Listening to the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners board meeting from August, 18 2015, was very informative as the case discussed outlined several common ethical dilemmas within the psychological field. In addition, this case demonstrated the nature of proceedings during a typical board meeting. The psychologist in question was brought in front the board for the potential violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 32-2061.15.O. Violating this statute means the psychologist has provided unwarranted or unsafe services to a client, and may have potentially engaged in improper activities related to current standards of practice (Arizona State Legislature). This was an introductory meeting where the psychologist and the complainant delivered
…show more content…
The major issues presented by the client, RG, included his inclination towards his treatment not being individualized, a misrepresentation of services from the psychologist, diagnostic and treatment issues, and the inability to collaborate with RG’s wife, who is a neuropsychologist. After a quick overview of these issues, the board listened to RG as he gave a more specific outline his issues with Dr. Earle. RG stated when he chose Dr. Earle’s practice he was under the impression it was a nationally recognized organization because of information on the practice’s website. RG additionally felt that because this was a nationally recognized organization he would be seen and treated by a highly trained therapist. Instead, he reported that he was seen and tested by a woman without a license or a significant amount of supervision. RG felt like his treatment plan and diagnosis were very black and white because there were no alternatives given to him in the treatment process. RG was also given the option to stay in a sober house while in therapy, which he accepted, but later claimed there was no supervision in the house during weekends. Furthermore, RG doesn’t believe the treatment he received helped in anyway, and claimed that his problems are still …show more content…
Earle’s statement was finished board members proceeded to ask RG and Dr. Earle questions about their respective statements. Once questions had been answered, the board entered into deliberation. Board members were in agreement that there were clear violations, but entered into a lengthy discussion to determine if Dr. Earle’s actions were significant enough to be punishable, and if so to what degree. The board members were concerned with several issues about Dr. Earl’s actions. First of all, the board questioned whether or not there was a violation of standard of care. The next issue addressed was the therapist’s lack of competence needed to administer and score tests. Again, in the state of Arizona, to demonstrate competence one must provide the board with sufficient evidence of training, education, and supervision, which was missing from the therapist who tested RG (American Psychological Association, 2010). The board’s primary concern however, was to determine if Dr. Earle’s actions were significant enough to violate (ARS) 32-2061.15.O. Although they seemed to agree that there were clear violations, the issue of how to handle these violations quickly became the principal area of
The major issues presented by the client, RG, included his inclination towards his treatment not being individualized, a misrepresentation of services from the psychologist, diagnostic and treatment issues, and the inability to collaborate with RG’s wife, who is a neuropsychologist. After a quick overview of these issues, the board listened to RG as he gave a more specific outline his issues with Dr. Earle. RG stated when he chose Dr. Earle’s practice he was under the impression it was a nationally recognized organization because of information on the practice’s website. RG additionally felt that because this was a nationally recognized organization he would be seen and treated by a highly trained therapist. Instead, he reported that he was seen and tested by a woman without a license or a significant amount of supervision. RG felt like his treatment plan and diagnosis were very black and white because there were no alternatives given to him in the treatment process. RG was also given the option to stay in a sober house while in therapy, which he accepted, but later claimed there was no supervision in the house during weekends. Furthermore, RG doesn’t believe the treatment he received helped in anyway, and claimed that his problems are still …show more content…
Earle’s statement was finished board members proceeded to ask RG and Dr. Earle questions about their respective statements. Once questions had been answered, the board entered into deliberation. Board members were in agreement that there were clear violations, but entered into a lengthy discussion to determine if Dr. Earle’s actions were significant enough to be punishable, and if so to what degree. The board members were concerned with several issues about Dr. Earl’s actions. First of all, the board questioned whether or not there was a violation of standard of care. The next issue addressed was the therapist’s lack of competence needed to administer and score tests. Again, in the state of Arizona, to demonstrate competence one must provide the board with sufficient evidence of training, education, and supervision, which was missing from the therapist who tested RG (American Psychological Association, 2010). The board’s primary concern however, was to determine if Dr. Earle’s actions were significant enough to violate (ARS) 32-2061.15.O. Although they seemed to agree that there were clear violations, the issue of how to handle these violations quickly became the principal area of