This article reports that the Continuing Professional Education Committee (CPEC) "defines appropriate curriculum content for CE credit." The CPEC reports to the APA Board of Directors through its Board of Educational Affairs. If instruction in any particular area of clinical practices "does not meet its definition of appropriate continuing education curriculum for psychologists," approval for programs featuring such instruction becomes denied by the CPEC. While I hold no position with regard to Thought Field Therapy, the point is that this article in the APA newsletter illuminates an important implication of the power of regulatory processes to define for us what is, and what is not "appropriate" for psychologists to be presenting and studying. Continuing down this educational path apparently leads to significant influences upon one’s freedom to practice in accord with one’s way of thinking, thus committing us to a re-shaping the very meaning of "professional."

As an MSPP member I question what impact mandatory CE could have on our Society’s freedom to develop and present programs of interest to ourselves and to our community. The term "psychology," and by extension "psychologist," has become a specifically, legally, scientifically, and medically defined term, the meanings and usage of which derive from (and are grounded in) an objective, concretized, behaviorally observable, and reductive way of thinking about people, their thoughts and feelings, and about the way they live their lives. As a Society of people interested in psychoanalytic ways of thinking, many of us choose not to work from within this medically modeled psychology framework.

Certain APA initiatives are actively promoting the notion that all "psychological" intervention be grounded in empirically validated outcome studies. To the degree that such initiatives shape education, practice, and regulatory policy, how likely is it that the CPEC will consider different, non-medically premised, subjectively derived, contextually based ways of thinking and practicing as that which would "meet its definition of appropriate continuing education curriculum for psychologists"? If it does not, then what happens at that point in time when our license renewal depends on evidence of educational requirements that keep us "up to date" with that which is "other than" the way that we think and work?

I disagree with Joanne Linder-Crowe’s suggestion that "the time to argue the issue has come and gone." The recent denial by the Department of Consumer and Industry Services (CIS) of the Michigan Board of Psychology’s request to establish mandatory CE for psychologists in Michigan provides us with time (precious little) to speak. At the 9/10/00 MSPP meeting presentations by members of the State of Michigan Board of Psychology, it became clear that while the CIS has denied the Board of Psychology the power to establish mandatory CE in this state, other groups are already appealing directly to the Director of the CIS "to move it forward" for all Michigan health care professions. What this means is that mandatory status for CE in Michigan is moving forward NOW. Do we really want to open the door to being told that the "APA No Longer Approves CE Sponsorship" for psychoanalytic studies per some construal of "appropriateness?" Once bureaucracy–government or otherwise–mandates the manner in which we continue to educate ourselves how long will it be before what happened to "Thought Field" therapists happens to psychoanalytic psychologists? If CE becomes mandatory for psychologists practicing in Michigan, then will license renewal eventually depend not only upon the accumulation of CE credit hours in, but also practicing in accord with, "appropriate content," as determined by whoever defines that content?

Does the contour of the Mandatory Continuing Education landscape contain enough flexibility to be receptive to the freedom to study and practice within multiple theoretical and philosophical perspectives and paradigms? Does it contain room for the "diverse educational backgrounds" and "all significant viewpoints in psychoanalysis" (MSPP 2000 Membership Directory, p. 1) that represent our interdisciplinary society?

I think it important that we find out.

Shortly after this letter to the editor was published, the National Psychologist (Vol. 9, No.5, Sept.-Oct . 2000) published an article entitled "Quandary Develops About Thought Field Therapy (TFT) After Arizona Psychologist Is Reprimanded." In this article it was reported that the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners has disciplined an Arizona psychologist "for using these long-tested therapies" within a year of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) decision to discontinue accepting CE credits for courses or workshops that offered TFT.