This editorial is in context of the Illinois Senate bill, passed last spring that would allow psychologists with advanced degrees and training to prescribe medication. This topic is highly debated and this editorial gives us the overview of two sides of the argument and from reading it, it can be gathered that many people do not think that psychologists have sufficient experience and clinical practice in order to prescribe medication.
This editorial is very informative, and the purpose is to show whether or not psychologists should have the right to prescribe medication or not. This is targeted at the whole public because this is a medical issue and can affect a lot of people.
This editorial gives a lot of testimonies to back up their information, "We don't doubt that both sides seek what they believe is best for patients.
State Rep. John Bradley, chief sponsor of the bill in the House, tells us that his constituents in southern Illinois too often lack access to mental health services. "I think there is an opportunity to expand care, but I also think we need to be careful about making sure the right safeguards are in place to make sure it is good-quality care." This shows the state representative's neutral perspective and I think that this is highly affective because it is making people think of both sides of the issue. Also this editorial has a lot of testimonies for doctors that are psychiatrists and what they think about psychologists being able to prescribe medication. I think that this is good that a psychiatrist's opinion is included because they do prescribe medication for mentally ill patients and this is their area of expertise so their testimonies are very accurate and valid. The argument is also affective in presenting an opposition because it talks about how the "Thresholds" (largest community in mental health in Illinois), opposed the bill and the "National Alliance on Mental Illness" did too. That kind of shows the perspective that not all of Illinois is neutral on the issue because there are a lot of risks involved with passing that kind of act so people want to be precautious
because after all this is patient safety.
I personally believe that this argument was very effective in that it kind of presented neutral sides of the argument at first introducing people to the issue, but then it kind of showed both sides to the argument. The most effective was the ethos because there was a lot of credibility and testimonies and facts to support this very interesting and informative editorial.
This editorial is very informative, and the purpose is to show whether or not psychologists should have the right to prescribe medication or not. This is targeted at the whole public because this is a medical issue and can affect a lot of people.
This editorial gives a lot of testimonies to back up their information, "We don't doubt that both sides seek what they believe is best for patients.
State Rep. John Bradley, chief sponsor of the bill in the House, tells us that his constituents in southern Illinois too often lack access to mental health services. "I think there is an opportunity to expand care, but I also think we need to be careful about making sure the right safeguards are in place to make sure it is good-quality care." This shows the state representative's neutral perspective and I think that this is highly affective because it is making people think of both sides of the issue. Also this editorial has a lot of testimonies for doctors that are psychiatrists and what they think about psychologists being able to prescribe medication. I think that this is good that a psychiatrist's opinion is included because they do prescribe medication for mentally ill patients and this is their area of expertise so their testimonies are very accurate and valid. The argument is also affective in presenting an opposition because it talks about how the "Thresholds" (largest community in mental health in Illinois), opposed the bill and the "National Alliance on Mental Illness" did too. That kind of shows the perspective that not all of Illinois is neutral on the issue because there are a lot of risks involved with passing that kind of act so people want to be precautious
because after all this is patient safety.
I personally believe that this argument was very effective in that it kind of presented neutral sides of the argument at first introducing people to the issue, but then it kind of showed both sides to the argument. The most effective was the ethos because there was a lot of credibility and testimonies and facts to support this very interesting and informative editorial.
No comments:
Post a Comment