































Graduate Student Journal of  Psychology
2014, Vol. 15

Copyright 2014 by the Department of  Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

95

Prescription Privileges and the Ethics Code:
A Modern Look into the Right to Prescribe among 

Applied Psychologists

Gavin Ryan Shafron
California School of  Professional Psychology, San Francisco

The primary distinguishing element between the practice of  clinical psychiatry and applied psychology is the right to 
prescribe psychotropic medications for psychiatrists and the absence of  that right for applied psychologists (Clinical 
or Counseling Psychologists holding either Ph.D, Psy.D, or Ed.D degrees) (Andrews, 2011). Since 1995, the Ameri-
can Psychological Association has made it official policy to pursue such rights for those holding doctoral degrees in 
applied psychology (Ph.Ds, Psy.Ds and Ed.Ds), much to the resistance of  their colleagues in psychiatry (Johnson, 
Hay, Murray, Lucas & Tompkins, 2012; Martin, 1995). This paper assesses the history and current state of  affairs of  
the debate to further psychologists’ right to prescribe through a review of  current literature, utilizing the Ethical Prin-
ciples of  Psychologists and Code of  Conduct of  the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002). This paper 
adds to the debate as to whether psychologists’ prescription privileges, without the full training in medicine afforded 
to psychiatrists, falls within a psychologists’ scope of  practice. It is argued that, with the current state of  policy and 
training for prescription privileges, the risks appear to outweigh the gains. Steps can be taken to ensure proper doc-
toral training, and continuing education in order for prescription privileges to be viable for applied psychologists. 
Several important considerations reviewed herein must be addressed before such training could be ethically feasible.

Prescription Privileges and the Ethics Code: A 
Modern Look into the Right to Prescribe among 

Applied Psychologists

 The primary distinguishing factor between the 
applied practices of  professional psychology and 
psychiatry is the right of  psychiatrists to prescribe 
psychotropic medications (DeNelsky, 1996; Hale, 
1995). Psychotherapeutic interventions, once prac-
ticed primarily by psychiatrists, have now become 
the domain of  applied psychology (DeNelsky, 1996; 
Hale, 1995), and the practice of  psychiatry primarily 
emphasizes the prescription of  medication for the 
treatment of  mental illnesses (Andrews, 2011). The 
two professions are academically distinct, with psy-
chologists earning professional doctorates including 
the Doctor of  Philosophy in Psychology (Ph.D), 
Doctor of  Psychology (Psy.D), and Doctor of  Ed-
ucation in Psychology (Ed.D), all of  which focus on 
research and/or clinical training. Psychiatrists, con-
versely, hold a doctorate in medicine (M.D.), receiv-
ing broad-based medical training before completing 
a psychiatric residency (Andrews, 2011; Back, Book, 
Santos & Brady, 2011; Stricker, 1975). Yet anoth-
er difference is the salary disparity between applied 

psychology and psychiatry. Though psychiatrists still 
often out-earn applied psychologists, the field of  psy-
chiatry earns comparatively less than all other special-
ties of  medicine. As a result, newly trained medical 
professionals have chosen psychiatric residencies in 
greatly diminished numbers in recent years, likely due 
to the dramatic pay disparity between psychiatry and 
other M.D. specialties. (Andrews, 2011; Back, Book, 
Santos & Brady, 2011; Smith, 2012; Murray, 2003). 
This has expanded the debate as to whether prescrip-
tion privileges, complicated by the comparatively 
short psychological training which psychiatrists re-
ceive in comparison to applied psychologists, should 
be granted to the increasing numbers of  applied 
psychologists (Andrews, 2011; Back, Book, Santos 
& Brady, 2011; Murray, 2003). For the purposes of  
this article, prescription privileges, the right to pre-
scribe, and RxP (Rx connoting prescription, and P, 
connoting privileges) will be used interchangeably. 

History of  Prescription Privileges in the United 
States

 In response to the dwindling numbers of  new 
psychiatrists, the American Psychological Associa-
tion (APA) has advocated for the right of  psychol-
ogists to prescribe psychotropic medications with 
appropriate pre- or post-doctoral training and certi-
fication (Johnson, Hay, Murray, Lucas & Tompkins, 
2012; Martin, 1995). The APA has maintained this 

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Gavin Ryan Shafron, Clinical Psychology Ph.D. 
Program, California School of  Professional Psychology, 
San Francisco. One Beach Street, Suite 100. San Francis-
co, CA 94133-1221. Email address: gshafron@alliant.edu.

Graduate Student Journal of  Psychology
2014, Vol. 15

Copyright 2014 by the Department of  Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University



96

stance for the past 18 years, making the pursuit of  
prescription privileges part of  its official policy since 
1995 (Johnson et al., 2012; Martin, 1995). However, 
this campaign for RxP has been consistently coun-
tered by lobbying groups made up of  physicians and 
psychiatrists arguing against such a privilege. The 
groups have cited numerous issues, the most perti-
nent of  which is a lack of  psychologists’ competen-
cy to prescribe medications (DeNelsky, 1996; Faust, 
2011). The APA Ethical Standard 2.01 specifically 
forbids practicing outside one’s “scope-of-practice,” 
and yet the APA advocates the advancement of  psy-
chologists’ right to prescribe (APA, 2002, pg. 4; John-
son et al., 2012; Martin, 1995). Therefore, the main 
questions of  this issue are as follows: Does the APA’s 
promotion of  RxP represent a fundamental contra-
diction in policy given the stipulations set forth in 
APA’s Ethics Code? Is there such a thing as ‘enough’ 
training for psychologists to engage in psychophar-
macological interventions? Are pre- or-post-doctoral 
certifications sufficient in the absence of  the phar-
macological training that is afforded to psychiatrists? 
Further, does this debate reflect the conflicting inter-
ests of  psychiatry and advancing applied psychology, 
as psychiatric practitioners see their cohort shrinking 
and their standing in the mental health field chal-
lenged? These will be the questions addressed in this 
review through an analysis of  the current state of  
the debate, considered within the context of  APA’s 
Ethical Principles of  Psychologists and Code of  
Ethics (referred to herein as the APA Ethics Code). 
 The first administrative agency to grant prescrip-
tion rights to psychologists was the Department of  
Defense in 1998 (Dittman, 2003). This trial program 
was designed to test the effectiveness of  training 
of  RxP and to make up for the dearth of  psychiat-
ric providers in the military (Dittman, 2003). This 
(now terminated) training program is said to have 
established the proficiency of  psychologists as psy-
chopharmacologically trained prescribers (Dittman, 
2003). Further recognizing the proficiency of  RxP 
among psychologists, the U.S. military and Indi-
an Health Service both grant RxP to psychologists 
with appropriate training (Cullen & Newman, 1997). 
 Since the argument for prescription privileg-
es began, Louisiana, New Mexico and the Territory 

of  Guam have all passed laws granting prescription 
privileges to psychologists. Simultaneously, other 
states struck down majority approval of  such laws 
via gubernatorial veto, whereby the governor of  
the states blocked voter-approved legislation (Faust, 
2011). Several other states have failed to achieve ma-
jority legislative approval. However, mixed legislative 
results have not prevented advocates from continu-
ing the argument for RxP (Faust, 2011). Most re-
cently, Illinois’ latest bid to legalize RxP for psychol-
ogists has failed while Ohio’s legislators in support 
of  RxP appear to have no current plan to reintro-
duce previously rejected legislation (Grohol, 2013).

The Argument for Prescription Privileges 
 The argument for prescription privileges is 
grounded in the shortage of  psychiatrists entering 
the profession or already in practice (Back, Book, 
Santos & Brady, 2011; Cullen & Newman, 1997; Mar-
tin, 1995). Proponents of  RxP argue that the reduc-
tion of  available psychiatrists has made obtaining an 
appointment with a psychiatrist increasingly difficult, 
with non-emergency cases often being deferred for 
weeks or, in some cases, up to nearly a month for ap-
pointments (Maughan, 2010). Furthermore, propo-
nents argue that in rural areas, there may only reside a 
handful of  psychiatrists, rendering new appointments 
(emergency or otherwise) nearly impossible to obtain. 
Indeed, the strain felt within the field is evident in 
the increasing number of  general practitioners pre-
scribing psychotropic medications outside of  their 
specialty, and potentially outside of  their compe-
tence (Maughan, 2010; Mojtabai & Olfson, 2011). 
 Many within professional psychology argue that 
the solution to this issue is granting applied psychol-
ogists the right to obtain training and legal authority 
for RxP (Martin, 1995). Along with the policy of  the 
APA in favor of  RxP, several pre- and post-doctor-
al training programs have been established at ma-
jor psychology training institutions, such as Alliant 
International University (AIU, 2012) and Fairleigh 
Dickinson University (FDU, 2012). These programs 
follow the increasingly popular model of  integrat-
ing psychopharmacological training into clinical and 
counseling psychology as a post-doctoral master’s 
program to be followed by applied clinical train-

SHAFRON



97

ing (Resnick, Ax, Fagan, & Nussbaum, 2011). This 
model of  RxP training is the most prominent of  
those that have been proposed, whereby only those 
who engaged in specialized and rigorous course-
work would be eligible to administer psychotro-
pic drugs (Resnick et al., 2011; Smyer et al., 1993).
 Proponents of  RxP argue that there is no group 
of  professionals better equipped to prescribe psy-
chotropic medication in the absence of  a psychia-
trist than applied psychologists (Resnick et al., 2011; 
Smyer et al., 1993).  This contention is based on 
psychologists’ preexisting understanding of  mental 
illness thereby (according to this argument) enabling 
psychologists to provide the best applications for 
psychotropic treatment. (Resnick et al., 2011; Smy-
er et al., 1993). Furthermore, proponents envision 
prescription privileges for applied psychologists as 
existing within a psychologist’s training model, just 
as optometrists, podiatrists, and other specialized 
medical professionals do not have broad-based med-
ical training but are granted limited and highly spe-
cialized privileges (Smyer et al., 1993). Finally, pro-
ponents also argue that psychologists are far better 
equipped to prescribe psychotropic medications 
than are general medical practitioners, who possess 
limited understanding of  psychology but have be-
come the primary providers of  psychotropic drugs 
as psychiatrists’ numbers have dwindled in recent 
years (Back et al., 2011; Cullen & Newman, 1997; 
Martin, 1995; Resnick et al., 2011; Smyer et al., 1993).

The Argument Against Prescription Privileges
 Opponents of  psychologists’ right to prescribe 
point to a number of  factors, including unneces-
sary risks to patients and additional risks to to the 
integrity of  the practice of  professional psychology 
itself  (DeLeon, Bennett, & Bricklin, 1997; DeNelsky, 
1996). Among the most compelling arguments 
against prescription privileges is the risk of  harm to 
the patient. Physicians are educated in the complex 
interactions between psychiatric and non-psychiatric 
medications (DeNelsky, 1996). Opponents of  RxP 
argue that one danger of  allowing psychologists pre-
scription privileges is that there is no way to ensure 
psychologists’ understanding of  potentially harmful 
interactions with patients’ non-psychotropic pre-

scription medications, constituting systemic malprac-
tice (DeNelsky, 1996; Hayes & Heiby, 1996). This risk 
reflects a potential violation of  Ethical Standard 3.04, 
which states that psychologists are to prevent, avoid, 
and minimize harm to their patients whenever pos-
sible (APA, 2002). It also represents a potential dan-
ger to the patient and underscores the possible risks 
of  psychologists with RxP practicing outside their 
scope of  competence (DeLeon, Bennett, & Brick-
lin, 1997; DeNelsky, 1996; Hayes & Heiby, 1996).  
 Opponents of  RxP also argue that the nature of  
the practice of  applied psychology would dramati-
cally change, transforming applied psychologists into 
lesser-educated psychiatrists and thereby damaging 
and potentially eliminating the field of  clinical psy-
chiatry (DeNelsky, 1996; Moyer, 1995). Furthermore, 
DeNelsky (1996) suggests that, were psychologists to 
move increasingly toward prescribing psychotropic 
medications in lieu of  practicing psychotherapy, the 
resulting gap would put significant pressure on mental 
health counselors, social workers, and marriage and 
family therapists to take over primary psychothera-
peutic duties. Additionally, much in the same way that 
medicine and psychiatry are dominated by the finan-
cial influence of  the pharmaceutical industry, some 
suggest that the field of  applied psychology would 
ultimately succumb to these influences as well if  
prescription privileges are granted (DeNelsky, 1996; 
Hayes & Heiby, 1996). The fear appears to be that, 
without the vast knowledge of  medication interac-
tions attained by psychiatrists and physicians, psycho-
pharmacologically trained clinicians could be unduly 
influenced by the marketing tactics of  a multi-billion 
dollar industry, once again reflecting a violation of  
Ethical Standard 3.04 (DeLeon, Bennett, & Brick-
lin, 1997; DeNelsky, 1996; Hayes & Heiby, 1996). 
 Finally, similar to some previous arguments, con-
cerns have been posed regarding how specialty train-
ing would take place (Bieliauskas, 1992; Bütz, 1994; 
DeNelsky, 1996; Robiner et al., 2002).  Of  particular 
interest is the question of  whether mandates would 
be imposed at the state level to ensure proper train-
ing. Further, one wonders whether the addition of  
such training would be a sufficient pharmacological 
education. Furthermore, would adding a tremen-
dous amount of  psychopharmacology classes to al-

PRESCRIPTION PRIVILEGES AND THE ETHICS CODE



98

ready rigorous doctoral programs require a sacrifice 
of  core training coursework integral to applied psy-
chology programs? (Bieliauskas, 1992a; Bütz, 1994; 
DeNelsky, 1996; Robiner et al., 2002). DeNelsky 
(1996) also argues that for any standardized training 
to occur, numerous programs must be preexisting 
and established within the field to draw new students. 
 Unfortunately, a current reduction in the num-
ber of  such programs threatens the state of  RxP 
training for psychologists. Many programs, such as 
the post-doctoral Master of  Science in Clinical Psy-
chopharmacology from the Massachusetts School of  
Professional Psychology, have closed down due to lack 
of  enrollment (Resnick et al., 2011). While the APA 
policy regarding RxP still stands, investing financially 
in further education and clinical training after already 
extensive and rigorous doctoral training may render 
the RxP specialization prohibitive for many (Resnick 
et al., 2011). It has been argued that legislative poli-
cy can only take place once psychopharmacological 
training has become widespread, which might pres-
ent a problem if  training opportunities continue to 
be limited (Resnick et al., 2011). Yet the inverse could 
also be true; without local laws supporting RxP, it is 
likely that training programs will continue to strug-
gle to attract and retain students, further endangering 
the viability of  the  current training model. 

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and Boundaries 
of  Competence

 Principle A of  the APA Ethics Code states that 
psychologists must “do good,” never risk harm to 
their patients, and prioritize the rights, welfare, and 
benefit of  the patient and those they encounter both 
professionally and outside of  the professional sphere 
(APA, 2002, p. 3). This raises the question of  wheth-
er or not patients benefit from psychologists gain-
ing RxP. If  the risks of  harmful drug interactions, 
incorrect prescribing, and poor standards of  training 
are indeed too high, as opponents argue, then RxP 
would be a violation of  Principle A. In addition, 
Ethical Standard 2.01a states that “psychologists 
provide services, teach, and conduct research with 
populations and in areas only within the boundar-
ies of  their competence, based on their education, 

training, supervised experience, consultation, study, 
or professional experience” (APA, 2002, p.4). While 
those in favor of  RxP have outlined a multitude of  
training options, the consensus within the literature 
advocating RxP appears to favor a post-doctoral 
master’s program with a clinical training component 
focused completely on psychopharmacology, and in-
deed this appears to be the current dominant train-
ing model. (Alliant International University, 2012; 
Fairleigh Dickenson University 2012;  Resnick et 
al., 2011, 2011; Smyer et al., 1993). However, in its 
current form, this format may not be sufficient to 
ensure competence and thereby reduce the risk of  
harm when considering potentially dangerous drug 
interactions between psychotropic and non-psycho-
tropic medications. This is illustrated by the vastly 
more intensive training both inside and outside of  
the physiological sphere afforded to psychiatrists.
 Initial RxP training must be sufficient for provid-
ers to understand the complex physiological reactions 
between pharmacological interventions (DeNelsky, 
1996; Moyer, 1994). This may require more than 
the currently outlined post-doctoral training model. 
Moreover, two prominent post-doctoral psychophar-
macology programs (AIU, 2012; FDU, 2012) follow 
a distance-learning model which, given the dangerous 
nature of  drug interactions, may be insufficient to 
ensure psychologists’ competence (DeNelsky, 1996; 
Moyer, 1994). This is notable given that no APA-ac-
credited doctoral program allows a predominantly 
distance-learning approach (Clay, 2012). Thus, there 
appears to be a consensus within accreditation bod-
ies that long-distance training is not sufficient for at-
taining and maintaining necessary clinical knowledge 
(Clay, 2012). This may also be the case with regard to 
RxP, therefore necessitating a change in the training 
model. Furthermore, insufficient training reflects a 
violation of  Ethical Standard 2.01, as these programs 
cannot directly ensure that RxP psychologists are 
practicing within their boundaries of  competence. 
Indeed, Ethical Standard 7.01 (Design of  Educa-
tion and Training Programs) states that psychologists 
must take steps to ensure that training programs 
provide the necessary knowledge for competen-
cy within their scope of  practice (APA, 2002). This 
is reinforced by APA Ethical Standard 2.03, which 

SHAFRON



99

similarly recommends that “psychologists undertake 
ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their com-
petence” (APA, 2002, p.5). Yet, the current frame-
work for RxP training does not maintain any provi-
sions or mandates at the legislative level to achieve 
pharmacological proficiency (DeNelsky, 1996). 
 Before RxP would be ethically viable, psychol-
ogists must be mandated to bolster their RxP profi-
ciency through continuing education, just as they are 
required to do for ongoing psychotherapeutic profi-
ciency (Department of  Consumer Affairs, 2012). Yet, 
the current licensure framework for most states only 
mandates a number of  hours and allows psychologists 
to choose the form and content of  their continuing 
education, while other states have no continuing ed-
ucation requirements. Due to the risks involved with 
complex drug interactions, continuing education for 
RxP psychologists must be stringently regulated to en-
sure the greatest degree of  competency in this domain.

Fidelity, Responsibility and Standards of  Care 

 The APA Ethics Code, Principle B, states that 
psychologists develop a relationship of  trust with 
their patients (APA, 2002). Psychologists are instruct-
ed to keep the best interests of  their patients at the 
forefront of  all of  their decisions and to manage 
any conflicts of  interest that could potentially result 
in the harm of  another (APA, 2002). Psychologists 
must ask themselves whether or not it is truly in 
the best interests of  the patient to be pursuing RxP, 
or whether the pursuit of  such privileges is con-
founded by the desire to add legitimacy and finan-
cial profitability to the field of  applied psychology.
 Standards of  care for clinical practice can be said 
to relate to the relationship of  trust between a psy-
chologist and patient, as appropriate standards of  
care are necessary to provide assurances to the pa-
tient that they are well protected. Thus ethical as well 
as legal considerations to be taken into account seem 
to be highly interrelated in any argument addressing 
RxP (Shafron & Van Moorleghem, 2012). The cur-
rent standard of  care for practicing psychologists is 
the “reasonably prudent professional” convention, 
meaning that any medical decision should be exer-
cise a reasonable level of  caution that an individual 

of  “ordinary prudence” would observe (Johnson, 
2012; McWay, 2003, p. 45; Vaughn v. Menlove, 1837 
as cited in Robinson, 2014, p. 444-445). This conven-
tion, however, does not currently specify standards 
of  care pertaining to RxP-licensed psychologists. In 
the case for RxP, the argument must be expanded to 
conceptualize the RxP-licensed psychologist as in 
line with the ‘reasonably prudent psychiatrist’ (John-
son, 2009; Shafron & Van Moorleghem, 2012). This 
conceptualization would require an expanded stan-
dard of  care from that to which applied psycholo-
gists are currently held, given the risks involved with 
RxP (Shafron & Van Moorleghem, 2012). Additional 
issues could arise if  there are multiple standards of  
care based on different competencies within applied 
psychology (Shafron & Van Moorleghem, 2012).
 Furthermore, along with doing more to secure 
the relationship of  trust between patient and pro-
fessional, the added responsibility of  RxP requires 
that psychologists reflect on the same scientific and 
cultural issues related to pharmacological interven-
tions that psychiatrists must address. These respon-
sibilities include achieving cultural competence. In 
order for psychologists to earn the relationship of  
trust outlined in Principle B, a psychologist must 
strive to achieve the utmost cultural competency.

Cultural Considerations

 The field of  applied psychology is increasing-
ly moving toward models emphasizing the under-
standing of  cultural considerations in the application 
and administration of  psychological interventions. 
For example, many researchers have explored the 
ways in which cultural background can shape and 
influence one’s personality and belief  system (e.g., 
Bhugra & Bhui, 1999). This has been shown to 
influence patients’ choices of  treatment (Cha-
pa, 2004), as well as medication compliance (Lin, 
1996) and even physiological response to medi-
cation (Bhugra & Bhui, 1999; Exner et al., 2001). 
 At the level of  personality and belief  system, it is 
possible to surmise that some individuals may favor 
the current model of  seeing a medical professional to 
obtain psychotropic treatment for certain disorders. 
The possibility of  RxP psychologists serving roles 

PRESCRIPTION PRIVILEGES AND THE ETHICS CODE



100

traditionally occupied by psychiatrists could be prob-
lematic for these individuals, who might be uneasy 
seeing a psychologist for biomedical concerns. Yet 
the inverse may also be true; individuals who were 
previously reluctant to see a psychologist for thera-
py may be more likely to seek psychotherapy as an 
alternative form of  treatment outside of  the realm 
of  psychotropic medications if  the RxP psychologist 
becomes a primary source of  psychotropic medica-
tions. In essence, prescription privileges might serve 
as a draw for individuals initially seeking psychotropic 
treatments to become more open to psychotherapy.
 The RxP psychologist must also be mindful of  
the physiological effects of  medications in different 
racial and ethnic groups. When reviewing tricyclic 
antidepressant usage cross-culturally, differences are 
seen at the physiological level when comparing in-
dividuals of  Asian, Indian, and Caucasian descent. 
Caucasian individuals have demonstrated lower lev-
els of  tricyclic medications within their blood plas-
ma, which has been attributed to differences in rates 
of  hydroxylation between ethnic groups (Kilow, 
1982). Hydroxylation is defined as the introduction 
of  a drug into the body and the process by which 
it is activated and deactivated (Kilow, 1982). Addi-
tionally, differences have been found between indi-
viduals of  Hispanic descent and other ethnic groups 
on rates of  sensitivity to tricyclic antidepressants 
(Lin, 1995). Individuals of  Hispanic descent have 
been shown to require lower dosages to achieve the 
drug’s full effect, but at the same time experience 
greater side effects while on the reduced dose (Lin, 
1995). Any pre- or post-doctoral training in RxP 
must maintain and integrate cross-cultural aware-
ness to the administration of  psychotropic drugs. 
 While a review of  current literature found no 
significant differences relating to RxP treatment or 
outcomes with regard to gender, and LGBTQ status, 
RxP-trained psychologists must still be mindful of  
potential differences which may exist between these 
cultural groups. For example, it may be difficult to 
prescribe medications for very young individuals, as 
many medications are not approved for those under 
the age of  18. The RxP psychologist must do more 
than just understand the basic interactions of  psy-
chotropic drugs; there needs to be an overall aware-

ness of  any possible contraindications (Buelow & 
Chafetz, 1996; Shafron & Van Moorleghem, 2012). 

Conclusion

 This paper addresses the history of  granting 
prescription privileges to psychologists, followed by 
a review of  arguments for and against RxP within 
the context of  the APA Ethics Code. The possibility 
of  granting RxP to applied psychologists remains an 
ongoing debate within the mental health professions. 
As psychiatry’s numbers diminish due to lack of  fi-
nancial incentive, it is clear that general practitioner 
M.D.s alone cannot support the overflow of  patients 
who need psychopharmacological treatment, and 
critics question whether general medical practitioners 
have the expertise necessary to treat mental disorders. 
Despite the APA’s support of  RxP to compensate for 
the dwindling numbers of  practicing psychiatrists, 
psychologists must only accept such privileges if  
they can attest that the training afforded to them is 
fundamentally comparable to the years of  pharma-
cological education provided to psychiatrists. Regard-
less of  whether psychologists are permitted only to 
prescribe psychotropic drugs, their training and con-
tinuing education must exceed that of  psychotropic 
medications alone to ensure the well-being of  those 
they treat. Such training must also employ the same 
cultural competencies mandated academically within 
clinical and counseling psychology, particularly since 
pharmacological responses have been shown to dif-
fer across ethnic groups. Striving for patient health, 
both mentally and physically, must remain central 
to the field as it moves toward new applications.

References

Alliant International University. (2012). Clinical psy-
chopharmacology postdoctoral MS program. 
Retrieved from http://www.alliant.edu/cspp/
programs-degrees/clinical-psychopharmacolo-
gy/index.php

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical 
principles of  psychologists and code of  conduct. 
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/

SHAFRON



101

code/index.aspx
Andrews, M. (2011, March 17) Psychologists seek 

authority to prescribe psychotropic medications. 
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://
www.washingtonpost.com/national/psychol-
ogists-seek-authority-to-prescribe-psychotro-
pic-medications-/2011/03/17/ABosOH8_sto-
ry.html

Back, S. E., Book, S. W., Santos, A., & Brady, K. T. 
(2011). Training physician-scientists: A model 
for integrating research into psychiatry residen-
cy. Academic Psychiatry, 35, 40-45. doi:10.1176/
appi.ap.35.1.40

Bieliauskas, L. A. (1992). Prescription privileges for 
psychologists? Reality orientation for propo-
nents. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: 
State of  the Art Reviews, 6, 587–595.

Bhugra, D., & Bhui, K. (1999). Ethnic and cultural 
factors in psychopharmacology. Journal of  Con-
tinuing and Professional Development, 5, 85-95.

Buelow, G. D., & Chafetz, M. D. (1996). Proposed 
ethical practice guidelines for clinical pharma-
copsychology: Sharpening a new focus in psy-
chology. Professional Psychology: Research and 
Practice, 27, 53-58.

Bütz, M. R. (1994). Psychopharmacology: Psycholo-
gy’s Jurassic Park? Psychotherapy, 31, 692–699.

California Psychological Association. (2012). Con-
tinuing Education. Retrieved from http://www.
cpapsych.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&sub-
articlenbr=7

Chapa, T. (2004) Mental health services in primary 
care settings for racial and ethnic minority popu-
lations. U.S. Department of  Health and Human 
Services Office of  Minority Health 

Retrieved from http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/As-
sets/pdf/Checked/1/Mental_Health_ Services_
in_Primary_Care_Settings_for_Racial2004.pdf

Clay, R. A. (2012). What you should know about on-
line education: APA does not accredit fully on-
line programs in professional psychology. Here’s 
why. Monitor on Psychology, 43(6). Retrieved 
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/06/
online-education.aspx

Cullen, E. A. & Newman, R. (1997). In pursuit 
of  prescription privileges. Professional Psy-

chology: Research and Practice, 28, 101-106. 
doi:10.1037//0735-7028.28.2.101

DeLeon, P. H., Bennett, B. E., & Bricklin, P. M. 
(1997). Ethics and public policy formulation: A 
case example related to prescription privileges. 
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 
28, 518-525.  doi:10.1037/0735-7028.28.6.518

DeNelsky, G. Y. (1996). The case against prescrip-
tion privileges for psychologists. American 
Psychologist, 51, 207-212. doi:10.1037//0735-
7028.22.3.188

Department of  Consumer Affairs. (2012). Board of  
psychology: Mandatory education requirements. 
Retrieved from http://www.psychboard.ca.gov/
licensee/education.shtml

Dittman, M. (2003). Psychology’s first prescribers: 
DoD-trained psychologists have been paving the 
way so that others might one day prescribe. APA 
Monitor on Psychology, 34(2). Retrieved from 
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/prescrib-
ers.aspx

Exner, D. V., Dries, D. L., Domanski, M. J., & Cohn, 
J. N. (2001). Lesser response to angiotensin-con-
verting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in Black as 
compared to White patients with left ventricular 
dysfunction. New England Journal of  Medicine, 
344, 1351-1357. Fairleigh Dickinson University. 
(2012). Postdoctoral M.S. in clinical psychophar-
macology. Retrieved from: http://view.fdu.edu/
default.aspx?id=6275

Faust, R. (2011). Lawmakers seem reluctant to en-
act scope-of  practice expansions. Psychiatric 
News 46(9), 2-6. Retrieved from http://psych-
news.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?arti-
cleid=108556

Grohol, J.M. (2013). NAMI Illinois rejects psychol-
ogists’ attempts to gain prescription privileges. 
PsychCentral. Retrieved from http://psychcen-
tral.com/blog/archives/2013/04/06/nami-illi-
nois-rejects-psychologists-attempts-to-gain-pre-
scription-privileges/

Hale Jr., N. G. (1995). The rise and crisis of  psy-
choanalysis in the United States: Freud and the 
Americans, 1917–1985. Freud in America, (Vol. 
2), pp. 476-477. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.

PRESCRIPTION PRIVILEGES AND THE ETHICS CODE



102

Hayes, S. A., & Heiby, E. (1996). Psychology’s drug 
problem: Do we need a fix or should we just 
say no? American Psychologist, 50, 198-206. 
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/8881526

Johnson, J. D., Hay, A., Murray, A., Lucas, J. C., & 
Tompkins, T. (2012). RxP Project: Prescription 
privileges for psychologists: Perceptions, knowl-
edge and attitude change of  Oregon psycholo-
gists. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lin-
field.edu/keck_2012/2

Kilow, W. (1982). Ethnic differences in drug metab-
olism. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 71, 373-400. 
doi:10.2165/00003088-198207050-00001

Lin, K. M. (1996). Psychopharmacology in cross-cul-
tural psychiatry. Mount Sinai Journal of  Medi-
cine, 63, 283-284. 

Martin, S. (1995). APA to pursue prescription priv-
ileges for psychologists. APA Monitor on Psy-
chology, 26, 6. Retrieved from http://www.apa.
org/monitor/julaug95/privileges.aspx.

Maughan, L. (2010, August 7). Patients facing long 
waits to see psychiatrists. The Courier.  Re-
trieved from http://www.thecourier.com/Is-
sues/2010/Aug/07/ar_news_080710_story1.
asp?d=080710_story1,2010,Aug,07&c=n.

McWay, D. C. (2003). Legal Aspects of  Health Infor-
mation Management (2nd ed.). Clifton Park, NY: 
Thompson Delmar Learning.

Mojtabai, R., & Olfson, M. (2011). Proportion of  
antidepressants prescribed without a psychiatric 
diagnosis is growing. Society and Mental Health, 
30, 1434-1442. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1024

Moyer, D. M. (1995). An opposing view on prescrip-
tion privileges for psychologists. Professional 
Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 586-590. 
doi:10.1037//0735-7028.26.6.586

Murray, B. (2003) A brief  history of  RxP: Presidential 

speaker Patrick DeLeon recounted psychologists’ 
progress in their quest for prescriptive authority. 
Monitor on Psychology, 34, 66. Retrieved from 
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct03/rxp.aspx

Resnick, R. J., Ax, R. K., Fagan, T. J., & Nussbaum, 
D. (2011). Predoctoral prescriptive authori-
ty. Journal of  Clinical Psychology, 68, 246-262. 
doi:10.1002/jclp.20828

Robiner, W. N., Bearman, D. L., Berman, M., Grove, 
W. M., Colon, E., Armstrong, J., & Mereck, S. 
(2002). Prescriptive authority for psychologists: 
A looming health hazard? Clinical Psychology: 
Science and Practice, 9, 231-248.

Robinson, R. (Eds.) (2014) Foundations of  forensic 
and vocational rehabilitation. (pp. 444-445). New 
York, NY: Springer. 

Shafron, G. R., & Van Moorleghem, K. (2012, Nov) 
Prescription privileges in professional psycholo-
gy. [Powerpoint slides] Presentation for Ethics in 
Clinical Psychology at Palo 

Alto University: Palo Alto, CA.  Retrieved from 
https://sites.google.com/site/   gavinshafron/
pau-presentation

Smith, J. (2012). The best-and worst-paying jobs for 
doctors. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.
forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/07/20/
the-best-and-worst-paying-jobs-for-doctors-2/.

Smyer, M., Balster, R., Egli, D., Johnson, D., Kilbey, 
M., Leith, N., & Puente, A. (1993). Summary of  
the report of  the ad hoc task force on psycho-
pharmacology of  the American Psychological 
Association. Professional Psychology: Research 
and Practice, 24, 394-403. doi:10.1037//0735-
7028.24.4.394

Stricker, G. (1975). On professional schools and pro-
fessional degrees. American Psychologist, 30, 
1062-1066. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.
org/psycinfo/1976-24673-001

SHAFRON


