Article archive / March 1, 2011
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 7. Source pages: 1, 3.
LPA executive council surveyed its members regarding a number of topics and found that up to 74 percent of respondents indicated they were concerned about Act 251. Results were published in the February LPA news- letter by Dr. Robert Storer, who coauthored the survey with Dr. Gail Gillespie.
Respondents, 22 percent of the membership, gave their views to three statements regarding the legislation passed in 2009 that moved medical psychologists to the medical board.
• 60 percent of respondents “strongly disagreed” and another 14 percent “disagreed somewhat” with the statement “Act 251 is not a concern to me.”
• 51 percent responded “strongly disagree” and 12 percent responded “disagree somewhat” in response to the statement “Act 251 is a concern but LPA does not need to take any action.”
• 47 percent responded “strongly agree” and another 8 percent said they “agree somewhat” to a third statement, “Act 251 is a concern and LPA needs to take action.”
The results were based on 57 members, which concerned President-Elect, Dr. Phillip Griffin. He said to the Times, “Is this a mandate to jump into something?
Not hardly,” pointing out that the majority of members had not responded to the survey.
Last fall Dr. Susan Dardard conducted an independent telephone poll to “take the pulse of the members on a critical issue.” She talked directly with 107 members (from a sample of 155) who gave their support for an LPA resolution to protect the autonomous practice and regulation of the profession of psychology. (See PT Vol 2 No 3.)
Since the passage of Act 251 in June 2009, several national groups, including the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice, the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, the APA Board of Educational Affairs, and the board of the American Medical Psychologists, have also raised concerns about aspects of Act 251.
[Editor’s note: While LPA has a right to privacy in many matters, it also has a number of concrete and philosophical public duties. The Times’ publisher views this exchange to fall under the public’s right to know (first amendment.)]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.