![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 34. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2001, at 11:00:55
In reply to Dr. Bob to the white courtesy phone PLEASE, posted by Zo on August 22, 2001, at 23:44:09
> This is clearly an important issue that needs to be settled, there are so many people in need on the board
Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Bob
Posted by Willow on August 23, 2001, at 12:07:31
In reply to Re: to the white courtesy phone, posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2001, at 11:00:55
The arguement is over wether anybody can offer assistance to someone who is feeling suicidal? Do you need to be a "professional?"
Whistling Willow
Posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 12:17:47
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue » SalArmy4me, posted by akc on August 23, 2001, at 10:03:37
AKC,
Interestingly my son took First Responder First aid, for Red Cross and Mountineering. Basically what to do when you are three days from anywhere. I will have to ask him if they talked about mental illness issues, but it did come up ubout people hiking out for help. They passed someone with a cell phone and that person did not and did not have to help, he said he would be liable if he did offer. It required the people to keep walking for two days and return with help.
Another interesting bit, is if you see an accident on the side of the road, with the police officers waving traffic through, even if you are trained, you do not stop to offer help.
There is a reason we pay our taxes.
And sometimes you can only do so much.
A retired Mighty Mouse.
> Actually, this is not true. Almost all states do not have good Samaritan laws. You can stand by and watch someone die -- whether by their own hand or by accident -- and not come to their aid. It is one of the first principles you study in law school -- law professors love it because of the ethics behind it. Why is it that in the U.S. we don't have such statutes, whereas must European countries do? I don't know where you live Sal, so maybe your state or community has some type of rescue statute, but generally in America, there is no duty to rescue.
>
> AKC
>
> > Everyone is technically licensed to prevent suicide-- In fact, in the U.S., you can be imprisoned or sued for not trying to prevent the death of someone who is known to be suicidal!
> >
> > > I say, let's hear from the only one of us *licensed* to do this.
> > >
> > > Zo
Posted by akc on August 23, 2001, at 13:06:36
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue, posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 12:17:47
Let me make a disclaimer here -- I'm not saying you shouldn't help -- I'm just saying the law doesn't require it. What has happened under the U.S. common law system is that if you help, but then screw it up, a person can sue you for being negligent. So people may advise you (as it sounds like happened in this course) that you would be better of not to help. What a cold-hearted society we have become if we don't help each other because we are afraid of being sued. There are states who are passing statutes to protect people from these types of lawsuits. However, professionals are still held to a higher duty of care even in most places with this type of statute in place. But note -- even where places have these types of statutes that protect a person from being sued if they help a person in need and mess it up, there is still no duty to rescue. So the solution is to just not help.
This is the ethical debate that occurs in law school. What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to force people to help each other? What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to protect each other from a lawsuit when we have tried to help one another? Where is the line? You see a person walking on the side of a busy highway. Is that person just going to get gas for his car? Or is he suicidal about to walk out into traffic? As a female, do I pull over and offer help? Maybe he is a serial rapist? How do I judge? If he is suidical and I don't stop, and there is a law on the books, should I be arrested and thrown in jail for not helping? Which car passing by is the one who should have known? Now this is maybe a slightly absurd demonstration, but it makes the point I think -- it is hard to legislate this type of ethical behavior -- this reaching out to people in need of help. Personally, I think our first response should be to help those in need.
But then, being the good law professor I am, I have to argue the other side of this ongoing debate regarding people who are suicidal. I am nowhere qualified to help someone who is actively suicidal. I look back to the evening that I was suicidal myself. I went to an AA meeting. I shared -- I told those folks I was suicidal. Most ignored it. A few didn't. Of those few, I had a few try to counsel me -- as in don't take my meds (true oldtimers, don't put any pills in your body), etc. Only one person tried to get me to see I needed to go to the hospital. What I needed was someone who knew how to handle a suicidal person to speak with me. The person trying to get me to the hospital had the right idea.
So how will I "rescue" a person who is suicidal? I believe my duty with someone who is actively suicidal is simple -- I have to do anything I can to get that person to talk to someone who has the training to handle that or to get that person to go to an ER.
akc
> AKC,
>
> Interestingly my son took First Responder First aid, for Red Cross and Mountineering. Basically what to do when you are three days from anywhere. I will have to ask him if they talked about mental illness issues, but it did come up ubout people hiking out for help. They passed someone with a cell phone and that person did not and did not have to help, he said he would be liable if he did offer. It required the people to keep walking for two days and return with help.
>
> Another interesting bit, is if you see an accident on the side of the road, with the police officers waving traffic through, even if you are trained, you do not stop to offer help.
>
> There is a reason we pay our taxes.
>
> And sometimes you can only do so much.
>
> A retired Mighty Mouse.
>
>
> > Actually, this is not true. Almost all states do not have good Samaritan laws. You can stand by and watch someone die -- whether by their own hand or by accident -- and not come to their aid. It is one of the first principles you study in law school -- law professors love it because of the ethics behind it. Why is it that in the U.S. we don't have such statutes, whereas must European countries do? I don't know where you live Sal, so maybe your state or community has some type of rescue statute, but generally in America, there is no duty to rescue.
> >
> > AKC
> >
> > > Everyone is technically licensed to prevent suicide-- In fact, in the U.S., you can be imprisoned or sued for not trying to prevent the death of someone who is known to be suicidal!
> > >
> > > > I say, let's hear from the only one of us *licensed* to do this.
> > > >
> > > > Zo
Posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 14:22:34
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue » susan C, posted by akc on August 23, 2001, at 13:06:36
AkC
thank you for your very clear post. I am partial to giving advice I myself have benefited from, things that are simple and to the point...you are suicidal? call your doctor. He is not available? go to the hospital. Sometimes I need a nudge myself, like today, to hear: give him a call.
I once shared with my nail tech (yes I admit to getting fake nails on occassion, another story) about being in a car accident...he said, oh, how did you find your attorney, on the TV? I said, no, referral from my family attorney and financial advisor. Oh, well, he says, and proceeds to tell me about a friend of his who was a para legal who could spend a week end with me and show me how to do it for free and get much more money...etc. I am sorry, I do not take legal advice from my nail technican, no matter how good he is with making my hands look beautiful. I did not ask for his friends name. I pay for professional advice like I pay for insurance. For peace of mind.
But, then, I guess, we all are guilty of giving unwanted advice at one time or t'other.
A mouse wandering around a little confused
> Let me make a disclaimer here -- I'm not saying you shouldn't help -- I'm just saying the law doesn't require it. What has happened under the U.S. common law system is that if you help, but then screw it up, a person can sue you for being negligent. So people may advise you (as it sounds like happened in this course) that you would be better of not to help. What a cold-hearted society we have become if we don't help each other because we are afraid of being sued. There are states who are passing statutes to protect people from these types of lawsuits. However, professionals are still held to a higher duty of care even in most places with this type of statute in place. But note -- even where places have these types of statutes that protect a person from being sued if they help a person in need and mess it up, there is still no duty to rescue. So the solution is to just not help.
>
> This is the ethical debate that occurs in law school. What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to force people to help each other? What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to protect each other from a lawsuit when we have tried to help one another? Where is the line? You see a person walking on the side of a busy highway. Is that person just going to get gas for his car? Or is he suicidal about to walk out into traffic? As a female, do I pull over and offer help? Maybe he is a serial rapist? How do I judge? If he is suidical and I don't stop, and there is a law on the books, should I be arrested and thrown in jail for not helping? Which car passing by is the one who should have known? Now this is maybe a slightly absurd demonstration, but it makes the point I think -- it is hard to legislate this type of ethical behavior -- this reaching out to people in need of help. Personally, I think our first response should be to help those in need.
>
> But then, being the good law professor I am, I have to argue the other side of this ongoing debate regarding people who are suicidal. I am nowhere qualified to help someone who is actively suicidal. I look back to the evening that I was suicidal myself. I went to an AA meeting. I shared -- I told those folks I was suicidal. Most ignored it. A few didn't. Of those few, I had a few try to counsel me -- as in don't take my meds (true oldtimers, don't put any pills in your body), etc. Only one person tried to get me to see I needed to go to the hospital. What I needed was someone who knew how to handle a suicidal person to speak with me. The person trying to get me to the hospital had the right idea.
>
> So how will I "rescue" a person who is suicidal? I believe my duty with someone who is actively suicidal is simple -- I have to do anything I can to get that person to talk to someone who has the training to handle that or to get that person to go to an ER.
>
> akc
>
> > AKC,
> >
> > Interestingly my son took First Responder First aid, for Red Cross and Mountineering. Basically what to do when you are three days from anywhere. I will have to ask him if they talked about mental illness issues, but it did come up ubout people hiking out for help. They passed someone with a cell phone and that person did not and did not have to help, he said he would be liable if he did offer. It required the people to keep walking for two days and return with help.
> >
> > Another interesting bit, is if you see an accident on the side of the road, with the police officers waving traffic through, even if you are trained, you do not stop to offer help.
> >
> > There is a reason we pay our taxes.
> >
> > And sometimes you can only do so much.
> >
> > A retired Mighty Mouse.
> >
> >
> > > Actually, this is not true. Almost all states do not have good Samaritan laws. You can stand by and watch someone die -- whether by their own hand or by accident -- and not come to their aid. It is one of the first principles you study in law school -- law professors love it because of the ethics behind it. Why is it that in the U.S. we don't have such statutes, whereas must European countries do? I don't know where you live Sal, so maybe your state or community has some type of rescue statute, but generally in America, there is no duty to rescue.
> > >
> > > AKC
> > >
> > > > Everyone is technically licensed to prevent suicide-- In fact, in the U.S., you can be imprisoned or sued for not trying to prevent the death of someone who is known to be suicidal!
> > > >
> > > > > I say, let's hear from the only one of us *licensed* to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zo
Posted by Zo on August 23, 2001, at 17:25:08
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob to the white courtesy phone PLEASE » Zo, posted by SalArmy4me on August 23, 2001, at 9:48:10
Sal, sorry I wan't clear.
I meant: To practice medicine. To make the life and death calls.
Posted by Zo on August 23, 2001, at 17:25:09
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob to the white courtesy phone PLEASE » Zo, posted by SalArmy4me on August 23, 2001, at 9:48:10
Sal, sorry I wan't clear.
I meant: To practice medicine. To make the life and death calls.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2001, at 18:08:37
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue » susan C, posted by akc on August 23, 2001, at 13:06:36
> The arguement is over wether anybody can offer assistance to someone who is feeling suicidal? Do you need to be a "professional?"
Thanks... Maybe one way to look at this is that it depends on the type of assistance. *Treatment* is usually better coming from a professional. But one doesn't have to be a professional to provide *support*. Which is what Psycho-Babble's all about, after all. I thought SalArmy4me put it nicely when he said you don't need a license to care:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010809/msgs/74304.html
If someone's suicidal, the stakes are higher, but I think the same principles apply.
> I am nowhere qualified to help someone who is actively suicidal. I look back to the evening that I was suicidal myself. I went to an AA meeting. I shared -- I told those folks I was suicidal. Most ignored it. A few didn't. Of those few, I had a few try to counsel me -- as in don't take my meds (true oldtimers, don't put any pills in your body), etc. Only one person tried to get me to see I needed to go to the hospital. What I needed was someone who knew how to handle a suicidal person to speak with me. The person trying to get me to the hospital had the right idea.One thing that's nice about support groups is that different people will try to help in different ways, so you have different options to consider.
Maybe someone else (another old-timer?) would've felt more supported by the no-pill approach. If there's a diversity of perspectives, there's more likely to be one that's helpful.
> So how will I "rescue" a person who is suicidal? I believe my duty with someone who is actively suicidal is simple -- I have to do anything I can to get that person to talk to someone who has the training to handle that or to get that person to go to an ER.
And by doing that, you're "offering assistance" to them. In a perfectly appropriate way. :-)
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 21:35:12
In reply to Re: whether anybody can offer assistance , posted by Dr. Bob on August 23, 2001, at 18:08:37
Bob - How do you know Sal is going to direct that person to an ER? That assumption cannot be made. What if he tells people to pray to Judeo-Christian god? That can be dangerous if one is not Christian.
He is, more and more, asking people to talk to him on AOL Messenger (because he likes taking in "real time"). This takes away the safety net of other posters. This situation may be amusing to you, but it frightens the hell out of me. Sal has good intentions, but (as I said before) the graveyard is full of good intentions. Are you willing to take partial responsibility for anyone he may kill with his advice?
Sal is playing doctor (living vicariously through his dad). He thinks that he is being helpful by dissmenintating information he doesn't understand. I really hope that you read his posts a lttile more carefully, and see what is really going on here.
- Cam
Posted by Zo on August 23, 2001, at 22:18:46
In reply to Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest! » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 21:35:12
Cam, Are you okay?
Right now, the only alarming thing on the whole board is *your* alarm over Sal.
I wish I knew you and your life well enough to offer something helpful, supportive. Saying that you're over the top about this. .. is meant to be that support / reality feedback.
My Very Best,
Zo
Posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 23:16:45
In reply to Re: Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest! » Cam W., posted by Zo on August 23, 2001, at 22:18:46
Zo - I really don't think you see the seriousness of what Sal is saying, and especially how he is saying it.
I am sure that I am not the only one who find's Sal's methods to be very odd. My alarm over Sal is justified. He is playing with fire, especially with his on-on-one therapy via AOL Messenger and his advocation of self-medication. He posts studies he does not understand and prescribes medication.
From now on, I will stand back and let him do his harm. I only hope that he doesn't do permanent damage, but I do hope he is held accountable.
I have seen what happens when well meaning people try to "help", when they don't have the training. Sal has gone beyond compassion.
My last post on this. - Cam (yes, I am okay, but very concerned for the safety of others).
BTW - Does it strike you as odd that some of Sal's supporters have a writing style that is very characteristic of his? I am not the only one to notice this, either. - C.
Posted by Zo on August 24, 2001, at 0:25:11
In reply to Re: The Trees, Not The Forest! » Zo, posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 23:16:45
But we've already heard from the guy who runs the place! In additon, I'm bringing you the reassurance of a woman probably old enough to be your mother, a nearly-degreed-therapist, a highly experience patient and all 'round swell gal . .that this is not is what it seems. To you. Right now.
I've thought and read about this for weeks and weeks, now, Cam. . and my honest feedback is that you're offbase about Sal and for whatever reason, overreacting. So I assume there's something going on in your life that's maybe resulting in being a little over-focused on Sal? Have you ever had anything like that happen before? I also encourage you to speak of and to Sal a bit more like he has feelings and is a real person here, just like you. Not to defend him, just because I think it's part of being civil.
I really think the matter's in good hand. Dr. Bob's on top of it. And he hath spoken. Maybe it would be profitable to think about why it's hard for you to trust that?
Just a thought,
Zo
Posted by Jane D on August 24, 2001, at 2:17:39
In reply to Re: The Trees, Not The Forest! » Zo, posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 23:16:45
> Zo - I really don't think you see the seriousness of what Sal is saying, and especially how he is saying it.
>
> I am sure that I am not the only one who find's Sal's methods to be very odd. My alarm over Sal is justified. He is playing with fire, especially with his on-on-one therapy via AOL Messenger and his advocation of self-medication. He posts studies he does not understand and prescribes medication.
>
> From now on, I will stand back and let him do his harm. I only hope that he doesn't do permanent damage, but I do hope he is held accountable.
>
> I have seen what happens when well meaning people try to "help", when they don't have the training. Sal has gone beyond compassion.
>
> My last post on this. - Cam (yes, I am okay, but very concerned for the safety of others).
>
> BTW - Does it strike you as odd that some of Sal's supporters have a writing style that is very characteristic of his? I am not the only one to notice this, either. - C.Cam,
I defy you to find any similarity between Sal's writing style and mine.I don't think you are entirely wrong but you are taking a very paternal attitude. I think it's an occupational hazzard. If you call it caring it's a great thing, too. You've been trained to protect other people and you don't leave that behind when you are here. But people here either know to take responsibility for themselves or they need to learn to do so.
Personally, I'll give a lot of weight to what you have to say. Because I think that you are a good source of information and understanding. Because you don't post studies that contradict your point. But any actions I take based on what you, or anyone else, say here are my responsibility. If I want someone else to take responsibility then I need to go to someone with whom I have a professional/client relationship NOT to an uncensored board on the internet.
The amount of information on the internet is amazing and unprecedented. I don't think anyone has adjusted to it yet. People are still learning how to filter good from bad and they are going to make mistakes. But I don't think the answer is to control what we are allowed to see. That's just an invitation to people to abdicate responsibility.
Respectfully,
Jane
Posted by ChrisK on August 24, 2001, at 4:26:21
In reply to Re: The Trees, Not The Forest! » Zo, posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 23:16:45
Cam,
FWIW, I agree that Sal can be dangerous in some of his posts. I gave up reading them long ago so I'm not familiar with his offer of IM counseling but it also sounds dangerous without the proper training. I think that Sal is well intentioned but slightly misguided in the way he works. I truly hope that his advice doesn't hurt anyone. We have lost members of this community over the last year without knowing why and I can only hope that it was for the best.
Best wishes,
Chris
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 24, 2001, at 13:00:22
In reply to Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest! » Dr. Bob, posted by Cam W. on August 23, 2001, at 21:35:12
> How do you know Sal is going to direct that person to an ER? That assumption cannot be made. What if he tells people to pray to Judeo-Christian god? That can be dangerous if one is not Christian.
Do you know that he *isn't* going to direct them to an ER? Or that he's insensitive to their religious beliefs?
> He is, more and more, asking people to talk to him on AOL Messenger (because he likes taking in "real time"). This takes away the safety net of other posters. This situation may be amusing to you, but it frightens the hell out of me. Sal has good intentions, but (as I said before) the graveyard is full of good intentions. Are you willing to take partial responsibility for anyone he may kill with his advice?
During an IM exchange, no one else would be there, but they still could go and get feedback from others later.
I never meant to imply that I found this amusing.
The graveyard is full of good intentions, but good intentions don't always end up there, either.
I'm willing to take responsibility for continuing to allow him to offer here to chat with others. The only advice I take responsibility for is my own.
> Sal is playing doctor (living vicariously through his dad). He thinks that he is being helpful by dissmenintating information he doesn't understand.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others. Do you know that he doesn't understand everything that he posts? And is it necessarily a bad thing even if he posts an abstract that he doesn't completely understand?
Cam, you know I appreciate your concern for others. But it's almost as if you're trying to save some innocent helpless person from taking the wrong step, and I'm not sure that's the situation here. Help others in your way, and let SalArmy4me help others in his. I think there's room here for both of you. OK?
Bob
Posted by Cam W. on August 24, 2001, at 13:05:14
In reply to Re: The Forest » Cam W., posted by Dr. Bob on August 24, 2001, at 13:00:22
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 24, 2001, at 13:10:58
In reply to Re: Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest! » Cam W., posted by Zo on August 23, 2001, at 22:18:46
Posted by Shar on August 24, 2001, at 22:08:23
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue » susan C, posted by akc on August 23, 2001, at 13:06:36
I believe it is true, at least in Texas, that there is no requirement that citizens report any crime; one in progress or one that happened in the past, one that was witnessed, or just heard about....and certainly no requirement to help someone. So, if someone sees a robbery in progress, or even a murder....they aren't breaking the law if they fail to report it. There are, here, certain official-types who Are required to report instances of suspected child abuse.
Texas does have this sorta-kinda-wishy-washy-toothless good Samaritan law on the books.
Shar
> Let me make a disclaimer here -- I'm not saying you shouldn't help -- I'm just saying the law doesn't require it. What has happened under the U.S. common law system is that if you help, but then screw it up, a person can sue you for being negligent. So people may advise you (as it sounds like happened in this course) that you would be better of not to help. What a cold-hearted society we have become if we don't help each other because we are afraid of being sued. There are states who are passing statutes to protect people from these types of lawsuits. However, professionals are still held to a higher duty of care even in most places with this type of statute in place. But note -- even where places have these types of statutes that protect a person from being sued if they help a person in need and mess it up, there is still no duty to rescue. So the solution is to just not help.
>
> This is the ethical debate that occurs in law school. What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to force people to help each other? What type of society is it that we need a law on the book to protect each other from a lawsuit when we have tried to help one another? Where is the line? You see a person walking on the side of a busy highway. Is that person just going to get gas for his car? Or is he suicidal about to walk out into traffic? As a female, do I pull over and offer help? Maybe he is a serial rapist? How do I judge? If he is suidical and I don't stop, and there is a law on the books, should I be arrested and thrown in jail for not helping? Which car passing by is the one who should have known? Now this is maybe a slightly absurd demonstration, but it makes the point I think -- it is hard to legislate this type of ethical behavior -- this reaching out to people in need of help. Personally, I think our first response should be to help those in need.
>
> But then, being the good law professor I am, I have to argue the other side of this ongoing debate regarding people who are suicidal. I am nowhere qualified to help someone who is actively suicidal. I look back to the evening that I was suicidal myself. I went to an AA meeting. I shared -- I told those folks I was suicidal. Most ignored it. A few didn't. Of those few, I had a few try to counsel me -- as in don't take my meds (true oldtimers, don't put any pills in your body), etc. Only one person tried to get me to see I needed to go to the hospital. What I needed was someone who knew how to handle a suicidal person to speak with me. The person trying to get me to the hospital had the right idea.
>
> So how will I "rescue" a person who is suicidal? I believe my duty with someone who is actively suicidal is simple -- I have to do anything I can to get that person to talk to someone who has the training to handle that or to get that person to go to an ER.
>
> akc
>
> > AKC,
> >
> > Interestingly my son took First Responder First aid, for Red Cross and Mountineering. Basically what to do when you are three days from anywhere. I will have to ask him if they talked about mental illness issues, but it did come up ubout people hiking out for help. They passed someone with a cell phone and that person did not and did not have to help, he said he would be liable if he did offer. It required the people to keep walking for two days and return with help.
> >
> > Another interesting bit, is if you see an accident on the side of the road, with the police officers waving traffic through, even if you are trained, you do not stop to offer help.
> >
> > There is a reason we pay our taxes.
> >
> > And sometimes you can only do so much.
> >
> > A retired Mighty Mouse.
> >
> >
> > > Actually, this is not true. Almost all states do not have good Samaritan laws. You can stand by and watch someone die -- whether by their own hand or by accident -- and not come to their aid. It is one of the first principles you study in law school -- law professors love it because of the ethics behind it. Why is it that in the U.S. we don't have such statutes, whereas must European countries do? I don't know where you live Sal, so maybe your state or community has some type of rescue statute, but generally in America, there is no duty to rescue.
> > >
> > > AKC
> > >
> > > > Everyone is technically licensed to prevent suicide-- In fact, in the U.S., you can be imprisoned or sued for not trying to prevent the death of someone who is known to be suicidal!
> > > >
> > > > > I say, let's hear from the only one of us *licensed* to do this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zo
Posted by Shar on August 24, 2001, at 22:18:47
In reply to Re: The Trees, Not The Forest! » Cam W., posted by Zo on August 24, 2001, at 0:25:11
The only problem with reassurances made on the internet is that they could all be pretend (to put a nice face on it). Why, I could say I'm old enough to be Cam's big sister, have a Ph.D. in psychology, been in the counseling field for years, agree 100% with Cam and nobody would know I am really a 49 year old, lonely electrical engineer, who has a PDR, a book on "Great Counselors Through the Ages" and loves to read.
Eeeek.
But, I do agree with Cam and have even brought my concerns to Sal's attention previously.
Shar
> But we've already heard from the guy who runs the place! In additon, I'm bringing you the reassurance of a woman probably old enough to be your mother, a nearly-degreed-therapist, a highly experience patient and all 'round swell gal . .that this is not is what it seems. To you. Right now.
>
> I've thought and read about this for weeks and weeks, now, Cam. . and my honest feedback is that you're offbase about Sal and for whatever reason, overreacting. So I assume there's something going on in your life that's maybe resulting in being a little over-focused on Sal? Have you ever had anything like that happen before? I also encourage you to speak of and to Sal a bit more like he has feelings and is a real person here, just like you. Not to defend him, just because I think it's part of being civil.
>
> I really think the matter's in good hand. Dr. Bob's on top of it. And he hath spoken. Maybe it would be profitable to think about why it's hard for you to trust that?
>
> Just a thought,
>
> Zo
Posted by KB on August 27, 2001, at 10:54:41
In reply to Cam and Sal, Cam and Sal, posted by Zo on August 22, 2001, at 2:34:29
Is there anything we can do about the intense homophobia Sal's been spewing out recently? As I said in response to his message, I come to this board looking for support just like everyone else. I am a lesbian, and messages about the bible condemning homosexuality do not make me feel supported.
Posted by Simcha on August 27, 2001, at 11:39:16
In reply to HELP!!!, posted by KB on August 27, 2001, at 10:54:41
KB,
That goes double for me. He shouldn't be posting that stuff on PB anyway. I don't agree with his opinions at all. As a gay man I find his opinions insensitive and hateful. However, I think he would be fully in his rights to post that stuff in PSB....
We can slam him there!!!
;-)
> Is there anything we can do about the intense homophobia Sal's been spewing out recently? As I said in response to his message, I come to this board looking for support just like everyone else. I am a lesbian, and messages about the bible condemning homosexuality do not make me feel supported.
Posted by Rach on August 29, 2001, at 23:03:13
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue, posted by susan C on August 23, 2001, at 12:17:47
In Australia, you do not have to help a stranger in any way.
If you are NOT trained in first aid, however, you must offer assistance to someone you know, no matter how tenuous the connection (your sister's boyfriend's mother's uncle).
If you are trained in first aid, and you do give assistance that is either against the person's wishes or harms them (ie if you resusitate someone who does not want to be bought back to life, or if during CPR you break the patient's rib) you can be held liable because you are trained. If you don't have first aid qualifications, then you are less liable. For this reason, if you have a first aid certificate, you are not required to offer assistance ever.
Strange, isn't it!
Posted by akc on August 30, 2001, at 9:07:00
In reply to Re: Duty to Rescue in Australia, posted by Rach on August 29, 2001, at 23:03:13
> In Australia, you do not have to help a stranger in any way.
>
> If you are NOT trained in first aid, however, you must offer assistance to someone you know, no matter how tenuous the connection (your sister's boyfriend's mother's uncle).
>
> If you are trained in first aid, and you do give assistance that is either against the person's wishes or harms them (ie if you resusitate someone who does not want to be bought back to life, or if during CPR you break the patient's rib) you can be held liable because you are trained. If you don't have first aid qualifications, then you are less liable. For this reason, if you have a first aid certificate, you are not required to offer assistance ever.
>
> Strange, isn't it!I think this is a great example of what happens when you try to legislate ethics and morality. What should be those lines? A bunch of lawmakers have got together here in Australia and tried to do it. I wonder how many people have been held accountable under the "duty to rescue" statute -- because it was your sister's boyfriend's mother's uncle. The same really goes for the standard of care type statutes where those trained are held to a higher standard than those not trained.
In some communities here in the states, professionals are actually given a freer pass than nonprofessionals. The idea behind this is that we want to encourage professionals to stop -- so they are held to a gross negligence standard, where others are held to just a negligence standard. But here in the states, do doctors and other health care workers even know that these statutes exist? And if they go from one city to the next, do they realize that the rules change?
It is strange indeed.
Posted by Cecilia on September 1, 2001, at 3:50:45
In reply to Re: Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest! (np), posted by NikkiT2 on August 24, 2001, at 13:10:58
Re: Sal`s advocating self medication from foreign sources is just the same thing John L. has been doing for a long time, but I agree with Cam; his offer of counseling suicidal patients is SCARY, given his religious obsessions and homophobia. Sal`s "counseling" is probably more like proselyting and could perhaps tip a young gay person over the edge.
Posted by Mitchell on September 2, 2001, at 15:34:24
In reply to Re: Dr.Bob - The Trees, Not The Forest!, posted by Cecilia on September 1, 2001, at 3:50:45
> Re: Sal`s advocating self medication from foreign sources is just the same thing John L. has been doing for a long time, but I agree with Cam; his offer of counseling suicidal patients is SCARY, given his religious obsessions and homophobia. Sal`s "counseling" is probably more like proselyting and could perhaps tip a young gay person over the edge.
To my knowledge, Sal never mentioned sexual orientation until he was asked about the Salvation Army doctrines. Then he replied only when asked.
There recently has been much discussion here about baiting. Do I correctly understand that baiting is the practice of posing a question with the intent of attacking a person for their answer?
Beyond Sal and those who ask his advice, god only knows what advice Sal might give in private correspondence, that's true. But we have no basis to reach conclusions about probability. The Salvation Army tends to be much more tolerent in its practices than some aggressively gaybashing groups, like Fred Phelps' Baptist followers. For many christian groups, sexual sins include premarital and extramarital sex along with homosexual acts. Sexual sins are only a brief section on a long list that includes magic (whatever that is), greed, pride and even gambling. Are we afraid christians will push gamblers over the edge?
Gays may dine at Salvation Army tables alongside gamblers, child molesters and promiscuous ex-Presidents of the United States. They just can't preach or play the trombone in the band. Interestingly, gays can be employed as temporary workers when the Salvation Army uses agencies such as Manpower to recruit extra help, as they often do. Employment agencies, by U.S. law, are not allowed to ask about sexual orientation.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | 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.