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: Lane3 who wrote (75007)	9/18/2003 1:22:01 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I have not passed. I simply see no point if we cannot identify an issue of conscience. If we can come to an agreement that (some) people do make decisions as a matter of conscience, then we can explore whether or not that is a freedom that is or should be protected. If I remember right you have been dismissive on the conscience thing. I see only one ethical issue that has been directed at my masseus: ”Acknowledge the inherent worth and individuality of each person by not discriminating or behaving in any prejudicial manner with clients and/or colleagues. Is there any evidence that my masseus has not considered the inherent worth of individual clients or colleagues? I can see how a case could be made for that (you and solon did make a case). So, there is a need to defend the masseus's position as warranted. He has qualified his position as one that is respectful of the sexual natures and sensitivities of the public; Not as one that would likely bring harm to those who do not qualify for his service and would be better served in another clinic. <<<Prejudicial 1 : tending to injure or impair : 2 : leading to premature judgment or unwarranted opinion Discrimination Applying favoritism in treatment. To make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit.>>> No. He has built a clientele of heterosexual men only. His clients are all treated equally as far as we know. Is he prejudiced in his treatment. There is no evidence that his interactions with others tend to injure or impair or that he has made premature judgements or offered unwarranted opinions. To the contrary, your opinion that it is the norm for therapists and clients to simply switch off their sexuality is not supported by the data I offered. The point of the data was obviously to paint the situation as one that is pervasive. Any other interpretation is clearly avoidance. My masseus’s opinion is by far more supported by this data than yours. When placed in the context of the other ethical items, his position is supported… especially this one “Accept responsibility to do no harm to the physical, mental and emotional well-being of self, clients, and associates.” His position may make you uncomfortable in light of mainstream conventions. It, however, is a very ethical stand. Far more than therapists who refuse to consider the level of risk, the sensual nature endemically involved in the experience …and their admirers. As a matter of conscience he has refused to pretend that the sensual nature of this experience does not effect a significant portion of society (even though, as you have demonstrated, there is a lot of pressure to just keep quiet about it). A significant portion of society has a natural attraction to think about sex quite often during the day. When they are in an intimate and sensual situation with someone that represents a potential source of sexual attraction they are and often do become sexualized in the experience (as the reports I supplied demonstrate). We cannot claim that the persons implicated in these reports were not trained or educated, or at least that lack of information was the problem. That being the case, his opinion and conscientious stand is warranted.