Eating One’s Young

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

From The Psychology Times, Vol. 3, No. 2

Editorials

Dr. Bolter presented excerpts from the law showing that medical psychologists can practice psychology and he asked the board to see that the intent of Act 251 was to transfer ALL aspects of the practice of psychology. He also said that since the psychology board validates supervisors from other states who were not licensed under the LSBEP, then they should validate medical psychologists, who are not licensed under LSBEP.

Aside from the non sequitur, the issue has more to do with our profession than with the practice of psychology.

Of course the psychology board accepts supervision hours by psychologists licensed under other state psychology boards. We have a whole infrastructure for this issue. The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards handles problems of standards, license exams, mobility, and so on. But nowhere in the country are psychologists licensed by medicine. Until Act 251, a shorthand definition of who could supervise, a “psychologist,” was all that had been needed.

And supervision, the nurturing of new psychologists into our profession, is concerned with more than just practice. It is the profession’s way of transferring our identity and values to the next psychologists.

LSBEP has placed the burden on our young psychologists who, if they ever go to another state, just might find out the hard way whether a psychologist needs to have been supervised by someone licensed under a state psychology board.

Our new Chair should reexamine this matter and get testimony from all sides, taking time to carefully review all the applicable laws, not just the parts that support the political agenda of one group.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *