Diagnostic Privilege: AI Critical Review of Professional Authority and Systemic Pathology
I. Executive Summary: Main Arguments of “Diagnostic Privilege”
This report synthesizes the central arguments presented in “Diagnostic Privilege,” a document by Dr. Adam O’Brien of the Wounded Healers Institute, that critically examines the legal right of professions to clinically diagnose within the mental health landscape. The author posits that the concept of “diagnostic privilege” serves as a profound manifestation of deeper systemic pathologies, specifically identifying “addiction” and “dissociation” within the established mental health, legal, and medical frameworks. The ongoing challenge to Licensed Mental Health Counselors (LMHCs) in New York State regarding their diagnostic capabilities is presented as a primary case study, illustrating how a seemingly technical legal dispute unveils a complex interplay of power, control, and moral compromise.
The report highlights the author’s proposed “Moral-Ethics” framework, which advocates for prioritizing moral integrity over mere ethical compliance, particularly when systemic actions contradict the well-being of the public. A foundational argument is the redefinition of addiction as a transdiagnostic phenomenon—a normal response to common, often traumatic, events—which fundamentally challenges existing diagnostic categories and the authority of those who uphold them. This perspective suggests that the mental health system, by failing to recognize its own “addictions” to power, prestige, and profit, inadvertently perpetuates the very conditions it purports to treat. The broader implications for client care and societal well-being are underscored, emphasizing a compelling call for a “recovery-informed” and “healing-focused” paradigm shift rooted in common sense and a renewed commitment to moral principles.
II. Detailed Outline of “Diagnostic Privilege”
A. Introduction
The document initiates its critical review by establishing the core conflict surrounding “diagnostic privilege,” defining it as the legal right of a profession to clinically diagnose. This privilege is presented as a critical aspect of providing psychological services to the public, underscoring its essential role within the mental health sector. The author immediately positions the work as a direct challenge to the prevailing power dynamics that characterize the mental health landscape.
A significant concern among Licensed Mental Health Counselors (LMHCs) in New York State (NYS) centers on the imposition of new, ostensibly unnecessary diagnostic educational criteria. For example, would one have to know what is diagnosable to know what isn’t? This development is particularly contentious because diagnosing is considered an essential clinical service and a primary task for any licensed psychological profession. LMHCs, it is argued, already met the previously established criteria for diagnosis; if the professions were create equal in their separateness. This dispute, therefore, is not merely an isolated licensing issue but appears as a symptom of a more fundamental breakdown in the integrity and moral compass of governing bodies and established professions. The “legal technicality/mistake” often cited is presented as a superficial issue that obscures a deeper “power and control dynamic” rooted in an underlying “ethical and moral debate”. Such a perspective implies that any attempt to resolve the LMHC issue in isolation would ultimately fail to address the systemic “addictions and dissociation” that are at play and is not worth the time and money to fix something that arguably fixed (e.g., laws) or flexible. This dynamic is further exacerbated by systemic implicit biases, where bureaucratic rhetoric is used to assert power through “law and order” terminology.
The author, Adam O’Brien, PhD, LMHC, CASAC, reframes the work as an act of advocacy, deeply rooted in a perspective informed by trauma, dissociation, and addiction. This evolving viewpoint has culminated in a recovery-informed and healing-informed care model, which necessitates a firm stand against what are perceived as “systems of ignorance and abuse”. The decision by the NYS Department of Education (DOE) to introduce additional diagnostic “privileges” is characterized as “gaslighting,” a tactic that casts doubt on the system’s capacity to effectively manage the moral and ethical debate it has inadvertently initiated. It is contended that systems that publicly profess adherence to certain standards often fail to uphold them, a tendency that can lead down a “slippery slope of tyranny”.
A critical review of the history of diagnostic privilege is deemed essential to remind legal and educational boards of its origins, its intended purpose, and their ongoing responsibilities in its maintenance. A significant power and control imbalance is observed among psychological professions, the legal system, business entities, and policymakers, an imbalance directly reflected in the LMHC diagnostic resolution. This disparity is presented as having potential adverse impacts on LMHCs’ income, job access, and the very future viability of their profession. The author’s detailed “Author’s note”, which outlines extensive lived experiences (including dissociative experiences, addiction, and trauma survival) alongside robust professional credentials, serves a deliberate rhetorical purpose. By asserting an identity as a “Healer, an Educator, a Philosopher, and Psychedelic Healing Artist” , the author establishes a unique authority derived from both rigorous academic training and profound personal understanding. This positioning contrasts sharply with the “industrialized research” and “unconscious intentions” attributed to “the system” , elevating the critique from a purely academic discussion to a moral imperative, even at the risk of their “professional career to fulfill the Moral Character Clause”.
Skepticism is expressed regarding the “unconscious intentions” of governmental, psychological “self-preservation”, and medical models, citing historical instances where the citizenry has allegedly been defrauded. This skepticism is rooted in the understanding that implicit bias represents an individual’s worldview, which can be a dissociative part or another equally valid narrative, and is often based on lived experience. A central tenet of the author’s argument is that psychology’s failure to operationally define addiction, acknowledge its role in dissociative processes, and recognize addiction as transdiagnostic, suggests that these systems are either “unaware or addicted/dependent to the system as it stands today” or are living in a state of denial that they are addicted to or dependent on maintaining. This systemic pathology is presented as the primary impediment to meaningful societal change. The profound implication of addiction’s transdiagnostic nature is that it represents a core intellectual failing of the field, suggesting that many existing diagnoses may be mislabeled or incomplete. This fundamentally undermines the current diagnostic framework and the authority of those who maintain it, pointing towards the necessity of a radical paradigm shift rather than mere incremental adjustments. The author asserts that their work, by challenging the authority of current diagnostics and influencing state licensing boards, ultimately impacts client services and their access to appropriately trained mental health professionals.
B. The Current Situation
The immediate context of the LMHC diagnostic controversy is explored, framed as a significant battle over professional authority with profound underlying moral and ethical dimensions. The ability of the LMHC profession to diagnose has recently faced challenges from other psychological professions, leading to the imposition of new credentialing and licensing requirements for existing LMHCs, despite their previous qualifications. This action is widely perceived as “gatekeeping” by more established professions, particularly Social Workers and the law.
The current state of psychology is characterized by an “us and them” dynamic, where professional moral and ethical dilemmas have become paramount. This “canceling” mentality is seen as originating from the privilege of those who appear to “forget” or “dissociate from” their fundamental responsibility to the public they are meant to serve. This characterization of professional gatekeeping as a manifestation of systemic “addiction” and “dissociation” moves beyond a simplistic turf war. It suggests that the resistance to LMHC diagnostic privilege is not based on rational grounds but is driven by an unconscious, self-serving pathology embedded within the system itself. The “forgetting” or “dissociating from” the public’s needs implies a collective psychological defense mechanism, where the system prioritizes its own survival and status over its stated mission. This dynamic is a clear example of implicit bias, where professionals legally dictate others’ actions while exempting themselves.
Skepticism is expressed regarding the notion that higher moral principles genuinely guide these systemic decisions. Instead, the system’s behavior is attributed to an “addicted and dissociative” state. The author highlights an unrecognized “professional addiction or dependence issue” within the existing literature, pointing out the apparent double standards of those who claim moral authority but demonstrably fail to adhere to their own ethical guidelines. This establishes a recurring critique: the system’s publicly espoused values—ethics, law, and public service—are incongruent with its actual behavior, which often appears driven by self-interest and gatekeeping. This perceived hypocrisy is not merely a flaw but is presented as a symptom of its underlying “addiction” , suggesting a deep-seated corruption that erodes trust and impedes genuine progress. This “addicted and dissociative” state is further characterized by the system’s inability to acknowledge its own implicit biases.
The author aims to educate readers on the crucial distinctions between being educated and merely trained, and between ethics and morals, emphasizing the importance of understanding both conscious and unconscious motivations. The significant personal and professional risk, described as “professional suicide,” involved in articulating these truths is acknowledged, underscoring the gravity of this perceived hypocrisy.
C. Background to the Problem
This section provides a historical overview of the counseling profession, tracing its origins and evolution to elucidate how external pressures, particularly from auxiliary industries, shaped its identity and contributed to the current diagnostic dilemma. The counseling profession emerged during the Industrial Revolution, specifically between 1905 and 1915, initially focusing on career support as people migrated to urban centers in search of work. As it became evident that mental health issues were significantly impacting individuals’ ability to work, function, and exist in the modern world, LMHCs became a necessary addition to the professional landscape. This role often involved addressing issues diagnostically equivalent to “V-Codes” in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM), which are problems not directly diagnosable or billable as mental disorders.
Unlike established professions such as Social Work and Psychology, LMHCs needed to gain “clout” to formally define themselves as a distinct profession (akin to the acculturation process that new immigrants face). The necessity of obtaining insurance reimbursement, which inherently required a diagnosis, led to diagnosing being assumed as a fundamental professional requirement. Policymakers, in an effort to differentiate LMHCs from existing professions, intentionally omitted the specific word “diagnosing” from the original LMHC charter. This situation illustrates how the commodification of mental health services has historically driven professional compromise. The profession’s viability became contingent on “diagnosing” for “billing, insurance, and accountability purposes”. This highlights a causal relationship where economic imperatives forced LMHCs to conform to a medical model, even for issues not inherently pathological, suggesting that the very structure of mental healthcare is primarily financially driven rather than client-driven. This dynamic is seen as leading to a “compromise” of the profession’s original purpose and a “defrauding of the citizenry”.
The author argues that “auxiliary professions”—including government, banking, lawyers, media, and insurance companies—exerted significant influence over the definition and viability of LMHCs. These industries, acting as a form of “middle management,” base their standards on philosophical principles that are asserted to “not hold up” under scrutiny. This creates power and control dynamics that can become corrupted and addictive. While documentation and diagnosing are ostensibly framed as tools for accountability, the author contends that “very little moral justice comes out of the ethical legal processes,” serving primarily to secure job security for those in positions of power. The inherent risk faced by therapists on the “frontlines” is contrasted with the more comfortable, detached perspective of those in “watchtowers” within auxiliary professions.
A fundamental epistemological divide is observed between a “common sense approach” and the “industrialized research” and “quantitative addiction” of “the system”. This suggests that the system’s “rationality” is a distorted logic that prioritizes data, control, and profit over human well-being and moral justice, resulting in “very little moral justice”. The author laments that the profession’s basic tenets are not clearly defined, leading to confusion for citizens. The “standardization process” and the stigma of “pseudoscience” are viewed as obscuring the true nature of “illness” or “disease.” This quantitative approach, driven by a “quantitative addiction,” is seen as promoting more diagnoses, regulation, and power, rather than a common-sense, morality-based approach to living together. The additional licensure process imposed on LMHCs is viewed as stigmatizing and delegalizing the profession, implying either a systemic blindness to facts or a benefit derived from maintaining the status quo by those protecting it. The extensive influence of “auxiliary professions” is presented as a critical observation. These entities are not merely external factors but are actively shaping and controlling the mental health professions. This suggests that the diagnostic privilege issue is less about inter-professional rivalry and more about the mental health field’s subservience to these powerful “middle management” industries. Their role in creating “power and control dynamics that replicate patterns of abuse and can become corrupted by power, control, and become addictive” signifies a deeper, systemic pathology.
D. The “Problem(s)”
This extensive section dissects the multifaceted “problems” embedded within the psychological professions and the broader system, attributing them to undiagnosed addictions, dissociative tendencies, and a fundamental misalignment of values. It is contended that psychological professions, by upholding privilege, prejudice, and prestige, have paradoxically “become what they diagnose,” thereby reinforcing stigma, racism, and classism. Historical examples, such as the classification of “gay” as a disorder and the original definition of PTSD as “an abnormal response to an abnormal event” , are cited as evidence of past diagnostic shortcomings and a lack of awareness. This observation suggests a profound systemic projection, where the very act of diagnosing, when driven by self-interest and power, inadvertently perpetuates the conditions it purports to treat, creating a “sick family system”.
The dynamic among psychological professions is likened to a “sick family system” that is “treatment resistant,” a state which the author reinterprets as a form of dependence. The “hidden agenda” of these professions is identified as an “enabling-based need” that, if left unchecked, contributes to systemic dysfunction. A core argument asserts that addictions are transdiagnostic, revealing “undiagnosed addictions” within the professions themselves, such as perfectionism, altruism, and ambition. The author posits that the physical body serves as the psychological unconscious, advocating for an equalization of the professional playing field between psychology and medicine. This radical re-conceptualization directly challenges the traditional hierarchy where medicine, often perceived as a “hard science,” holds greater authority than psychology, often dismissed as a “soft science”. This redefinition aims to “equalize” the playing field , implying that physical ailments can be understood as manifestations of psychological unconscious processes, and vice versa. This has profound implications for treatment, billing, and the very “scope of practice” of both medical and psychological professions, suggesting that a holistic, integrated approach is morally imperative and scientifically sound, despite systemic resistance.
The author argues that professions failing to accurately capture psychological realities are, ironically, in charge of defining what is right/wrong, legal/illegal, and ethical/moral. In this context, diagnosing becomes a tool for social control, fear conditioning, and promoting corporate or professional dependence, ultimately leading to “learned helplessness”. The true “problem” is identified as the “undiagnosed addictions and dissociative tendencies” of those in power who, despite recognizing the issues, refuse to admit them. Privilege, from this perspective, is defined as benefiting from labeling others as “the problem” without engaging in necessary self-reflection or change. This privilege is a manifestation of implicit bias, where professionals benefit from dictating others’ actions while exempting themselves.
The system’s pathology is further evidenced by its “inability to see science from corporate propaganda, research from science, or morals from ethics”. This inability is a direct result of its implicit biases. It is argued that counseling lost its essential purpose by conforming to billing requirements through the act of diagnosing. The “darker side” of diagnostics includes labeling individuals as “crazy,” “broken,” or “insane,” which can then be used against them in legal contexts. The system’s “obsessive ‘othering'” is described as stemming from an addicted system of conditioned privilege that seeks to maintain its status quo, often at the expense of public well-being, as exemplified by the historical illegality of psychedelics despite their potential benefits. The author asserts that “trauma/drama is addictive” , contributing to the system’s perpetuation of disparity. This suggests that the “industrialization and modernization of psychology” is a source of pathology, not progress. The drive for “more diagnoses, more regulation, more security, more power, more documentation, more data” is framed as a “quantitative addiction” that creates dependence and learned helplessness in clients. This implies that the very mechanisms designed to “help” are inadvertently perpetuating the “disease” of “more,” leading to a system that is “addicted to not being the ones who are addicted”.
A critique is leveled against government professionals who experience stress from industrialization, sterile standardization, and being “tools of citizen rejection.” This leads them to choose careers based on “safety and security,” a choice that ironically contributes to chaos elsewhere. The author observes that auxiliary professions disproportionately benefit from those who sacrifice their lives for a secure retirement. The author identifies “more” as the primary disease of human beings, particularly evident in the quantitative establishment’s denial of addiction. Psychology, as a female-dominated profession, is perceived as beholden to more male-dominated professions, leading to its dismissal as a “soft science”. Financial incentives, diagnostics, and standardization processes are viewed as conditioning obedience, control, and dependence within the citizenry. The system’s denial of its own dependence and its exponential benefit from not addressing professional shortcomings are presented as defining characteristics of “diagnostic privilege,” which is seen as a replication of an “unprofessional, unethical, and immoral” sibling dynamic.
E. Orientation to the Dilemma
The document further elaborates on the underlying pathology of the system, specifically targeting its leadership and established professional bodies, and introduces the author’s operational definition of addiction. It is advised that LMHCs should prioritize concern over power struggles rather than solely focusing on diagnostic issues, while other professions are encouraged to concentrate on the integrity of diagnostics themselves. A strong critique is directed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM), and various licensing boards for their historical failures to recognize addiction as dissociation. Past diagnostic errors, such as the classification of “non-addictive opiates,” the “chemical imbalance” theory of mental health, and the concept of “gain of function research,” are cited as evidence of systemic shortsightedness. This suggests that the system’s pathology is rooted in its leadership’s pursuit of status, leading to a “positive addiction pathology” that prioritizes titles and self-interest over genuine altruism. This “positive addiction pathology” is also a manifestation of implicit bias, where professional choices reflect personality and societal needs, often leading to flawed conclusions due to an immature leadership.
The system itself is diagnosed as “traumatized, addicted to trauma, and… living dissociated,” implying that if these entities were aware of their condition, they would be unable to make informed choices, or some external force would be driving their poor decision-making. This “traumatized” state prevents the system from acknowledging its own implicit biases. It is argued that trained professionals may not necessarily be educated, and conversely, those claiming to be educated may require re-education or retraining. The true leaders in education, it is asserted, are those capable of educating, unlearning, detraining, and deconditioning their clients. This distinction between being trained and educated highlights that those who are easily trained often succeed materially, while the less easily trained are more educated.
The critique extends to the definition of addiction as “a treatable disease” by SAMHSA, which is labeled as propaganda, particularly given the DSM’s lack of an operational definition for addiction. This situation is linked to the historical imprisonment of individuals for a “disease,” unresolved trauma, and dissociative presentations, often because neither side of the professional divide understood the underlying issues.
A profound implication emerges from defining addiction as trauma-related dissociation, as it reframes a “disease” into a normal response to abnormal events. This challenges the entire medical model and calls for a re-evaluation of treatment, legal, and social responses to addiction. As a result of the author’s research, an operational definition for addiction is provided: the “disease” of addiction is dissociation, predicated on trauma and stress responses that are normal reactions to common events. The LMHC dilemma is framed as a “sibling dynamic” governed by “overwhelmed parents” (the system) who cannot keep pace with modern life or their own mental health, leading them to blame younger generations. This dynamic is also tied to the privilege dynamics between the “haves and the have-nots”.
The system’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations for citizens and the exponential benefits reaped by the legal, healthcare, and insurance industries are seen as contributing to “communal illnesses,” such as healthcare companies owning stadiums. It is argued that if businesses, corporations, and professions are treated as people, then they too can behave, get sick, and have “diseases” like addiction. This implies that such entities should be subject to treatment and legal consequences, similar to individuals. The new diagnostic requirement for LMHCs is characterized as a “classy action” driven by auxiliary professions for their business and legal practices, rather than for therapeutic benefit. This suggests that the LMHC dilemma is connected to a broader “sibling dynamic” within professions, where underlying parental (systemic) issues prevent resolution. This indicates that the conflict is not solely about professional boundaries but about unresolved developmental and relational patterns within the larger societal structure.
F. Re-Orientation to “the Cause”
The document reorients the discussion by posing a critical question, drawing on Kohlberg’s work: what would be the implications if the law were equated to ethics or morals? It questions whether the quantitative bias and narrow worldview of the system stem from a denial of classism, governmental overreach, selective science, and corporatized research, akin to the practices of “Big Pharm”. This denial and narrow worldview are further attributed to the system’s implicit biases. Addiction is presented as a self-perpetuating cycle, addicting due to the conditioned reward of avoiding underlying issues and focusing solely on the problems of others.
It is asserted that equating morals and ethics to laws, as demonstrated by NYS, its lawyers, and the DOE, constitutes a clear violation of the constitutional right to separation of church and state. However, licensed citizens, despite their awareness, are perceived as too dependent on the system to challenge this due to their own conditioning and reliance. This suggests that the system prioritizes control and order over genuine moral development and individual rights, leading to a “desensitized, trained, conditioned, and dependent” professional class. The current situation is framed as an “intergenerational conflict” that is now more discernible due to modern video and audio recording capabilities, which expose the “actual trauma history” and “impairment or dissociation” of previous generations and leadership. This implies a profound need for a shift in societal understanding and accountability, as these impairments can be linked to unaddressed implicit biases.
The argument is made that unjust laws and standards, the use of inaccurate or undefined terms, and the promotion of selective research stem from unresolved trauma and an inability to think abstractly within the system. Clinically, if a client remains in denial long enough, they may be diagnosed with a personality disorder; similarly, the system’s resistance to change is viewed through this lens. It is deemed the moral obligation of citizens to remind professions that their true intention is to serve “The People,” even above their own safety and security, and to avoid pathologizing the population, especially with a clearer understanding of addiction as a transdiagnostic condition.
The document challenges Western foundational logic and established research, arguing that if morality is the parent of ethics, then ethics and ethical principles require maturation, as they have been developmentally delayed by moral trauma and subsequent dissociative aftereffects. This argument implies that the system’s “addiction to profits, power, and privilege” is the underlying cause of client “issues” and systemic incompetence, suggesting that the current structure inherently creates pathology rather than alleviating it. NYS’s actions are attributed to a need to create jobs and maintain an imbalanced economy, portraying sibling professions as victims of industrialization and modernization. A significant gap is observed between the law, ethics, and moral character, with clients’ mental health “issues” tied to developmental and attachment traumas, existential stress, arbitrary laws, and systems-level incompetence, all linked to the system’s addiction to profits, power, and privilege.
The critique extends to the “price of admission” into professional life, particularly overpriced college degrees that teach what was already covered in high school. A distinction is drawn between training and being educated, asserting that to be educated is to be moral and ethical, knowing when to exercise the difference. The historical illegality of psychedelics, despite clear evidence of their value, is cited as a prime example of this disconnect. The operational definition of addiction as transdiagnostic allows for the application of recovery principles to professionals and systems, leading to a new paradigm of “recovery-informed and recovery-focused care”.
G. LMHC Diagnostic Privilege
The LMHC diagnostic additions are deemed particularly unnecessary, serving as an example of how bureaucratic, political, and professional systems can indirectly impact millions of lives through their reliance on laws and an ethics-only approach. A “Moral-Ethical approach” is proposed, which prioritizes moral principles over ethical compliance as an act of advocacy against a system perceived as corrupted by bureaucracy, dependent on its self-created laws, and prone to using “the systems” for self-protection of social status, wealth, and ego. This suggests that the dispute is a battleground for systemic control, not just professional standards.
It is argued that the hypocrisy of NYS and the sibling professions needs to be presented to the public to clarify misunderstandings and prevent future power abuses that negatively impact clients and service provision. The influence of law, politics, and business (finances, insurance) on psychological professionals is discussed, linking it to a “lack of moral development” and a “fear-of-fear” rooted in ignorance and denial of essential healing terms like the unconscious and dissociation. It is emphasized that for moral development to be achieved, one cannot confuse ethics with morality or with the law. The document presents Figure 1, which compares the minimum clinical and licensure requirements for Mental Health Counselors and Social Workers in New York State, highlighting minimal differences between these competing professional schools. Figure 2, representing the NYS Office of Professions Moral Character requirement, is also included as supporting evidence.
| MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS | MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR WITH LIMITED PERMIT | LICENSED MASTER SOCIAL WORKER | LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR | LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER |
| EDUCATION (completed) | Masters degree in Mental Health Counseling-60 credit hours in SED-approved program or equivalent | Masters degree in Social Work-60 credit hours in SED-approved program or equivalent | Masters degree in Mental Health Counseling-60 credit hours in SED-approved program or equivalent | Masters degree in Social Work-60 credit hours in SED-approved program or equivalent |
| INTERNSHIP (completed) | Specific content areas must Include assessment, psychopathology, group dynamics, counseling theory and skill practice, career development. 600 clock hours of supervised internship and clinical instruction -with mental health counseling as required focus. | No required clinical education or clinical skill practice. 900 clock hours of supervised internship in social work practice – clinical mental health focus is NOT required. | Majority of 60 credit hour program is required to be focused on clinical education and preparation. No additional clinical internship required beyond original Master’s degree. | Minimum of 12 hours of clinical coursework including assessment and diagnosis, social work treatment and practice. No additional clinical internship required beyond original masters degree. |
| LIMITED PERMIT EXPERIENCE (completed) | Required-work site must be approved by SED/OP prior to counting hours toward licensure. Permit granted only to persons who meet all but additional experience beyond masters degree and LMHC exam. Minimum of 600 clock hours during internship must have had mental health counseling as focus. | N/A. No clinical mental health experience necessary. | No longer needed permit is replaced by license after experience and exam. requirements are met. 3,000 clock hours (not including internship hours) over 2 years of supervised experience in a SED-approved setting. Supervision by LMHC, LCSW, licensed psychologist, psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse or physician’s assistant. | Not required. 2,000 client contact hours over 3-6 years of supervised. experience in SED-approved setting. Supervision by LCSW, licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. |
| EXAMINATION | Must pass comprehensive exam within masters degree program | Must pass LMSW exam – Assn. of Social Work Boards (ASWB) | Must pass LMHC exam-National Clinical Mental Health Counselor. Exam (NCMHCE) | Must pass LCSW exam Assn. of Social Work Boards (ASWB) |
| ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT | Child Abuse Reporting Training | Child Abuse Reporting Training | Child Abuse Reporting Training | Child Abuse Reporting Training |
Table 1: Comparison of Minimum Clinical and Licensure Requirements in New York State
The analysis of Figure 1 reveals minimal differences between the competing professional schools. It is suggested that discord or abuse within the “family system” of professions necessitates corrective action from those in charge. The irony that legislative action was required to address this “diagnostic problem” is emphasized, highlighting the system’s lack of accurate diagnostics or pathology due to missing operational definitions of addiction and dissociation. This prevents a comprehensive understanding of addiction as transdiagnostic. This implies a fundamental intellectual and moral blindness at the systemic level.
The actions of the LMHCs’ “sibling professions” (Medical Doctor, Psychiatrist, Psychologist, Social Worker, and Mental Healer Counselor) and authority figures are characterized as using the “literal letter of the law” to demand obedience and compliance. It is asserted that lawmakers unconsciously omitted the word “diagnosing” from the original LMHC charter, viewing it as implied. This omission, now exploited by other professions, is presented as a semantic issue or professional incompetence that could have been easily corrected by the state, perhaps by grandparenting existing professionals. The fact that LMHCs are the only profession not allowed to supervise themselves is cited as a prime example of diagnostic privilege, professional gatekeeping, and evidence that they are not equal in their separateness.
Diagnostic privilege is further explained as the unjust wielding of power by older siblings (established professions) who recreate rules to win, exemplified by LMHCs being overseen by other professions like Social Workers, Psychologists, and Psychiatrists, a requirement not found in other states. What appears to be a setback for LMHCs is framed as an opportunity to expose academic observations regarding psychological professions, diagnostic privilege, and the unconscious power dynamics wielded by those who believe they control the situation. These power dynamics are argued to cause more harm to clients than the system is willing or able to admit, representing the first step toward systemic change.
The intentional omission of “diagnosing” from the original charter, despite its wide acceptance by industry standards for years, is discussed. The new guidelines are seen as potentially limiting LMHCs’ access to clientele, employment, credentialing with insurance companies, and participation in the Compact Agreement between states. By adding this “frivolous step” now, without grandparenting existing professionals, the profession is discredited, reinforcing a “professional hierarchy” and “patriarchy”. This suggests that the dispute is a battleground for systemic control, not just professional standards. This behavior is a manifestation of implicit bias, where “deep state” professions (administrators, lawyers, lobbyists) maintain control and position themselves as the sole providers.
The absence of comprehensive addiction information in diagnostics, case conceptualization, taxonomies, and pathologies reveals the incongruence of existing diagnostics with common sense. This absence provides an opportunity to accurately define essential psychological and legal terms such as unconscious, addiction, dissociation, and trauma, all of which are transdiagnostically relevant. Concerns are raised about industrial complexes that sell unneeded services, confuse science with religion, charge for unhappened events (insurance), conflate ethics and morality with the law, and deny similarities between faith, acceptance, integrity, and moral character. The failure to take responsibility for actions and inactions is presented as another sign of systemic pathology, akin to the historical treatment of Native Peoples.
New professions must contend with existing power structures to gain formal recognition. However, in a field where ethical promotion is morally failing or undeveloped, a great need is seen for the concept of “Moral-Ethics.” What remains unconsciously unseen, it is argued, will ultimately cause harm if consciousness remains unaware. If “the system” were held to the same standards as licensed professionals, a significantly different professional power structure would emerge, benefiting clients through a more honest appraisal of psychological professions. This is not a criticism of individual professionals but of the type of professionals they become when influenced by industries that set impractical, unreasonable, inhumane, or unnecessary standards. The legal maneuvering for political power, social mobility, and cultural dominance is better understood through the “Addiction as Dissociation Model,” which includes all modern addiction diagnoses. It is proposed that perfectionism, altruism, and ambition should be recognized as addictions, which would fundamentally change professional practice and address a “thriving disease” causing more harm than is currently acknowledged.
The contention surrounding LMHC diagnosing is primarily attributed to lobbyists from other psychological professions, particularly Social Workers, who are “quibbling over how the law was written” when LMHCs were created. The implementation of new criteria by NYS will require LMHCs to undergo additional training and credentialing. It is understood that the specific word “diagnosing” was intentionally omitted by lawmakers when the LMHC profession was created. This omission is viewed as either a conscious or unconscious clerical error, or a professional shortcoming exploited by Social Worker lobbyists to maintain control over the client market and position themselves as the sole providers. This situation provides justification for moral action and active advocacy, as clients suffer when such “professional flexing” occurs. This behavior is argued to preserve a professional hierarchy and patriarchy that should be a concern within a female-dominated profession. As a relatively new profession, LMHCs are portrayed as having endured enough professional positioning to recognize the current job marketplace and academic industry as a “dissociated, addicted, and traumatized system”. This pathology is familiar and needs to be called out.
As this diagnostic debate unfolds, “professional gaslighting and abuse tactics” used by the system are revealed. It is noted that clients find the healthcare system confusing due to five different professions (Doctors, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Social Workers, and Mental Health Counselors) performing similar tasks differently. This principle is also observed clinically with various therapies and therapeutic interventions. The difficulty arises when each profession attempts to rebrand meditation and consciousness as “evidence-based” science.
A dispute exists among “The People” regarding trust in government/science versus the right to choose, given past governmental and business errors in science. Since solutions are not perceived as a primary goal of government, its intentions or unconscious motivations for not pursuing viable solutions are questioned. It is asserted that if all addictions were fairly and justly accounted for diagnostically, the industry of psychology and our sibling professions could easily be diagnosed with an addiction to their positions of power, prestige, and privilege. Since corporations are considered people, it would logically follow that they should be treated like addiction, with “drug courts, inpatient, outpatient, and legal consequences”. Professionals are gradually becoming aware of being in an abusive relationship, in which all are complicit by enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labor. The next generations, it is argued, will evaluate the current state of mind unless changes are made.
However, with dissociation-informed and recovery-focused perspectives, assistance can be provided. The needs of clients are recognized as distinct from the needs of professionals. This clarity is possible due to an understanding of the implicit world as a trauma, dissociation, and addiction specialist, capable of healing transdiagnostic wounds. The decision has been made to bring “truth” to “power” by exercising expertise in the moral and ethical debate. Denial can be so pervasive that only recovering addicts, artists, or healers can discern the key difference between a person and their “disease,” science and religion, and morals and ethics. The crucial distinction will always be who is defining whom (of which our research resolves (O’Brien, 2025)).
This advocacy stems from the author’s doctoral research on the “intersectionality of trauma, dissociation, and addiction”. Thus, when speaking truth to power, the “truth” addressed is the Moral Character Clause, presented to all professionals renewing their license in NYS. The “power” addressed is the power citizens possess to renew democracy in the face of amoral corporatism. “We the people” have granted power and control to government and bureaucratic systems, creating jobs, but this power has been abused. While power and control may appear to belong to the system, the truth is that power resides in the heart and will of “The People”. This declaration needs to be emphasized, as professional bickering battles are anything but professional. The reader must decide if it is time to reclaim legal power, especially considering “the systems'” inability to follow existing evidence rather than selective researched science.
Below is the NYS Department of Education’s licensure renewal form, which includes the Moral Character Clause inquiries:
| Questions for Licensure Renewal | |
| 1. | Since your last registration application, have you been found guilty after trial, or pleaded guilty, no contest, or nolo contendere to a crime (felony or misdemeanor) in any court? |
| 2. | Since your last registration application, has any licensing or disciplinary authority revoked, annulled, cancelled, accepted surrender of, suspended, placed on probation, or refused to issue or renew a professional license or certificate held by you now or previously, or fined, censured, reprimanded or otherwise disciplined you? |
| 3. | Since your last registration application, are criminal charges pending against you in any court? |
| 4. | Since your last registration application, are charges pending against you in any jurisdiction for any sort of professional misconduct? |
| 5. | Since your last registration application, has any hospital or licensed facility restricted or terminated your professional training, employment, or privileges, or have you voluntarily or involuntarily resigned or withdrawn from such association to avoid the imposition of such action due to professional misconduct, unprofessional conduct, incompetency, or negligence? |
Table 2: Excerpt from NYS Office of Professions Moral Character Requirement
Upon review of Table 2, it is evident that most Moral Character Clause inquiries pertain to legal matters. Based on historical context and clinical experience, equating ethics and/or morals to law often misses the crucial point that law serves as the base of human understanding, agreement, argument, and research. Ethics are not needed if just laws are followed, but problems arise when laws are unjust, as seen with the illegality of psychedelics. Laws or ethics are not needed if individuals possess morals; conversely, the system needs ethics because it lacks morals. Despite being a nation of laws, people often disrespect them due to the double standards displayed by privileged individuals and industries. Historically, when law has been used by those in power to subjugate citizens, it becomes common sense for citizens to compel industrialized systems back to reasonability and responsibility. The state’s requirement of a “Moral Character Clause” implicitly highlights its own bias, as citizens expect morals before ethics and law.
H. Discussion
The discussion highlights numerous examples illustrating the perceived absurdity and poor judgment of governmental and auxiliary systems concerning their moral character requirements. Firstly, the actual word “moral” is conspicuously absent from the ACA Counseling Code of Ethics. Secondly, while moral action is implied within the ACA Code of Ethics, particularly in the advocacy section concerning speaking out against abuse of power, it is neither explicitly defined nor elaborated upon. Thirdly, the legal rationale for losing a license due to being “morally unfit” is presented as highly questionable, especially given the lack of clarity on how “moral fitness” is measured and whether the measuring entities should even possess such authority. Fourthly, if the morality of professions can be questioned, then a similar scrutiny should be applied to moral deficiencies in politics, business, finance, law, and warfare, and whether the USA adheres to such standards.
An extensive list of “Moral-Ethical Observations and Situations to Consider” is provided, ranging from legal oversights in professional charters to the ethics of psychedelic use, vaccine mandates, and the commodification of mental health. These detailed examples serve to demonstrate the pervasive nature of the “problems” identified earlier, illustrating the systemic hypocrisy and the conflict between stated values and actual practices. These observations are concrete examples of how implicit biases manifest in professional and systemic decisions.
It is argued that an educated person applies knowledge, distinguishing fact from fiction, right from wrong, ethics from morals, and training from education. Consumers of psychology are warned to beware of systems that lack basic definitions for the words they use, are unwilling to admit faults or apologize, cannot initiate repair, or fail to recognize their role in perpetuating dysfunctional dynamics. Citizens should be concerned about a government that imprisons its own people for having a “disease” and classifies addictions as such. The profound implications of addiction in defining pathology should not be underestimated. The absence of these definitions in quantitative research, the APA, or the DSM suggests either a developmental delay resulting from unprocessed trauma and unidentified addictions, or a deliberate addiction to personal gains, investments, and corporate interests.
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development are invoked to explain that ethics and morals represent developmental stages, not absolutist positions. However, law and law enforcement often employ reductionistic reasoning to maintain social order, acting as a toll booth for commerce, protecting the innocent, punishing the guilty, and enforcing right and wrong with force. This perspective illuminates the system’s “law and order” orientation as an earlier, less developed stage, suggesting that systemic failures stem from unresolved trauma and arrested moral growth. The initial intention of auxiliary services has evolved into a governing body that dictates professional practice. Kohlberg’s work indicates that loyalty to “law and order” is an earlier stage of moral development characterized by obedience and compliance, a stage where many individuals remain “stuck” due to unresolved trauma.
A framework of “Moral-Ethics” is proposed as a necessary evolution beyond current ethical codes, empowering future professionals to understand what they should demand of government officials, zealous professional associations, and ambitious politicians. This framework suggests that a moral clause should be included in all professional Codes of Ethics, allowing for a moral breach of the Code and the law when advocating against systemic failures such as abuse of power, incompetence, unconscious avoidance, or clear and present dangers like “non-addictive opiates” or the use of psychedelic medicines for personal healing.
In traumatology, there is an understanding of top-down and bottom-up processes governing physical and psychological experiences. This knowledge allows for an assessment of societal and professional values. The system’s lack of moral development is predicted to be related to unresolved addiction pathology and missing diagnostic categories in the DSM, particularly if addictions are still viewed as moral failings. The reason for missing key diagnostic criteria in the DSM is attributed to the pollution of psychology by industrialized models of care, where systems of academia, publishing, research, and selective “science” prioritize staying in business over genuine education.
Therapists and doctors are in the business of promoting health. However, their institutions are perceived as dependent on archaic legal, insurance-based, and financial systems that corrupt their ability to transcend into the professions the world truly needs. Any individual with moral sensibility would be disturbed by both the missing diagnostics and the underlying reasons. By looking beyond the system’s shortcomings, one can transcend sibling rivalry and become the adult in the room, rather than the parent demanding obedience. In family dynamics, what is ethical may not be moral, while what is moral is often unethical. In society, ethics are seen as preventing evolution and revolution, whereas morals demand them.
The presence of a Moral Character requirement on a state-operated webpage necessitates reminding those who implemented it of the distinction between being educated and trained. This clause applies to various professions, suggesting a broader systemic issue. It implies that state or federal licensure requirements should extend to politicians, publishers, academics, media representatives, private business owners, financiers, insurance companies, and state workers, as these roles are not necessarily bound by ethics or morality. This suggests a game where older siblings (established professions/systems) maintain control by making up rules as they go. For professions bound by ethical obligations, it is proposed that their ethical codes must include a moral clause to actively advocate against systems of professional perfectionism, altruism, and ambition. These systems are accused of committing amoral crimes against humanity and fostering injustice, classism, racism, and eventually genocide if left unchecked by morality.
The Moral Character Clause requirement in governmental documentation is deemed highly subjective, deserving careful review and psychological scrutiny. The same concept that is unethical to one person and illegal in the eyes of the law may be a clear moral decision to another, as exemplified by psychedelic medicines, which were once deemed to have “no medical value” but are now being capitalized upon following legalization. The double standards concerning alcohol, cigarettes, guns, and psych-meds are labeled as laughable, hypocritical, and criminal. Many individuals, though aware of this tyranny, are dependent on the system to repay their debts and fear death, thus remaining complacent. The document suggests that if the freedom of future generations is the cost of current business practices, then individuals must decide their stance in history.
This contextualization aligns with the observation that addiction is transdiagnostic, a process of unconscious conditioning, and relationally dependent. Understanding addiction, it is argued, facilitates understanding recovery. This supports the reemergence of a professional class of “Healers” with specific skill sets, who know the healing path of recovery, and can define themselves as a profession. This approach is based on qualitative reasoning and acts as advocacy against a system that has repeatedly hindered itself due to its undiagnosed addictions. The profession of Healers needs redefinition in modern times and reintroduction into the Western cultural lexicon.
In the modern age, Healers serve two crucial purposes for species survival: possessing a moral heart and the courage to risk following common sense. This courage involves discerning right from wrong, real from unreal, and presence from absence, which is imperative for both individuals and professionals. The author’s work outlines a path back from what some might call “insanity” but others would consider “home” or “normal”. It is argued that diagnosing what is not a clinical disorder and failing to diagnose what is genuinely diagnosable form the crux of the systemic issue, which is largely ignored in the diagnostic privilege debate. While quantitative minds focus on semantics, qualitative minds observe the broader picture and question why professionals cannot see it, or why they knowingly place morals and ethics where they do not belong for self-serving purposes.
As an embodiment of what it means to be “educated,” the NYS DOE should examine the distinction between being trained as apophenic and being educated as lived experience. Educators are meant to be leaders, not merely trained citizens who maintain a status quo that serves their interests while protecting privileged classes from accountability for “crimes against humanity’s future”. By defining Healing as a profession, it is argued that society could provide what people truly need and desire: class justice. Instead, “the system” is perceived as giving people what they want, not what they need, leading to dependence and addiction in its reasoning, which becomes a concern for future generations.
What people expect from “the system” are promises for tomorrow that remain undelivered. “The system” itself, it is argued, procures services from businesses that merely present a show of ethics and moral justifications, lacking any actual code beyond profit maximization. Business interests and the quality of relationships between professions are areas where the DOE should focus, yet it consults with other professions that prioritize self-preservation. Not acknowledging the complicit state of affairs between these professional systems and government is seen as living dissociated from reality and choosing inaction. With dissociation and recovery-informed care as guiding principles, this writing is offered to the public as a necessary truth, despite the anticipated backlash from a system that resists it.
Organizations and associations such as the APA, licensing boards, research institutions, and academia have established professional standards that deserve both honor and reasonable challenge. A healthy relationship would permit and encourage such challenges, but recent cases, like Dr. Jordan Peterson’s licensing board case in Canada, suggest otherwise. It is argued that morals and ethics are reciprocal, but their application depends on the reviewer’s level of education, training, and moral/emotional development. The diagnostic training received by LMHCs is deemed ample for diagnostic and legal purposes. Legacy academics and policy lawmakers are criticized for straying from humanistic philosophical traditions, stoic foundations, and enlightenment ideals in their pursuit of “Nations of Laws”. The delegitimization of any profession threatens not only its livelihood but also that of others. This is argued to be the definition of a state of dependence, not interdependence, based on recovery standards of addiction.
The distinction between being trained and being educated is paramount; if this difference is not understood, it underscores why morals should precede ethics. Clients, it is argued, unconsciously expect morals, but if the belief persists that mental health issues stem from a “chemical imbalance” or that the unconscious or addiction are accurately defined, then the true understanding of mental health remains elusive. If the state demands “moral character” from LMHCs, then the same standard should apply to the state itself and every other profession claiming to be ethical. If following morals is deemed unethical, then the prevailing ethics are immoral. The history of psychedelics’ illegalization and subsequent legalization serves as a prime example of this incongruity. Other examples include the failure of law and psychology (APA) to question medical (AMA) recommendations for experimental vaccines for children or the forced COVID shutdowns, let alone the initiation of a pandemic through gain-of-function research.
The author’s research suggests that the APA, DSM, and the field of psychology as a whole, along with the power and authority of licensing boards, exhibit significant deficiencies in implicitly understanding diagnostics, human behavior, and philosophical imperatives like the difference between morals and ethics. Due to recent dealings with NYS licensing and credentialing boards, there is little hope in their ability to grasp how far off base they are psychologically. By equating law with credentialing quantifications, diagnostic standards, and professional ethics, these entities also become morally beholden to them. If they possessed true ethics, the legal maneuver by Social Workers would not be occurring, and moral character would not be involved in license renewal. If they possessed morals, Social Workers would retract their challenge and accept LMHCs as legitimate diagnosticians. If the state intended to follow the law, lawyers would correct their mistake and instruct Social Workers to self-reflect. The fact that this has not occurred indicates a lack of moral grounding. If they were created separate and equal, then those professions who created them would be demonstrating their level of moral development, according to the science of Kohlberg and Piaget.
The spiritual awakening and psychedelic movement are predicted to necessitate a different approach to professions, as past actions will inevitably resurface if not addressed. The system is perceived as advertising ethical practices but lacking morals, while psychedelics are spiritual and religious, thus not solely ethical. When unresolved trauma is deeply tied to personality, it transcends an “Axis 1 diagnosis.” If unresolved trauma and drama have become an active addiction, leading to a dissociative state from the truth, and the system is unwilling to acknowledge a professional identity without governmental representation, then individual clinicians must consider whether to remain in a game that has no end, no winners, and no morals. The game of Moral-Ethics requires discerning reality from illusion and possessing the courage to follow the truth discovered. The main difference between morals and ethics lies in the actions taken to correct mistakes, once one admits to becoming both the problem and the solution.
I. Conclusions
Today’s modern global market is the direct consequence of individual choices and collective reasoning based on those choices. When convenience is prioritized over community, individuals are choosing a predetermined fate, as moral aspirations and inspirations for growth in the face of adversity are lost by sacrificing future freedoms for present gains. Humanity, it is observed, is experiencing an internal decline and is beginning to acknowledge it. When mortality itself is questioned, the Moral-Ethical action becomes an unconscious choice, relegated to habit, reflex, and intuition stemming from the body’s imperative to survive.
The proposed solution is also to “Become a Healer,” embracing this identity and developing a language rooted in lived experience and a qualitative perspective. This perspective is supported by qualitative science, demonstrating that psychedelics possess medical value, cannabis is a healing medicine, mental health is not solely due to a chemical imbalance, developmental trauma is not diagnosable, lockdowns were illegal and contrary to policy, vaccines are now akin to flu shots, and natural immunity often surpasses vaccine-induced immunity. The system’s research on pathology is weakened by its resistance to these observations.
As citizens become more aware of the massive wealth transfer that occurred during COVID, they begin to perceive the logic of “gain of function” research as analogous to waging war to prevent war. Insurance companies charge for potential future events, and governments intervene in foreign affairs, contrary to the warnings of founding fathers. The notion that science can eradicate diseases is deemed irrational and ultimately emotional because what is irrational is that emotions are. The fact that products of convenience, which contribute to modern stress, poor diet, sedentary lifestyles, toxins, and environmental pollution, are sold and consumed, offers temporary comfort today. Instead of seeking or diagnosing disorders, the focus should shift to promoting wellness, as trauma, dissociation, and addiction are transdiagnostic and not diagnostically permanent, implying that with proper care, symptoms can go into remission. Furthermore, developmental and attachment traumas are not disorders, and undiagnosed addictions like perfectionism, altruism, and ambition still exist, which is how we know who is living in denial. Trying to make changes is how we know that they are addicted to it. This necessitates a reevaluation of who should be diagnosing and who should not.
The solution is to prepare to face mortality with integrity, rather than being numbed by pharmaceuticals or deceived by marketing. A known path now exists, and by engaging with this work, one is already on it. The next logical advancements in healthcare are dissociation-informed, recovery-focused, and healing-focused care, which can only manifest through individual spiritual and developmental healing. Instead of comparison, there is an attempt to identify with those in the precontemplative Stage of Change, while readiness is expressed to assist those in contemplation and stand with those actively pursuing lasting recovery.
Individuals who have undertaken their psychological work will morally outgrow their ethics, recognizing that the system is too dysfunctional to continue in its current form. This is deemed the Moral-Ethical course of action, as the system appears unwilling or unable to comprehend these truths. Character defects, entrenched faults, or “diseases” within professions and professionals are presented as reflections of existing diagnostics, which have prevented genuine change. This situation should evoke anger, as suggested by the opening quote. The sustained chaos is attributed to motivations of money, power, and control, rather than a lack of public readiness. The continued illegality of psychedelics for over 40 years, despite quantitative evidence of their medical value, and the inability to change daylight saving laws despite clear links to unexpected deaths, serve as prime examples of this systemic resistance. It is acknowledged that those within the system also experience PTSD, addictions, and dissociation, but like many first responders, medical staff, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and therapists, they may not receive proper care due to the incomplete capture of addictions in the DSM.
Ultimately, all conflicts are understood to stem from a lack of natural resources. A moral person or entity would sacrifice their own safety for the greater good of the people, not for the benefit of global “trillionaires”. Clinical observations of individuals and systems indicate that they are “stuck” in their trauma, developmentally and morally delayed, and addicted to living dissociatively to maintain comfort, leisure, and painful pleasures. This understanding defines recovery-focused care: learning from mistakes and sharing the growth of experience. At some point, the professional enabling system that supports violations of free will, civil liberties, and human rights must be challenged. The narrow avoidance of mandated vaccines, created by the same industry responsible for “non-addictive” opiates, cigarettes, and the false narrative of “chemical imbalance,” necessitates fighting to reclaim common sense power from the brink of “insanity”. The ability to recognize this path comes from having experienced it and returned.
It is asserted that diagnosing is not inherently important or difficult, particularly when professionals continue to treat trauma as “an abnormal response to an abnormal event” in 2024, raising questions about who remains “stuck”. The real issue lies with those paid to protect the public from systemic abuse who are failing in their duties. Questions are posed regarding the FDA’s role in verifying pharmaceutical studies and fact-checking claims like “non-addictive opiates” or “chemical imbalance” theories. The outcomes of the opiate pandemic payouts demonstrate the system’s operational mechanisms.
Government workers, it is argued, fear risking their collective security, retirement, or physical safety to speak out against systemic abuses, despite being aware of them through public accounts. Their inability to follow established laws (e.g., pandemic response protocols) or research standards (e.g., gain-of-function research) raises questions about their moral-ethical obligations to licensed professionals who expose these failures. Given that individual legal rights have been extended to corporations, the knowledge derived from treating individuals with addiction should be applied to these entities. The question remains whether they will undertake the necessary internal work to genuinely assist the people they claim to serve.
In conclusion regarding LMHC diagnostic privileges, it is asserted that lawyers failed in their duty by omitting the word “diagnostics” from the original charter (because it was implied) and subsequently failed to correct this mistake. Supervisors, mentors, and leaders in the field also failed to rectify the error. The APA did not contest lockdowns during COVID, which was contrary to U.S. federal law, by not challenging the AMA and CDC. Diagnostic privileges could have been grandparented into existing licenses, and Social Worker lobbying efforts could have simply highlighted the discrepancy instead of vying to maintain their position of professional diagnostic privilege. The observation that LMHCs are the only profession not allowed to supervise themselves further exemplifies this issue. The underlying reasons for this situation are explored through the collective research on addiction and dissociation.
Holding the government accountable and responsible is presented as the lowest cost for freedom, but this action alone is insufficient. In the modern age of productivity and outcome measures, sending an email to a congressperson is often the extent of citizen action. Neither citizens nor government officials are ethically above the law. However, morally, those who have not developed beyond developmental obedience to unjust laws—where law serves as the base of human agreement—and who are dependent on this system, should not be making policies or laws. The pervasive dissociation and addiction within society mean this issue becomes the current generation’s problem. To honor this passing of the torch, one must embrace change and lean into the discomfort, as pain serves as a reminder of life’s reality and preciousness.
The concept of mass psychosis, apophenic, or “groupthink” is presented as the conditioning of dissociative and addictive processes woven into the fabric of society and culture. The manifestation of mass psychosis during the COVID years, particularly with the soft mandating of experimental drugs for children by governmental, corporate, and private institutions, is seen as having gone too far. While the system’s response is acknowledged, the exponential profiteering from crises is identified as a tragedy that lawyers and ethicists should morally examine. It is suggested that this examination could be facilitated by psychedelics to remove any pretense of dissociation. Through processes of tearing and repairing, pain and relief, and ethical and moral debate, the issue must be clearly stated. Until there is collective knowledge, agreement, and acceptance of who is asking and answering questions, it remains unclear who is operating in survival mode versus thriving mode. Without this knowledge, individuals label themselves “sane” while creating conditions for “insanity.” Both perspectives hold validity, but only one can be morally true.
Ultimately, just as individuals become what they consume, readers become what they have read. The reality of the moral/ethical debate is that ethics limit and prevent healing, growth, development, evolution, and revolution, whereas morals demand all of these. Diagnostic privileges should be reduced if they are ineffective or if the services offered are questionable, as the research suggests. The document concludes by emphasizing that everything valued in the world exists because of someone else. The author writes this report to amplify the unexpressed wisdom of clients, whose “symptoms” are seen as symptomatic of the system from which they originate and the societal level they access.
Summary
In summary, a system incapable of perceiving its own privilege and accurately diagnosing itself should be careful about presenting moral directives to the genuinely educated populace. The central question remains: what else is left for those addicted to their own privilege and its vast benefits besides the moral and ethical debate? The report highlights a “sibling dynamic” within New York State and the Department of Education, suggesting that these entities could have done more to prevent a diagnostic “turf war.” Their actions and inactions are presented as reflections of their level of awareness, their Stage of Change (as per Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983), and their moral development. The perspective adopted throughout this analysis is that of a recovery-informed Healer, a persona cultivated through ongoing academic work, personal recovery, and professional dissociation.
References
O’Brien, A. (2023a). Addiction as Trauma-Related Dissociation: A Phenomenological Investigation of the Addictive State. International University of Graduate Studies. (Dissertation). Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/
O’Brien, A. (2023b). Memory Reconsolidation in Psychedelics Therapy. In Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/
O’Brien, A. (2023c). Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2024a). Healer and Healing: The re-education of the healer and healing professions as an advocation. Re-educational and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2024e). Path of the Wounded Healers for Thrivers: Perfectionism, Altruism, and Ambition Addictions; Re-education and training manual for Abusers, Activists, Batterers, Bullies, Enablers, Killers, Narcissists, Offenders, Parents, Perpetrators, and Warriors. Re-Education and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
O’Brien, A. (2025). American Made Addiction Recovery: a healer’s journey through professional recovery. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/
