![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 7 to 31 of 48. Go back in thread:
Posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:09:03
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 13:26:09
"Therapists have professional communities that should be policing them. Why do you think they have so much trouble identifying abusive members?"
Hence my point about communities - no matter what profession or status - there are rules - they may be broken, but I can guarantee you this doctor will not hold the same position in the community - if he holds one at all.
Maybe I'm wrong, but he later lost his license.
Posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:14:20
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:06:47
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21107363-2,00.html
Dog collar and whip therapy 'just rubbish'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21149145-1702,00.html
So again, he is being removed from practicing & the community -
She was taken advantage of, no question.But I still believe you need to research into ethical practice and treatment providers as well.
Posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 14:36:59
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:09:03
> Hence my point about communities - no matter what profession or status - there are rules - they may be broken, but I can guarantee you this doctor will not hold the same position in the community - if he holds one at all.
But my question is HOW did he get admitted into the community in the first place? Why did the Psychological Association of Australia accept someone into their profession who believes it is good practice to put a dog collar on his patient? Why was he allowed be a psychologist? If all of his professors and fellow students and colleagues could not see that he was abusive, how on earth is a vulnerable person suffering from a mental illness supposed to make that determination BEFORE they are abused?
Posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 14:44:32
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:06:47
> I don't know if the metaphor makes sense but they are not, in any way, the same or relative.Oh, I think they absolutely are relative. But I think we are on completely different pages on this topic.
Even someone having a heart attack retains the right to refuse treatment.
Posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 15:07:59
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:06:47
> I wouldn't even trust my car to just *any* mechanic - would you?
No.If you acknowledge that there are inept and abusive "mechanics" then how can you ethically force mentally ill people to go to them against their will?
Posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 18:31:49
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 15:07:59
I did not say, nor ever advocate for a anyone to be treated against their will. Ever.
It should be your right to choose.
I stiil believe that if your are an academic community to which certain rules are held - than if you should choose to try to kill yourself, then you are either given the choice to try to accept help or leave school. I don't the point to trying to go to school if you are planning to kill yourself anyway - that was one of points of the article - you are working to finish a 4 year degree - for a future -
you don't *need* to be in school to suicide. But that's beside the point. It's not *forcing* someone into treatment if you say to someone "doing x.y.z has this consequence - if you choose not accept the consequence - (in this case go gte help) than you can longer be a part of the community. here is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In this community there are rules that if you do not adhere to, you are essentially asked to leave for a period of time. It's not *forcing* you to do anything.
Psych associations train people - they have no clue or idea that giving someone a degree, they will hurt a patient. It is insincere to think otherwise.
Posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 19:39:52
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 18:31:49
> I did not say, nor ever advocate for a anyone to be treated against their will. Ever.
I have misunderstood you. I apologize if I have misrepresented your position inadvertently.
> I stiil believe that if your are an academic community to which certain rules are held - than if you should choose to try to kill yourself, then you are either given the choice to try to accept help or leave school.So you believe it is acceptable for a university to mandate therapy for suicidal patients and to expel them if they refuse?
Do you also think it would be acceptable for the same university to mandate chemotherapy for students with cancer and to expel them if they refuse?
Both conditions are potentially fatal, except one is a physical illness and the other is a mental one.
I think most people would be against the university interfering in a student's decisions concerning their physical health (obviously contagious conditions are an exception). But, unfortunately, the same respect is not usually afforded to people regarding their mental health.
> Psych associations train people - they have no clue or idea that giving someone a degree, they will hurt a patient. It is insincere to think otherwise.
Really???? You do not believe that it is terribly troubling that associations and universities seem unable to screen the people they train as therapists for characterological and psychological problems? You think it is reasonable that they "have no clue or idea...they will hurt a patient." That over years and years of education, no one notices the person has serious ethical failings.
Posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 20:01:51
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 18:31:49
> Psych associations train people - they have no clue or idea that giving someone a degree, they will hurt a patient. It is insincere to think otherwise.
I'm really curious how you think a patient is supposed to "learn how to spot [bad therapists] and avoid them" when you believe psychological associations "have no clue or idea" and you think it is insincere to believe they could or would.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 7:40:35
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 1, 2007, at 20:01:51
I can see we are at odds on this subject so I will only say these few things. Most people go into the helping professions to help, not to harm. A small minority of professionals have serious failings even so.
There is no way to know that once they are practicing, if serious violations occur because of the confidentiality of the therapy relationship. It happens in a room between two people and no one knows what's going on. There is no meeting where dr. y says "oh yeah, by the way I had patient x in a dog collar" -
professionals don't discuss patients because of confidentiality unless it's a consult. & then the patient must sign a waiver saying it's OK to discuss -
That is a fact. It is a part of the "standard of care".
So, I'm not understanding your point about associations/other professionals *knowing* about abuses.
However, there are "standards of care" that every profession adheres to. There are accepted treatment plans - they are also not secrets.
Patients can seek the information as to what is acceptable and what is not & if it seems suspect then perhaps this is not the person you should be seeing. You can research practitioners. It is suggested one should do so.
Being an informed patient/client is imprtant in seeking any kind of treatment.Would you agree or disagree?
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 7:40:35
> I can see we are at odds on this subject so I will only say these few things.
Even though we do disagree, I have really enjoyed talking with you.
> There is no way to know that once they are practicing, if serious violations occur because of the confidentiality of the therapy relationship.Yes. Once they are practicing. But I keep wondering HOW they were granted their degrees in the first place. Someone who is capable of beating his patients and treating them like dogs has serious problems that I can't believe magically appeared after he started practicing. If clinicians are able to diagnose patients, why can they not diagnose each other? Why aren't deviants screened out before they do harm? But I've posted this question several times and no one has answered, probably because there is no good explanation (see my post about Tyrell above).
>There is no meeting where dr. y says "oh yeah, by the way I had patient x in a dog collar"No, I agree it is doubtful the doctor tells colleagues directly that he puts patients in dog collars. But his colleagues are psychologists and psychiatrists. Shouldn't they be able to tell in their interactions with him, by comments he makes, opinions he shares, the ways in which he speaks about his patients, that there is something seriously wrong with him? If they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?
> professionals don't discuss patients because of confidentiality unless it's a consult. & then the patient must sign a waiver saying it's OK to discuss -
> That is a fact. It is a part of the "standard of care".But they MUST practice only under supervision for years first. They are closely monitored and supervised and assessed and graded -- by other clinicians. Again, why aren't they screened out.
> So, I'm not understanding your point about associations/other professionals *knowing* about abuses.I honestly cannot grasp how they cannot. If they were accountants standing around saying they had no idea Bob was an embezzler, I could maybe understand that. They are accountants. They are trained to know numbers. But these are psychiatric professionals. They are supposedly trained to know people's mental health status.
> Being an informed patient/client is imprtant in seeking any kind of treatment.
> Would you agree or disagree?I completely agree with you - with a caveat. What you are suggesting is easily done by the worried well. But people who are more seriously mentally ill are not in a position where they are able to do this. It is unreasonable to expect them to be able to. Someone who is seriously depressed can barely get out of bed, let alone research therapy practice standards.
You agree that there are predatory doctors but believe the onus is on the patients to screen and protect themselves (unless I've misunderstood you?)
I believe training programs and associations need to take more responsibility and acknowledge that predators are slipping through the cracks and implement more effective screening procedures.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:44:42
In reply to Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by zazenduckie on February 1, 2007, at 9:04:19
I'm sorry Zazenduckie, it seems that I have hijacked your thread. You've been silent since your first post.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:00:17
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
"If clinicians are able to diagnose patients, why can they not diagnose each other? "
Theyaren't diagnosing each other because they aren't doing therapy on each other.
"Again, why aren't they screened out" - the supervision isn't that long & problems show up much later - this guy was 64.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:02:08
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 8:30:51
"If they were accountants standing around saying they had no idea Bob was an embezzler, I could maybe understand that. They are accountants. They are trained to know numbers. But these are psychiatric professionals. They are supposedly trained to know people's mental health status."
This idea only works if they are working together on a case. Otherwise it doesn't - it's like saying if you're an accountant how come you didn't see enron coming? You don't work at enron so you couldn't possibly know.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:32:43
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:00:17
> Theyaren't diagnosing each other because they aren't doing therapy on each other.Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes. My point is that if they have the skills to assess patients, why do they not have the skills to assess each other? And don't they have a moral duty to?
> "Again, why aren't they screened out" - the supervision isn't that long & problems show up much later - this guy was 64.But it takes YEARS to earn a doctorate and even after you are granted your degree, you have another year of supervised practice (at least in my country).
When you say "this guy was 64" do you mean that you think he practiced for thirty some odd years without any ethical lapses and suddenly something changed and he thought completely out of the blue it was fine to treat his patients like dogs? Tyrell used his patients as sexual slaves for more than twenty years.
I think whatever character flaw allows a person to do these kinds of sick things to other vulnerable human beings is present their whole life. I think it would have been present during their training. (Although there are people who undergo personality changes after head injuries or brain tumors. I don't think that's the case here).
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:43:25
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:02:08
> This idea only works if they are working together on a case. Otherwise it doesn't - it's like saying if you're an accountant how come you didn't see enron coming? You don't work at enron so you couldn't possibly know.
Of course. I certainly don't expect other clinicians who have had absolutely no contact or interactions with a doctor to know if he is abusive.
(I just realized in my last posts I wrote Tyrell but meant to write Tyhurst)
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:48:19
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 9:32:43
Life isn't perfect and bad professionals get into every profession and create havoc. I've said that and am saying it again.
By also stand by the prior things I've said & will leave it at that.
"Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes."
This is not true and somewhat provocative - not everyone has had the same terrible experiences as you have. Good practioners are out there & will not diagnose only after a few hours. Forensic pdocs do not diagnosis - they are called into observe.
I feel you are making alot of generalizations and assumptions.
People generally want to help and not hurt people further. I don't believe that most people would turn a blind eye to a bad professional. Does it happen yes.But do I think it's instutionalized as you imply? Absolutley not.
I'm sorry you have had some bad experiences, but don't translate that to mean *everyone*.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 10:06:00
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 9:48:19
> This is not true and somewhat provocativeBut it absolutely is true. What do you think I am lying about? Clinicians are hired to assess people for courts and testify about their ability to parent or whether they were truly injured in a car accident or whether they are responsible for their actions in criminal cases after spending only hours with them. Psychiatrists can and do lock people up and drug them after talking to them for less than an hour.
>not everyone has had the same terrible experiences as you have.I have never said that everybody has. But isn't it awful that these things happened to me. Why do you seem to find my expressing my experiences so offensive? The fact that I was abused does not mean that there are no "good practitioners out there" but it does mean there is a problem that needs to be recognized and addressed.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 10:06:00
>>"t it absolutely is true. What do you think I am lying about? Clinicians are hired to assess people for courts and testify about their ability to parent or whether they were truly injured in a car accident or whether they are responsible for their actions in criminal cases after spending only hours with them. Psychiatrists can and do lock people up and drug them after talking to them for less than an hour."
Assess is the KEY word. Assessing is not diagnosing. You are assessed in an ER but you are not diagnosed. Same thing with courts. They are not the same thing.
I never said you were lying either. I said I do not agree with with you and that the assumptions and generalizations are not true. Please do not make assumptions about my statements.
The problem does need to be recognized and addressed; I never said it didn't need to be - i also said multiple times it is good practice to do research - the woman was wearing a dog collar was not in the ER - she was in long term therapy - for which it would be good as a patient to be informed as to practices as I stated multiple times before.
>>"I have never said that everybody has. But isn't it awful that these things happened to me. Why do you seem to find my expressing my experiences so offensive? "
??? I'm not offended & have never said I was so please don't put words in my mouth.
I said I do not agree with your assumptions and generalizations because you aren't talking just about *your* experience - you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
That's not fair.
Sorry you have had bad experiences but if you are going to talk about you and your experience, than do so - but again, please don't generalize.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:02:03
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
> Assess is the KEY word. Assessing is not diagnosing. You are assessed in an ER but you are not diagnosed. Same thing with courts. They are not the same thing.Yes, I am being vague and using assess and diagnose interchangeably. But my point remains the same - that clinicians should be assessing/diagnosing each other for pathology before they are granted degrees and admission into professional associations.
> I never said you were lying either. I said I do not agree with with youYou actually wrote "this is not true" not I disagree with this point.
>Please do not make assumptions about my statements.I am trying not to. But can't you see how you are making many many assumptions about mine. That I'm somehow saying that there are no good therapists???? Or saying that everyone has had bad therapy experiences???? What generalizations exactly am I making? I don't believe I am making any. I think you are assuming generalizations where I'm not making any. If you could point them out to me, perhaps I can clarify.
> The problem does need to be recognized and addressed; I never said it didn't need to be - i also said multiple times it is good practice to do research - the woman was wearing a dog collar was not in the ER - she was in long term therapy - for which it would be good as a patient to be informed as to practices as I stated multiple times before.
See, the way I am reading your posts is that it is the patient who is responsible for not entering into abusive therapeutic relationships. When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.
> ??? I'm not offended & have never said I was so please don't put words in my mouth.No, you never did say you were offended. I didn't put words in your mouth. I said that you "seemed" to be, by the tone of your posts, but that could easily be the way that I am reading them. Posts lack facial expression and tone of voice, all the nonverbal cues that help someone determine the intent behind the words. That is why people can get so quickly upset by emails. They can't "hear" what is being said.
>you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
Um. I don't understand your point exactly. Are you upset that I am saying ALL training programs should be more closely screening ALL their trainees?
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:02:03
these are very big generalization in my opinion.
>>>>Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes.
These are big assumptions in my opinion
>>>they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?”“>>>When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.”
You have assumed I thought something which I did not.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:29:55
In reply to assumptions and generalizations, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
& definitions
assumption -1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.
2. the act of taking for granted or supposing.
generalizing1. to infer (a general principle, trend, etc.) from particular facts, statistics, or the like.
2. to infer or form (a general principle, opinion, conclusion, etc.) from only a few facts, examples, or the like.
3. to give a general rather than a specific or special character or form to.
4. to make general; bring into general use or knowledge.Just to be clear.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 11:45:32
In reply to assumptions and generalizations, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 11:18:58
> these are very big generalization in my opinion.
>
> >>>>Ah, they don't need to do therapy in order to diagnose. In fact, society gives them a great deal of power on the assumption that they are capable of determining someone's mental status after very, very short interactions. Clinicians testify in courts after spending only hours with a person they are hired to assess and can commit, imprison and drug someone against their will after talking to them for only minutes.
To discuss this issue, it is necessary to make some generalizations, meaning "a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class." It is impossible to discuss any large issue otherwise. I could understand your taking offense if I was making untrue statements like "all psychiatrists are abusive" but I'm not.I don't understand your objections to the above paragraph. Society does grant psychiatrists powers that are not afforded to someone in the general public. That is a generalization that is absolutely true. Their opinion holds a great deal of weight because they have been trained to assess people's mental status. So, in divorce cases, the judge will listen to a clinician's opinion about who should be granted custody, an opinion they have reached after spending only a few hours with the parent(s) because society believes that doctor has special knowledge. Or in criminal cases, the judge asks the psychiatrist's opinion about the person's ability to know right from wrong. And psychiatrists can and do commit people. Society lets them do these things because it believes psychiatrists are able to make assessments about people's mental status. My point was they testify in court and commit people after spending a very short time amount of time with patients in comparison to the years they spend with each other in training. I don't understand your objection to these points or how you view them as untrue or unfair generalizations.
> These are big assumptions in my opinion
> >>>they are completely unable to tell, which may be true, then how can they maintain that they are capable of judging their patient's mental status?”You left off the "if" This is not an assumption. It is logical problem I am struggling to comprehend. I am asking a question.
>
> “>>>When I read this I interpret you to mean that she should have researched good therapy practices and realized that wearing a dog collar was bad practice. You hold her responsible for wearing it. But she's ill and vulnerable and by the time this guy is putting a collar on her, she was so brainwashed and twisted up and trusting that she isn't really in a position to protect herself.”
>
> You have assumed I thought something which I did not.Again, it is a question. I wrote clearly "I interpret you to mean." I am asking you to clarify or correct me if I am interpreting you wrongly.
Posted by toojane on February 2, 2007, at 12:18:41
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 10:23:27
> you are speaking about an enormous group people over and over in a very general way.
And you are as well. When you write...
People generally want to help and not hurt people further. I don't believe that most people would turn a blind eye to a bad professional
those are generalizations. "Most people" is a generalization. That is a belief you hold. It is an essential part of having a conversation about a large issue because it is impossible to talk about specific incidents only. The fact that you are making a generalization does not make what you've said necessarily inaccurate or "not fair"
Posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:05:37
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER*, posted by one woman cine on February 1, 2007, at 14:09:03
I can't agree with you. I was treated by just such a psychiatrist - respected, retired Head of Department of a well-known university and three hospitals that fall under it. He used the excuse that he needed to give me meds via intramuscular injection to strip me, fondle me and rape me. He died in his bed several years later, still respected and revered. His community never said a word. I am sure I was not his only victim, just one of the last of a sordid string of unhappy women. I never had the courage to say anything, believing it was my fault that I had been so sexually provocative that he was forced to respond. I am sure that the others before me believed the same thing. I hope that at some point they were able to see the truth.
Posted by one woman cine on February 2, 2007, at 13:10:53
In reply to Re: Abusive therapist *TRIGGER* » one woman cine, posted by vwoolf on February 2, 2007, at 13:05:37
I am really sorry to hear that - did other people know of the abuse? Or they just assumed he was joe good guy - people in respected positions do abuse others - I'd be shocked to find out other people knew it was going on and did nothing.
But I am sorry this happened to you.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.