If I felt that a licensed someone was engaging in the practice of psychology illegally (which is often the same as unethically, but not always) I'd report the issue to the board of psychology (or whoever else the state policies dictate I should report to). The board would then judge that person's behavior according to the laws and policies of that state
This part I feel confident in clarity. For instance, if I advertised online as a mid-level "counseling" (LPC) clinician that I offered my clients a med-management program where I instructed or advised them on which medicines to take or dosage, or even what time of day to take a medicine, then all the sudden, I am now practicing medicine without a license (a felony in my state, I might add) -- a BIG GIANT no-no!! For counselors, med-management means helping clients better identify, and/or cope with medicine side effects and so on. But the minute I start advising/instructing which medicine a client should/should not take, or dosage etc., I will promptly find myself in a heap of troubles.
The same is true for anyone claiming to practice clinical psychology duties. This would be practicing psychology without a license. (Also a criminal offense + steep fines in many US states.)
It's important to remember that state licensing boards primarily oversee the practice and not the practitioner. If you are licensed as a social worker, but engage in behaviors that fall under the category of practicing psychology, then you are subject to discipline under the regulations governing the practice of psychology (including any regs related to using doctoral level degrees or credential in advertising or otherwise putting yourself out to the public).
This is where the lines get a bit blurred for me. While I understand the ACA and CACREP both actively wish to distinguish the profession of clinical
counseling from that of clinical
psychology, the fact remains, there is a great deal of overlap here. By my current understanding, aside from some varying theories and philosophies in training/practice, the main difference between these two professions is found more in the scope of practice. Well, this and we counselors are licensed at the master's level, whereas psychologists are licensed at the doctoral level. (Please forgive the longwindedness of this reply, as I am trying to consider future readers who may be new to these concepts in my response now.) But can any of us really explain the [clinical] difference between clinical counseling and psychology in a single coherent sentence? But essentially, more training (i.e., psychologists) = a broader scope of practice. But the lines get blurred.
As an LPC in my state, I have the authority to diagnose mental disorders. While I personally willfully choose to forfeit this duty, the fact remains, I COULD do it if I chose. I would not want somebody I knew/loved being diagnosed by a mid-level when there was access to a qualified psychologist or physician. Thus, I prefer referring to local psychologists for diagnoses and treatment planning, and I then just follow the treatment plan and perform the therapy. This was the original intent of the mid-level clinician, imu, but this is a matter of discussion for another day/thread. (But also, not everyone lives in areas with ready access to psychologists or mental health physicians, hence, the LPC's authority to diagnose comes into play.) But my bigger point is that I have authority and duties which overlap with psychology.
But back to the OP, is advertising a doctorate degree a scope of practice issue? By this I mean is a counselor (LPC) that advertises their theory-based doctorate degree somehow a form of practicing psychology? (It all seems to boil back down to the
implication of advertising this way possibly confusing or leading the public to believe that clinician was implying doctoral-level competence.) And if it is the implication that is the main issue at hand, then this seems more like a systematic issue rather than beef with any single mid-level clinician. (Again, there are literally OODLES of mid-levels advertising this way online.)
Again, I completely understand why some mid-levels might wish to pursue further training in a theory or research-based area and then list this degree on their website. Many mid-levels write books or create various workshops etc. and specialized knowledge in a niche area may be relevant. If I authored a popular book or workshop and people already knew me as "Bob Smith, Ph.D." from these books, then it seems appropriate to remain consistent on a website for advertising purposes. (Though I would also CLEARLY note my licensure as the mid-level.) At the same time, since the ACA allows stuff like this as a professional courtesy, (See ACA Code of Ethics C.4.d), many mid-levels apparently take advantage of this grey area and present themselves in shady ways, where it leaves the potential (or in some cases, even intentionally leads) the public to believe they had doctoral-level competence as a practitioner. So, again, this just seems more like a systematic beef than an individual one. Though as Matey noted, there certainly ARE clear cases where individual clinicians willfully misrepresent themselves in scandalous ways. (Referring to oneself to patients as "Dr." when one has no such degree at that level of any kind, for example. I presume that none of us would view this as a grey area!)
With all this said, I am really curious now, from your perspectives as Ph.D. Psychologists (and the OP being an MD), would it make a difference to you folks if/when a mid-level clinician listed their research doctorate in advertising
IF they also did it in a way that very clearly distinguished themselves as a mid-level clinician?
Example: Hi, my name is Bob Smith, Ph.D. I am a licensed professional counselor (LPC) practicing as a master's-level clinician. I earned my clinical master's degree at State University. I particularly enjoy helping clients explore their spiritual natures, so I obtained my Ph.D. in Pastoral Counseling from suchandsuch Seminary. I am a Nationally Certified Counselor (NCC), certified as a mental health counselor. While I treat most mental health concerns as a generalist, I specialize in the integration of spiritual beliefs, for clients who desire and request this service.
Notice in this above example they distinguished themselves as a
counselor, not a psychologist. They also do not refer to themselves as "Dr." Bob Smith, Ph.D. but just "Bob Smith, Ph.D." What I am wondering is, from the perspective of clinical psychologists, are there any situations where it could be appropriate for a mid-level to list their non-clinical doctorate in a clinical setting (like advertising)?
One final disclaimer: I personally have no dog in this fight. I am a mid-level clinician (LPC) and hold no doctorate degree from any academic discipline. I MAY someday pursue a Ph.D. in clinical psych, but that is another matter entirely. Even if I did obtain a clinical doctorate in psychology, I probably would still not refer to myself as "Dr." just because of my theoretical orientation and I just prefer a more egalitarian nature of the relationship between clients and myself. But again, I see this issue come up a lot. I see/hear many of my peers on the counseling side dismiss any such concerns as mere "credential hubris" without really even listening to the arguments from our psychologist colleagues. This disappoints me. I really appreciate you folks sharing your perspectives with me in this discussion. My own personal opinion on the matter is that clinicians ought not to refer to themselves as "Dr.'s" unless they are explicitly license-eligible at the doctorate level. But it also seems reasonable, to me, for mid-level clinicians to advertise their non-clinical doctorate degrees, so long as they CLEARLY distinguish themselves as master's level practitioners. But perhaps you clinical psych folks might move my needle on this. So I am really curious if you believe it could ever be appropriate, or if it is a hard "NO" 100% of the time. Does motive/intent matter here?
