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: 1272

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

Unseen - I'm sorry about your father.

Thanks. He lived to 92 and died at home surrounded by his family after a long and steady decline followed by a series of medical setbacks and cataclysms. It was time to go. A very loving and generous man who never made an enemy, he will be missed by all who knew him.

RIP to your father

"Tough New York Gun Law May Hold Unintended Consequences" I hope that the politicians that wrote these laws get what's coming to them as a unintended consequence for them, impeached for violating constitutional law. 

Video's are starting to pop up on YouTube, apparently there are a few gun owners in NY State at are a bit upset at the new law and those who voted it in.

Question: Does mandatory reporting by doctors and hospitals of gunshot wounds have any beneficial advantages? "Might imposing a reporting requirement on" doctors and hospitals "expose them to homicidal danger once the client realizes that his" doctor or hospital "has breached the shell of confidentiality holding between them?"

Question: Does mandatory reporting by teachers, hospitals, doctors and counselors of suspected child abuse or child sexual abuse have any beneficial advantages? Shouldn't we let these people "do their job rather than imposing requirements on them" while the abuse continues?

After all, a pound of cure is worth an ounce of prevention --

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service