5 ms·

> Terrifying that he has some power to detain people against their will; or to force people to take medication against their will. Why's it any more terrifying

by wtbob 10y ago

> Terrifying that he has some power to detain people against their will; or to force people to take medication against their will. Why's it any more terrifying that a religious dualist person has that power than an atheist materialist? Atheist psychiatrists in the Soviet Union were responsible for quite a few involuntary committals of folks whose 'madness' was wanting freedom. > Why is he talking about someone's medical status to other people? In England he's committed an offence. A cleric cannot consult with a psychiatrist in England? > > This was not psychosis; > This bit is fine. "I'm a doctor who specialises in mental illness. This doesn't match any mental illness I've seen before, and isn't in my diagnostic manual". > > it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed. > This bit? FFS. 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' He definitely needs to make sure that he takes appropriate precautions against cold readers (who are quite talented at winkling out details without one realising). As he notes, ' I technically do not make my own "diagnosis" of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.'

DanBC 10y ago
> A cleric cannot consult with a psychiatrist in England? About themselves; about generalities; but most certainly not about a third person. Are you saying that US doctors share medical details of people with their clerics?
- wtbob 10y ago
  With names removed, I don't see why a cleric can't share non-confessional details with a psychiatrist, nor vice versa. Are you seriously saying that in the U.K. one can't discuss cases with names removed? How does the Lancet stay in business then?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    OP isn't removing the names.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > OP isn't removing the names. 'Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.' It's the last sentence in the second paragraph. And, as a matter of fact, I don't see any names of either psychological or spiritual patients in that article, although perhaps I've missed one.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        That's permission for him to write about it. It's pretty clear from the article that he's offering opinions on these people to the religious groups who make the referrals. > In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess. [...] > That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder. > For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. He sees 200 people over 25 years. He sees those people because clergy refer people to him. He gives information back to those clergy - "this person has mental illness", or "this person is possessed". Is he providing treatment to them? If so he's abusing their privacy. Is he merely researching them? Let's see the ethics committee approval that allows a researcher to label people as demonically possessed. (Note here he leaves no room for "not possessed and not ill".)
        wtbob 10y ago
        Presumably if these people are referred to him by their clerics then they have agreed to have his report sent back to those same clerics. Priests, lawyers, physicians, surgeons & psychiatrists are all members of a professional class, who presumably may refer their clients to one another & may consult with one another as appropriate.

by wtbob 10y ago

DanBC 10y ago

> A cleric cannot consult with a psychiatrist in England? About themselves; about generalities; but most certainly not about a third person. Are you saying that US doctors share medical details of people with their clerics?

wtbob 10y ago
With names removed, I don't see why a cleric can't share non-confessional details with a psychiatrist, nor vice versa. Are you seriously saying that in the U.K. one can't discuss cases with names removed? How does the Lancet stay in business then?
- DanBC 10y ago
  OP isn't removing the names.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > OP isn't removing the names. 'Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.' It's the last sentence in the second paragraph. And, as a matter of fact, I don't see any names of either psychological or spiritual patients in that article, although perhaps I've missed one.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      That's permission for him to write about it. It's pretty clear from the article that he's offering opinions on these people to the religious groups who make the referrals. > In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess. [...] > That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder. > For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. He sees 200 people over 25 years. He sees those people because clergy refer people to him. He gives information back to those clergy - "this person has mental illness", or "this person is possessed". Is he providing treatment to them? If so he's abusing their privacy. Is he merely researching them? Let's see the ethics committee approval that allows a researcher to label people as demonically possessed. (Note here he leaves no room for "not possessed and not ill".)
      - wtbob 10y ago
        Presumably if these people are referred to him by their clerics then they have agreed to have his report sent back to those same clerics. Priests, lawyers, physicians, surgeons & psychiatrists are all members of a professional class, who presumably may refer their clients to one another & may consult with one another as appropriate.