CLASSICAL ADLERIAN PSYCHOTHERAPY FORUM ARCHIVE
Return to the active forum
Re:APA Ethics Committee Considered Prohibiting Solo Practice
Craig Tucker · 10/20/01 at 12:23 ET
So many very angry comments here. The suggestions that Dr. Thomas has made are just as valid as those made by those who complain of unethical therapists. If there is a refusal to see this reality perhaps it is equally shared by clients and therapists. What leads you to assume that life should not be messy? Any court situation is messy. In most cases both sides walk away feeling they have not got what they deserve. I have worked for many years with criminals. They have the same complaints. They see the courts as being stacked against them. The public in turn complains that too many criminals go free. I would not want to do away with the court system just because it has flaws. The fact that both sides are equally dissatisfied tells me that some attempt at fairness is built in to this flawed system. It is necessarily flawed. It assumes that the prosecution and the defense will be biased in there perception and that somewhere in the middle is the truth. It is societies attempt to create some social interest where it otherwise would be impossible. Given this system, it is natural that both sides will be dissatisfied. They are. I know of no better way to solve a polarized grievance than a court. I am not saying that the process should stand as is. In order for a court to be viable it needs to be open for criticism and modification. Any modification needs to allow for the fact that BOTH sides need a fighting chance to defend themselves and BOTH sides often will do what ever is in there self-interest to survive or save face including lie. We cannot assume that any side has a clearer vision of the truth. Dr. Thomas is not calling for removal of the process. She is making some suggestions for change in the existing process. I hear the other side asking for removal of therapy as a profession and for a more complete removal of due process form the grievance procedure. I hear the other side rigidly assume that they have the monopoly on reality. There is an unwillingness to give both sides the benefit of the doubt and let a judge and jury decide. But life is messy and the guilty will occasionally walk while the innocent are convicted. This is the risk the other side does not seem willing to take. I wonder why? Because you were hurt? Do you assume that therapists are not unjustly hurt by the process as well? What makes you assume that life should always treat you fair? What makes you assume that what is fair for you will be fair for the rest of the world? Obviously there are many therapists who are being adjudicated out of practice by the system. What has led you to assume that all of these therapists have been truthful in their defense or have admitted guilt? What has led you to assume that all of them deserve removal? Craig
There are attempts to make this process at the board waited in the favor of clients. As was noted by Dr. Thomas, many elements of due process are eliminated in many states. As she stated, "board investigators can go on fishing expeditions, starting with a complaint about a single area of practice and then looking at all the records of that practitioner until additional causes of action are discovered." She goes on to point out that, " ...a psychologist-respondent will arrive on the day of the board hearing having no idea of what the testimony against him or her will be. Unlike civil court, licensing boards provide no right of discovery. The accused cannot take depositions of opposing witnesses to help the accused prepare the defense. In fact, the accused may not be allowed to discover who the witnesses will be." Then she adds, "With many licensing boards there is no statute of limitations." And finally "In the case of many boards, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is not binding on the board. Thus, you might put up your defense in an adversarial climate, pay thousands of dollars for attorneys and expert witnesses, win your case with the judge allowing you to remain in practice, only to get a letter from the board telling you your license is revoked." What about this seems fair to you? It is not fair to the therapist and it gives the accuser a tremendous advantage. I suppose you may want more but I think this is at least sufficient and most likely excessive.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
