Mental health experts say a new tougher New York state gun control law might interfere with treatment of potentially dangerous people and even discourage them from seeking help.

The law would require therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to tell government authorities if they believe a patient is likely to harm himself or others. That could lead to revoking the patient's gun permit and seizing any guns. (source)

New laws tend to have unintended consequences worse than the conditions or situations they are intended to remedy. The hysteria over the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre has such strange bedfellows as the NRA and some of the most liberal Democrats calling for psychological or psychiatric evaluations of potential gun owners. 

Question: Does the state have enough of an interest to require a breach of the privacy normally holding between a patient and his clinician making the state an invisible presence in the conference room?

Question: Might more mayhem be prevented by letting clinicians do their job rather than imposing requirements on them.?

Question: Might imposing a reporting requirement on clinicians expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his counselor has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?

Question: Given the ambiguities holding between what clients talk about and what they might actually do might a reporting requirement expose clinicians to needless criminal and civil sanctions if their best guess turns out to be wrong and a client they thought safe did something horrendous? The point is, it's a lot easier to judge how dangerous a patient was in retrospect and hold a clinician responsible.

Tags: control, gun, psychiatry, psycology

Views: 1277

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Haha - don't move there!

Hahaha - yes, every week there's one!

At LEAST one. I watched an episode on Netflix last night in which there were three murders. 

Hollyoaks is pretty bad.  There are at least 3 unconvicted murderers walking around in a population of around 30 and one of the lead characters saw her brother dismembering a person he'd killed but seems to have forgotten about it now.

You put your left leg in, you put your left leg out...

Ten means ten. Incongruously one may refuse to acknowledge that ten means ten, or assert that ten means nine. But these incongruous applications do not change the determination that ten means ten.

Likewise for the meaning of wrong. It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.

"Ten" means one thing when applied to cardinal numbers and something else when applied to currency. Beyond that there was a group of painters who exhibited under the name Ten. It could be a code such as "If you have a winning hand, say something with the word 'ten' in it." It's all in how you apply it.

That kind of destroys the second paragraph.

Now, where is my reply to the rest of what you wrote? You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. 

I won't play that game. 

Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.

"Ten" means one thing when applied to cardinal numbers and something else when applied to currency. Beyond that there was a group of painters who exhibited under the name Ten. It could be a code such as "If you have a winning hand, say something with the word 'ten' in it." It's all in how you apply it.

So let's apply it. Add the contextual meaning in each of these cases and see if it works the way you say.

In a context where ten is understood to have a numerical value, then it's incongruous to assert that ten means nine, or that ten does not equal the numerical value of ten.

In a context where ten is understood to mean 'a group of painters' , then it's incongruous to assert that ten means a soup ladle, or that a group of painters named ten is not a group of painters named ten.

In a context where ten is understood to mean 'I have a winning hand', then it's incongruous to assert that ten means 'I have a losing hand', or that a winning hand indicated by saying ten is not a winning hand indicated by saying ten.

Likewise, in a context where wrong is understood to mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest', then it's incongruous to assert that wrong is not wrong, or that something which meets the criteria for being wrong is not wrong.

That kind of destroys the second paragraph.

Of course it doesn't. To destroy the statement you must falsify that: 'It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.'

You not only failed to falsify it, you actually provided more examples to support it, and then claimed (rather outrageously) that you'd done the opposite.

Now, where is my reply to the rest of what you wrote?

That's a good question. You always did have a talent for asking good questions...

You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. I won't play that game.

...paired with a surpassing talent for answering them dishonestly. But don't concern yourself. I know why you won't reply.

You have no sound argument that supports your point. And you're too proud to concede a point. That leaves you without a face-saving exit from the debate, since it escapes you that writing 'you may have a point there' actually IS a face-saving exit. Thus, unsatisfied with your options for ending the debate, you attempt instead to disqualify it. So out come the cheap tricks where you cry foul and accuse me falsely of playing games.

And that brings us to cheap trick number one: He's forcing me to respond!

Really, Unseen. How exactly am I forcing you to respond? Psychic mind control powers?

Be honest with yourself. If you respond it's because you choose to. It's not true that you have no choice. You just experience it that way. That is because, as you've just laid bare, in your mind a failure to respond means conceding me a victory lap (albeit entirely in your imagination).

Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.

And now we come to cheap trick number two: My response is now conditional on your compliance with these demands!

Naturally, you're the sole arbitrator of my compliance. (That's a fascinating observation, by the way, as my writing has been commended for incisiveness and clarity throughout my academic and professional careers.)

Unseen, you're like an absent-minded tour bus driver. You take people for interesting rides. But you take too many wrong turns. Once done you resent riders who suggest you're lost and you're too proud to stop and ask for directions.

Likewise, in a context where wrong is understood to mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest', then it's incongruous to assert that wrong is not wrong, or that something which meets the criteria for being wrong is not wrong.

Different times, different contexts.

That kind of destroys the second paragraph.

Of course it doesn't. To destroy the statement you must falsify that: 'It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.'

You not only failed to falsify it, you actually provided more examples to support it, and then claimed (rather outrageously) that you'd done the opposite.

Different times, different contexts. It's doubtful (and impossible to determine anyway) whether, if you could explain what "wrong" means to us today to a caveman 100,000 years ago what's wrong with "wrong," since being "wrong" to someone was probably a good way to survive.

You have a tendency, it seems, to wear the opponent out with an avalanche of argument and if they don't respond you can declare victory. You're not the first on TA to use this tactic of forcing the opponent to spend a huge amount of time responding. I won't play that game.

And as you can see, I'm not.

...paired with a surpassing talent for answering them dishonestly. But don't concern yourself. I know why you won't reply.

I expected you'd say something along that line.

You have no sound argument that supports your point. And you're too proud to concede a point.

You haven't shown that concepts like "wrong" have any sort of eternality and objectivity to them. How do you explain that Greeks and Egyptions and Persians had no trouble with things we'd call wrong today. The Mayans sacrificed children to please their gods. Were they just very bad people, or did they apply the idea (I can't say word because they spoke Mayan, no English) in a very different way, then. A way that would seem horrific and alien to us?

And that brings us to cheap trick number one: He's forcing me to respond!

Really, Unseen. How exactly am I forcing you to respond? Psychic mind control powers?

You're not forcing me to respond, you're forcing me, if I do respond in kind, to devote a lot of time and energy. So, I won't. You could be a lot more concise.

Break your post up into pieces, make your arguments concise, and I will gladly respond. So, awaiting your next post, here I am.

And now we come to cheap trick number two: My response is now conditional on your compliance with these demands!

How can I make a demand of you? You're as free as you noted I am!

Naturally, you're the sole arbitrator of my compliance. (That's a fascinating observation, by the way, as my writing has been commended for incisiveness and clarity throughout my academic and professional careers.)

Incisiveness and clarity aren't conciseness. I'm probably the sole arbiter of your compliance, if I am, because you and I are probably the only ones reading these posts. Lengthy posts that go on and on tend to drive readers away.

Where do all human beings draw the line between themselves and all things "wrong"?

Right in front of their toes.

The meaning of right and wrong is derived from one's own state of mind, from one's own perspective.

From my perspective...you are all wrong and I'm right. :D

RWikipedia: R (named ar forms/script: ) is the eighteenth letter of the ISO basic Latin alphabet.

Different times, different contexts.

The time and context we're talking about is the slavery era in the old south: a context where 'wrong' meant 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest'. Or are you back to saying the old south had a different language?

Different times, different contexts. It's doubtful (and impossible to determine anyway) whether, if you could explain what "wrong" means to us today to a caveman 100,000 years ago what's wrong with "wrong," since being "wrong" to someone was probably a good way to survive.

Fortunately, it's possible to determine what 'wrong' meant in the old south, so it's unnecessary for me to explain what 'wrong' meant to a caveman.

But it's still necessary for you to falsify the statement: 'It's incongruous to assert that something that meets the criteria for the meaning of wrong is not wrong. The application itself meets the criteria for being wrong.'

That, or demonstrate (at long last) that 'wrong' didn't mean 'unfair, injurious, unjust, incongruous, inaccurate or dishonest' in the old south.

You haven't shown that concepts like "wrong" have any sort of eternality and objectivity to them.

Nor is this necessary to falsify your statement that: slavery in the old south was wrong as a matter of opinion. I was the one who mentioned context and your desperation to change the subject, remember?

You could be a lot more concise.

More of the 'crying foul' routine.

How can I make a demand of you? You're as free as you noted I am!

More of the 'crying foul' routine. How would my freedom prevent you from making demands?

Incisiveness and clarity aren't conciseness.

More of the 'crying foul' routine.

I'm probably the sole arbiter of your compliance, if I am, because you and I are probably the only ones reading these posts. Lengthy posts that go on and on tend to drive readers away.

More of the 'crying foul' routine. You mentioned not playing games but you're playing the 'crying foul' routine rather intently.

Even today, people place different connotations to language and apply language in individualized ways.

Slavery in the old south, according to the meaning of 'wrong' in the old south, was 'unfair, injurious, unjust,'...
In the case of the old South, it's obvious that "wrong" was applied in different ways to free white people and black slaves, probably due to many people feeling that the slaves were subhuman animals.

...and was defended using 'incongruous, inaccurate, or dishonest' arguments, like that one.

Africans are not "subhuman animals". Even if slavers believed this, they were wrong ('inaccurate') as a matter of fact, not opinion.

On that point alone, slavery is unjustifiable ('unjust') thus slavery in the old south was wrong. It follows that it's wrong ('incongruous') not to apply 'wrong-ness' to slavery, when it meets these conditions.

Otherwise—you tell me—how could they treat the slaves as they did? Unless they were just evil people. Were they?

We've already covered this. Exploitation is greatly advantageous to the exploiter, whether it's wrong or not.

If you admit context than you have conceded my point.

Your point is that slavery in the old south was wrong as a matter of opinion. And your point has been falsified many times over. 

@Gallups Mirror

Sorry it took so long to get back. Little matter of my father dying.

In the case of the old South, it's obvious that "wrong" was applied in different ways to free white people and black slaves, probably due to many people feeling that the slaves were subhuman animals.

...and was defended using 'incongruous, inaccurate, or dishonest' arguments, like that one.

...and was defended using (what we todaywould regard as 'incongruous, or dishonest' arguments...

Africans are not "subhuman animals". Even if slavers believed this, they were wrong ('inaccurate') as a matter of fact, not opinion. 

This is what you and I believe today, but unfortunately until DNA came along it wasn't indisputable that other races were subhuman. It's not like proving something in chemistry or physics such as the melting point of gold 

On that point alone, (by today's values) slavery is unjustifiable ('unjust') thus slavery in the old south was wrong (by our lights). It follows that (today we believe) it's wrong ('incongruous') not to apply 'wrong-ness' to slavery, when it meets these conditions.

Otherwise—you tell me—how could they treat the slaves as they did? Unless they were just evil people. Were they?

We've already covered this. Exploitation is greatly advantageous to the exploiter, whether it's wrong or not.
If you admit context than you have conceded my point.
Your point is that slavery in the old south was wrong as a matter of opinion. And your point has been falsified many times over.

So, is it your position that people always knew that slavery was wrong because of what we today would call weak arguments against it? When did humans first start becoming logical? Certainly it wouldn't be hard to find that people in the past believed a lot of things that today we'd call wrong, silly, or outrageous. I'm sure that in the future many of the things we believe today will prove to be factually wrong. Other things will be thought to be silly or outrageous as well. I'm equally sure that many of the moral/ethical positions we hold to be certain today will be held to be wrong.

My point is that values and definitions (how words are used) vary across time. Nothing you've said really disproves that point wrong.

But go ahead, like President Bush on the aircraft carrier deck, declare complete and total victory.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service