--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I don't think that posting on this board is a venue for him to > act as a doctor, posting here makes you a poster on a fairly > outrageous board. I don't even know exactly what his > credentials are.
He's a PsyD, a doctor of psychology. That's been verified; there was a thread about his credentials recently. <snip> > Posting here is a place to unwind from professional identities > with their serious consequences. No one is always acting in > their professional capacity and posting on boards like this is > not a way to receive a medical diagnosis. (Not a "medical diagnosis"; Peter isn't an M.D. It was a mental health diagnosis.) The thing is, if you're a professional, you can't just *drop* that status when you're talking about your area of expertise informally. Once you've become a professional, you're always a professional (unless your license is taken away). Your comments in your area of expertise are always those of a professional and carry the weight of professional opinion. If you want to kid around, you have to make it crystal clear that you're doing so. So I have not gotten past my own > "pro-Peter) bias, but I am still defending Peter's right to use > this board to say whatever he wants without the shaming that he > is not being "professional". None of us are as far as I can > tell, that's what makes this a cool clubhouse. Most of us aren't "professionals" in the same sense that Peter is, though (also Marek; not sure if there are others here). Medicine/health care, the law, theology (clergy), and (to some extent) education are what are known as the "learned professions," or just "the professions." They require a graduate degree (usually at least a doctorate), licensure, and adherence to a code of ethics specific to the profession. These ethical codes typically apply to the professional in the context of his or her occupation, what he or she gets paid for doing, not his/her private activities (such as posting on this board). So Peter wouldn't be in *formal* breach of his code of ethics, but delivering a mental health diagnosis to a bunch of nonprofessionals who don't have the credentials to evaluate it, and without the informed consent of the diagnosee, is unquestionably unethical. It's *especially* unethical if the purpose is to put the person in a negative light among his peers, and even more unethical if there's no good basis for the diagnosis (given that Peter has never met the person in question, let alone examined him). Quite a few of us here who have observed him over a long period think (and the person has even said himself that this is the case) that he makes these irrational claims and associations quite deliberately, knowing they don't make sense--i.e., that he's not at all out of touch with reality. His motivation, as Shemp noted, is to lead us to think differently about the various issues we're discussing. Whether he does this *well* is a different issue. Whether he does it obnoxiously is a different issue. But to label him psychotic and to suggest that he's been prescribed a powerful antipsychotic medication by his own physician on the basis that he says nutty things in his posts is leaping to conclusions--and it's just completely out of line for a professional psychologist to make such a diagnosis in anything other than a treatment context. A professional diagnosis of psychosis can be very damaging to a person's career, social relationships, financial security, etc. That's why therapist-patient confidentiality is so important in the mental health profession. > Now if Richard takes the hint from what Peter said and got a > check-up from the neck-up...that would not be the worst outcome > for everyone's welfare as far as I am concerned. I don't need > to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing... However, if you, as a nonweatherman, were to predict that a tornado was going to strike Fairfield in the next 24 hours, do you think the Fairfielders here would rush to gather up their families and evacuate the area? Because you are *not* a professional, they're unlikely to take you seriously; hence you wouldn't be acting unethically in making such a prediction. Foolish, perhaps, but not unethical, because your prediction doesn't carry any weight.
