Could versus should: A reply to Sammons

Abstract

Sammons (1994) believes that our critique of organized psychology's efforts to gain limited prescriptive privileges (Adams & Bieliauskas, 1994) is comprised of pseudo-problems (e.g., the noncurative nature of psychopharmacology) or issues that can readily be handled (e.g., malpractice exposure). We disagree and attempt herein to inject some reality into the picture of the bright new world of psychologists armed with prescription pads. Most importantly, the seemingly vanished distinction between what could be done politically or legislatively and what should be done for the profession and the public good is redrawn.