Psychologist Testifies in Moussaoui Trial

[PublicHealth]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001/20060418/1317465471.htm

Dr. Amador: http://xavieramador.com/index.html

Two questions:

Why did they chose a psychologist instead of a psychiatrist?

Was paranoid schizophrenia the right diagnosis?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PublicHealth]

Diagnosis was the question, why would they choose a psychiatrist?

Because the diagnosis was not quantitative in nature. Are psychologists better than psychiatrists at diagnosing psychiatric morbidities based on record review and clinical interview?

 

[Psyclops]

PH, you should know the answer to the first question. And I suspect you do, but I'll indulge you. Psychiatrists aren't as god as psycholgists at assessig people. In a high profile case especially, you want someone who will do a good job and be able to answer the questions at hand. A psychiatrist just doesn't have the tools for that (generally). If someone is going to get cross examined they are going to want more than "Well he did his serial sevens up to 79, and he was able to spell world backwards pretty good, but I just feel he's schizophrenic." Unitl the MDs get those blood tests they are always talking about psychologists take the cake in diagnosis and assessment. And youknow the DSM criteria are of little utility.

As for the second question, his sister is schizophrenic, which would indiacte that it runs in the family (obviously). But I've ben thinking aobut it, I'm not sure. I think it's the right diagnosis if you wnat to keep him alive.

 

[Psyclops]

Because the diagnosis was not quantitative in nature. Are psychologists better than psychiatrists at diagnosing psychiatric morbidities based on record review and clinical interview?

Yes. Cases aren't conceptualized only around symptomology.

 

[PublicHealth]

PH, you should know the answer to the first question. And I suspect you do, but I'll indulge you. Psychiatrists aren't as god as psycholgists at assessig people. In a high profile case especially, you want someone who will do a good job and be able to answer the questions at hand. A psychiatrist just doesn't have the tools for that (generally). If someone is going to get cross examined they are going to want more than "Well he did his serial sevens up to 79, and he was able to spell world backwards pretty good, but I just feel he's schizophrenic." Unitl the MDs get those blood tests they are always talking about psychologists take the cake in diagnosis and assessment. And youknow the DSM criteria are of little utility.

As for the second question, his sister is schizophrenic, which would indiacte that it runs in the family (obviously). But I've ben thinking aobut it, I'm not sure. I think it's the right diagnosis if you wnat to keep him alive.

Thank you for clarifying. I advocate for psychologists, but know very little about forensics. What type of testing do you think was done? I would imagine that testing him was pretty difficult if he was spitting water at the psychologist! How, then, is such a diagnosis determined? The article makes it seem like record review and clinical interview were the only things done.

 

[Psyclops]

Well, in this case he may not have consented to any testing, in which case it would most likely be based on the review and a clinical interveiw if the defendant allowed it. (I haven't had the opportunity to read the link you posted, but I will and get back to you.) I know you advocate for us and I think that you have some of the more mature views on the field out of the people who post here. I guess I was answering the question in a more general sense. Although historically the MD usually made the better expert witness, I think there is a shift going on. They were generally seen as more of an expert because of their being the "Medical" doctor. But I think that with all of the tools that psycholgits have developed, which give much more information, including IQ, inconsistency and lie scales, which would point to the client trying to fake good or fake bad, in addition to hx review and clinical jusdgement, they are now being seen as a much more useful witness. They have more information to offer beyond the Mini mental state or whatever "objective" measure psychiatrists use. I've taken one class on forensic psychology, and have spoken to friends of mine who do criminal law. The shift seems to be heading toward using psychologists. The lawyers I know personally find them more useful and informative. I think though in general the law can get frustrated with psychology (not sure about psychiatry) because it is reluctant to give definative answers, and that is what the law wants.

 

[Solideliquid]

I don't mean to interupt, and this is not about MD vs. psychology.

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were saying Dr. Amador didn't even interview or examine Moussaoui. Isn't that strange?

 

[PublicHealth]

I don't mean to interupt, and this is not about MD vs. psychology.

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were saying Dr. Amador didn't even interview or examine Moussaoui. Isn't that strange?

Probably couldn't get to it between Moussaoui's spitting on him!

<-- Dr. Amador should have worn his shades. Sorry, I didn't get much sleep last night.

 

[Psyclops]

I don't mean to interupt, and this is not about MD vs. psychology.

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were saying Dr. Amador didn't even interview or examine Moussaoui. Isn't that strange?

It's not an interuption, these boards are open to everyone, the psychiatrists and their input/questions are always welcome here.

I think PH is right though, he is a pretty volitile patient, he has made it difficult to work with him as a lawyer, I can't imagine that he would want to talk with a MH professional.

 

[irish80122]

I haven't read more than a few news stories but what made me a bit mad was that it seemed like he had a diagnosis and was trying to explain away a lot of what happened without ever interviewing the client. I think this is irresponsible and a abuse of authority honestly. Diagnosing is hard enough let alone diagnosing without being able to talk with the person!

 

[Forensic M.S.]

I don't how lawyers pick a mental health professional for legal cases regarding mental illness diagnoses, but I know both psychiatrists and psychologists are used in this manner.


Also, psychologists use clinical interviews, history, and behavioral observation diagnostically, as do psychiatrists.

this case is all politically charged bull