Are you against Psych NPs having their own clinics?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
PublicHealth said:
This is faulty logic, as "medical psychologist" is a term recognized by law.
"Master/bachelor-level psychopharmacologist" is not.

Pterion brings up a good point. Data and dollars will speak louder than physicians' "holier than thou" attitude (e.g., Sazi: "the premier healthcare provider...physicians"). Nonphysician groups are equally, if not in some cases, BETTER qualified to provide clinical services. Patients should be able to decide from whom they want to seek services, not the AMA. Check out this site: http://www.patientsrightscoalition.org/

Psychologists who seek RxP do not want to be physicians (and neither do NPs seeking specialty training in psychiatric nursing for that matter). They want to add psychopharmacology as another tool in their clinical arsenal, for the betterment of the patients they serve. As noted in Russ Newman's statement above, psychologists seek to follow a different model of prescribing than physicians. Unfortunately for psychiatry, once the safety of psychologist RxP is demonstrated and the severity of the access problem laid out, psychiatrists' ranting and hand waving about "they will kill patients!" will not fly.

Taking a step back from "taking sides", is any data available that show patients would rather see a psychiatrist MD over the other mental health professionals (RxP, etc.) and visa-versa?

Members don't see this ad.
 
See Sazi, you hijacked this thread...I told you. How did this turn into an RxP argument AGAIN!!!

:confused:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Anasazi23 said:
The same way it always does.
:rolleyes:

Attending to the original question, NP's are an important addition to the healthcare field in many cases. However, one cannot argue year for year equivalence to medical training. This hackneyed rebuttal has been spewed like the oral excrement it is for years while conveniently ignoring the extended, supervised (and in most cases) intense training procured in residency. No other healthcare degree has an equivalent.

In an amusing article in Columbia University's paper announcing a new program(2/16/05), they identified advanced ("doctoral") training for nurses that will both "have a direct impact on the nursing shortage" while at the same time "filling the gap that has been left in the primary care specialty", as well as "highly sophisticted practice" offering "a year of full-time residency". Give me a break. It seems that every self-identified under-appreciated profession is struggling to assert relevance in a world whose technological speed has outpaced their own professional evolution. They all have one thing in common: an assault on the scope of practice of physicians. Are physicians the be-all end-all? No. But there is a reason that everyone wants a piece of them. Just like there's a reason that all theoretical papers start with an attack on Freud.

Finally, I can't let the "10,000 scripts without incident" go without comment. Clearly, psychologists adverse outcome data today are far superior to placebo. Even sugar pills do more damage. Maybe psychologists should fight for the right to prescribe cardiology meds and supervise treatment for AML. :eek:

Wow. I must need a vacation.
 
Pterion said:
Attending to the original question, NP's are an important addition to the healthcare field in many cases. However, one cannot argue year for year equivalence to medical training. This hackneyed rebuttal has been spewed like the oral excrement it is for years while conveniently ignoring the extended, supervised (and in most cases) intense training procured in residency. No other healthcare degree has an equivalent.

In an amusing article in Columbia University's paper announcing a new program(2/16/05), they identified advanced ("doctoral") training for nurses that will both "have a direct impact on the nursing shortage" while at the same time "filling the gap that has been left in the primary care specialty", as well as "highly sophisticted practice" offering "a year of full-time residency". Give me a break. It seems that every self-identified under-appreciated profession is struggling to assert relevance in a world whose technological speed has outpaced their own professional evolution. They all have one thing in common: an assault on the scope of practice of physicians. Are physicians the be-all end-all? No. But there is a reason that everyone wants a piece of them. Just like there's a reason that all theoretical papers start with an attack on Freud.

Finally, I can't let the "10,000 scripts without incident" go without comment. Clearly, psychologists adverse outcome data today are far superior to placebo. Even sugar pills do more damage. Maybe psychologists should fight for the right to prescribe cardiology meds and supervise treatment for AML. :eek:

Wow. I must need a vacation.

Someone has to step up to the primary care plate. Medical students certainly don't want to do it. How the hell are you going to pay off $200+K in medical school debt on a $100K/year family practice salary?

How did Freud creep into this? If anything, Freud has experienced a resurgence of interest lately. Nobel Laureates (see one of Sazi's posts somewhere else in this forum) have written about integrating modern developments in the neurosciences with Freudian constructs of the mind. There are articles in recent issues of Time Magazine and Scientific American Mind that describe this integration.

While on your vacation, I suggest you read "Civilization and Its Discontents" by Sig Freud.
 
Yes, I find that Freud no longer garners the hate that he used to. Maybe that is because we are moving farthr and farther away from the 70's. Maybe it's the case as you move up the academic ladder people are able to find the good in anyones arguements and deal less in absolutes.
 
PublicHealth said:
How did Freud creep into this? If anything, Freud has experienced a resurgence of interest lately. Nobel Laureates (see one of Sazi's posts somewhere else in this forum) have written about integrating modern developments in the neurosciences with Freudian constructs of the mind. There are articles in recent issues of Time Magazine and Scientific American Mind that describe this integration.
It was an analogy. Freud is assaulted by the less informed who find it acceptable to distill his entire canon to "penis envy" and misattribute Adlerian compensation to him. The point I apparently failed to make was that, like Freud, physicians in general may not have all the answers. But they have certainly explored more questions and have been successful in doing so. Thus they are the targets of scope of practice invasion.

Regarding modern integration, Ramachandran, LeDoux (at University of Iowa, I think) and D'Amasio (both of them) have some wonderful work that is now pretty old demonstrating the utility of Freudian constructs as neuroscience catches up to psychodynamic theory.
 
Top