Article archive / October 1, 2013
Originally published: . Volume 5, No. 2. Source pages: 2, 5, 6.
Letters to the Editor [From: Dr. Joseph Comaty]
RE: the article entitled: “New LSBEP Member Now Listed as MP” recently published in the Psychology Times, Vol. 5, No. 1:
I am writing to address the content of this article and will do so section by section. The writer of the article begins by stating that LSBME has listed Dr. Jessica Brown as a Medical Psychologist and that this was a surprise to some members of LPA. The first question a reader should ask is, “so what?” What point is the writer trying to make? Why was it a surprise to some in LPA that Dr. Brown was pursuing training for the added license of an MP? It was not a secret that Dr. Brown was enrolled in the Alliant training program and pursuing her post-doctoral Masters Degree in Clinical Psychopharmacology.
Next, the writer indicates that Dr. Brown graduated from the Alliant program in 2010. This is simply wrong. She may have entered the program in 2010, but did not complete the courses and graduate until late 2012. So, the next point made by the writer that she did not list her “2010 preparation training” on her self-nomination form is moot. And in addition, the reader can again ask, “so what?” Is there a requirement to list everything on the self- nomination form, or just information relevant to serving on the LSBEP?
The writer now indicates that 60% of the LSBEP is comprised of MPs. The writer could just as easily stated that the LSBEP is 60% female; or has an average age of over 40; or an average height of less than 6 feet 2 in. Once again, the reader should be asking, “so what?” What point is the writer making? MPs who serve on the LSBEP are also licensed psychologists and take the same oath as any psychologist appointed to the Board, i.e., to protect the public. So, is the writer intimating that MPs are not as vigilant as non-MPs in their duty to protect the public? Should MPs not serve on the Board? If that is the writer’s point, then why not state it clearly?
The writer then makes the mistake of saying that Dr. Brown was appointed LPA Legislative Chair in 2010, the same year she graduated from the Alliant program. Since she did not graduate in 2010, this information is false. Her appointment, the article, goes on to say was by then LPA President, Judith Levy, also an MP. Why was it important to indicate that Dr. Levy was also an MP? Was not Dr. Levy elected to the position by the LPA membership? Wasn’t it known at that time that she was an MP? Does not the President of LPA have the authority to make appointments? Once again, the reader should ask, “so what?” What point is the writer making?
The writer also notes that most of the MP members of LPA resigned. Did the writer ask for information about why such large numbers of previously very supportive members of LPA decided that LPA was no longer a suitable organization for them? Did LPA ask any of the MPs who dropped their membership the reasons for making that decision? The answers might have been informative.
The next section of the article describes the process surrounding the passage of SB268 (expansion of LPC scope of practice). This is a retrospective rewriting of the actual history. There is not enough time or space to counter all of the misinformation presented in this section. In short and in contrast to what the writer has stated, the LPA EC was fully informed of all actions on this bill; the LPA EC voted to give Drs. Griffin and Brown full authority to act as needed to protect psychology’s interest during the quick moving action on the bill; there was a very real chance that either LPCs would have been permitted to engage in psychological testing or that LSBEP would have been dissolved and combined with the LPC Board. The actions taken by Drs. Griffin and Brown and brokered by LAMP (their involvement was also approved by the LPA EC) preserved psychological testing as the exclusive domain of psychology and preserved the respective licensing boards of counselors and psychologists. The compromise was to allow LPCs to expand their scope of practice to diagnose severe mental illness (they already had authority to diagnose less severe behavioral disorders), but only if they consulted/collaborated with someone licensed by the LSBME when it was necessary to medicate the individual. The language of the amendment is not so odd, as the writer indicates, if one understands the requirement that LPCs could not diagnose serious mental illness (SMI) in those individuals who require medication without collaborating with a licensed prescriber under LSBME. Non-MP psychologists, although competent to diagnose SMI, do not have the authority to prescribe medication.
The writer then makes the mistake of saying that the language in the amendment was ‘nullified’ by emergency rules promulgated by the LPCs. This in fact is incorrect. Although the LPCs did indeed promulgate rules to change the amendment, this would not have stood as from a political standpoint, a rule cannot change or ‘nullify’ a statute. That is why the LPCs had to go back to the legislature in the following session to seek a change in the statute to add nurse practitioners to the list of those with whom they could consult and to modify the definition of depression to include moderate depression.
The writer seems to make a big deal out of the fact that Dr. Brown as the legislative liaison with the approval of the LPA EC and in concert with LAMP had kept the LPA membership informed of the process and had advised them on what to do and what not to do during the delicate negotiations surrounding SB268. What a surprise, the legislative coordinator was doing what the EC had asked her to do, i.e., coordinate the legislative activity for LPA with its lobbyist and with LAMP. The fact that the LPA membership was not supportive of this arrangement says more about the differences between the effectiveness of an organization like LAMP and the apparent lack of effectiveness of the current LPA organization. The writer makes mention that the lobbyist apparently did not know that Dr. Brown was in the Alliant training program to become an MP. Once again, what point is the writer making? Why was that relevant? Would the same import be attached to a psychologist who was taking steps to be certified as a neuropsychologist? Or, if a psychologist was taking steps necessary to meet the requirements for re-specialization? Why is it important that a psychologist wishes to advance their training in a specialty area, including becoming an MP?
Why does LPA have a legislative coordinator if the membership is not going to listen to him/her? Why do they have a lobbyist if the membership believes that each member should act independently of the advice of the legislative liaison and the lobbyist? They could save some money by terminating the lobbyist and eliminate a barrier by not having a legislative coordinator. Then, LPA can just allow the members to act independently to offer whatever information they feel is important to whatever legislator they wish to contact. My question would be how effective would LPA be in the legislative process using that approach?
In my opinion, this entire article is fraught with innuendo, hyperbole, misinformation, and an apparent bias that constitutes what I believe is a very good example of what used to be called yellow journalism where such biases masquerade as a news article. This is really only an opinion piece from the perspective of one person and should have been labeled as such. It is a clear attempt at character assassination that should challenged by anyone reading it. As someone who has known and worked with Dr. Brown for 10 years, I can attest to her character and professionalism which are beyond reproach. This article says less about the character of Dr. Brown than it does about the journalistic integrity of the writer.
Joseph E. Comaty, Ph.D., M.P.
Baton Rouge
(Editor’s Comment: We double- checked our facts about Dr. Brown’s listing with the state Medical Board and verified that we were correct, the board lists her as having graduated from Alliant in 2010. The medical board considers itself a primary source verification. The Times and writer, J. Nelson, appreciates Dr. Comaty’s letter as we do all letters from readers, and his concern for accuracy.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.