britney spears hospitalization

[PeeWee137]

---

Members don't see this ad.

i was just curious of your perspective on the britney spears saga.

im a little familiar with the laws affecting psych patients in NY, but was wondering if things are different in california. i'll admit though, the legal and social work stuff was the most confusing part of my psych rotation.

i was under the impression that if you were brought in by police, you had to stay the mandatory 72 hours for observation and then after that you can sign yourself out AMA.
but according to all the gossip columns (which i LOVE reading ), she signed herself out after 36 hours.
is she getting special treatment, or are the laws different, or am i misunderstanding them?

is there a good source or website that outlines the laws for each state?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I thought it was 'up to' 72h before a re-eval/release....though I'll defer to people who know NY better.

-t

 

[TheWowEffect]

i was under the impression that if you were brought in by police, you had to stay the mandatory 72 hours for observation and then after that you can sign yourself out AMA.
but according to all the gossip columns (which i LOVE reading ), she signed herself out after 36 hours.
is she getting special treatment, or are the laws different, or am i misunderstanding them?

is there a good source or website that outlines the laws for each state?

It does not matter who brings a pt in but if a psychiatrist is of the opinion that a pt is a danger to themselves, others or does not have the ability to understand the need for treatment, they can be committed to an inpatient psychiatric ward. The time limit for commitment may vary from state to state. In our state (not NY), a court process has to be started within 72 hours to keep them in the hospital.

If a decision to the contrary is made by a psychiatrist, any pt can sign themselves out with immediate effect.

 

[whopper]

Be careful what you say. Commenting on a case as a medical professional opens you up to liability as if you were the doctor covering that case. While I in general agree with this ethic, this is sometimes frustrating because there are sometimes cases I'd like to comment on where people want more info.

I guess its alright to comment on it in a general sense, but comments on the specific patient--that's supposed to be a no-no.

 

[PeeWee137]

Be careful what you say. Commenting on a case as a medical professional opens you up to liability as if you were the doctor covering that case. While I in general agree with this ethic, this is sometimes frustrating because there are sometimes cases I'd like to comment on where people want more info.

I guess its alright to comment on it in a general sense, but comments on the specific patient--that's supposed to be a no-no.

sorry i didnt mean to entice anyone to incriminate themselves. i was just curious of the legality of the whole situation. where can i get more information on these laws?

 

[michaelrack]

Be careful what you say. Commenting on a case as a medical professional opens you up to liability as if you were the doctor covering that case.

Do you have any type of citation for this or further details? what kind of liability are you talking about? I don't see any malpractice liability in commenting. I think it is against the APA code of ethics and APA members (I'm not one) should avoid commenting on Spears's mental state/psychiatric diagnosis.

 

[hippiedoc13]

In California, if a patient is placed on a 72-hr psychiatric hold, the law allows the physician to hold the patient involuntarily for UP TO 72 hours for observation and psychiatric treatment. Criteria for an involuntary hold (known as a "5150" in CA) are danger to self, danger to others, or "grave disability" (inability to make reasonable plans/provisions for one's food, clothing, or shelter) due to a psychiatric disorder.

During the 72-hour period, if the psychiatrist decides that the patient no longer needs to be held, the psychiatrist can lift the hold early (ie, before the 72 hour mark). However, the patient CANNOT sign out AMA, because the law is allowing the psychiatric treatment team to hold the patient involuntarily.

If, at the end of 72 hours, the patient still meets hold criteria, there is another law that allows the psychiatrist to hold a patient for up to 14 days for evaluation and treatment. At that point (ie, after the first 72 hours), if you want to continue to hold the patient, you have to go through a Probable Cause hearing. There's plenty more legal details beyond that, but those would be far beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[cleareyedguy]

I think it is against the APA code of ethics and APA members (I'm not one) should avoid commenting on Spears's mental state/psychiatric diagnosis.

One interesting side issue is whether one can be a physician and/or psychiatrist and ethically decline to follow the rules of the profession simply by not paying dues to the guild. I'd say that if you are making use of the profession's special status in the society (e.g., being able to get money from insurance companies just by filling out forms, calling oneself a doctor), then you are obligated to follow the profession's rules (don't participate in legal executions, don't comment specifically on public cases, don't sleep with patients) even if you disagree with them.

 

[whopper]

Aw Nuts, left my law & medicine book at my parents (seriously).

Took a law & medicine course years ago. Commenting on someone, even with good intentions & quite innocently can open the door to liability over that person because it establishes you as their doctor in a doctor-patient relationship. It could be something very innocuous sounding such as someone asking you at a bar "hey doc, I got a cough, got any advice?"

If you were to say something as simple as "take a cough drop" , it opens that pandora's box because it can be argued that you now have a patient-doctor relationship. Should that person have a bad outcome (e.g. that guy had pneumonia-a cough drop is not the standard of care) you could be held liable for malpractice.

I had the specific court cases in that book that established those precendents in that book which is about a 2 hour drive away from me now. I did a google search to look up those specific cases but can't find them offhand. There's too many hits with the terms I'm putting in.

Only exception I can think of offhand that gives exception to this is the "Good Samaritan" policy, where if you treat someone in an emergency setting (e.g. someone suffocating in a restaurant) you are exempt because in an emergency setting you cannot practice good standard of care because you don't have the proper equipment & methods to double check yourself.

In general I the liability policy makes sense. A doc shouldn't be commenting on a case unless they take the responsibility as a doc, but it can be a bit overboard. Because of this policy, we can't comment on this case except in a general sense, but there's so much good juicy material to comment on that could be relevant & educational for medstudents & residents.

Asking for example about the California laws & answering as Hippiedoc has done above does not open liability because its not specifically commenting on the treatment of the patient, but if for any of the doctors here example posted their opinions on her dx, the treatment they'd reccomend etc, that could be a problem.

If someone were to do that, what are the odds that Britney Spears will sue you? Probably close to if not zero. However still, it also goes against several of the ethics brought upon by several of the institutions that help to set the standard such as the APA (the psychiatric APA).

 

[Hurricane]

However still, it also goes against several of the ethics brought upon by several of the institutions that help to set the standard such as the APA (the psychiatric APA).

Apparently Dr. Phil has not heard of these ethical standards...

Only exception I can think of offhand that gives exception to this is the "Good Samaritan" policy, where if you treat someone in an emergency setting (e.g. someone suffocating in a restaurant) you are exempt because in an emergency setting you cannot practice good standard of care because you don't have the proper equipment & methods to double check yourself.

I was wondering about this. About a month ago I was in a restaurant and the waiter goes running around shouting "is there a doctor in the house?" When it became apparent that there was just me, I stood up and followed him to some guy who had passed out. Luckily he had a history of seizures and the family knew that's what it was and had already called 911. So all I had to do was sit with the guy until he woke up, and tell some lady not to put a spoon in his mouth. Afterwards I was wondering if anything could happen to me if there was a bad outcome, especially since I had been enjoying the wine that evening...

 

[michaelrack]

Aw Nuts, left my law & medicine book at my parents (seriously).

Took a law & medicine course years ago. Commenting on someone, even with good intentions & quite innocently can open the door to liability over that person because it establishes you as their doctor in a doctor-patient relationship. It could be something very innocuous sounding such as someone asking you at a bar "hey doc, I got a cough, got any advice?"


If someone were to do that, what are the odds that Britney Spears will sue you? Probably close to if not zero. However still, it also goes against several of the ethics brought upon by several of the institutions that help to set the standard such as the APA (the psychiatric APA).

You are 100% right that commenting about someone at a party creates liability.
Commenting about someone you've only seen on tv is an entirely different issue. This became an issue when psychiatrists tried to diagnose President Nixon. Here is an article that discusses the issue:

• Ethical considerations in psychiatric profiling of political figures. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages A635-A646 2002, J. Post "Questions concerning such matters as the effects of health and alcoholism on Boris Yeltsin's decision making; the mind of the Unabomber; the psychology and decision making of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who was initially characterized by the US Government as "the madman of the Middle East"; the psychology of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, who were involved in an extended siege with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that ended tragically on April 19, 1993; and, most recently, the psychology of the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the tragic events of September 11, 2001 in which they claimed thousands of lives while giving their own, "killing in the name of God," and of their charismatic leader Osama bin Laden have led journalists to turn to social scientists, including psychiatrists, to offer commentary on public figures."

 

[TheWowEffect]

Afterwards I was wondering if anything could happen to me if there was a bad outcome, especially since I had been enjoying the wine that evening...

Sure, it could if your wine was paid for by the guy or his family

 

[michaelrack]

One interesting side issue is whether one can be a physician and/or psychiatrist and ethically decline to follow the rules of the profession simply by not paying dues to the guild. I'd say that if you are making use of the profession's special status in the society (e.g., being able to get money from insurance companies just by filling out forms, calling oneself a doctor), then you are obligated to follow the profession's rules (don't participate in legal executions, don't comment specifically on public cases, don't sleep with patients) even if you disagree with them.

At some point in the past, I have paid dues to the following guilds: American Psychiatric Association, Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine, American Medical Association.
The guilds I currently pay dues to are: The American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the American College of Physicians.
If the profession of psychiatry wants to disown me for not paying dues to it and not bowing down to its code of ethics, that's fine with me. I'd be happy to identify myself as an internist and sleep specialist.

As far as your general arguement, physicians don't have that much special status in society anymore. I don't even have the right to get money from insurance companies without paying a fee, ranging from $50 to $1500, to enroll in their network first. Here's a NY times article about the declining status of physicians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/f...scp=1&sq=falling+down+professions&oref=slogin
The day that the AMA comes out against abortionists is the day that I'll take seriously its prohibition against doctors assisting in an execution (not that I am planning on performing any executions- I consider it personally unethical and will therefore not take part.)

The only authorities I recognize over my practice of medicine are
1) the medical licensure boards of Mississippi and Alabama
2) the medical staff rules of the hospitals I have chosen to affiliate with
3) the rules of the professional organizations I have chosen to affiliate with.

Only a minority of physicians belong to the AMA. I do not recognize the AMA's authority over me.

 

[whopper]

Interesting post MichaelRack. I'll have to check out that article. I believe the APA does state not to comment on celebirty cases unless disclosure is allowed by that celebirty. If you choose not to follow that, you are an attending, with more years of experience than I have. You may also know something I don't. I also have seen several attendings rightfully criticize some of the APA's practices & political stances. You wouldn't be the first attending I've seen who's decided to not follow some of the policies of an established institution, and I don't mean that as a criticism.

The Dr. Phil issue-yeah its wierd-as were several other cases where doctors did the "1000 mile diagnosis" as it was nicknamed when a particular politician who happened to also be a doctor made medical claims on a particular person he hadn't seen. (By the way, with very very bad results-turned out his diagnosis & prognosis were completely off, and he used his Dx & Rx in a political manner to disrupt the intended Rx the caretaker wanted).

I'm working with a forensic attending today. I'll ask her. Until then, at least for myself, I'll take the stance that Phil Resnick takes: not to comment on issues that require "standard of care" practice if you haven't done that standard, even on high profile cases. Not just to keep myself safe, but also because with few exceptions, I do agree with this policy.

Only exception I have with this policy is I believe mental health providers should be able to talk about such cases among ourselves for intellectual & academic purposes. We know that we haven't seen the specific person in question, and we know we do not mean to comment on it as if we are practicing the standard of care, and we're not trying to sway any public opinions. (even then I will only discuss it in a highly controlled manner which probably wouldn't violate the policy anyway). Being on this board--while its intent is to accomplish that, it is frequented by several non mental health providers. Several on the board have identified themselves as patients, and it is accessible to the public.

If you type "dr phil confidentiality" in a google search, you'll get several hits with articles questioning Dr. Phil's handling of this case. Several are criticizing him & claming he breached confidentiality. I don't know if there are any differing standards in this regard between a psychologist vs a psychiatrist. I have heard there are some, but an anectdotal rumor is poor explanation, especially among professionals.

As for saving a person in a restaurant--you can still be sued. Anyone can be sued for anything. Someone doesn't like the color of my hair? They can sue me. However given the precedence that the good samaritan policy has now set, if you were sued because of the results of a good samaritan act, the odds of the case being thrown out or you winning are dramatically higher. It'd be to the point where someone wanting to throw such a lawsuit would also have a higher likelihood of having their lawyer reccomend not to sue.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

There's a discussion about this in The Lounge, too, and it was posted there that Dr. Phil is not currently licensed. IMO, the guy's just woefully unethical, and the Spears fiasco just illustrated that. I still think her parents are dopes for going to him in the first place.

 

[TheWowEffect]

There's a discussion about this in The Lounge, too, and it was posted there that Dr. Phil is not currently licensed. IMO, the guy's just woefully unethical, and the Spears fiasco just illustrated that. I still think her parents are dopes for going to him in the first place.

Wow, for once "The Lounge" is the source of some important information for us

 

[Doctor Bagel]

Wow, for once "The Lounge" is the source of some important information for us

Lol, I know. I'm too lazy to look up his licensing right now, though.

 

[michaelrack]

Interesting post MichaelRack. I'll have to check out that article. I believe the APA does state not to comment on celebirty cases unless disclosure is allowed by that celebirty. If you choose not to follow that, you are an attending, with more years of experience than I have. You may also know something I don't. I also have seen several attendings rightfully criticize some of the APA's practices & political stances. You wouldn't be the first attending I've seen who's decided to not follow some of the policies of an established institution, and I don't mean that as a criticism.

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ppaethics.cfm
THE PRINICPLES OF MEDICAL ETHICS​

With Annotations Especially
Applicable to Psychiatry​

"On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement."

I am not going to comment on Spears because although she doesn't have grounds to sue me (any more than she as a public figure could sue a high school student who comments about her), she could theoretically report me to the Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure for unprofessional behavior. Nothing would come of it, but it's something that would stay on my record forever and I don't want to risk it.
This would be an entirely different issue than Dr. PHil, who discussed NONPUBLIC information.

 

[Hurricane]

'Tis true, Dr. Phil is no longer licensed. In Texas anyway, which is where he lives and used to practice.

He used to practice around here in Wichita Falls (northwest of Dallas) but after the "inappropriate relationship" incident, he stopped practicing and started doing jury consulting work instead. Which is how he met up with Oprah, when she was being sued by the texas cattle ranchers. And the rest is history...

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

As far as I am aware, the Good Samaritans "policy" states that you cannot be held responsible for NOT intervening when you are in a "Good Samaritan" position. So, if you just sit out quietly in the restaurant when someone needs medical help, that's fine. Nobody can hold this against you or sue you over your non-action.

However, if you do act as a physician under this circumstances, and enter "doctor-patient" relationship with the person in the restaurant (on the plane, on the street, whatever), you become legally responsible for providing the minimum standard of care expected from an average competent member of the profession (or something to that extent). You CAN and you WILL be sued (and will lose the suit, too), if you screw up. A "Good Samaritan" physician who moved the head of a person laying on the road after a MVA was successfully sued (and lost his medical licence, if I remember correctly) after the person in question became quadriplegic. It was ruled that any competent physician would first stabilise the injured person's C-spine, after securing his airway. Failing to do so meant that the care provided by the physician fell short of the "minimum standard...." etc.

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

As far as I am aware, the Good Samaritans "policy" states that you cannot be held responsible for NOT intervening when you are in a "Good Samaritan" position. So, if you just sit out quietly in the restaurant when someone needs medical help, that's fine. Nobody can hold this against you or sue you over your non-action.

However, if you do act as a physician under this circumstances, and enter "doctor-patient" relationship with the person in the restaurant (on the plane, on the street, whatever), you become legally responsible for providing the minimum standard of care expected from an average competent member of the profession (or something to that extent). You CAN and you WILL be sued (and will lose the suit, too), if you screw up. A "Good Samaritan" physician who moved the head of a person laying on the road after a MVA was successfully sued (and lost his medical licence, if I remember correctly) after the person in question became quadriplegic. It was ruled that any competent physician would first stabilise the injured person's C-spine, after securing his airway. Failing to do so meant that the care provided by the physician fell short of the "minimum standard...." etc.

 

[whopper]

You are in the UK (at least from your profile), and it may be what the "good samaritan" policy is called across the pond.

But in the states, its what I mentioned it above to be. Here's an example verified by the AAFP.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/g/goodsamaritanlaw.html

The AAFP approves of legislation that would grant immunity from civil actions for alleged negligence to any licensed doctor of medicine and osteopathy who in good faith renders emergency medical care at the scene of an accident, and through its constituent chapters seeks such legislation whenever and wherever it can be constitutionally sustained. (1960) (2002)

Another link
http://pa.essortment.com/goodsamaritanl_redg.htm

Good Samaritan doctrine - Black's Law 7th edition: 'A statute that exempts from liability a person (such as an off-duty physician) who voluntraily renders aid to another in imminent danger but negligently causes injury while rendering the aid. Some form of good-samaritan legislation has been enacted in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.'

You are correct though in this sense. If you are a doctor, despite your Hippocratic Oath, if you do not provide assistance to someone in a medical emergency & in need of assistance, you have no legal liability. It may be unethical, but we're only talking the legal liability here. Even if it were to be made illegal, it could hardly be enforceable to make medical professionals act under emergency circumstances. The doctor for example could argue they didn't know what was going on, etc (e.g. I'm not doing mouth to mouth without a mouth guard if I don't know the if the pt has an infectious disease).

There is more detail with the good samaritan policy and its not black & white. The 2nd site I linked explains it more in detail, and much of what you wrote is correct. I do recall a similar case to the one you mentioned--where a patient became a quadripeligic, but I don't remember the specifics. I don't want to write something down that might be incorrect.

MichaelRack, nice interesting post. Thanks for digging up the policy on the APA's website. I didn't have the time.

I did ask one of my forensic attendings about Dr. Phil's comments on the Britney Spears case. He pointed out several problems, which were consistent with what all of us have posted.

 

[Hurricane]

From the NYT: Do the rules really apply to Dr. Phil?

Says that HIPAA may not apply b/c he's not licensed and doesn't bill...

 

[Shalom77]

So what if HIPAA doesn't apply.

It's common sense that ethically he should not have talked to the press.

One reason we get regulations such as HIPAA is when people don't do what is right without regulation.

 

[whopper]

It's common sense that ethically he should not have talked to the press.

Seems though that he's not getting any flack for what he did, as did the politician I mentioned who made the "1000 mile diagnosis".

I find it interesting that the so called institutions that make our standards aren't a bit more vocal about this. Sometimes rules are only good if they are enforced. Otherwise they are only words on paper.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I find it interesting that the so called institutions that make our standards aren't a bit more vocal about this. Sometimes rules are only good if they are enforced. Otherwise they are only words on paper.

I wish they did. The APA(-ology) is at least partially to blame for not speaking out, as he was previously licensed as a clinical psychologist and then discontinued his license and just did consulting. They actually had him speak a couple years ago at the annual conference in New Orleans, much to the chagrin of much of the membership (myself included). He spoke about his consulting work and role of psychology in the media, etc. Unfortunately people think of him in regard to psychology, which is a disservice to those of us who practice ethically and do 'real' work.

-t

 

[whopper]

The doctor that did the "1000 mile diagnosis" had received criticism from some of his colleagues, but in terms of liscencing & professional reprimands--I have yet to see anything.

I talked to Robert Sadoff about this. He's one of the most respected forensic psychiatrists in the nation. Dr. Sadoff mentioned that the reason for lack of "real" enforcement & censure were probably due to politics. These same institutions often times want to be on the good side of politicians, especially ones at the level of power this guy had.

 

[tennreb]

I wish they did. The APA(-ology) is at least partially to blame for not speaking out, as he was previously licensed as a clinical psychologist and then discontinued his license and just did consulting. They actually had him speak a couple years ago at the annual conference in New Orleans, much to the chagrin of much of the membership (myself included). He spoke about his consulting work and role of psychology in the media, etc. Unfortunately people think of him in regard to psychology, which is a disservice to those of us who practice ethically and do 'real' work.

-t

He provides advice on his show that is explicitly billed as coming from a professional. If he isn't licensed, then he is breaking the law.

 

[jane70]

'Tis true, Dr. Phil is no longer licensed. In Texas anyway, which is where he lives and used to practice.

He used to practice around here in Wichita Falls (northwest of Dallas) but after the "inappropriate relationship" incident, he stopped practicing and started doing jury consulting work instead. Which is how he met up with Oprah, when she was being sued by the texas cattle ranchers. And the rest is history...

nosy....what is this "inappropriate relationship"??
I'm a closet Dr. Phil fan

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

He provides advice on his show that is explicitly billed as coming from a professional. If he isn't licensed, then he is breaking the law.

According to him (and probably the legalese that is signed by his 'guests'), he sets up professional interventions and support for his guests post-show, and he does his song and dance for them during the show. I think that is *not* very well represented on the show, though I have only seen parts of a few of his shows, so YMMV.

-t

 

[Hurricane]

nosy....what is this "inappropriate relationship"??
I'm a closet Dr. Phil fan

He had a 19 year old female patient who claimed they had a sexual relationship, which he denied. However, he did hire her to work in his office, which is a boundary violation. He was reprimanded by the TX board of psychology, and had to complete an ethics course, take the tx jurisprudence exam over again, and have a year of "supervised practice."

 

[goingbroke]

He had a 19 year old female patient who claimed they had a sexual relationship, which he denied. However, he did hire her to work in his office, which is a boundary violation. He was reprimanded by the TX board of psychology, and had to complete an ethics course, take the tx jurisprudence exam over again, and have a year of "supervised practice."

Is this why he isn't a practicing licensed psychologist? Because he couldn't obtain malpractice insurance with these disciplinary actions

 

[TheWowEffect]

Is this why he isn't a practicing licensed psychologist? Because he couldn't obtain malpractice insurance with these disciplinary actions

NO! Its because he can make more than enough money by "helping" people on TV.

 

[michaelrack]

If you are a doctor, despite your Hippocratic Oath, if you do not provide assistance to someone in a medical emergency & in need of assistance, you have no legal liability.

Although you could go to jail, at least if the final episode of Seinfeld is accurate

 

[BabyPsychDoc]

Sorry, you are right. Actually, the Good Samaritan law varies between countries tremendously. Apparently, in most Canadian provinces as well as some European countries (eg, France) you are under legal obligation to provide medical assistance in Good Samaritan situations if you are as much as first-aid certified.

You are in the UK (at least from your profile), and it may be what the "good samaritan" policy is called across the pond.

 

[jane70]

He had a 19 year old female patient who claimed they had a sexual relationship, which he denied. However, he did hire her to work in his office, which is a boundary violation. He was reprimanded by the TX board of psychology, and had to complete an ethics course, take the tx jurisprudence exam over again, and have a year of "supervised practice."

ah ha! oh, dr.phil, his ego is always getting in the way. he must make a ton more money with his show, the books...oprah really helped him out. imho he was really stupid and unprofessional with his britney actions, that ego again!

 

[whopper]

The thing I liked about Dr. Phil is plenty of the "counseling" talking heads in the media have no real education in this area such as Dear Abby.

Dr. Phil was one of the first ones at least in this generation to have some real basis for his therapeutic treatments.

However he certainly is not a spotless doctor and he has several blemishes that should give rise to serious review of his professionalism.

He had a 19 year old female patient who claimed they had a sexual relationship, which he denied. However, he did hire her to work in his office, which is a boundary violation. He was reprimanded by the TX board of psychology, and had to complete an ethics course, take the tx jurisprudence exam over again, and have a year of "supervised practice."

Apparently he did not do the the work to get his liscence back...per Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Phil

As of 2008, McGraw has not completed the conditions imposed by the Board of Examiners of Psychologists, and he is not licensed to practice psychology.

I have noticed that for better or worse, several authorities in regulating practice of medicine (or in this case clinical psychology) are often times slow to react and often times fail to do so. For example, at least in my state, I have only seen doctors lose their liscence for the most serious & egregious & disgusting of offenses.

Dr. Phil despite his several lapses of professional practice still is raking in the $$$ & respect from the masses. He did not do "grey area" conduct, he did black & white violations that break black & white rules on paper.

IMHO this points to the impotency of the same authorities that are supposed to dictate professional behavior & conduct.

The guy's on frontpages of newspapers, headline TV & soundbytes all over the media is specifically pointed out as doing unethical behavior and what happens to him from these authorities?

As far as I can tell...NOTHING. Only thing I am seeing is some other mental health professionals like ourselves point it out as wrong but since the masses don't listen to us, he's bulletproof to such criticism.

 

[rednucleus]

I think that another big problem is all the nonphysicians/nonprofessionals making psychiatric diagnoses on televison shows and the radio. I have heard for instance Nancy Grace use the diagnosis of bipolar. The problem is the public starts to hear all of these improper diagnoses. This is probably one of the major reason everyone is calling themselves bipolar if the have any sort of mood swings.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

ah ha! oh, dr.phil, his ego is always getting in the way. he must make a ton more money with his show, the books...oprah really helped him out. imho he was really stupid and unprofessional with his britney actions, that ego again!

IIRC, they originally met on a court case for Oprah. He was a forensic consultant for her or one of her holdings.

-t

 

[nancysinatra]

The thing I liked about Dr. Phil is plenty of the "counseling" talking heads in the media have no real education in this area such as Dear Abby.

Are you really opposed to Dear Abby? Did she ever represent herself as anything more than just a citizen with opinions? I'm more familiar with her sister, Ann Landers--her column ran in my local paper when I was a kid and I would read it every day. Their advice a lot of the time was about etiquette or family affairs. Things like what to do with wedding presents if the couple gets divorced soon after the wedding... stuff like that. I think people have a right to ask their fellow citizens questions about these things--and maybe some people don't WANT the opinion of a doctor on every matter in their life. Nor is it always necessary. I would never ask a doctor for etiquette advice, for example. Medical people have some of the worst manners anywhere, I've noticed... ;-)

 

[whopper]

Did she ever represent herself as anything more than just a citizen with opinions?

Nothing so much against Abigail personally. Dear Abby never pretended to be a professional, and she operates under no false pretenses. I never had a specific problem against her, and I only gave her name to give an example.

Just that it was refreshing to see someone with a Ph.D. give out advice that was on par with what mental health professionals give out. (ever see that Frasier episode when he was "forced" to do the show with laypeople?--where he was the "white center that kept the 2 chocolate pieces together?)

However now that Dr. Phil has had his fair share of errors, and violations with confidentiality, my professional respect for him has dropped.

 

[nancysinatra]

Nothing so much against Abigail personally. Dear Abby never pretended to be a professional, and she operates under no false pretenses. I never had a specific problem against her, and I only gave her name to give an example.

Just that it was refreshing to see someone with a Ph.D. give out advice that was on par with what mental health professionals give out. (ever see that Frasier episode when he was "forced" to do the show with laypeople?--where he was the "white center that kept the 2 chocolate pieces together?)

However now that Dr. Phil has had his fair share of errors, and violations with confidentiality, my professional respect for him has dropped.

This is so interesting. I never thought about any of this before. I'm not too familiar with Dr. Phil because I don't watch nearly enough tv. But while I am totally ok with Dear Abby, who is not an expert on anything, what I do know about Dr. Phil has always annoyed me just on principle. It's fine, I guess, for him to be giving out advice to the American public, as long as it's good advice, and I'm glad he's a PhD--but what about the people he interviews on the show? Aren't they just getting their day in the sun by being on tv? I would think there's a whole unique American psychology behind that, with so many people wanting to share their personal lives for the whole world to see, and then the rest of us sitting around and watching. So even if Dr. Phil is giving out good advice, isn't he playing into something larger that could stand its own critique? Whereas Dear Abby, well, who knows if you can REALLY trust her--but there's much less of a publicity element to her column. I'm not sure she's still even around anymore.

Of course, I've only seen Dr. Phil's show maybe once. His show could be the Masterpiece Theatre of talk shows, and way above the level I'm imagining it at, for all I know.

 

[PeeWee137]

Of course, I've only seen Dr. Phil's show maybe once. His show could be the Masterpiece Theatre of talk shows, and way above the level I'm imagining it at, for all I know.

let's not go overboard. its not even comparable to monsterpiece theater with cookie monster.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Dr. Phil's in trouble...

Brit's still WAY out of control...

 

[whopper]

Thanks for the post Oldpsychedoc..

About freakin time the government actually enforced the rules we're supposed follow. They may only be doing an investigation at this time, but at least that's better than doing nothing.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Dr. Phil's in trouble...

Brit's still WAY out of control...

Thanks for the link! I heard about it when I was on the road and forgot to actually look up the details.

-t

 

[PeeWee137]

Dr. Phil's in trouble...

Brit's still WAY out of control...

im just glad im not the only one who reads the gossip columns

 

[Hurricane]

Looks like there is a third APA (there really are too many APAs) and they are against armchair diagnoses of Britney too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012302342.html

 

[Doc Samson]

Looks like there is a third APA (there really are too many APAs) and they are against armchair diagnoses of Britney too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012302342.html

I believe they go by APsA

 

[sunlioness]

Nothing so much against Abigail personally. Dear Abby never pretended to be a professional, and she operates under no false pretenses. I never had a specific problem against her, and I only gave her name to give an example.

The one who really used to annoy me on that score was Dr. Laura. She has a Ph.D., but it's in physiology. I always felt she was misrepresenting herself by calling herself "doctor" in the context of an advice show even though she never specifically claimed to be a psychologist or any kind of mental health professional.