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
-
-
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 @arthur_affect and
I don't think this is true. Lori Leibovich's book went into it a bit. (She's a psychologist who wrote about her patients.)
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @espiers @NotoriousAapje and
Scott's vivid description of both his contempt and *envy* of the convicted domestic abuser who'd had more girlfriends than him certainly crossed what most people would consider to be some sort of line, regardless of what the APA thinks
2 replies 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers and
So do you believe that psychiatrists should be banned from sharing any negative beliefs about certain behaviors or beliefs? Do you believe that anti-racist psychiatrists are in the wrong? Or does this only apply to the 'other?'
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @espiers and
If I ran the APA, sure, I'm a ban-happy Stalinist as we all know But I don't and I wasn't really advocating that Just, you know, the "free marketplace of ideas"
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @NotoriousAapje and
The argument I'm making here isn't that Scott is a racist, or even that being a racist makes him a bad psychiatrist I'm saying at the very least, HIS PATIENTS GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION
2 replies 2 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers and
According to Scott, the consensus in his field is that it's better for patients if they go in without prejudices and the like, because psychiatrists (should) act professionally during their job. I don't trust your judgment on this over those with expertise. 1/2
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @arthur_affect and
I also see the validity in their argument. In contrast, journalists always seem to make arguments for disclosing real names that are only valid in some cases, but then apply that for many other cases. 2/3
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NotoriousAapje @arthur_affect and
And they do so extremely inconsistently and then don't seem to get criticized by their colleagues. Such behavior is not convincing to me. 3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Journalists have to make their own subjective moral judgments at the end of the day about what is and isn't worth talking about - that's how life works They aren't fundamentally different from any private citizen on social media in that respect
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @espiers and
True, but people then get to make their subjective moral judgments about journalists. They seem to often into a huge tizzy over the lack of trust in them.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.