Forgotten Practices and Sins of Omission

Abstract

The idea is not at all new, but I would like to focus here on the thought that sins of omission are as unethical as sins of commission. Failure to use good practice is perhaps the least-obvious ethical sin. In some cases, what we know to do and do not do can be worse than what we do. To date, the primary focus of Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry (EHPP) has been related primarily to clinical subjects, and there certainly is nothing wrong that. The clinical issues that have graced our pages have served as incredibly valuable material to force the issues of ethical practice in serving the needs of humanity, and that emphasis should not be reduced. Society needs institutions, organizations, and individuals who represent the conscience of the whole. Our parent organization, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, serves such a function. Having participated peripherally in the discussions that led to the establishment of this journal, I am cognizant of the need to keep that function front and center. Hence the title of the journal: Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry: An International Journal of Critical Inquiry. I believe, however, that that traditional emphasis still can be honored by expanding the focus. My particular professional lens is a combination of school psychology and special education. The latter subject has often been addressed in the pages of EHPP, but usually from the perspective of a diagnosis or a treatment. I'd like to consider instead the basic programming provided for students-what we call instruction-which, if it is effective, more often than not can make the need for diagnosis and treatment (in the clinical sense) unnecessary. It is fascinating that, in the sociopolitical, professional world of education, we hear a great deal these days about research-based programs, strategies, and initiatives, as though this emphasis is something that we have been ignoring. In the 1970s, we had promising practices. In the 1980s, we had proven practices. In the 1990s, we had preferred practices and evidence-based practices. Now we have research-based practices. And, as if that might not even be enough, the research is supposed to be scientifically based. What is it that we keep looking for by invoking different adjectives? Any day now, I expect to see the announcement that we are promoting progressive practices, because the No Child Left Behind legislation requires a measure of adequate yearly progress to establish that current practice is acceptable. The question is not what new, promising, proven, research-based practice might be out there that will solve our current problems. The problem is that we aren't using what we already know. We continue to search for the Holy Grail when we already have the sacred talisman. But we seem to refuse, either consciously or unconsciously, to use it. The sword is no longer in the stone-hasn't been for years. Instead it lies unused on the ground. Today's new idea is exceeded only by tomorrow's innovation, and neither will be around long enough to be anything but promising practice, let alone preferred. There simply are too many fads bombarding us. How do we evaluate the innovations that fill our professional inbox? What are our criteria for evaluating them? How can we tell if a touted program-even one that is alleged to be "research based"-is really a worthy prospect or is, instead, only a fl ash in the pan? …