The Mental Helath Professionals

Every professional should do his/her due diligence so as not to do any disservice to the people they are serving. If you are a financial adviser, you should know your financial products down to the fine prints so that you can explain fully the risk factors of the products to the people who are going to hand over their money to you. If you are a doctor, you should know the latest and proven methods for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment to ensure that your patients' well being is not put in jeopardy. If you are a teacher, you are to do your due diligence to ensure that you are not imparting the wrong value, giving inaccurate information or delivering materials that are too easy and not challenging to your students. If you are a defense lawyer, you are to present the strongest defense possible so that you clients, who might be either innocent or guilty, are given the due process of justice.

The mental health professionals do not escape this scrutiny. The standard code of ethics call for psychologists to not cause harm, and to ensure that clients benefit from our services. One way to ensure these are met is to use only scientifically proven treatment methods. This is the heart of the matter. Acquiring information on scientifically proven methods basically involved reading of journal articles to keep abreast with the latest development. In the clinical setting I was attached to, the psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, and specialist teachers get together once a week to share journal articles pertaining to their fields. However, employing the appropriate and proven treatment method is one thing, maintaining fidelity of treatment during service delivery is another thing. It requires conscientiousness and meticulousness in the part of the professionals. Extensive preparation is needed so that the 50 minutes you are charging your clients are not wasted.

I have been observing the graduate students in my programme. The programme is leading toward certified practice. The students in the programme are supposed to be "The Elect" few. I was told that out of more than 400 qualified applicants to the programme, only 100 were carefully interviewed by fellow psychologists. The interviews were supposed to weed out "unsuitable candidates" whatever that means. And out of the 100, only 20 were selected. To fully prepare oneself to be an effective mental health professional, I found reading the required texts was not enough. Sadly, I observed, the future psychologists I encountered, were not diligently equipping themselves to be good practitioners. If they are not conscientious during training, what level of conscientiousness can you expect after the certificates are in hands?