The man in question here *specifically* says, "If my patients read my writing it would make it hard for them to listen to me, and that would impact my business." Folks nod like this is fair, but is it actually fair to patients to suggest they're not allowed to know this?
-
-
Replying to @KirinDave @zeynep and
You may find this argument fails to compel you, but that's the argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
A "he deserves de-anonymizing" because his of his views argument is different. Does not seem to be what NYT was doing or defending. And, yes, of course, therapists deserve extra consideration for privacy and pen names! (As do many others! Pen names are a basic right).
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @KirinDave and
we only have siskind's word that nyt wanted to use his full name, and considering that you're writing op-eds for nyt frequently, you're in a unique position to verify his claim. (and before you reflexively block: there are v. good reasons to let his patients learn who he is)
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @_amtiskaw @zeynep and
siskind frequently used stories he learned about his patients in his public writings as anecdotes or to make a point; while their details were anonymised, he never sought their permission, and frequently expressed negative or dismissive opinions of them. this is abuse of trust.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @_amtiskaw @zeynep and
note that at some stage he gave an advice (while denying that he's doing it) on how to get people having mental issues on so-called coercive treatment with long-term antipsychotics; we know he's a fan of eugenics. do you really think he acts in the best interest of his patients?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @_amtiskaw @zeynep and
anyway, if a patient decides to enter into a therapeutical relationship, they should know that their psychiatrist is not an ethical person, that he is an eugenicist, and very likely prone to ignore hipaa's patient confidentiality requirements — for entertainment of his readers.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
When you throw out words like "fan of eugenics" it kinda weakens your case "skaffen-amtiskaw", especially since you, yourself, are a pen name. I actually know a bit of history about what "fans of eugenics" have done and do not take kindly to the word being used lightly.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @_amtiskaw and
Anybody who wants to write a piece about why he deserves de-anonymization should do so, but as someone familiar with history and current humanitarian crises, I'm so scared people have completely forgotten what eugenics actually means. It's not "I don't like this dude's views".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Since I have read a number of SSC posts and comments, and I agree with Zeynep, does my opinion at least count?
-
-
What exactly are you disputing?
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.