4 ms·

He's not talking about the current status of the law. The law has absolutely zero to do with right and wrong. He's talking about morality. He seems to believe t

by wfo 11y ago

He's not talking about the current status of the law. The law has absolutely zero to do with right and wrong. He's talking about morality. He seems to believe that if you agree to help someone with their mental problems, that you shouldn't turn around and betray their trust for ANY reason -- that's the only way any real trust can be developed. I tend to agree. If someone said "you can trust me, except for this laundry list of things you can say in which case I'll have you locked in a cage and force you to take medication against your will" would you trust them? Because that's the reality of every conversation with a psychologist currently -- it's just not made explicit.

vacri 11y ago
I said 'duty of care', not 'law'. If you credibly threaten the practitioner or third parties, then morality most definitely says you should protect those people from harm. I mean seriously, make the moral comparison: break someone's trust or let someone get maimed or die. To put it bluntly, it's stupid to demand a practitioner ignore credible threats (stress credible) against their own life, in favour of some weirdly puritan moral theory. Practitioners are people too, with their own lives, loves, and foibles... and, frequently, their own mental illnesses. They're not any more disposable than the patients they treat. Just because you're interested in helping someone doesn't mean that you commit to do so even unto your own death. > If someone said "you can trust me, except for this laundry list of things you can say in which case I'll have you locked in a cage and force you to take medication against your will" would you trust them? Psychologists can't prescribe medicine or force detention - you're tilting at a windmill here. Psychiatrists can do both, though with some limitations on how they can detain. Similarly, credible threats are hardly a 'laundry list'.

by wfo 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

I said 'duty of care', not 'law'. If you credibly threaten the practitioner or third parties, then morality most definitely says you should protect those people from harm. I mean seriously, make the moral comparison: break someone's trust or let someone get maimed or die. To put it bluntly, it's stupid to demand a practitioner ignore credible threats (stress credible) against their own life, in favour of some weirdly puritan moral theory. Practitioners are people too, with their own lives, loves, and foibles... and, frequently, their own mental illnesses. They're not any more disposable than the patients they treat. Just because you're interested in helping someone doesn't mean that you commit to do so even unto your own death. > If someone said "you can trust me, except for this laundry list of things you can say in which case I'll have you locked in a cage and force you to take medication against your will" would you trust them? Psychologists can't prescribe medicine or force detention - you're tilting at a windmill here. Psychiatrists can do both, though with some limitations on how they can detain. Similarly, credible threats are hardly a 'laundry list'.