View Single Post
Old 17th February 2020, 07:35 PM   #375
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,144
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
For the most part that simply repeats the rule itself and that they stand by the position.



There is this which clearly notes there are exceptions to diagnosing without a face to face exam:Getting a court order doesn't add to the accuracy of the diagnosis. So let's at least dispense with the nonsense Trump might not have pathologic narcissism.



That get's back to duty to warn. Other than reiterating they don't believe that should be an exception, it's still two groups of professionals who have a different opinions from each other.



None of that addresses a POTUS, or Trump, or the danger of this particular diagnosis, and most importantly, Yale et al haven't used any confidential information acquired in the line of duty so nothing is at issue here except the professional opinion.



Since the APA opinion applies to members, an individual professional has the absolute right to use their expertise as they see fit.



In the end all you have is a difference of opinion.


Ok. Thanks for that.

When a doctor decides not to be a member of a professional association, they are not bound by the ethics code of that organization. I accept that. Thereís no sanction such a doctor could face unless they violate a Medical Board rule or a law.

Does this mean that they get to make up their own ethics rules? Is the law and their conscience the only guide? I canít accept a yes answer to either of those questions.

A doctor either acts ethically or they donít. There has to be some objective standard by which to judge their actions. This idea of idiosyncratic ethics cannot be it.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top