Psychology vs Psychiatry: The Meaningful Difference
I have generally held the view that placebos are a form of lying to patients. In psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, particularly, we want our patients and evaluees to be open and honest about their symptoms, backgrounds, and feelings. It has thus never made sense to me that we should return the favor by tricking them with fake medicines.
FAQ: Difference between a Psychiatrist and a Psychologist
When psychological or neuropsychological testing is required, an experienced clinical psychologist or neuropsychologist is necessary. While psychiatrists are often familiar with many tests, we are rarely trained in the details, nor do we have the breadth of knowledge of a doctoral-level clinical psychologist.
As said before on this website, treating psychiatrists and psychologists (1) have an inherent conflict of interest that interferes with the validity of their "expert" opinions regarding patients. (2) They usually have heard only one side of the story (what the patient has told them, which is rarely truly objective – this may not be a problem in therapy but is a big issue for courts). (3) They have a very strong duty to the interests of their patients rather than to any outside parties (which adds to the conflict of interest). (4) They know their patients in a clinical sense, but have almost never evaluated them as a forensic professional would (or should), which is a different, often more detailed and comprehensive, process. (5) They have not evaluated the other parties in the custody issue: both spouses, all children, and usually children and parents together (all of which are important to offering custody opinions). Finally, (6) they are often not child psychiatrists or psychologists with child custody experience (usually much preferred over a general clinician or therapist).
Psychiatry vs Psychology essays
Tennessee state courts generally upheld the trial court. A 2004 federal habeas corpus petition led to a stay and affirmation of his habeas petition by the federal Sixth Circuit. The State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC), which held that the Sixth Circuit had abused its discretion (based largely on delays of the latter court's mandates). In late 2005, the Tennesee Supreme Court was allowed to set a new execution date. Thompson petitioned the court to consider changes in his mental condition since the earlier rulings. Additional challenges and appeals took place, and eventually the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Tennessee courts improperly ignored evidence that Thompson had met the necessary threshold showing of incompetence, and that he was owed an evidentiary hearing. That federal court noted that although it could not rule on his competence for execution, there was strong suggestion that his mental illness was serious and relevant to it. (Thompson v. Bell, 580 F3d. 423 [Sixth Cir., 2009]. See additional discussion by M.S. Blue and D.C. Kelly, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 39(2):263-265, 2011.)
What is Psychotherapy: Therapy vs. Psychiatry? - …
In 1985, Gregory Thompson was sentenced to death for capital murder by a Tennessee court. He eventually appealed the death sentence on grounds of current and chronic mental illness which rendered him unable ". . . to undertand the fact of the impending execution and the reason for it" (Tennessee's criterion for finding a prisoner incompetent for execution). All evaluating experts (psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist) concurred that he lacked the requisite capacity. The trial court denied his petition for an evidentiary hearing, based on its finding that his merely being aware of his death sentence for the murder, coupled with certain past statements about the crime and sentence, indicated compliance with a "cognitive standard." The Court acknowledged his psychosis, but ruled that his delusions about the upcoming execution were, in themselves, evidence that his knowledge and understanding were sufficient for purposes of competence.
Psychologist vs Psychiatrist | Vision Psychology
Pharmaceutical manufacturer influence on clinicians' patient care is a legitimate topic of discourse. In spite of many safeguards designed to prevent improper drug company influence, there may be some bona fide examples out there. In my experience, it's far less a problem than much of the media would have the public believe. The various and logical "relationships" between drug companies and the U.S. health care system (doctors, hospitals, medical schools, psychiatry residency programs, the FDA drug approval process, insurance and funding mechanisms such as Medicare and Medicaid, etc.) are often misunderstood or misconstrued by the public. Sometimes that's because someone, or some organization, just wants to sling mud in the media. (Some information in this vignette was taken from Psychiatric News, 46:1, 28, 2011.)