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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @mssilverstein and
Note that the journalist never argued that publishing his real name had any benefit and it is easy to see that it merely did harm to his story. He justified it based on NYT policy, even though there are a ton of examples of the NYT violating it, for far more trivial reasons. 2/3
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Okay, so? You justified what Scott was doing with his blog by saying the APA allows it - not that it *mandates* it it, just that it *doesn't forbid it* which means no one can object
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.