|
Woman who practiced
without a license receives suspended sentence
(August/September
2007 Issue)
By Ami Albernaz
In May, Louise ("Lucy") Wightman, a former stripper who first made
headlines in 2005 for having run a thriving psychology practice
without a license, was found guilty of fraud and larceny and sentenced
to six months in prison. At her trial, parents of former patients
testified that Wightman had misled people for her own financial
gain and that in at least one case, her incompetence had worsened
a patient's eating disorder. Yet other former patients spoke up
on Wightman's behalf, saying she would not be treated so harshly
were it not for her past profession.
In Massachusetts, whether or not one is qualified to practice psychology
is a black and white matter. One needs to hold a doctorate degree
from an accredited program and a license from the Division of Professional
Licensure. Wightman had earned a master's degree in counseling psychology
and for five years was enrolled in a doctoral program at the Massachusetts
School of Professional Psychology. Reportedly, she dropped out
after proceedings began against her for operating an independent
practice without a license.
There was no doubt that Wightman was smart and had gained the respect
of her peers, some of whom referred patients to her. Yet these things
are beside the point, some say.
"I don't know how someone could argue the issue," says Gerald Koocher,
Ph.D., co-author of the textbook "Ethics in Psychology" and past
president of the American Psychological Association. (Koocher pointed
out that he does not know Wightman and that his familiarity with
her situation comes from press accounts; he agreed to talk with
New England Psychologist about the general issues raised by the
case.) "This person claimed she had the equivalent of a license,
but she knew perfectly well she didn't. Besides practicing without
a license, she misrepresented herself to others … She has an ethical
obligation to clear up the misimpression."
Licensing rules are a means of consumer protection, says Elena
Eisman, Ed.D., executive director of the Massachusetts Psychological
Association. A license implies that a provider has "a minimum level
of credentialing and supervised experience." This does not mean,
Eisman adds, that people cannot see someone without these credentials.
(The term "psychotherapist" is not subject to state oversight, although
a bill has been introduced to change this policy.) "But if someone
represents herself as a psychologist, she should have a license."
A license also provides assurance that caregivers are qualified
to perform within the purview of their practice - to administer
testing, for instance. In a Boston Globe magazine article last year,
Michael Goldberg, then-president of the Massachusetts Psychological
Association, likened a psychologist practicing without a license
to a surgeon operating without a medical license. Even among Wightman's
former patients who claim to have been helped by her services, it
is hard to know if they truly were, Koocher says.
"There's a distinction between a person who can be helpful - there
are many helpful grandmothers and kindly elementary school teachers
- and someone who's qualified to deal with people with significant
psychological problems. Plus, someone being helpful to one person
may not translate to another person. Someone may have experience
with depressed and anxious patients, but not psychotic patients.
Or they might have worked with adults, but not children."
Wightman, whose six-month sentence was suspended for five years,
is not the only person without a license to have purported being
a psychologist. Last December, Tama Judd of Mashpee was sentenced
to two years of supervised probation for having practiced without
a license for more than a decade. A list of licensed psychologists
can be found on the Web site of the state's Board of Registration
of Psychologists: www.state.ma. us/reg/boards/py/default.htm
|
