• Truaxe@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Agreed. If the credentials in their second comment were what qualified the statement in the first comment, why did they sign the first comment “licensed psychologist”, a title that doesn’t inherently qualify someone to speak to the pharmacological question.

      • swayevenly@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The second comment is summarizing what they researched for their PsyD degree and partially explaining why therapist and psychologist are not synonymous.

        • Truaxe@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wasn’t super clear on the subject, so I did a bit of googling. It doesn’t look like any of the subjects in the second comment are required courses for a psychology degree. Apparently a psychologist isn’t a medical doctor and can’t prescribe medication. I don’t think that saying they are a psychologist would give any indication that they are qualified to speak to the subject.

          • Misty@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My husband is a ClinPsyD and you’re right that those aren’t specific to that degree, but as psychologists specialise they tend to get advanced training which is probably where that comes in. My husband specialises in neuro, specifically brain injury and has done further diplomas that have included study of degenerative disorders, traumatic brain injury and other neuro specific diseases.

            I know in the US some states allow psychologists to prescribe which I would assume requires some pharmacological training beyond a normal degree, so I would guess that’s what has happened here.