Prescriptive authority for psychologists became a preeminent practice issue for the psychological community during the 1990s. Scope of practice, relationships with other health care providers, and perhaps even a change in identity of the profession are subsidiary issues bound up in the prescription privileges debate. The authors surveyed Maryland psychologists on this topic and examined 2 decades of opinion surveys regarding prescription privileges. A consistently high level of endorsement of prescription privileges for psychologists has been found over the past decade. At this point, the profession of psychology strongly favors the acquisition of prescription privileges by appropriately trained professional psychologists.In January 1999, psychologists in the American territory of Guam obtained the right to prescribe psychotropic medications under the supervision of a physician (Allied Health Practices Act, 1998, Title 10). Guam Bill 695 was passed by the legislature in December 1998 and then vetoed. The gubernatorial veto was subsequently overridden, however, and prescriptive authority for psychologists became law. This law represents the first time in almost a decade of legislative attempts that American psychologists have been successful in their endeavor to obtain prescriptive authority. 1 Since the mid-1990s, prescription privileges interest groups have been developed by at least 21 state psychological associations (Cullen & Newman, 1997), and several programs designed to train psychologists to this end have been established. Although momentum toward prescriptive authority is clearly growing, some opposition remains. Key arguments by opponents of prescription privileges are that a significant number of those in the profession do not desire to pursue this ability (Heiby, 1998) and that the issue is heavily promoted by leaders of organized psychology, who are at odds with the desires of psychologists at large (Chatel, Lamberty, & Bieliauskas, 1993).
American men tend to be marginalized in grief and loss. The commonly held view of effective grieving does a disservice to those mourners who engage in a more closed style of grieving. Conventional-style grievers are more willing to express their emotions related to loss and are therefore more apt to be recognized and supported by others. The masculine grief response, a style popularly portrayed by U.S. American males and endorsed as gender appropriate, leads to the marginalizing of such survivors. Strategies for supporting masculine-style grieving need to acknowledge the legitimacy and use the strengths of this mode of responding to loss.
One hundred and two mothers of adolescents and young adults with traumatic brain injury completed a modified Grief Experience Inventory (GEI) (Sanders, Mauger, & Strong, 1985) and rated their child's functioning on a modified Neurobehavioral Rating Scale (NRS) (Levin et al., 1987). More severe grief was reported by mothers who rated their children as having poor neurobehavioral functioning and by mothers of young adult rather than adolescent patients. The guilt component of grief varied significantly across the 3-year post-injury period measured in the study. Historical comparisons of these respondents with other bereaved populations showed that mothers of adolescent and young adults with head injury reported more intense grief than parents who had experienced other significant non-death losses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.