|
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
||||||||||
|
Advocacy |
Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D. |
|||||||||
|
Having just enjoyed two weeks vacation following 12 months on the campaign trial for the APA Presidency has given me some to reflect on the experience, which I would like to share with you. Before I do this, I want to express my profound gratitude to the leaders and members of the Division of Independent Practice for their endorsement of my campaign and for their enormous support during it! As one of my mentors, former APA president Pat DeLeon, might say at a time like this, Mahalo! Being a candidate for APA President is truly an extraordinary experience, one that puts the candidate in touch with the grassroots of our Association in a very direct way. I was able to attend 37 different meetings during calendar year 2003. Of course, this included regular APA governance meetings like Board, Council, Consolidated, and Leadership meetings, but also included many state and county psychological association meetings, as well as APA divisional, specialty organizational, and university colloquial meetings. At most of these meetings I was an invited speaker, either as keynoter on the topic of the future evolution of professional psychology, psychological health care, or serious mental illness, or a workshop presenter on the new psychology of boys and men or a train-the-trainers workshop on the “Road to Resilience” campaign. So although I was clearly a candidate, I actually gave very few “stump speeches” and mostly shared my perspective and expertise. And of course I spent a lot of time talking with psychologists and graduate students, individually and in smaller and larger groups, in the exhibit areas or in the gym, on walks or jogs, or at lunches or dinners. What I found was quite varied. Admittedly, my observations are based on selected encounters, and cannot in any way be viewed as representing a scientific sampling of our profession, but for what it’s worth, here it is. First, I was disturbed to see that many psychologists are disconnected from APA. Either they are not members, or if they are members they fail to see its relevance to the issues of importance to them. Of course, this to some extent a reflection of former U.S. House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s trenchant observation that “all politics is local.” But I think it also reflects the need for APA leadership to make a much greater effort to connect with our grass roots. On this note I am pleased that APA CEO Norman Anderson plans to visit all of the state, provincial and territorial psychological associations over the next few years. I think that this will help a great deal, and will be much appreciated by the members. I also found that many psychologists have moved from where many were a few years ago – namely, stunned by managed care -- and have been evolving into new practice niches in nursing homes, the schools, courts, businesses and industries, sports and performance, and elsewhere. However, I was also surprised to see that relatively few psychologists were aware of the enormous potential opportunities in healthcare, and even fewer knew about the new health and behavior codes that allow psychologists to bill under a medical diagnosis like diabetes or hypertension. I was absolutely delighted to see how many of the local leadership were willing to get actively involved in APA presidential politics, which I think is fitting, given that this is the only office in APA that members vote for. Many state associations and divisions, for the first time ever, endorsed a candidate for the APA Presidential election (see list below). Some, like Washington State, actually changed their policies, and, under the leadership of Andy Benjamin, Ruth Paige, and others, developed a new process for reviewing and endorsing candidates, whereas others, like Wisconsin, under the leadership of Rick Hurlbut, Asher Pacht, Barbara Van Horn and others, created the conditions for a one-time only endorsement that established no precedent for future APA elections. Given these enormous changes, I think that my experience this year of being the only candidate present at the overwhelming majority of the meetings I attended will not be repeated by future candidates. Candidates will soon get the message that state associations and divisions are important, and will therefore make an effort to visit them. My wish is that this new political activism in the state associations and divisions will continue to grow and perhaps spill over to enhance psychology’s political activism on behalf of the profession and our clients at the state and national levels. One sour note on the campaign trail was the negative campaigning that unfortunately occurred. Rather than viewing that as the act of an individual, I have come to see it as part of a larger pattern that we are now seeing both in the profession (on our listservs, for example) and in society more generally (e.g., talk radio, reality TV), a pattern of a marked decrease in civility. Regrettably, we seem to be becoming an uncivil society. Most troubling, this is showing up in the filing of frivolous ethics complaints, which I want to spend a few moments discussing. As you know, the new APA Ethics Code has recently gone into effect (June, 2003). It consists, as did the 1992 code, of both Aspirational Principles (non-enforceable) and Ethical Standards (enforceable). It is intended to provide guidance and assistance to psychologists struggling with ethical dilemmas in their daily activities. Secondarily, it provides a basis for imposing sanctions on psychologists who fail to adhere to these basic standards. The code makes it explicit that it is not intended to be used as the basis for civil liability. It is also clear that it does not constitute, legally, a standard of care, nor is it to be used retrospectively, to sanction psychologists who, despite due diligence, are not aware of certain issues at the time they rendered professional services. The code of ethics also discourages the filing of frivolous complaints. Unfortunately, ethics committees and psychology boards have seen an increase in such complaints. These are especially troubling because many of these unwarranted complaints come from one psychologist trying to discredit another. Nothing can be more devastating to a careful, ethical, and conscientious psychologist than to be asked whether she/he is “under ethics investigation.” Even if there is no basis, the damage is done. Managed care panels have dropped psychologists who are “under investigation” regardless of the validity of the complaint. Courts and attorneys will not retain psychologists to do forensic work if they are “under investigation,” even if the motive is clearly questionable. One such recent case involved a psychologist who had developed and researched some new scales for a psychological test. An opposing expert witness, in an attempt to discredit the first psychologist, accused the first psychologist, in testimony, of unethical and grossly negligent research. Clearly, we all need to make a decent living but when this involves trying to discredit others by the misuse of the code of ethics, this is shameful behavior, and casts discredit on all psychologists. The Code of Ethics is designed for education and sanctions when necessary, and should not be used to discredit or attack others with whom one has a professional disagreement. As always, I welcome your thoughts on this column. You can most easily contact me via email: LevantR@nova.edu. |
|||||||||