|
I applaud the commitment of Hulsebus and Pozolinski in their February 17 letter to their chosen career as speech-language pathology assistants (SLPAs). However:
1. Their claim that "the profession is endangering itself by continuing to allow SLPAs to practice without training requirements, regulations, or supervision requirements" is erroneous. The work of ASHA volunteers and staff has resulted in clear and useful guidelines and position statements for the work in which SLPAs can be involved, the needed supervision, and the educational requirements each SLPA must complete. These documents are available.
2. Their phrase "ASHA's strict ethics and scope of practice for SLPAs" is misleading. ASHA has a Code of Ethics for certified speech-language pathologists. While some related organizations have developed a Code of Ethics for SLPAs, ASHA has not. Speech-language pathologists are professionals. SLPAs are not. Speech-language pathologists practice independently within a carefully documented scope of practice. This can include the supervision of SLPAs. SLPAs are not independent practitioners. Thus, they are not professionals and they do not have a scope of practice, they have a scope of responsibility.
I support working with an SLPA when that assistant is appropriately trained and the work done is appropriately planned, delegated, and supervised. In protecting the integrity and high standards of the profession of speech-language pathology, to use Hulsebus and Pozolinski's wording, it is critical for both professionals and their assistants to have an accurate understanding of what has been developed regarding the requirements for each other's educational preparation and role.
Lyn Goldberg
Springfield, MO
|