4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

4 ms·

> 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

by wtbob 10y ago

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.