I am actually not in support of then idea that psychologist should be prescribing drugs because its not understandable how just one year training can properly prepare physicians to prescribe psychiatric drugs. Since to properly prescribe drugs, it is important to know when and how they should be prescribed, how they may react with other drugs, what side effects may occur, and action to take when adverse effects do occur. Incase a new symptom appears, it is important to detect if they are as a result of intake of drug or a new problem that requires medical care.
A medical doctor must train for four years in a medical school where they learn diagnosis, biochemistry, pharmacology, and physiology. On top of that they must undergo three years of full-time postgraduate psychiatric course where they practically prescribe drugs but under supervision for many patients. Once in practice, most of them learn more by reading journals, discussing with colleagues, and attending continuing education courses. It’s not understandable that a psychologist training part time for one year can be as competent as a physician.
Although psychologists do have the right for recommendations for treatment, they don’t have the training or knowledge of the body (not brain, psych issues) but physical pharmacokinetics. Note that most psych drugs can affect heart rhythms and people with certain health conditions and based on lab values for organ function. It’s a medical thing, although psychologists do wonderful, meaningful work but since they didn’t go through medical school or advanced practice nursing, they wouldn’t be able to address the issues that may arise from physical side effects and knowledge of what to look for, this may lead to deaths.
Not to ignore the profession at all they have a very demanding and skilled field but there is a difference in modularity and focus (Taylor, 2004). Prescribing medicine can have massive effects on behavior and individuals functions, they can also kill and harm. Even with a specialized medical program that steps into the medical system, the dangers are present. With the massive problems many countries has for mental health care two countries may try this and the rest with higher populations can watch but a non biased study of patient outcomes needs to be done, patient or client safety comes first.
It is important that psychologists must strive for a thorough knowledge in the biological subject, especially in relation to the nervous system, as it is not only the base or source of all mental activity, but the objective of its practical profession. The fact that psychologist have not been thoroughly prepared to deal with issues related with neural activity can justify (conscientious or unconscious) that a proper preparation in the same area is not the objective for its professional activity.
According to Taylor (2004) psychologists have an obligation to advocate for the necessity to include in courses the idea that is being prepared by neurosciences. It is obvious that the better their academic preparedness, the grater their knowledge is geared toward the possibilities of application. There was a pilot program that was conducted and failed that is used as proof that it is a bad idea to include the psychologists in prescription. It was so costly, and was called off. This was because they only treated healthy and young outpatient people.
There were serious outcomes because they didn’t look for any! In addition, the program required 34 days of training in medicine which was 16 days more proposed days. On top of that, there was continuous supervision by a physician. In the field of psychology, there are different degrees of credentials, making it difficult for somebody to identify competent practitioners.
For example, in psychology, people may have difficulty understanding the difference between a Psy. D. , a Ph. D. , and an Ed. D. Some psychologists have a master’s degree, and others have earned certificates of advancement in areas such as drug and alcohol or family therapy. Since, psychology licensing acts allow for the credentialing of all psychologists with a doctoral degree, regardless of whether the individual was trained as a practitioner. Maybe the Psy. D. And Ph. D. needs to be two distinct degrees, whereby the Psy. D. Is for practitioners and the Ph. D. is for researchers and academicians. The outcome would be different training in psychology for the two degrees.
The lack of ways towards identifying the practitioner is a serious impediment for professional psychology and must be resolved before granting psychologists the right to prescribe psychotropic medication. Therefore allowing psychologists to have the option of becoming trained prescribers may form divisions among themselves as some will be prescribers while others won’t. As a result, major discord could emerge since; those with the ability to administer drugs may elevate themselves superior to those who won’t be able to administer drugs.
By acquiring prescription privileges, chances that third-party payments or full hospital privileges will be massive for those who have the right to administer drugs, but those who wont be able to prescribe may feel that they have been graded in lower-class status of the same career. There is no short-cut to being a medical doctor. One must go to medical college or to a Nurse Practitioner College. A degree doesn’t explain who one is but it explains all the responsibilities the practitioner will be able to tolerate and execute safely.