving advice" doesn't require a license, but saying someone is depressed is definitely more tangible and something that can be legally enforced.
 
I think a good place to start is with psych assessment and diagnosis. Limiting a hack's ability to assess and diagnose may help identify scope, and then it becomes about shrinking the scope. The hacks could argue that "giving advice" doesn't require a license, but saying someone is depressed is definitely more tangible and something that can be legally enforced.

First one that springs to mind for me too...diagnosis is much easier to protect (though a much smaller part of what most psychologists do, at least in typical settings). That is the sort of thought process I would hope discussion/acknowledgement of how nebulous therapy can be engenders. I was hoping to foster political strategizing, not learned helplessness😉
 
I believe this ruling struck down the law that "bans the unlicensed practice of psychology."

Is the ruling related to the legal use of the word "Psychologist" in Texas?

I thought, that generally, most states allow people to basically do what they want as long as they don't say they are "Psychologists" or "Social Workers." I can work as an advice giver or emotion-apist but I can't say I am a Psychologist (or whatever term is deemed by the state).

Is this ruling going to allow any Joe Schmo to say they are a psychologist or will it only allow people to "help" other people in psychological ways without it being a crime?
 
At least as I understand it, the ruling says that you can call yourself a psychologist as long as you don't do so in the context of offering mental health services. In this case, the court found that the law didn't apply because the title "psychologist" was not used in the context for which the restrictions on the title were intended. In other words, "I'm not a psychologist but I play one in my campaign ads" was OK by the court.

The other implications are harder to interpret, though no doubt this opens up a new avenue to challenge the authority of the licensing board.
 
I certainly think medicine and law are somewhat different, though it all depends on context. Obviously prescribing medication and surgery fall under the purview of medicine. Stretch and apply heat? Less so. Similar analogies exist in law. Its not that those areas lack any sort of grey area, we're just talking proportional differences.

Fighting this is of critical importance. I'd hope acknowledging that what we do is more nebulous would inspire people to fight harder and encourage psychologists to help make sure the public is better informed about the differences between the two rather than simply causing them to give up and slink off into a corner to sulk. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.
I do agree that it is harder to define the procedures that are entailed in providing psychotherapy, but it is easier to define what a licensed psychologist is. It seems to me that all we do is criticize and police ourselves while we allow anyone to do and call themselves whatever they want. It starts with fighting the perception that we are not a real science. Second, we need to challenge the notion that our interventions have not been demonstrated to be effective. Third, we need to recognize that our empathy, understanding, cognitive flexibility, scientific skepticism, acknowledgement of limitations, rationality, and relentless search for truth which serves us so well in most areas of our work might get in the way of advocating for our profession. Medical doctors know way less about much of what they are dealing with than we do, yet they will never acknowledge that. They put on the mantle of authority and act from a strong point of certainty. I think that we need to focus on our strengths and victories and promote those as relentlessly as they do. Instead we spend a lot of energy apologizing for Freud. Never hear the MDs apologizing for the crazy crap they did even more recently than Freud.
 
I do agree that it is harder to define the procedures that are entailed in providing psychotherapy, but it is easier to define what a licensed psychologist is. It seems to me that all we do is criticize and police ourselves while we allow anyone to do and call themselves whatever they want. It starts with fighting the perception that we are not a real science. Second, we need to challenge the notion that our interventions have not been demonstrated to be effective. Third, we need to recognize that our empathy, understanding, cognitive flexibility, scientific skepticism, acknowledgement of limitations, rationality, and relentless search for truth which serves us so well in most areas of our work might get in the way of advocating for our profession. Medical doctors know way less about much of what they are dealing with than we do, yet they will never acknowledge that. They put on the mantle of authority and act from a strong point of certainty. I think that we need to focus on our strengths and victories and promote those as relentlessly as they do. Instead we spend a lot of energy apologizing for Freud. Never hear the MDs apologizing for the crazy crap they did even more recently than Freud.

Agreed. The phrase "psychology isn't medicine" (or whatever she said) is of course correct, but at least based on the context of the written quotation, seemed to be implying that the practice of psychology is perhaps lesser than medicine in some respects. I could be reading too much into it, but that, as you've said, is the type of perception that needs to be rebutted.
 
Agreed. The phrase "psychology isn't medicine" (or whatever she said) is of course correct, but at least based on the context of the written quotation, seemed to be implying that the practice of psychology is perhaps lesser than medicine in some respects. I could be reading too much into it, but that, as you've said, is the type of perception that needs to be rebutted.
As someone who treats serious problems that can require hospitalization and if untreated can have life-threatening complications, and is regularly consulted and referred to by both physicians and attorneys and also deemed an expert on mental illness diagnosis and treatment by judges, it is inconceivable and unconscionable that a judge would deem us as not deserving of the same level of professional protection and standing than these two professions.
 
I dunno. I think that restricting the word "psychologist" in itself is weird. I agree that this ruling has scary implications, though.
 
Relatedly, I think its time to open up my dolphin assisted therapy psychology practice.

Pffft. "Therapy" is an elitist term that treads on my civil liberties. I'm going the life coach route.

LifeCoachCertificationMiami.jpg
 
I dunno. I think that restricting the word "psychologist" in itself is weird. I agree that this ruling has scary implications, though.
Don't other fields regulate titles to licensed personnel? I'm pretty sure that if I put a sign on my door saying attorney, i might get in trouble for that.
 
I dunno. I think that restricting the word "psychologist" in itself is weird. I agree that this ruling has scary implications, though.
I think it has problematic implications if we don't take that approach. The chances of the public being even more confused about what type of provider they are seeing increases dramatically. Imagine if anyone (tarot reader, physician, chiropractor, etc.) could all call themselves doctor. The risk for harm to the public from ambiguous terms is definitely there- in psychology and in other fields.
 
I think it has problematic implications if we don't take that approach. The chances of the public being even more confused about what type of provider they are seeing increases dramatically. Imagine if anyone (tarot reader, physician, chiropractor, etc.) could all call themselves doctor. The risk for harm to the public from ambiguous terms is definitely there- in psychology and in other fields.

Exactly, other professions restrict certain titles. Such as physician, psychiatrist, speech pathologist, etc. It's a public health issue. Anyone can be a life coach, life advisor, shoulder to cry on, or whatever they hell you want to be known as; but the public needs some protection from fraudulent services.
 
Came across a link to the actual court document, if anyone is interested in reading it. I found it helpful to have some clarification regarding what the court's official ruling/opinion was.

https://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/serafine_fifth_cir_op.pdf
Thanks for the link

that horrible court decision said:
Serafine’s speech on her campaign website was far removed from the context of professional speech. She was not providing advice to any particular client but communicating with the voters at large, so the professional speech doctrine is inapplicable. Serafine’s campaign statements are entitled to full First Amendment protection ....

The Board did not order Serafine to cease and desist because she used the word “psychologist” on a promotional flyer seeking clients, or on official business letterhead, or in a phonebook advertisement ....

Yet Seraphine was seeking votes, not clients ....

Serafine was not practicing psychology by speaking on her political website or filing forms for political office.
This is an interesting argument because it presumes that the title itself does not impact how people weigh and interpret the positions taken. It's like if I say I'm a doctor on my website then blog about how autism is linked with eating too many snickers bars. I am not providing 'medical care' so it shouldn't matter that I say I'm a doctor. I can also now run for office in Texas and claim I'm a doctor, psychologist, and lawyer even though I'm not because I have the right to free speech because I'm not "practicing medicine" by saying I'm a doctor and promoting myself.

Perhaps to avoid that problem, it appears that the Board heretofore has also read subsection (c) disjunctively. At trial, the chairman of the Board, Branaman, testified that it is disjunctive—so if someone were not applying a “body of knowledge” learned in “an organized program of graduate study” under (c)(4), she still could be engaged in the “practice of psychology” if the other requirements of subsection (c) were met. Nevertheless, regardless of any enforcement problems that the conjunctive reading occasions, we are bound by the statute as the legislature fashioned it. The grammatical structure of subsection (c) is plain, and notably it contrasts with the disjunctive structure of Section 501.003(b), which uses a similar format (beginning each subsection with a verb) but employs “or” rather than “and” before the last subsection. T
they do offer so easy ways to address this, but its a rather stupid issue with wide repercussions because of the ruling especially in light of...

Serafine correctly contends that providing “services to an individual or group . . . that include the application of established principles, methods, and procedures of describing, explaining, and ameliorating behavior” could apply to a number of activities, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Weight-Watchers, various selfhelp groups, life-coaches, yoga teachers, political consultants, and golf professionals. See Section 501.003(c)(1)

It is also possible that any classes taken after the completion of an undergraduate degree, regardless of whether at a traditional university, could be within the definition of an “organized program of graduate study.” So, by attending a meditation seminar or AA training conference, it is conceivable that someone could be participating in “an organized program of graduate study.”
this part is asinine. there is no use of 'graduate course' which includes a weekend retreat on how to do yoga. Thats simply not what graduate study is.
 
Last edited:
I think it has problematic implications if we don't take that approach. The chances of the public being even more confused about what type of provider they are seeing increases dramatically. Imagine if anyone (tarot reader, physician, chiropractor, etc.) could all call themselves doctor. The risk for harm to the public from ambiguous terms is definitely there- in psychology and in other fields.
But we do have people calling themselves "naturopathic physicians" and "homopathic physicians," for example.
 
But we do have people calling themselves "naturopathic physicians" and "homopathic physicians," for example.
Additionally, I believe that the legally protected terms in states differ and are often similar to "Clinical Psychologists" or "Licensed Clinical Psychologist" as opposed to just the word "psychologist." Of course, if you misrepresent yourself as a "psychologist" in healthcare when you have not received the state deemed designation, that is a no-no.

I guess I am not too concerned when people say they are psychologists but are not licensed by their state and do not practice. I am pretty sure this is commonly done.
 
But we do have people calling themselves "naturopathic physicians" and "homopathic physicians," for example.
Sure, but they qualify the term physician or doctor. They don't claim to be 'doctors' outright. Its nuance but its better than lumping all things together. If the term needs to be 'clinical psychologist' or whatever thats fine with me, but I think it is useful to have a term that the public can relate to our specific field.
 
Sure, but they qualify the term physician or doctor. They don't claim to be 'doctors' outright. Its nuance but its better than lumping all things together. If the term needs to be 'clinical psychologist' or whatever thats fine with me, but I think it is useful to have a term that the public can relate to our specific field.

In a previous state I practiced in, it was Licensed Psychologist. Psychologist was not protected, but the addition of "licensed" made it so. Unfortunately, it will be a hodgepodge of state by state rules for some time.
 
"psychologist" has not and will no survive in the supreme courts - See Rosemond Vs KY. ..it considered it "freedom of speech" as long as it is not professional (privileged info ) or commercial speech (transactions as a licensed-psychologist in X state, when you're not).
 
Top