Jeez, leave this board for a day and you miss a lot. I didn't make any sort of diagnosis formal or informal regarding Richard. I just mentioned that Richard should consider going back on his antipsychotic medication. Was this a bit of a nasty comment? Yes, it was. Should I have said it? I don't know. The reason I said was in reaction to his rather bizarre posts regarding Muktananda and "Marshy." I don't know if Richard actually has bipolar or psychotic symptoms. His thinking at times as expressed by his posts seems a little strange. That's all. --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- 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. > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
