| On December
23, 2009, the American Psychological Association (APA) denied an appeal by the Association
for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) to become a provider of APA-approved continuing
education courses for psychologists. The critical public welfare question raised by this
decision is whether the APA is blocking the dissemination of a therapy that is more
effective than conventional treatments with serious mental health conditions such as
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The Energy Medicine
Institute (EMI) undertook a review of the proceedings and concluded that the decision 1)
appeared to ignore considerable evidence regarding the efficacy of Energy Psychology, 2)
effectively branded Energy Psychology in the eyes of the professional community as being a
bogus therapy, and 3) will severely curb the use of the method among therapists.
EMI wrote a press release presenting its
conclusions for the general public but decided to give the APA a chance to review it
before distributing it. This led to the following dialogue, between Carol Goodheart,
Ph.D., the APA’s President, and David Gruder, Ph.D., EPI’s Mental Health
Coordinator. The letters from Dr. Gruder establish the EMI position on the case. The
letters from Dr. Goodheart essentially state that the APA stands by its position and is
unwilling to review it. EMI decided to post this exchange, following, to assure its
constituency that the strong language in the press release was used only after every
effort was made to resolve the dispute prior to taking it to the court of public opinion.
The Dialogue
March
13, 2010
To: Carol D. Goodheart, Ed.D. , APA President <president@apa.org>
Cc: Norman B. Anderson, Ph.D., APA Chief Executive Officer <nanderson@apa.org>
Subject: Requesting APA
Input on a Press Release Prior to Distribution
Dear Dr. Goodheart,
I am a
clinical psychologist in San Diego and the Mental Health Coordinator for the non-profit
Energy Medicine Institute, which has a constituency of approximately 20,300 health care
consumers. The focus of the Energy Medicine Institute is public education and advocacy
regarding "energy therapies." Energy therapies draw upon healing and spiritual
traditions from around the world and throughout history—such as yoga, acupuncture, qi
gong, and meditative practices—and incorporate them into modern health and mental
health practice settings.
We have
been monitoring a clinical development known as "Energy Psychology." Energy
Psychology applies principles and procedures derived from the energy therapies to
psychological issues. Our assessments establish to our satisfaction that emerging
scientific evidence combines with substantial clinical experience in demonstrating that
Energy Psychology is an unusually rapid and effective treatment for anxiety disorders,
including PTSD.
The APA,
however, has been actively restraining the dissemination of the approach for more than a
decade, as detailed below. One of our mandated concerns is at the interface of energy
therapies and the public’s welfare in health issues. After carefully reviewing the
APA’s actions in relationship to Energy Psychology, we have had to conclude that they
are detrimental to public welfare, countering even the APA’s statement of purpose:
"The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of
psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives" (http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx).
Following
our assessment, our staff prepared a press release to distribute our findings. I have
delayed approving its distribution until first contacting you in an effort to resolve this
matter without having to bring it into a public arena.
Background
In a 1999
memo to all its CE Sponsors, the APA took the unprecedented step of singling out a
treatment, in this case a form of Energy Psychology, and declaring it a topic that could
not be offered for psychology CE credit (rather than leaving that choice to the discretion
of its CE Sponsors, whose offerings are reviewed at the time of their 5-year sponsorship
renewal). APA CE Sponsors teaching other forms of energy psychology have since been
threatened with loss of sponsorship status as the restriction has been applied to all
Energy Psychology methods rather than only the original variation. Meanwhile, applications
from organizations wanting to become APA CE Sponsors in order to teach Energy Psychology
courses have also been denied. A highly reputable 850-member professional organization,
the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP), has applied three times, has
been denied each time, has gone through a formal appeal process, and their appeal was
denied in December 2009.
We
undertook an independent analysis of these proceedings based on the APA CE
Committee’s published standards and the formal communications between the parties. We
enlisted three APA members who are familiar with APA CE procedures to informally review
the most recent ACEP application, the request for reconsideration, the appeal, and the
notices of denial. They compared each piece of evidence presented by ACEP that energy
psychology meets Standards D1.1, D1.2, and D1.3 with the refutations to that evidence
presented by the CE Committee and the Appeal Panel. Based on this analysis, our reviewers
concluded that the ACEP application decisively establishes that Energy Psychology meets
all three standards, that the CE Committee failed to refute the evidence presented by
ACEP, and that no justifiable basis for denying the application was presented by the CE
Committee or Appeal Panel.
We of
course understand that it is APA’s prerogative to make the final ruling. But, as an
outside health advocacy group, it is within our purview to publicly challenge a decision
regarding energy therapy that negatively impacts public health. The basis of our challenge
falls into three categories. The APA’s stance on Energy Psychology is 1) inconsistent
with its own CE Standards, 2) reflects a disregard of interdisciplinary developments, and
3) does harm to the public.
1. The
APA’s Decision on the ACEP Application Was Inconsistent with Its Own Published
Criteria.
- A course is considered
appropriate for APA CE credit if the "program content has peer-reviewed, published
support beyond those publications and other types of communications devoted primarily to
the promotion of the approach."
More than a
dozen peer-reviewed studies supporting the efficacy of Energy Psychology have been
published in independent journals. The literature review in the attached paper, scheduled
for publication in the APA’s Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
cites eight of these studies as well as numerous others that were published in
peer-reviewed journals that specialize in energy therapies or that were presented at
conferences and are currently being prepared for publication [available from www.EnergyPsychEd.com/mechanisms.pdf].
While the
APA CE criteria necessitates the existence of such published support rather than
requiring any specified level of support, our investigation was able to identify a
large number of courses provided for APA CE credit by APA sponsors that have far less
scientific support in independent peer-reviewed journals than does Energy Psychology.
- A course is also considered
appropriate for APA CE credit, according to the published criteria, if its "program
content has obtained credibility, as demonstrated by the involvement of the broader
psychological practice, education, and science communities in studying or applying the
findings, procedures, practices, or theoretical concepts."
Energy
Psychology is being used by at least three relief organizations in their deployments to
post-disaster settings, as described in the ACEP application.
Energy
Psychology is being used to treat psychological disorders in the Veteran’s
Administration, in HMO’s including Kaiser Permanente, and in a growing number of
social service programs.
APA CE
sponsors have been granting CE credit for Energy Psychology courses to non-psychologist
mental health professionals for more than a decade.
The
APA’s published CE standards specify that meeting any one of four criteria renders a
course’s program content appropriate for CE credit. The ACEP application documented
that Energy Psychology content meets three of the four criteria, including the two
discussed above. The APA’s denial of the ACEP application hinges on the contention
that none of the criteria were met. Our review concluded that any objective assessment of
the standards and analysis of the published evidence and existing practices would have to
conclude that Energy Psychology far exceeds the criteria, establishing it as appropriate
program content for APA CE credit.
2.
Disregard of Interdisciplinary Developments
The
APA’s position on Energy Psychology, established in the 1999 ban on psychology CEs
for studying the approach and reaffirmed in the December 2009 decision on the ACEP appeal,
would seem to reflect a disregard or ignorance of developments in allied health
professions, such as:
Acupuncture,
which originated in Traditional Chinese Medicine, is recognized as a valid
treatment—both by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health
Organization—for psychological as well as physical disorders. A number of preliminary
studies have shown that percussing (tapping) on acupuncture points is as effective as
using needles.
Energy
Psychology, which applies the percussion of acupuncture points in the treatment of
psychological conditions, is being used within integrative medicine.
"Energy
Field Disturbance" is a standard diagnostic code recognized by the North American
Nursing Diagnosis Association and by insurance carriers. Energy system interventions have
become a part of the standard-of-care within nursing as well as other disciplines.
3. Harm to
the Public
The
"Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct," in the first of its
five "General Principles," states: "Psychologists strive to benefit those
with whom they work and take care to do no harm." Actions that prevent a patient from
receiving needed care – "acts of omission" – even more than "acts
of commission," are cited in health care ethics and legal rulings as "doing
harm." The APA’s stance in relationship to Energy Psychology is viewed by our
constituency as an institutional violation of this fundamental ethical principle. The
basis of this strong response includes:
Evidence for
the effectiveness of Energy Psychology with war veterans suffering from PTSD, as well as
other traumatized individuals who have been non-responsive to conventional treatment, has
been accumulating to the point that Energy Psychology is arguably more effective than
conventional treatment strategies such as Cognitive Behavior Therapy. The accompanying
paper "Rapid Treatment of PTSD: Why Psychological Exposure with Acupoint Tapping May
Be Effective" provides a basis for this position [available from www.EnergyPsychEd.com/mechanisms.pdf].
The paper
also directs its readers to a 10-minute video clip (www.vetcases.com) that demonstrates the approach in the
treatment of PTSD (from a peer-reviewed study) and provides a glimpse into the method. If
you are not familiar with Energy Psychology, you may find this an informative starting
point. Members of our constituency have been persuaded by the paper, the video clip, and
numerous other forms of evidence that it is irresponsible for any mental health
organization to inhibit the dissemination of the method.
The
APA’s 1999 ban on the study of Energy Psychology by psychologists for CE credit curbs
the dissemination of the method in a variety of ways. Not only are psychologists unable to
dedicate limited continuing education time and money to learning the methods, they are
given the message from their professional organization that the method is "not
appropriate" for their ongoing professional education. This branding of Energy
Psychology as a method not suitable for clinical practice is conveyed to other
professionals as well. For instance, of more than 160 presentations at the 2009 Psychotherapy
Networker Symposium, attended by some 3600 psychotherapists, the only clinical
presentation whose listing was accompanied by the inauspicious note, "This workshop
does not qualify for continuing education for psychologists," was the one on energy
psychology, presenting its applications in disaster relief settings.
Despite the
need for such notices in their printed programs, which reflect very poorly on the APA,
some of the APA’s largest CE-sponsors—such as The National Institute for the
Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine, CE-credit.com, and Psychotherapy Networker—have
seen fit to continue to offer courses in Energy Psychology, attended by non-psychology
mental health professionals.
By
inhibiting the dissemination of Energy Psychology methods to psychologists, the APA’s
position is defacto causing consumers of mental health services who wish to benefit from
the approach to seek help from providers with less training than psychologists, both
mental health professionals and non-professionals. Rather than taking its rightful role in
providing leadership for the safe and appropriate application of Energy Psychology, the
APA, by refusing to recognize the efficacy of the approach despite substantial evidence to
the contrary, is abdicating this opportunity and responsibility.
Closing
Remarks
We believe
there can be no rational dispute about the fact that Energy Psychology exceeds the APA CE
eligibility criteria or that it is in the public’s interest for the professional
community to continue to examine, experiment with, and apply its methods. One of the
Energy Medicine Institute’s purposes is to advocate for energy therapies in
situations where their responsible practice is being improperly restricted. The negative
public impact of the APA’s stance on Energy Psychology is, in our assessment,
significant. We strongly urge you to reassess the outdated policy implemented in the 1999
memo to your CE providers and to rescind that policy so your CE Providers are free to
exercise their own discretion in determining if an Energy Psychology course is appropriate
for their psychology CE audience.
The
accompanying draft of the press release that would present the facts of the case for
public review is likely to receive substantial attention if distributed. We are contacting
you first with the hope that the 1999 policy will be updated, making the press release
unnecessary.
Our
tentative schedule for sending the press release is April 5. I am available to answer
questions or to discuss any aspect of the situation. I hope to hear from you well before
the April date.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
David Gruder, Ph.D.
Mental Health Coordinator
Energy Medicine Institute
www.EnergyMed.org
dgruder@energymed.org
Dr. Goodheart’s Reply, March 25, 2010 (this and all subsequent
correspondence was also cc’d by both parties to Dr. Norman Anderson, APA’s CEO):
Dear Dr. Gruder,
Thank you for writing and expressing your concerns. I do want to inform you that as
APA President I cannot make any changes to the decisions of the Continuing Education
Committee. The Committee operates in accordance with the Standards and Criteria for
Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists. These standards were
adopted by APA’s Council of Representatives in 2009. The Committee’s
decision in this case was based upon the requirements of those Standards and Criteria.
I note that you have sent a prepublication copy of a paper on this topic. Of course
any sponsor that has new information addressing the standard against which it was found
deficient may consider reapplying for approval through the Sponsor approval process.
Best wishes,
Carol Goodheart
Carol D. Goodheart, Ed.D.
President, American Psychological Association
Independent Practice: 114 Commons Way, Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel/Fax: 609-987-8844
Email: carol@drcarolgoodheart.com
Website: http://www.drcarolgoodheart.com
Dr. Gruder’s Reply, March 25, 2010:
Dear
Dr. Goodheart,
I appreciate your response and assure you that I am well aware that you would be
overstepping your organizational powers if you changed a Continuing Education Committee
decision. EMI is not asking you to overstep your bounds. EMI has asked you to intervene in
an organizationally appropriate way because one of your committees appears to have gone
renegade. We believe that, based on the evidence presented in my cover letter, you not
only have the power to intervene along the lines we proposed in it; you have an ethical
responsibility to do so.
Your response left me with the distinct impression that you did not closely read that
cover letter, and this concerns me greatly. So, please allow me to briefly recap in light
of your response:
1. We contacted you because we have determined that, contrary to your
assertion in your response to me, the Committee’s decision was quite clearly NOT
based upon the Standards & Criteria document. The cover letter I attached to my
original e-mail provides a point-by-point review of how and why we reached this
conclusion. The evidence does not appear to the Energy Medicine Institute to be in the
gray area of subjective judgment calls; it appears to be quite incontrovertible. We are
asserting that your Continuing Education Committee has disregarded what is set forth in
the Standards & Criteria document. This is why we are also asserting that you have an
ethical responsibility as APA’s president to effectively intervene in an
organizationally appropriate way.
2. As to your proposed remedy, I must reiterate that the numerous
attempts that have been made to do precisely this have proved ineffective in getting the
Continuing Education Committee to objectively apply the Standards & Criteria document
to the field of Energy Psychology. The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology has
repeatedly reapplied for approval through APA’s Sponsorship approval process, and has
each time been turned down, despite the fact that the field of Energy Psychology now more
than adequately complies with the Standards & Criteria document.
I hope this further elucidation helps you understand why I find your response to be
non-responsive. If you are trying to say between the lines that you disagree with our
point-by-point analysis in the cover letter, then please do me the courtesy of being
direct. If you have not given due consideration to that point-by-point analysis, I ask
that you now do so and then respond to me in a more considered way.
The reason I am asking you to please do this is because I don’t like the alternative:
if we cannot resolve this matter outside of the glare of public opinion the Energy
Medicine Institute is committed to bringing this matter to the media in a big way. I
assure you that I most sincerely do not want to see the Energy Medicine Institute do this
because I do not believe this is in the best interests of the field of psychology in
general, or the APA in specific. I therefore consider this action to be an absolute last
resort.
However, and I say the following in a truly collegial state of mind and heart, I do need
you to know that at this point EMI’s decision about whether to take this matter to
the media now depends on whether you stand by your non-response despite my clarifications
in this e-mail, or whether you can find an organizationally appropriate way to
successfully intervene within APA on this matter.
I most sincerely hope you will join with me to resolve this dilemma without EMI having to
take it to the media.
Best wishes,
David Gruder
David Gruder, Ph.D.
Mental Health Coordinator
Energy Medicine Institute
dgruder@energymed.org
www.energymed.org
PS.
Just wanted to add a further clarification: The Energy Medicine Institute is NOT asking
you to change the CEC's December 2009 decision on the ACEP application. We are,
rather, asking that you provide leadership in getting the APA to rescind its outdated and,
at this point, ethically vulnerable1999 blanket policy regarding all Energy Psychology
courses. My letter outlined abundant evidence demonstrating that the policy is both
outdated and ethically vulnerable. A memo rescinding the memo that instituted the
policy would allow current APA CE sponsors to immediately stop preventing psychologists
from being awarded CE credit for the Energy Psychology courses they already present.
Dr. Goodheart’s Reply, March 28, 2010:
Dear
Dr. Gruder,
I
received your response to my message. Please be assured I have read your materials and
taken them seriously. As I said, decisions on sponsor approval are made by the
Continuing Education Committee, pursuant to the Standards and Criteria for Approval of
Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists. As you may know, the APA
Continuing Education Sponsor Approval System Policies and Procedures provide significant
due process to applicants, including an extensive appeal process. Sponsor applicants
may request reconsideration of a decision by the Continuing Education Committee, and if
not satisfied with the outcome of the Reconsideration, may request an Appeal before an
independent appeal panel. The panel is drawn from a pool established by the APA
Board of Educational Affairs, and the sponsor filing the appeal is given the right to
challenge any appeal panelist if it chooses. The sponsor may also choose to be
represented by counsel during this Appeal, and is given other procedural rights and
protections.
This
appeal procedure is designed to provide careful review and oversight of Committee
decisions, and provides significant due process to Sponsor applicants. As you note in your
letter, the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP), has gone through this
appeal process, and been afforded the significant protections it entails. As APA
President, it is not my role to intervene in this process.
You
also mention, in your "addendum", a "1999 blanket policy regarding all
Energy Psychology courses." I am aware of no such policy related to Energy
Psychology. While I am aware of a memo written in 1999 by the Director of Sponsor
Approval Programs regarding Thought Field Therapy, that memo is not at issue in this
discussion. Decisions of the Continuing Education Committee are made based
on the criteria set forth in the Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of
Continuing Education for Psychologists (approved as policy by Council in
2005, amended in 2009). The Standards and Criteria represent the basis on which
all applications are currently judged.
Best
wishes,
Carol Goodheart
Carol
D. Goodheart, Ed.D.
President, American Psychological Association
Independent Practice: 114 Commons Way, Princeton, NJ 08540
Tel/Fax: 609-987-8844
Email: carol@drcarolgoodheart.com
Website: http://www.drcarolgoodheart.com
Dr. Gruder’s Reply, March 31, 2010:
Dear
Dr. Goodheart,
Thank you so much for this more detailed response. You have helped me identify where
the confusion has been. Your understanding is that the 1999 memo disallowed APA CE for
Thought Field Therapy ONLY, not for ALL Energy Psychology training programs. While that
may indeed have been the document's original intent, the incontrovertible fact is that it
has been repeatedly used since then to disallow APA CE for ALL Energy Psychology training.
At least three major APA-approved CE providers (Psychotherapy Networker, National
Institute for the Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine, and CE-credit.com), each of
which offers a very wide range of coursework, have in recent years been required to stop
providing APA CE credit for all Energy Psychology course offerings. One of them, we were
told by its administrator, received a call from the Education Directorate a few months
before their 5-year renewal application was due, clearly indicating that their renewal was
in jeopardy if they continued to offer Energy Psychology courses. They immediately
dropped those offerings. Training in Thought Field Therapy was not, however, being
provided by any of these sponsors. The restriction on Thought Field Therapy has
simply been extended to all forms of Energy Psychology with no formal directive or due
process. This, in itself, does not conform to the APA's February 2006 "Approval
of Sponsors of Continuing Education For Psychologists: Policies and Procedures
Manual." The Procedures allow approved sponsors to choose their own curriculum while
being called upon to defend their choices, according to the APA CE standards and criteria,
at their 2-Year or 5-Year Renewal or in special circumstances that warrant a reassessment.
They do not include a provision for a priori restrictions.
Far more relevant than these somewhat technical quibbles is the fact that Energy
Psychology has empirical support that far exceeds the APA's 2005/2009 "Standards and
Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists" that you
referred to. As I read your accurate account of all the steps the APA has developed
for insuring due process, and compared it with what actually occurred, I could only shake
my head in amazement that the CE Committee and the Appeal Panel could get it so wrong.
I say this, of course, through my own bias, but the facts supporting that bias are
there for anyone to review. It is only with a strong negative bias that a
psychologist reviewing the data could possibly come to the conclusion that Energy
Psychology does not have enough preliminary empirical support to meet the CE criteria (the
CE criteria recognize that before a new therapy has fully established itself as
evidence-based, it is still a legitimate topic for psychologists to explore). Any fair
review would have to recognize that Energy Psychology is a promising enough development
and in wide enough use that psychologists drawn to it would have justification for
investigating it as a possible addition to their existing clinical repertoires.
A week ago today, two Energy Psychology practitioners (including a licensed
psychologist/APA member), met with six members of Congress, including members of the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Armed Services Committee. The Congress members were
well aware that only one in ten veterans whom the VA diagnoses with PTSD actually
completes the recommended course of treatment (based on an N of 49,425 and reported
in a recent issue of the Journal of Traumatic Stress) and other shortcomings of
conventional treatments for PTSD. All six expressed enthusiasm upon seeing the
studies that were presented showing that Energy Psychology treatments with veterans to
reduce PTSD have been strongly effective. The next day, literally, Walter Reed
opened the way for a major study of Energy Psychology in the treatment of PTSD.
Of course political developments add no evidential weight to scientific knowledge.
But the scientific evidence that persuaded these six hard-nosed members of Congress is the
very evidence that the APA is ignoring in maintaining its outdated and misapplied 1999
directive on TFT. The presentations to the Congress members opened with the
10-minute video clip found at www.vetcases.com.
The treatment sessions of a (subsequently published) study (see Church, 2010, in the
attached) had been filmed and brief excerpts from pre-treatment and post-treatment
interviews, snippets of the actual treatment, and summaries of symptom changes are shown
for four of the participants. Seeing the video clip seemed to generate interest
among the Congress members to hear about the research. The studies that were cited
are summarized on pp. 4 - 5 of the attached paper.
Just to be clear, while our assessment is that the CE Committee and the Appeal Panel did
not adhere to the APA's CE Standards and Criteria in their rulings on the ACEP
application, we are not asking you to overturn that decision. You have made it very clear
that such an action would be outside your presidential authority. What we are asking
is that you exert leadership that rights a wrong which is having substantial social
consequences, and it is a situation where the APA's position does not even conform to its
own published standards. Specifically, we are asking you to exert leadership that
results in a reversal of the 1999 memo about Thought Field Therapy, or at least makes it
clear to all APA CE providers that the memo applies only to Thought Field Therapy as it
was being taught in 1999. Thought Field Therapy has been supplanted by numerous newer
developments within Energy Psychology, but even for those still practicing Thought Field
Therapy, the approach has evolved substantially since 1999.
Bringing this discussion to the public is not the way we like to work. It was only
after watching ACEP have three applications rejected, a formal request for reconsideration
denied, and an appeal denied, and recognizing that the APAs intent of insuring a fair
process was not being carried out, that we saw no other alternative if appealing to APAs
leadership had no effect. What makes this such a passionate issue for our
constituents is that (a) more than 300,000 returning soldiers suffer with PTSD, (b) at
least some preliminary evidence suggests that Energy Psychology offers a more effective
treatment than conventional approaches, and (c) the APA is actively hindering the method's
dissemination based on actions that do not conform to the APAs own standards.
We hope you will see cause and find a way to provide the leadership that will remedy this
unfortunate but readily correctable betrayal of the publics trust.
Sincerely,
David Gruder, Ph.D.
Mental Health Coordinator
Energy Medicine Institute
www.EnergyMed.org
Dr. Gruder’s Follow-up, April 5, 2010
Dear
Dr. Goodheart,
As you know, our press release was scheduled for distribution submission today. More
precisely, today was the day we were going to submit it to www.prnewswire.com, a service that
will help us refine (and no doubt shorten) our draft and distribute it for maximum media
impact.
However, because we remain in active dialogue with you, I have postponed that date for
another two weeks, until April 19.
I learned this weekend of another RCT using Energy Psychology with traumatized individuals
where all the participants scored above the PTSD cutoff on a standardized inventory prior
to treatment and nearly all were no longer in the PTSD range after treatment. This study
adds corroboration to the other two studies (summarized in the paper I sent you last week)
showing strong results with PTSD after single-session treatments. It also underlines the
need for new explanatory models, such as those described in that same paper [available
from www.EnergyPsychEd.com/mechanisms.pdf], where therapies that combine the stimulation of acupuncture points with
brief psychological exposure alter the neural pathways maintaining the fear response.
The three single-session studies illustrate a point made in an article that was released
on the web last week about the Congressional meetings around Energy Psychology that I had
mentioned in my previous e-mail. The article states: "The Congressman
[Dan Lungren, R-CA] responded by relating stories from his own family that were highly
pertinent to the discussion, but he then posed one of the key dilemmas for Energy
Psychology’s acceptance. 'It sounds too simple! Too good to be true!'
He let us know he would like to believe there is a simple cure for PTSD, but he
would need a lot more convincing. The ensuing discussion was brief, frank, and to
the point, starting with our agreement that the field does indeed face this odd
credibility problem that its methods are so fast and effective that people don't find the
personal accounts or even the existing research to be plausible."
This "credibility problem" may be one of the key factors in the profession's
continued reluctance to accept Energy Psychology despite the mounting accumulation of
credible research.
I have shared our previous correspondence with a colleague who is familiar with APA CE
procedures and asked what might be a plausible response on your part, given your concern
that it would be outside your presidential authority to overturn the ruling on ACEP.
The reply:
If Dr. Goodheart agrees, as
you have amply demonstrated, that Energy Psychology courses meet the published Standards
and Criteria for appropriate CE course content for psychologists, it would be fully within
the scope of her role as APA President to present her assessment of the situation to the
head of the Education Directorate, Dr. Cynthia Belar, and to request that Dr. Belar
consider a memo to all APA CE providers, sent under the same authority as the 1999
memo. That memo would convey something along these lines:
In 1999, APA CE sponsors
were informed by the Director of Sponsor Approval Programs that an approach known as
Thought Field Therapy (TFT) is not considered an appropriate area of coursework for
psychology CEs. Since 1999, enough research has accumulated showing efficacy for
stimulating acupuncture points during brief psychological exposure (the core procedure
used in TFT and related approaches, collectively known as "Energy Psychology")
that the 1999 directive applies only to TFT as it was practiced in 1999. APA CE sponsors
offering courses in Energy Psychology may, however, still be called upon, at their
regularly scheduled renewal reviews, to justify their choices according to the APA's
"Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for
Psychologists."
Dr. Goodheart, this simple
action would from our point of view bring closure to the situation. We hope you will
carefully consider it or another way of remedying the situation.
Sincerely,
David Gruder
David Gruder, Ph.D.
Mental Health Coordinator
Energy Medicine Institute
dgruder@energymed.org
www.energymed.org
Dr. Goodheart’s Final Reply, April 7, 2010:
Dear
Dr. Gruder,
The current Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for
Psychologists supercedes any previous standards documents or communications. While I
can appreciate your unhappiness with the decision, the bottom-line is the Committee found
that the content for continuing education proposed to be offered by the Association for
Comprehensive Energy Psychology did not meet the Standards and Criteria for Approval of
Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists. Thus I cannot make a statement
that suggests otherwise.
Best wishes, |
