now, why would scott alexander siskind not want his patients to find that he used their cases for general entertainment of his blog readers? that's somewhat a mystery to my, but perhaps you have some insight here…
-
-
It is fully consistent with APA guidelines to publish anonymized cases. If you have information that he didn't do so, you should report him to APA. But surely you are just a troll.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @_amtiskaw and
It's not about whether he committed a formal APA violation, it's about whether his patients might have been offended if they'd known the way he talked about patients on his blog, and if they'd have had a right to know about him doing so before going to him for treatment
3 replies 2 retweets 99 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @_amtiskaw and
The APA standard doesn't require consent or approval, so this is irrelevant. Any patient can read the APA guidelines and is at risk of being published about anonymously by any psychiatrist. If you have an issue with that, you should take it up with APA, not Scott.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @_amtiskaw and
I just said I don't care about the APA standard and I am not talking about it I'm not part of any professional association that says I can't say Scott's real name if I want to either
2 replies 2 retweets 58 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
I never at any point said I was going to petition the APA to suspend Scott's license What I said was, if a journalist makes it easier for patients to Google Scott's name and see the general way he talks about patients on his blog, I consider it a moral good
1 reply 2 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @_amtiskaw and
If you are actually serious about that, you should petition the APA to change their policy. You now just come across as someone who rationalizes harm to a person you dislike, not a principled person.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @_amtiskaw and
The APA's policy says nothing one way or the other about what journalists should do when writing articles about psychiatrists, since they are not under the authority of the APA
2 replies 3 retweets 61 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mssilverstein @arthur_affect and
I'm arguing for a pretty simple moral rule: if you do something that causes harm and/or goes against someones desires, make sure there is a benefit that outweighs that. I object to the amorality of not doing so. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I just said what the benefit was - Scott's patients actually do have what I consider a moral right to know what kind of person he is and the attitude he holds toward his patients
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
The idea that I should be purposefully forbidden from knowing if my psychiatrist is a fan of eugenics (for a start) is deeply bizarre.
0 replies 3 retweets 22 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.