Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Dina Lohan's Dr Phil interview

Posted by on Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM
  • 9 Replies

 Did anyone see it? I usually feel like he does a good job and is very professional with his guests. I really thought he handled the America's Next Top Model Meth addict very well, and very sensitively, but I think he did not at all act as a professional, or at least not as a therapist professional, but more like a journalist professional, with this interview. She asked for a break from the camera several times and expressed her discomfort, and he only ignored her and charged on with the interview.

  I feel like in this one, he wasn't caring about her as a person at all, but just about his ratings. Granted, she's no saint. She definitely doesn't seem like a candidate for Mother of the Year, (an honor my Mom actually did win one year), but I still don't think the way he treated her was right. When she asked for the cameras to be turned off, he should have turned them off, and given her a break until she felt more comfortable, or maybe even ended the interview and let her come back when she wasn't under the influence of whatever she took or drank before that interview. Maybe he even should have confronted her about weather or not she'd been drinking or using something before the interview and asked if she wanted him to have her treated for an addiction. He does that for guests ALL the time. Why not her?

by on Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-9):
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM
2 moms liked this

I saw it and thought he did a GREAT JOB.  She was just deflecting his questions.  If she really needed a break she would have had one.  She must have been on drugs or something.

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM

She could have stopped that interview at any time.

loisl25
by Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

 You would think so, I mean, sure, she could have just got up and walked out, but she probably wasn't willing to be that rude. She did ask several times to stop or turn off the cameras. If he was strictly a  talk show host or journalist I would say he did a great job too! However, as a therapist, that's not how he should be interviewing people, imho. BTW, what happened to the dog pitcure!? I liked it. :p

Quoting futureshock:

She could have stopped that interview at any time.


EireLass
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM

That's the thing. He has you fooled as well. He is not a licensed psychologist. He's a talk show host with a college degree.

Quoting loisl25:

 You would think so, I mean, sure, she could have just got up and walked out, but she probably wasn't willing to be that rude. She did ask several times to stop or turn off the cameras. If he was strictly a  talk show host or journalist I would say he did a great job too! However, as a therapist, that's not how he should be interviewing people, imho. BTW, what happened to the dog pitcure!? I liked it. :p

Quoting futureshock:

She could have stopped that interview at any time.

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM


Quoting EireLass:

That's the thing. He has you fooled as well. He is not a licensed psychologist. He's a talk show host with a college degree.

Quoting loisl25:

 You would think so, I mean, sure, she could have just got up and walked out, but she probably wasn't willing to be that rude. She did ask several times to stop or turn off the cameras. If he was strictly a  talk show host or journalist I would say he did a great job too! However, as a therapist, that's not how he should be interviewing people, imho. BTW, what happened to the dog pitcure!? I liked it. :p

Quoting futureshock:

She could have stopped that interview at any time.

Not true.

McGraw graduated in 1975 from Midwestern State University with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology. He went on to earn a Master of Arts in experimental psychology in 1976, and a Doctor of Philosophy in clinical psychology in 1979 at the University of North Texas,[6] where his dissertation was titled "Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Psychological Intervention".[7] After run-ins with several faculty members[clarification needed],[8] McGraw was guided through the doctoral program by Frank Lawlis, who later became the primary contributing psychologist for the Dr. Phil television show.[9]

After obtaining his Ph.D., McGraw joined his father, Dr. Joe McGraw, in Wichita Falls, Texas, where the elder McGraw had established his private psychology practice.[10]

Lizardannie1966
by on Sep. 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Not a fan of Dr. Phil's and never have been.

However, Dina Lohan has always been a Happy Meal minus the toy. She has a wonderful ability to deflect so I would suspect that this may have been what happened.

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Is Dr. Phil actually a psychologist?

No actually he is not. But he does play one on TV. Had he not recently "stepped in it," most professionals would probably just think of him as an entertainer who happens to have a professional degree. Despite the uproar, he probably didn't cause himself any legal problems by visiting that hospital or by making a public statement. But he may have crossed over a line when he went on the air and explained himself.

Dr. Phil never refers to himself as a psychologist. He certainly knows that to do so would bring him into conflict with California law. Unless you are working for the government or working in academia, you can't represent yourself as being a psychologist unless you hold a valid license. It's the same as with an attorney or a physician. You can't act like you are a physician unless you have a medical license. If you didn't pass the bar or you lost your license, you can't say that you are an attorney.

It's not just that you can't practice as a physician or as a lawyer, or that you are not supposed to use those titles. The law says that you are not supposed to tell people that you are trained or experienced in those fields, or that you are an expert. The same rule applies for professional psychologists.

Before he went on air and apologized (or didn't) for his involvement with Britney Spears, members of the professional community accepted Dr. Phil as an entertainer who toils in the field of pop-psychology. Indeed, the American Psychological Association invited him to speak at one of its annual conventions. No one minded what he does. Some admire his success. Some envy it.

But in the statement that he made explaining himself, Dr. Phil made some errors in judgment. After being criticized for his involvement with Britney and for publicizing his involvement, the spotlight was turned on Dr. Phil, and he didn't handle it well.

Dr. Phil's statement implied that he was actually qualified to provide Britney with treatment. In his words, "I made it clear that I, of course, would not be directly involved in any treatment should that come to pass, because it’s well known that I don’t practice psychology privately anymore ..." Before saying this, and referring to his work, he said "this is serious business." He basically said that the only reason he would not provide treatment is because he only practices on TV.

Dr. Phil followed this by saying, "I listen and then suggest or refer them to the right professionals in whom I have confidence — the people who have the time and the focus to really get involved across time and work with them." In other words, he said that he does in fact practice by evaluating people and making referrals, indicating that he doesn't provide treatment himself only because he doesn't have the time. He was suggesting that he is trained and experienced to provide treatment, if he wanted to.

Following from the above comments, Dr. Phil went on to "explain" why he didn't need a license. He said that he didn't need a license because the only reason you need one is to "hang out a shingle" for private practice and to accept fees from the public. That's just not correct, and it's also misleading. The licensing law also says that you you can't act like you're a psychologist.

And then, in a comment that stunned me, Dr. Phil said: "I do, however, still have 30 years of experience, (and) a hard-earned Ph.D in clinical psychology ... I am certainly eligible to be licensed in California so far as education, training and experience." Emphasizing his point, he included the imperative: "So you still have to call me Dr. Phil."

This statement is the very essence of what California law says that someone is not supposed to do unless they are actually a psychologist. It doesn't matter in the least bit if you don't take any fees and if you aren't in "private practice." You still can't go around acting like you have the credential. His statement about the law was entirely inaccurate. The fact that he does not accept any fees for his services gets him out from underneath any complaint that he practices psychology (on TV), but it does not absolve him for misrepresenting his professional status, or lack thereof.

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:01 PM

So what's the big deal about whether he's licensed or not?

Two things.

First, getting a license is a way of proving that you know the laws and the regulations relating to the profession. It's like getting a driver's license. You have to prove that you know the rules of the road. Dr. Phil was real careful not to say that he actually was a psychologist, but if he knew the laws, he would have been a whole lot more careful. He would have been more careful about giving people the impression that he is a psychologist, saying that he has the training, experience and expertise.

Second, when you get a license, you are binding yourself to a specific set of ethical guidelines and standards of behavior. If you are not actually a member of the profession, you don't have to answer to anyone other than yourself. You don't have to consider anyone else's judgment. Had Dr. Phil been more cognizant of professional standards, he probably wouldn't have gotten himself into that mess down in Los Angeles in the first place. And I wouldn't have had to read that Oprah is angry with Phil while I stood in line at the grocery store.

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Sep. 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Did Dr. Phil really and intentionally mislead the public?

He did mislead the public by suggesting that he is a psychologist.

He also misled the public about why he doesn't have a license. His statement was: "I retired my license ... I don't need a license ... I’ve chosen instead to pursue another course and use of my education." It's true that for what he does on TV, he doesn't need to actually be a psychologist. But there is more to the story about his having "retired" his license. He was in fact disciplined by the Texas Board of Psychology in 1989, and it appears that he may have "retired" his license, rather than responding to their disciplinary requirements. We don't know for sure, but it may have been a little bit different than an ordinary retirement.

But still, I don't think he was being dishonest. I think it is more accurate to suggest that he was trying to cleverly walk a fine line. If he were adequately familiar with the law, I think he would have done a better job of walking that line.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)