On his blog, psychiatrist Daniel Carlat has touched off quite a furor over what he calls “probably the hottest topic in psychiatry: whether psychologists should obtain prescription privileges.”
It started here when he wrote that it may be the best thing that can happen to psychiatry. He wrote:
“As psychologists gradually become serious competitors for our patients, we will have to re-evaluate how we practice and how we are trained. We will have to take a close look at our catastrophically inefficient medical school-based curriculum. We will have to decide which medical courses are truly necessary and which are not.”
It continued here after he got about 100 online comments to the first post. This time he wrote:
“I see my role, hopefully, as being an information broker between the psychologists and psychiatrists. I want to nail down some of the safety figures. I want to figure out what kind of safety surveillance would be adequate. There is so much animosity between the two organizations that it is nearly impossible to have a civil and rational conversation. I find that unfortunate, because the best psychiatric treatment is inegrative treatment, and the best way to achieve it is for the two professions to share information.
Whether psychologists end up continuing to snap up states in their quest to prescribe or not, I hope that we can all agree that patient care is our number one priority. Squabbling amongst ourselves over turf is not helping anybody. “
Read both posts and the ensuing comments if you want to learn more. It’s not just “inside baseball” – it’s a professional issue that impacts delivery of care.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Paul Scott
April 1, 2010 at 8:28 amLet’s see, one division offers empirically supported treatments that have low relapse rates and come with no debilitating side effects, without lifelong dependency on pharmaceuticals, costs the system billions less, and they can actually visit with a patient for more than fifteen minutes. The other division is over worked and dragged around by the nose by an industry that is only interested in the latest class of meds now on patent and gets very little training in empirically supported talk therapies. Why would the former want to join the latter? Psychologists can’t fix everything — and not all meds are oversold — but the stuff they can treat they can do so very efficiently and humanistically, for what it’s worth. Those in their ranks arguing to prescribe probably don’t know enough about the strengths in their own field and the weaknesses in the pharmaceutical approach.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like