I don't understand why anyone frames much of anything in terms of what is "deserved" rather than what's pragmatic and sensible in the interest of a society where good ideas can live in the public domain prior to absolutely perfect consensus over them.
-
I don't even see why having opinions that aren't shared with clients would be a "conflict of interest." It's true of literally every psychiatrist who has ever lived who wasn't just a block of wood with a smile painted on.
Insofar as Scott talks about working w patients, I've only ever seen him explicitly use fictionalized vignettes. To break confidentiality would be a much bigger issue. Would I want to know if my own doctor fictionalized an account based on me? Sure. Am I entitled to that? No.
