Closed thread (link to new discussion)

This is a psychology forum on the Student Doctor Network. The discussion was not an unreasonable bash. Nor is it in anyway unprofessional. Putting blinders on, plugging your ears, and screaming "Nah, nah, nah" is not professional behavior. You think these issues aren't discussed professionally? Seriously? The purpose had nothing to do with taunting nor anything to do with deriding a topic or membership. Reasonable discourse should not be discouraged. I understand the moderator who closed this is a pharmacy student and probably has very little understanding of the issues currently face mental health. Among them are incompetence, use of unsupported treatment modalities, insurance reimbursement, mental health parity (recently passed bill), and so on. A major shift in the last decade has been the extensive lobbying efforts of social work to expand their scopes of practice. Given the expansion is into domains that have in the past been doctoral level, I think it's reasonable to discuss the hazards of that. The topic posed was an innocent question. My response is what I believe, I think it is logical, and it is not a bash.



I am saddened that someone felt the need to complain rather than offer up empirical evidence or a reasonable debate to what was on the table.

to the pharmacist mod: Would you be irritated if pharmacy technicians or random folks with bachelors degrees were allowed to act as pharmacists?

 

I don't doubt that social workers are encouraged to use evidence-based treatment. What I question is the education with respect to evaluating evidence. I also question this, incidentally, for another recently proliferating group (professional schools of psychology). What constitutes a reasonable degree of evidence before application of a methodology? Further, one can't discount as necessary, breadth of knowledge with respect to diagnosis and treatment. Is one year of school enough? I say one year, because many social work programs focus on social justice for one year. Important for social advocacy, but not for understanding mental illness. My contention is that one year, plus a couple of years of clinical supervision, are not enough to properly evaluate empirical evidence from a theoretical or practical level. The breadth of knowledge is simply not there. I can't imagine cramming everything I needed to know from a theoretical vantage-point into one year. It's barely adequate at 5 (the length of my doctoral program) + a year internship + two years fellowship.


This is also an issue with respect to assessment. For example, what constitutes an empirically supported assessment scale? What are psychometrics? What is a normative sample? For specific scales, how were they normed, what are the ceilings and floors, how are they most commonly used in clinical practice, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the scale? What medical conditions might cause mental health symptoms? Etc. . .

I already agreed with this statement, so there's nothing to disagree with

This, as a defense to using EMDR? No, that's unsatisfactory. Too big of a loophole to do whatever you want. As I said, it isn't a clear demarcation. You will find odd viewpoints from a scientific/critical thinking vantage point at all levels. It's an issue of ratio and tools to perform.

 

"When you get a BS you think you know everything. When you get your MS you realize you know nothing. When you get your PhD you still realize you know nothing but it is ok because now you know no one else does either"

Maybe it goes. . .

"When you get a BA you think you know everything. When you get your MS, you think you know everything. When you get your PhD you still think you know everything."