Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (74958)	9/17/2003 6:15:28 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

That doesn't sound like a very high incidence rate among therapists, although we really shouldn't have any. And, especially, it doesn't speak to the point in question, at least the point I questioned, which wasn't how many therapists misbehave but how many patients are stimulated to misbehavior. Are you planning to speak to my question about which principle he's standing up for? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was foolish to have a discussion about freedom of conscience and standing up for a principle when we weren't clear, at least I wasn't, on just what the principle was. The issue became fuzzy and we ended up going down some weird paths.

To: one_less who wrote (74958)	9/18/2003 12:33:03 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"However, now that we have platitudinous and demeaning comments (immature, sexually hung-up, etc.) directed at my therapist" For the record: I made NO comments toward or about your therapist , as you are aware. "In the following you may notice that a particularly high percentage of professionals seem to be missing solon's educational lecture <sarcasm>" That is a rather foolish statement. Misconduct and breachs of trust have existed as long as relationships between people have existed. Avoidance of sexual misconduct in fiduciary relationships is a matter of training and a matter of character. The Hippocratic Oath shows us that the potential for sexual misconduct is not a modern phenomenon but is intrinsic to human nature. pbs.org "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves." There was no disagreement between us on the existence of misconduct. Our disagreement was on whether exclusion of clients based on gender or sexual orientation was a choice which inspired confidence in the maturity of the provider. My position was that a person who could rely neither on their training nor their character to eschew exploitation was a person possibly poorly trained, and likely less than fully competent. A competent therapist would obviously not violate the ethical standards required by his profession. Exclusion is the equivalent of the chasity belt solution. Why would a competent therapist need to wear a chasity belt? "Perhaps they have been intimidated by spurious accusations of being immature or sexually hung-up…." Of course, the fact that they WERE violated suggests the likelihood that they WERE immature or sexually hung-up--unless the violation was one of overwhelming force. As you have probably gathered by now, I dislike Chasity Belt solutions to ethical challenges. And I dislike and distrust sexual discrimination being practiced by supposely trained and ethically grounded professionals. Why would a trained and mature professional need to wear a chasity belt?