Comments on: Update on the Case of Wine and Online Therapy http://crclips.com/lib/2005/06/10/online-regulation-update/ Historical Clips from 'Psychology, Philosophy and Real Life' Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:51:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: Managing Editor http://crclips.com/lib/2005/06/10/online-regulation-update/#comment-120 Managing Editor Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:59:27 +0000 http://counsellingresource.com/features/archives/2005//update-on-the-case-of-wine-and-online-therapy/#comment-120 Many thanks for your thoughts on this, Tonya -- and I sure do find myself broadly in agreement with what you've had to say. It really does seem zany that the law would consider you qualified to work with clients whose houses are built mostly to the west of you (California side of the state line), but unqualified to work with clients whose houses are built mostly to the east of you (Nevada side of the state line). And as for actually trusting consumers to evaluate their own mental health options? Shock! Horror! Scandal! No, it seems the powers that be think they are better qualified (I mean gosh, they're <em>experts</em>, aren't they?) to make those decisions for their residents... OK, I'm feeling grumpy this morning: sometimes I take the time to craft rational arguments assessing the irrationality of current legislation, but sometimes it's easier just to say look, it's ridiculous, and leave it at that! All the best, Greg Many thanks for your thoughts on this, Tonya — and I sure do find myself broadly in agreement with what you’ve had to say.

It really does seem zany that the law would consider you qualified to work with clients whose houses are built mostly to the west of you (California side of the state line), but unqualified to work with clients whose houses are built mostly to the east of you (Nevada side of the state line).

And as for actually trusting consumers to evaluate their own mental health options? Shock! Horror! Scandal! No, it seems the powers that be think they are better qualified (I mean gosh, they’re experts, aren’t they?) to make those decisions for their residents…

OK, I’m feeling grumpy this morning: sometimes I take the time to craft rational arguments assessing the irrationality of current legislation, but sometimes it’s easier just to say look, it’s ridiculous, and leave it at that!

All the best,
Greg

]]> By: Tonya Elliott LMFT California http://crclips.com/lib/2005/06/10/online-regulation-update/#comment-119 Tonya Elliott LMFT California Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:39:51 +0000 http://counsellingresource.com/features/archives/2005//update-on-the-case-of-wine-and-online-therapy/#comment-119 My comment is relating to California therapists providing services outside of California. I don't really have a problem with therapists from other states providing services to Californians so long as they have adequate experience and training. It seems that the consumer should be able to discern for themselves. Are we not giving them enough credit? Also what happens if I were to provide mental health Services to someone from another state? Am I practicing without a license to that person, even though I have 7 years of training and experience in California? I live in the California Nevada border, so if someone comes to my office in California but they reside in Nevada I can't give them service? Ultimately I think that the therapist has an ethical and perhaps legal responsibility to provide informed consent to the potential patient and to give that patient access to resources to educate themselves about online therapy. Perhaps providing them with the link to the California Board of Behavioral Science website, CAMFT, and other professional licensing boards in the country so that they can compare the requirements for licensure. Ultimately it is the level of the confidence that the consumer develops in therapeutic relationship that will determine the effectiveness of therapy. Give the power back to the people,I say.Teach them how to protect themselves from quackery but ultimately give them credit for intelligent consumers that they are! My comment is relating to California therapists providing services outside of California. I don’t really have a problem with therapists from other states providing services to Californians so long as they have adequate experience and training. It seems that the consumer should be able to discern for themselves. Are we not giving them enough credit? Also what happens if I were to provide mental health Services to someone from another state? Am I practicing without a license to that person, even though I have 7 years of training and experience in California? I live in the California Nevada border, so if someone comes to my office in California but they reside in Nevada I can’t give them service? Ultimately I think that the therapist has an ethical and perhaps legal responsibility to provide informed consent to the potential patient and to give that patient access to resources to educate themselves about online therapy. Perhaps providing them with the link to the California Board of Behavioral Science website, CAMFT, and other professional licensing boards in the country so that they can compare the requirements for licensure. Ultimately it is the level of the confidence that the consumer develops in therapeutic relationship that will determine the effectiveness of therapy. Give the power back to the people,I say.Teach them how to protect themselves from quackery but ultimately give them credit for intelligent consumers that they are!

]]>