Psychology's heritage and prescription privileges: An unconsummatable marriage.

Abstract

AbstractIn our article on the debate, and its implications for Canadian psychologists (Dozois & Dobson, 1995), we sought to stimulate a balanced discussion by presenting arguments both for and against this highly politicized issue. On the basis of three main arguments (quality of care, marketability, and psychology's heritage), we concluded that Canadian psychologists endorse privileges as a means of professional evolution. response by Hayes, Walser, and Follette (1995) coincides with our arguments, and emphasizes that privileges are incompatible with the fundamental approach of psychology. DeLeon, Sammons, and Fox (1995) and Pagliaro (1995) take exception to our thesis, but evade the issue of psychology's heritage. In this rejoinder, we recapitulate the heritage of psychology argument, and address some specific concerns regarding the invited - prescription commentaries. When the fundamental question of whether psychologists seek privileges is confronted, our conclusion remains... No!On the basis of our review of the arguments both for and against privileges, we concluded that psychologists pursue this (Dozois & Dobson, 1995). In addition to the fundamental question of psychologists prescribe, we also raised numerous practical impediments for psychology as a whole, and Canadian psychology in particular. We do dispute that psychology evolve to meet the growing demands of consumerism. Where contention exists, however, pertains to how this evolution proceed.We appreciated the editor's decision to round out this discussion by inviting commentaries from both Canadian and American perspectives. We are pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our position on this very important issue. response by Hayes et al. (1995), which essentially mirrors our earlier arguments, emphasizes that the science and approach of psychology is discordant with the authority to prescribe. As we share similar positions, we will highlight only some of their points in the ensuing discussion. In general, we were disappointed with the other two responses with regard to the content (and in the case of Pagliaro's apparently cathartic response, the overall tone) of their arguments. Although Pagliaro's article challenged our arguments point by point, it minimized and evaded the core issue of psychology's heritage and approach. Deleon et al., who also adopted the pro side of the debate, avoided the issue of the essential nature of psychology altogether by emphasizing the pragmatics of how to go about seeking privileges, and by suggesting that we set aside the salient issue of whether or we prescribe: The privilege is, after all, fundamentally a clinical training agenda (DeLeon et al., 1995, p. 321). This approach, we contend, does address the fundamental question. issue of psychology's heritage, definition and even evolution, dictates that we lay the arguments to rest.The IssuesSHOULD PSYCHOLOGISTS PRESCRIBE?As stated previously (cf. Dozois & Dobson, 1995), how psychology defines itself is crucial to the or should not debate. Psychology has a long history of substantive changes in its evolution and, despite this important growth and change, psychology's primary focus has consistently been on the covert experiences of sensations, feelings, and thoughts, as well as on the overt experiences, as a science of behaviour (Hebb & Donderi, 1987; Hilgard, 1987). As such, psychologists are trained in the description, prediction, explanation, and treatment of both internalizing and externalizing experience and disturbance.Further, it is also important to reiterate the fact that psychology has established itself as a profession that seeks to assist individuals through the use of psychological methods (Freedheim & Russ, 1992; May & Belsky, 1992). …