- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
- Messages
- 8,026
- Reaction score
- 4,154
Just for the record....
I'm not against psychologists prescribing so long as there is proper training.
I don't even think psychologists prescribing would make a dent in my ability to make money--for at least several years. Well beyond what I'd have to worry about. Heck, in fact, I could probably make more money because as a forensic psychiatrist, I could testify on malpractice cases for or against psychologist-prescribers.
I don't think the Oregon bill allows enough training. The best way to accomplish the goal of getting more psychotropics out (if you truly want that, trust me, the psychotropic approach leads to problems which we are seeing now) is collaboration between PCPs and other mental health professionals. PCPs have to use several other doctors (e.g. a radiologist to read CT scans). I don't see why a simple collaboration approach isn't pursued because it would get the most benefit to the public the most quickly. Psychologists could make good money offering consultations for PCPs.
But, I do think all of us need to take a step back from this debate.
1) Lots of vitriolic attacks here. This serves no purpose. As mental health professionals it's pretty shameful that several of us have resorted to this. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone because if I hadn't done so in this thread, I'm sure I've done so at some other point in time.
To quote a famous philosopher: "Let he who is innocent cast the first stone."
However my own insertion: If you continue the vitriolic attacks, you're an idiot, and personally, IMHO you ought to be banned from the forum. This type of activity is beneath someone who is a doctor or aspires to be one.
2) Lots of the arguments here are beating the dead horse.
3) Several of the arguments are political talking points, not evidenced based data.
4) I see no point on my end to further a debate where I ask for data to back something, and I see nothing given. From there, the point of debate is futile.
IMHO, the best legs to stand on for the psychologist-prescriber movement is for them to do a study other than the DOD one. I've already pointed out the several flaws of that study, or gather the data from the existing states and allow it for dissection.
Until then, it really is an argument that goes on without legs to stand on other than an opinion. As any of us should know, aren't we supposed to evidenced-based data to support our hypothesis? If you don't believe that you aren't a scientist.
And this particular point, which I would not be surprised may continue the debate (though it is not my intention), if you are going to push for a medical practice to be made legal, ethical and safe, it needs to have proper data to back it is safe. (I've already said why I don' think the DOD study qualifies. It even said it's not applicable to the public).
However, if one wants to show the practice is safe in a scientific and ethical manner, gather the data, and present it for publication. If enough papers are drawn, and objective 3rd parties can replicate the data, it eventually will be irrefutable by the scientific community.
I don't see any reason to believe the situation is anything other than the above. Politicians should not be determining what is safe. Science should determine it. If the science backs it up, then the politicians should allow it to be legal practice.
Unless I see anything adding to the debate, I think I'm going to bow out now, though of course maybe something will be added, but I just don't have the time to read every post!
I'm not against psychologists prescribing so long as there is proper training.
I don't even think psychologists prescribing would make a dent in my ability to make money--for at least several years. Well beyond what I'd have to worry about. Heck, in fact, I could probably make more money because as a forensic psychiatrist, I could testify on malpractice cases for or against psychologist-prescribers.
I don't think the Oregon bill allows enough training. The best way to accomplish the goal of getting more psychotropics out (if you truly want that, trust me, the psychotropic approach leads to problems which we are seeing now) is collaboration between PCPs and other mental health professionals. PCPs have to use several other doctors (e.g. a radiologist to read CT scans). I don't see why a simple collaboration approach isn't pursued because it would get the most benefit to the public the most quickly. Psychologists could make good money offering consultations for PCPs.
But, I do think all of us need to take a step back from this debate.
1) Lots of vitriolic attacks here. This serves no purpose. As mental health professionals it's pretty shameful that several of us have resorted to this. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone because if I hadn't done so in this thread, I'm sure I've done so at some other point in time.
To quote a famous philosopher: "Let he who is innocent cast the first stone."
However my own insertion: If you continue the vitriolic attacks, you're an idiot, and personally, IMHO you ought to be banned from the forum. This type of activity is beneath someone who is a doctor or aspires to be one.
2) Lots of the arguments here are beating the dead horse.
3) Several of the arguments are political talking points, not evidenced based data.
4) I see no point on my end to further a debate where I ask for data to back something, and I see nothing given. From there, the point of debate is futile.
IMHO, the best legs to stand on for the psychologist-prescriber movement is for them to do a study other than the DOD one. I've already pointed out the several flaws of that study, or gather the data from the existing states and allow it for dissection.
Until then, it really is an argument that goes on without legs to stand on other than an opinion. As any of us should know, aren't we supposed to evidenced-based data to support our hypothesis? If you don't believe that you aren't a scientist.
And this particular point, which I would not be surprised may continue the debate (though it is not my intention), if you are going to push for a medical practice to be made legal, ethical and safe, it needs to have proper data to back it is safe. (I've already said why I don' think the DOD study qualifies. It even said it's not applicable to the public).
However, if one wants to show the practice is safe in a scientific and ethical manner, gather the data, and present it for publication. If enough papers are drawn, and objective 3rd parties can replicate the data, it eventually will be irrefutable by the scientific community.
I don't see any reason to believe the situation is anything other than the above. Politicians should not be determining what is safe. Science should determine it. If the science backs it up, then the politicians should allow it to be legal practice.
Unless I see anything adding to the debate, I think I'm going to bow out now, though of course maybe something will be added, but I just don't have the time to read every post!
Last edited:
