Hello,
I reply to comments that were made on my previous article. My answer is somewhat long, I decided to devote a ticket.
Before we begin, I thank those who participated in this exchange and I admire about each of moderation on such a sensitive subject.
First, I re-state that I am not an actor in the field of medical and social. My response is that of a lawyer, an employer association and not a psychiatrist or another ... so that I can hardly pass judgment on the actual content of training.
1 - If we want a recognition of the "title"
Small first: let's not forget that France, unlike the Anglo-Saxon countries, carries a high value on degrees, let alone those who are recognized ...
So:
1 - a / / If we want to make a profession recognized by both employers and by both public institutions. The prerequisite, in my opinion, should not be a license but a master of psychology that I découlerai MASTER 2 on a psychotherapist. Only the master would, beyond the issue of a minimum selection of stakeholders, to obtain a professional and a salary scale similar to a framework class "A prime" status only for independence "" hierarchical "" essential to the proper completion of therapy. In short, the therapist would be the subordinate of a psychologist, a psychiatrist ...
1 - b / / If we want to specialize in two solutions:
- Either through an OF so the university.
- Either the state empowers schools to ensure the relevance and quality of training.
Then comes the question thus pre-requisites in order to effectively integrate these formations.Et there comes the question of "neither, neither nor" or "right", etc.. Subject on which it is difficult for me to speak, can not be judge of the relevance of legislative choice. However, I still feel that psychotherapy is an area where physician or psychologist must specialize and an automatic recognition does not seem to be more relevant.
Conclusion: Anyway, profession or specialization legislators do not like chaos, nor failure, legislation will therefore emerge. What is it you? When you arrive it? Good Questions
2 - What will change in my vision for the employer.
Whatever the answer to both questions above, as an employer, I have to take into account these parameters. Not doing so would be an unpardonable levity.
Why? When I made the recruitment of future employees of Résilienfance I, of course, asked each candidate sends me a resume and cover letter. I think at this point I reacted like any employer, namely: find the best one, which in addition to qualifications for the position.
So in the future, if someone comes with both the title of psychologist and psychotherapist ... that I will necessarily be more inclined to grant him an interview that he who will have only two or neither of the two worst .
I do not think a director of an institution will have a different approach, especially since they are generally aware of these regulatory developments. Their choice is also likely to be implicitly oriented by two phenomena:
- First, the responsibility of the medical profession is becoming more easily engaged. But after a foul, it will be easier to bring into play if a person recruited in the poorly "" recognized "" took place.
- Then, because of the performance culture now affects all sectors. For example, in Résilienfance, local authorities are asking us to evaluate most of our projects (relevance, results ...). However, it is easier to justify a result "" insufficient "" when we put on our side all the skills available ...
This is what I call the hard law of the market ...
3 - Does this recognition will improve anything? yes and no
3 - a / / Yes because it will eliminate the worst:
- Courses that do not meet the decree will no longer have a storefront.
- Psychotherapists in animal mediation who do not wish to be called but psychotherapist therapist, with, etc., will be forced to align themselves with this new regulation.
Why? I replace as an employer with an example is presented to me a zootherapist two people, or therapist and a psychotherapist ... in animal mediation. The first training was not recognized if the 2nd, both have equivalent experience ... Who will I choose? It is easier to justify a budget "" expensive "" when I pressed the need to pay people to their level of competence.
- This will also put pressure on the riding instructors who claim to offer the therapy horse while he is in fact adapted horseback riding ...
I also cite the recent example of osteopaths. Those who have not received their recognition were forced to withdraw their plate. Most did not return the refusal of the regulations but asked to incorporate training that could enable them to recover their former title. This is common when an activity is to be regulated. Physical therapists in their day experienced the same movement. Psychotherapists will be affected the same way.
It is extremely difficult, nay impossible, to get out of the norm when all the professional lines up where we belong. Indeed, how can you resist an environment that is constantly declaiming that there is now a regulatory framework for security and training? How to resist the effects of the press who will take these comments when it presents a particular structure?
3 - b / / Not because it might eliminate the best:
- The possibility for people "installed" to claim the title may cause the recognition of those skills but questionable from training in accordance with the decree or contrast, remove interesting but not from skills training in accordance with the decree.
- Training "" long "" psychotherapists will have no pertinence in relation to shorter "" compliant "."
Digression: anyone who has a learning portfolio for grants from a foundation or a community has faced this issue diplomas.
3 - c / / Not because it does not solve all problems:
- What about the psychoanalysts?
- What about people who do not want to do therapy, but the mediation of animal social or educational ... No training is currently planned for it and thus the blur remains unsolved ...
Hoping to have responded to questions.
Nicolas
January 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Hello and thank you for the clarification of your views.
Indeed, it is interesting to distinguish between status (involving the employer and the lawyer) and function (involving practitioners and patients).
Indeed, at the statutory level, the regulation will change things for psychotherapists, going in the right direction is that of recognition and recovery.
However in respect of non-therapists psychotherapists (pet therapists, équithérapeutes, art therapists, etc..), The law does not change anything at the statutory level as the sole condition that these therapists want to be called psychotherapists. In terms of employability, it is an advantage, in contrast to all independent (that are still those on the street and in contact with the general public), owning a status brings disadvantages primarily in administrative terms (heavy policing of the DASS, various reporting requirements, etc..). Similarly for associations not requiring subsidy, the statutes do not provide mainly as administrative requirements and constraints on collective agreements.
Now regarding the function, the plot thickens and it's really where the problem of the amendment Accoyer hurts.
If you want to hire an employee realizes that the therapy in animal mediation, what are your options?
- Either you believe that it is the statutory training that must prevail, and in this case you hire a psychologist, psychometrician, a nurse, a psychotherapist or tomorrow. But none of these statutes does not guarantee you a minimum of competence in relation to the function you would expect, because no special status to your needs there.
- Either you invoke the function, and in this case the best you hire a professional trained medical social (in PFC) to mediate animal, and at worst you hire someone who has experience in mediation even if he has no special training. In 2 cases, and when the person has exactly the right skills and is employed as a therapist, you can quite decide how to pay minimum wage, only to contribute to the pension and health requirements, to enslave all the dirty work of your organization not under its jurisdiction and deny any independence in their professional practice. No regulatory framework for the work these people do not fall into collective agreements, the framework is "freely" negotiated between the employer and the employee at the time of signing the employment contract.
This is one example among many of the problem of the gap between the status and function. And it is this gap that makes us training horses on the head when you hear the legislator also clumsily define the function it will validate the status through a psychotherapist, which is based in my business to a rather distant from the ground realities.
In my opinion, the amendment and its consequences lead us to a kind of smoothing that removes gum at once all the diversity and specializations essential to the practice of therapy, which is taking more references post-humanist based on the development of knowledge rather than on the acquisition of human qualities. Psychotherapists are not they the last professional to work on the basis of what they are and feel themselves rather than on the basis of what they know or think they know?
And that to me as psycholoque college graduate, trained psychotherapist mainly by clinical experience and équithérapeute formed by training, I'm questioning regarding our support for regulation mediated therapies: should we change our practice to regulation or is it not rather the role of the legislature to draft laws that appropriate practices?