Sorry, but I had some additional thoughts: --- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Your original argument
(Again, it wasn't my "original argument.") was ridiculous when you claimed that I had > violated some sort of confidentiality with Richard and > could only say what I did if I had his informed > consent. You embarassed yourself with such an absurd > argument because you obviously do not understand the > nature of a confidential relationship, who holds the > priviledge of confidentiality and what informed > consent is. If you do understand these terms then your > usually sharp intellect was clouded by your emotions. Here's what I wrote: "Look at your wording--'with due respect' and 'I kid you not.' You obviously intended for your comments to be taken seriously. You mentioned a specific medication as if you knew it had been prescribed, as if you had some inside knowledge of his condition (and if you did, you'd be breaching confidentiality)." Obviously, whether you had or have a professional therapist-patient relationship with Richard is irrelevant. If you have inside knowledge, from whatever source, of someone's mental health diagnosis and treatment, it would be unethical to reveal it to a nonprofessional audience without that person's consent. > Your second argument, however, does have some merit > IMHO. It refers to behavior by psychologists in a > non-professional context where some people could > attribute more authority to their words or behaviors > because they know they are a psychologist. The APA > struggles with this one to. I very seriously doubt that the APA "struggles with" a situation in which a practicing, credentialed psychologist suggests to a nonprofessional audience, using clinical terminology and claiming he is not kidding, that one of their number is mentally ill, not because that's what he thinks but because he doesn't like the person and wants to cause him discomfort. I strongly suspect the APA would have no difficulty whatsoever deciding whether the psychologist is behaving unethically. The APA might even consider it unethical for the psychologist to suggest to the same audience that the situation is one that the APA would struggle with. Peter, would you be entirely comfortable with this discussion being forwarded to the APA? (Not a threat; I have no intention of doing so. But please think about what your answer would be.) In this instance with > Richard I basically was calling him crazy using > rhetorical excess based upon my knowledge of > psychological disorders and medications to treat those > disorders. The intent of this was a clever insult. Let's have another look at Peter's comments: "Dude, with all respect, you need to be back on your Seroquel. I kid you not. You have symptoms of a mild psychosis." Later Peter reiterated: "We didn't 'get' what he said because, at times, his posts approach psychotic ramblings with bizarre associations." "Rhetorical excess"? Where? There is no hint anywhere in these comments that they aren't meant seriously--to the contrary, the first one includes an explicit assertion that it *is* serious. The language is coldly clinical, without a trace of "rhetorical excess." There's no indication that the comments are meant as insults, as opposed to expressions of genuine professional concern for Richard's mental health. I'm sorry, Peter, but your attempts to justify your comments about Richard are profoundly disingenuous. And the fact that you are mischaracterizing those comments in itself suggests that you're well aware you did something you shouldn't have. That some of us were aware--all indications to the contrary in the comments themselves notwithstanding-- that you were attempting to insult Richard DOES NOT EXCUSE THE COMMENTS. It just means you were lucky that we were perceptive enough to see through your attempt to make the comments sound like an informed evaluation of Richard's mental health. For all you know, some who read the comments may have thought you were completely serious, and if they haven't seen the followup discussion, have now labeled Richard in their minds as someone who is considered by a professional to be psychotic. Do you really want to be responsible for Richard having acquired that label just because you find him annoying and wanted to take a slap at him? You were lucky too that I called you on it, because at least some of those who would have taken you seriously are now aware that you were not.
