Quite the contrary he openly admits that there is no way of knowing who among potential
clients would be seriously at risk of harm once engaged in massage services. He, however,
knows that many persons are being harmed by the lack of regard for the risks. The risk is
high that many more will be harmed in a situation which may not be maneagable by
defining ethics codes and managing agencies. It is not necessary to involve people in this
kind of serious harm and risk of harm, and I have yet to see you or yours provide a
description of the benefits of forcing people to be involved in this manner.
He is not prejudging individuals, he is prejudging (accurately) the risks endemic to the
circumstance.
There is simply no basis for this position. Many, many opposite gender therapy sessions are undertaken daily with no harm to either party. If there are indeed therapists who are harming clients, that obviously needs to be dealt with in the proper way. But he, actually, is in the BEST position to protect female clients because he is so aware of the potential danger. By turning these clients down, he is forcing them to seek treatment from therapists who may be less protective of them. Thus, he is INCREASING the potential of harm to them.
His proper approach, if the protection of female clients is really his goal, is to take ONLY female clients because he is so acutely aware of the dangers that he will make sure that as soon as a problematic situation begins to arise he will terminate the therapy immediately. Women are totally safe in his hands. Indeed, he may be one of the few, if your views of the extent of the problem are accurate, male therapists that a woman could go to with complete assurance of safety. Thus, his true obligation, if the protection of women is really his major concern, is, as I say, to open a practice dealing exclusively with the most potentially vulnerable females and make clear how totally safe they are in his hands. |
