Welcome...

Welcome to the Leadership21 blog, an ongoing conversation on mental health, civil rights and social justice. Posting on the blog are twelve young mental health advocates who comprise the L21 commitee, and anything goes--the personal, the political, the cultural, whatever! We hope that you'll check out what's here, and make some comments, and please know that if you're concerned about anonymity, you can comment anonymously. We hope that what you read, and what you contribute, will make you want to return regularly, because to our knowledge, there really isn't anything out there that has the potential to engage people on so many levels about mental health. But we need "outsiders" like you to make it grow into a robust, contagious online blog. So thanks for coming, welcome to the conversation, and please, pass it on--L21

Friday, July 6, 2007

Limits On Psychology?

Posted by Lucy

We’ve all heard about doctors – including psychologists and psychiatrists – making dire predictions about ourselves, our clients, or our loved ones. Sometimes these predictions wind up in court and inform judges’ and juries’ decisions about the future – about whether or not someone is dangerous, or whether or not someone needs a guardian.

But listen to this - the other day I met a boy, just 12, who had been severely abused by his biological mother and father. He’s been in the state’s care for six years and has been institutionalized (in a big prison-like setting in rural Texas) for nearly all of that time – roughly half of his life. I retained a psychologist in order to tell the court overseeing his placement what services he needs. I specifically asked for a recommendation for a foster family.

The expert has come back with the recommendation that this child NOT be placed in foster care, because the damage done to him by his birth family, combined with the damage done by the state in warehousing him for six years, has resulted in her opinion in his “inability” to bond with an adult parent, now or in the future. According to her, he lacks emotional and cognitive capacity to be parented – to be in a family.

Of course I’ll argue (no doubt with a different doc) that this isn’t true, as a matter of fact. But her words just hit me so hard. Isn’t there any area of a person’s life that should be sacred and therefore untouched by this field? Suppose her opinion is “correct” – so what? My strong feeling is that psychology and psychiatry have no place in this context – whether a kid gets a mom and dad – and that’s making me wonder: in what other areas should these quacks be banned? (And even if they are not quacks, and are correct – can we still stop their participation?)

The thing that has always bothered me about psychiatry/psychology is the power that comes with the “M.D.” or “Ph.D.” I can’t think of a situation in which an individual is legally given more authority over the direction over a child’s life than this one – only this special licensed adult has been given the ability to predict if a child will take to a family. Not even birth parents have that right in our system.

Should these professionals have NO authority to make predictions about future behaviors AT ALL?

2 comments:

Lizzie Simon said...

Is the idea that they are protecting future foster parents? It seems outrageous to decide that any 12 year old can't bond--ever--with adults. Please keep posting Lucy!

Leslie said...

As you stated, predictions are dangerous. Ecspecially coming from human beings. As humans we have great tools at times that come in the mode of hunches and gut feelings sometimes end up being right. But sometimes...they don't. Even with an attached label such as M.D. or Ph.D. like you state, that designation doesn't come without preconcieved notions and varied life experiences to which people use to make "predictions" about others. Just because someone has that label that puts them often in a disproprationate power position, doesn't mean they know all. I see it everyday working within a hospital setting-that individuals take their doctors word as biblical truth, even (for example) though they may be experiencing symptoms the doctor can not explain. I try to teach my clients to be advocates for themselves--to not stop speaking up about what ails them, as they know their body better than anyone else. My suspicion is that this "expert" in the situation has become jaded, cynical, or tired based on her experience. It sounds as if she has stopped seeing each case as a child and begun to see each child as a case. I know I am preaching to the choir when encouraging others--including our system--to question even those that carry great credentials. But the potential for dyer consequences is too great if we leave only those in power postions to be the decision makers.