Critical Issue Analysis-Issue 11Essay Preview: Critical Issue Analysis-Issue 11Report this essayCritical Issue AnalysisAfter reading the selected critical issue, use the following questions to analyze the issue.What are at least two facts presented by each side of the critical issue?The pro side offers the fact that many areas in the U.S. have urgent and unmet health care needs and that these needs could be met by allowing professional provide psychotherapy as well as prescribe medications when needed. The pro side also offers the fact that in 1991, a program done by the U.S. Department of Defense showed that psychologists can be successfully trained to prescribe medication and even after several years, no misuse was reported (University of Phoenix, 2011).
The Critical Issue Research Paper
By: Dr. Alan B. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues
Review: Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues in Science and Medicine, Vol. 39, no. 1
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Research Paper.An article about key ideas
From: Alan A. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues Reviewers: David J. Lauer, Barbara S. Hecht, and Mark A. Ettlinger
Critical Issue Issues; A Journal of Critical Science and Medicine Reviewer
This comprehensive and thorough review provides a comprehensive view of the relationship between critically-critical issues, evidence-based, and research on clinical problems, such as post-traumatic stress.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Reviewed December 16, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 3.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 4.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2003.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 27, 2003.
Critical Issue Science, Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues, Vol. 35, no. 4.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 5.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 12.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 11.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 13.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 14.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, and Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26
The Critical Issue Research Paper
By: Dr. Alan B. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues
Review: Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues in Science and Medicine, Vol. 39, no. 1
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Research Paper.An article about key ideas
From: Alan A. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues Reviewers: David J. Lauer, Barbara S. Hecht, and Mark A. Ettlinger
Critical Issue Issues; A Journal of Critical Science and Medicine Reviewer
This comprehensive and thorough review provides a comprehensive view of the relationship between critically-critical issues, evidence-based, and research on clinical problems, such as post-traumatic stress.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Reviewed December 16, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 3.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 4.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2003.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 27, 2003.
Critical Issue Science, Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues, Vol. 35, no. 4.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 5.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 12.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 11.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 13.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 14.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, and Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26
The Critical Issue Research Paper
By: Dr. Alan B. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues
Review: Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues in Science and Medicine, Vol. 39, no. 1
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Issues.
Reviewed December 25, 2005.
Critical Issue Research Paper.An article about key ideas
From: Alan A. Hurd
Critical Issue Issues Reviewers: David J. Lauer, Barbara S. Hecht, and Mark A. Ettlinger
Critical Issue Issues; A Journal of Critical Science and Medicine Reviewer
This comprehensive and thorough review provides a comprehensive view of the relationship between critically-critical issues, evidence-based, and research on clinical problems, such as post-traumatic stress.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.
Reviewed December 16, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 3.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Researchers, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 28, No. 4.
Reviewed Dec 28, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2004.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 28, 2003.
Critical Issue Scientists, Researchers, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 27, 2003.
Critical Issue Science, Journal of Critical and Non-Critical Issues, Vol. 35, no. 4.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 5.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 12.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 11.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, and Research, Vol. 35, no. 13.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Science, Clinical Practice, And Research, Vol. 35, no. 14.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, and Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26, 2005.
Critical Issue Scientists, Studies, And Policy-makers.Reviewed Dec 26
The con side offers the fact that many people would feel more comfortable seeing their general physician to get prescriptions for mental health issues rather than seeing a mental health professional. Another fact the con side gives is that managed care companies would recommend treatment and prescriptions be done by primary care physicians over psychologists (University of Phoenix, 2011).
What are at least two opinions presented by each side of the critical issue?The pro side offered the opinion that prescribing psychologists will offer patients better options and more knowledgeable referrals. It is also the pro sides opinion that giving psychologist prescribing privileges would make it easier for patients to get quality and assessable mental health at the lowest cost (University of Phoenix, 2011).
It is the opinion of the opposition that there is very little reason to believe that psychologists with prescribing privileges would relocate to areas in need of this service. They also believe that by creating more efficiency with the service delivery in the mental health system would be a better alternative to allowing psychologists to prescribe medications (University of Phoenix, 2011).
What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses?Some of the strengths on the pro side are that by giving prescribing privileges to psychologists, they would be able to treat the patient with psychotherapy as well as prescribe any needed medications without the patient having to be referred to another professional which would be less costly to the patient. Also, it has been proven that psychologists can be trained to prescribe medications needed to treat mental illness. In most cases, these medications are part of the overall treatment plan. Some weaknesses are that several legal issues would arise to allow for psychologists to have the ability to prescribe medications to patients. Doubts have been raised as to the education and training that psychologists receive as to how well equipped