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.
-
-
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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mssilverstein @NotoriousAapje and
Right, the indefensible part of the argument isn't arguing whether or not Scott is racist, or whether or not him being racist impacts his ability to provide mental health care It's the part where SCOTT'S PATIENTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT THEMSELVES
2 replies 9 retweets 70 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
That's the fatal part of the argument It's not like I'm personally emailing his patient list telling them to drop him as a provider It's saying that having the information *available online* is unethical and harmful
1 reply 4 retweets 54 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
It's saying that if they Google his name and find his blog and read his own words as he posted them for consumption by the public, this will harm his reputation That they're too dumb/ignorant/crazy/brainwashed by wokeness to make that decision, they must be protected from it
2 replies 4 retweets 63 likes
It is astonishingly condescending and hypocritically self-serving It's a disqualifying position in and of itself
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
If you prefer to write pseudononymously you should have that option. Is that seriously the point being debated here?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GabrielObray @arthur_affect and
If the argument is "the media has the right to publicly identify anybody who writes anonymously, anybody who doesn't want to be identified just fears accountability," then what are we even doing here?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like - Show replies
New conversation -
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.