Concerning abusive MD's/Nurses/social workers/psychologists trolling usenet. .
Iconoclast
>This is fairly new ground to me but at present an ISP (namely Directv in
>the US) is hosting a lying, fraudulent MD and one of his sockpuppets.
>
>Does beating up on elderly ladies and seventy year old crippled men
>sound like good old fashioned trolling? I thought not. The quack MD is
>selling his diet plans and has dragged socks in to beat up on anyone who
>challenges them.
>
>Might a UDP be in order for this ISP which refuses to act? These
>important support groups are being trashed.
>
I am so sorry to hear of yet another instance of abuse, harassment,
defamation, stalking, coercion of usenet posters by a current or
former health worker and their coterie of cyberthugs.
Its unfortunate but unethical health workers lacking morals,
character, integrity, and have infiltrated usenet support ng for all
maner of UNSEEMLY self serving purposes.
Good Luck stopping the abuse of posters and trashing of ng by medical
professionals on usenet.
>FR
>--
>All killer no filler
>ratty at flyingrat.net
>New webthingy is www.flyingrat.net
>
Garth
>
>how do you get the pager number of an evil doctor??
>
>
I don't know. I would NEVER want the pager number of an evil doctor!
Mark
Boy...it's a good thing that non-MDs never troll Usenet and sell
worthless crap to desperate people...
Mark, MD
Alex K
as physicians, using their "md" behind their name to market their products, irrespectively of the
position they ought to take in society - one of trust.
Let me give you sexual abuse for an example. You do it as "just a person" u go to prison for
10-15 years. You do it as an "md" you loose your license and hopefully don't manage to settle out
of criminal court and go to prison, too.
See the difference? sometimes a position also brings some obstacles with it that you better think
of.
greetz
Howard McCollister
wrote:
> Let me give you sexual abuse for an example. You do it as "just a person" u
> go to prison for
> 10-15 years. You do it as an "md" you loose your license and hopefully don't
> manage to settle out
> of criminal court and go to prison, too.
This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen on the
internet. Even if the spelling and grammar weren't third grade level, it
still stands out for stupidity, in a sea of stupidty.
HMc
Steve Harris
news:3CFEC37D...@rogers.com...
> Let me give you sexual abuse for an example. You do it as "just a person"
u go to prison for
> 10-15 years. You do it as an "md" you loose your license and hopefully
don't manage to settle out
> of criminal court and go to prison, too.
What do you mean by "sexual abuse"? Last I heard, MDs are subject to all the
penalties for sex offenses as everybody else, PLUS they lose their licenses.
In fact, in most states MDs are liable to lose their licenses even for
having sex with a adult consenting patient. Strangely, attorneys are not
liable to disbarment or indeed any problems at all for doing the same with
their clients. (I think the reason for this, is that if the rules weren't
different for lawyers, we wouldn't have any divorce attorneys left in
practice).
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Alex K
Greetz,
alex
P.S.: "Even if the spelling and grammar weren't third grade
level, it would still stands out for stupidity. (conjunctive)
Alex K
dentists, etc.
I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for lawyers, as
they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician get's to
know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are vulnerable once
we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients often
from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
Rich Andrews
I thought it could not get worse, and it did. I am stunned.
r
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
Kurt Ullman
>very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for psychologists,
>dentists, etc.
>
>I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for lawyers, as
>they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician get's to
>know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are vulnerable
> once
>we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients often
>from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
>
>
>
from the psychological and emotional standpoint) they are even more suceptible
to divorce attorneys. Lets see which would get more girls... the dashing
white knight who is helping bring that bastard husband to destruction or the
guy with the mask and knife who is most likely trying to rip something out of
your body. I would be willing to bet the white knight gets laid more often.
--------------------------------------------------------
"Writers even write the silences"
-J. Michael Straczynski
Garth
wrote:
>In article <3CFEE491...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for psychologists,
>>dentists, etc.
>>
>>I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for lawyers, as
>>they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician get's to
>>know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are vulnerable
>> once
>>we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients often
>>from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
>>
>>
>>
> And people undergoing divorces aren't as vulernable. If anything (at least
>from the psychological and emotional standpoint) they are even more suceptible
>to divorce attorneys. Lets see which would get more girls... the dashing
>white knight who is helping bring that bastard husband to destruction or the
>guy with the mask and knife who is most likely trying to rip something out of
>your body. I would be willing to bet the white knight gets laid more often.
(14% of male psychotherapists admit to having sexually exploited their
paitients.)
Medical professionals are entrusted with the care for one's physical
and mental wellbeing, while lawyers are entrusted with the care of
one's financial and legal wellbeing..
Abuse of patients, including sexual exploitation by medical
professionals is the equivalent of lawyers behaving in manner effects
their clients FINANCIAL well being or legal status.
A sexual liasion with your lawyer, isnt a betrayal of what you
entrusted your lawyer with,
while a sexual laision with a medical professional entrusted with the
care of your wellbing is a betrayal of what you entrusted the medical
prefessional with. .
Doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers should be imprisoned
for abusing or sexually exploiting patients, as lawyers are imprisoned
for embezzlement .
Alex K
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <3CFEE491...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for psychologists,
> >dentists, etc.
> >
> >I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for lawyers, as
> >they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician get's to
> >know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are vulnerable
> > once
> >we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients often
> >from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
> >
> >
> >
> And people undergoing divorces aren't as vulernable. If anything (at least
> from the psychological and emotional standpoint) they are even more suceptible
> to divorce attorneys. Lets see which would get more girls... the dashing
> white knight who is helping bring that bastard husband to destruction or the
> guy with the mask and knife who is most likely trying to rip something out of
> your body. I would be willing to bet the white knight gets laid more often.
ok, put into these terms it's the lawyer who is being taken advantage of, right?
Sex for money, Sex for service... that's all a completely different chapter than
when it happens within a doctor patient relationship. The former is legal in most
counties (including Nevada in the US.) the latter is not.
Alex K
Garth wrote:
That's good writing (in my opinion).
Steve Harris
> very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for
psychologists,
> dentists, etc.
>
> I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for
lawyers, as
> they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician
get's to
> know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are
vulnerable once
> we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients
often
> from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
COMMENT
There are many situations in divorce, criminal and civil suit cases which
lawyers see their clients in far more mentally vulnerable situations than
even shrinks do. OTOH, the law for doctors applies to the patient who has
consensual sex with his/her dermatologist or allergist. I mean, come on.
This is a ridiculous situation and there's only one real reason for it: laws
are mostly made by mostly people with law degrees not medical degrees.
Kurt Ullman
>On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:55:47 GMT, kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3CFEE491...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>very good point, I think. ...besides very true. Same stands for
> psychologists,
>>>dentists, etc.
>>>
>>>I don't think, though that this would be a necessary condition for lawyers,
> as
>>>they are not presented with the same kind of situation. The physician get's
> to
>>>know the patient from one of his/her vulnerable side (we all are vulnerable
>>> once
>>>we open up). The lawyer, on the other hand, gets to know his/her clients
> often
>>>from from their most ugly sides, especially in family law.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And people undergoing divorces aren't as vulernable. If anything (at least
>>from the psychological and emotional standpoint) they are even more suceptible
>>to divorce attorneys. Lets see which would get more girls... the dashing
>>white knight who is helping bring that bastard husband to destruction or the
>>guy with the mask and knife who is most likely trying to rip something out of
>>your body. I would be willing to bet the white knight gets laid more often.
>
>Doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers should be imprisoned
>for abusing or sexually exploiting patients, as lawyers are imprisoned
>for embezzlement .
>
Don't believe I said otherwise. But I was asking why lawyers should skate
because their people aren't as vulnerable.I am saying they are every bit as
vulnerable and should be taken out and (professionally) neutered just like
the docs are.
Kurt Ullman
>ok, put into these terms it's the lawyer who is being taken advantage of,
> right?
You're kidding right?
>Sex for money, Sex for service... that's all a completely different chapter
> than
>when it happens within a doctor patient relationship. The former is legal in
> most
>counties (including Nevada in the US.) the latter is not.
The Canons of the American Bar Association would tend to disagree.
Taking advantage of a professional relationship is bad form no matter who is
doing it.
Howard McCollister
wrote:
> that may be your opinion, which u can give. But here in Canada it's the
> law.Neither spelling nor your opinion will change that. What you can do is
> challenge it, though.
>
> Greetz,
> alex
>
> P.S.: "Even if the spelling and grammar weren't third grade level, it would
> still
> stands out for stupidity. (conjunctive)
>
>
>
> Howard McCollister wrote:
>
> > In article <3CFEC37D...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Let me give you sexual abuse for an example. You do it as "just a person"
> > > u
> > > go to prison for
> > > 10-15 years. You do it as an "md" you loose your license and hopefully
> > > don't
> > > manage to settle out
> > > of criminal court and go to prison, too.
> >
> > This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen on the
> > internet. Even if the spelling and grammar weren't third grade level, it
> > still stands out for stupidity, in a sea of stupidty.
> >
> > HMc
Read it more closely. The law isn't stupid, the original poster who
thinks doctors are immune from prosecution for sexual abuse is stupid.
HMC
Gaby
wrote:
Vulnerable people are exploited by anyone they have business or social
relationships with. Lawyers, bankers, car mechanics, butchers,
bakers, house builders, electricians, tennis pro's, bartenders,
croupiers, next door neighbor, best friends spouse etc.
But, their exploitation is no where near as heinous and
reprehensible as medical professionals doing so, because you did not
go to any of the above seeking help because of your vulnerability,
physicially or emotionally or psychologically.
The abuse of vulnerable patients by physicians, nurses, psychologists,
social workers, and even ministers, is heinous and reprehensible.
specifically because you only sought their services to HELP you
because of your vulnerabilty, and they instead exploited what you
sought them out for help with.
You have to confide things to medical professionals you seek help from
to be helped, you dont confide to anyone else in the world.
another poster pointed out. often therapy involves transference where
the therapist comes to represent whoever IRL traumatised you so as to
make you so vulnerable.
Its particularly reprehensible for a therapist to have sex with a
pateint during therapy where transference is such , as the therpaist
represents the child molester, and the sex becomes de jure child
molestation all over again sublimilaly.
Any BETRAYAL by a medical professional you confided and trusted only
BECASUE they were a medical professional is devastating.
Even the medical professionals who participate in support ng, only to
exploit posters financially, or prey on the vulnerable emotiona.
While on line harassment, libel, slander, stalking is common its
particularly repreehensible and devastating when your stalkers are
posters you ONLY trusted and confided in cause they alleged medical
credentials and suggested they could help you.
Awareness, of the reality, medical professionals participation in
support ng is a prescription for abuse and exploitation is needed on
usenet!
Rich Andrews
news:vbmvfusbtu60dt6uq...@4ax.com:
> Duane <nos...@nospam.com> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:49:02 -0400, in
> alt.support.depression.manic Duane <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:27:55 -0700, "® ©® ©® ©® ©The State® ©® ©® ©® ©
>><nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ga...@nospam.com (Garth) Ga...@nospam.com (Garth)
>>>Ga...@nospam.com (Garth) Ga...@nospam.com (Garth) On Thu, 06 Jun
>>>2002 14:26:50 GMT, in alt.support.depression.manic Ga...@nospam.com
>>>(Garth) wrote:
>>>
>>>>while a sexual laision with a medical professional entrusted with
>>>>the care of your wellbing is a betrayal of what you entrusted the
>>>>medical prefessional with. .
>>>>
>>>>Doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers should be imprisoned
>>>>for abusing or sexually exploiting patients, as lawyers are
>>>>imprisoned for embezzlement .
>>>
>>>I wish Toni Gene Still was in jail..
>>>
>>>He was my therapist when I was 19. He tried to have sex with me.
>>
>>Why didn't he go to jail?
>
> The statue of limitations was up...
>
>
>
actually it is statute.
Agent99
wrote:
>> The statue of limitations was up...
>>
>>
>>
>
>actually it is statute.
Wow, a spelling flame. How do you do it? Amazing!
Alex K
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <3CFF7575...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >ok, put into these terms it's the lawyer who is being taken advantage of,
> > right?
> You're kidding right?
No, actually I wasn't kidding. As a matter of fact this is the cause for some
layers to withdraw their name from particular cases.
>
>
> >Sex for money, Sex for service... that's all a completely different chapter
> > than
> >when it happens within a doctor patient relationship. The former is legal in
> > most
> >counties (including Nevada in the US.) the latter is not.
>
> The Canons of the American Bar Association would tend to disagree.
> Taking advantage of a professional relationship is bad form no matter who is
> doing it.
Of course it is bad news. But bad or morally not right does not yet constitute
criminal, while criminal does not necessarily mean "sexual abuse" &
"exploitation".
Steve Harris
> > A sexual liasion with your lawyer, isnt a betrayal of what you
> > entrusted your lawyer with,
> >
> > while a sexual laision with a medical professional entrusted with the
> > care of your wellbing is a betrayal of what you entrusted the medical
> > prefessional with.
Trust is a moment by moment thing. If you can entrust somebody to remove
your heart, you certainly ought to be able to make the decision to trust him
to have sex with you, instead of having the law treat you like a minor or a
mental incompetent. In a sense you trust anyone with your body during sex,
whether they're your allergist or not.
It's only a betrayal of trust if the doctor has sex with you while you're
unconscious, drugged, or otherwise non compos mentis. And that's a very
different kind of trust.
Steve Harris
>In article <3CFF7575...@rogers.com>, Alex K <a_...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>ok, put into these terms it's the lawyer who is being taken advantage of,
>> right?
> You're kidding right?
>
>>Sex for money, Sex for service... that's all a completely different
chapter
>> than
>>when it happens within a doctor patient relationship. The former is legal
in
>> most
>>counties (including Nevada in the US.) the latter is not.
>
> The Canons of the American Bar Association would tend to disagree.
>Taking advantage of a professional relationship is bad form no matter who
is
>doing it.
Yeah, but there's a difference between "bad form" and losing your license.
The canons of the ABA are being exquisitely hypocritical if they don't
demand dis-barment, which is the equivalent of de-licensure for MDs. The
idea of some kind of toothless professional censure among lawyers is a joke.
What-- you think lawyers worry a lot about their reputation among other
lawyers?
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Steve Harris
in message ...
>"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> "Steve Harris"
><sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> "Steve Harris"
><sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> "Steve Harris"
><sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:16:46 -0600,
in
>alt.support.depression.manic "Steve Harris"
><sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>>COMMENT
>>
>>There are many situations in divorce, criminal and civil suit cases which
>>lawyers see their clients in far more mentally vulnerable situations than
>>even shrinks do. OTOH, the law for doctors applies to the patient who has
>>consensual sex with his/her dermatologist or allergist. I mean, come on.
>>This is a ridiculous situation and there's only one real reason for it:
laws
>>are mostly made by mostly people with law degrees not medical degrees.
>>
>>SBH
>
>
occur
>in a client lawyer relationship? Certainly not to the degree it occurs in
a
>patient doctor relationship with a psychiatrist or a therapist.
I understand this, but the law is not limited to doctors who are dealing
with mental problems. It applies to all doctors, and it's silly.
>
>you're just jealous cuz you got busted for sleeping with a patient..
I've never slept with a patient and certainly have never been "busted" for
it. I've never even been tempted, inasmuch as I'm a gerontologist <g>. Now,
yer Hollywood plastic surgeons may have a harder time.
Mark
> This is a ridiculous situation and there's only one real reason for it: laws
> are mostly made by mostly people with law degrees not medical degrees.
>
> SBH
When is the last time you heard of a lawyer being sued for legal
malpractice (or whatever the term is)? Or are all lawyers just so
good that they don't make mistakes?
Mark, MD
Alex K
I am here in Canada, but would very much like to try Focalin. As you are from the
US, I believe, and an md, I was wondering if you were willing to give me your
professional opinion as to how I ought to approach this situation. My history is
well documented, etc., etc.
thanks in advance
alex
Kurt Ullman
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>I've never slept with a patient and certainly have never been "busted" for
>it. I've never even been tempted, inasmuch as I'm a gerontologist <g>. Now,
>yer Hollywood plastic surgeons may have a harder time.
>
I know of a couple of tatoo artists who do tatoos on private parts and then
take them for a "test drive". I wonder if this isn't a violation of the trust
between and artist and their canvas.
Reggie
>When is the last time you heard of a lawyer being sued for legal
>malpractice (or whatever the term is)?
Today.
(6/7/02, 10 a.m. ET) -- Former Beach Boys member Al Jardine filed a
lawsuit against his attorney and his firm in regards to a 1999 Beach
Boys trademark-infringement case. On Wednesday (June 5), Jardine filed
a lawsuit against Vincent H. Chieffo and other related defendants in
Los Angeles Superior Court, citing legal malpractice and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The matter goes back to a 1999 litigation in which Jardine was sued by
the Beach Boys' Brother Records for trademark infringement stemming
from use of the Beach Boys name. Jardine filed a counterclaim
asserting a breach of contract claim. Chieffo and the other acting
attorneys advised Jardine at the time to amend the counterclaim to
assert an additional and different claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Jardine authorized the defendants to do so, but for whatever reason,
the defendants failed to file a motion for leave to amend the
counterclaim until the spring of 2001.
In April 2001, the court denied the motion because it was not filed in
a timely fashion. As a consequence of the defendants' conduct, Jardine
was unable to file the breach of fiduciary duty claim in the federal
action, which Jardine alleges would have resulted in an award of
damages.
The suit alleges that, as a result of the defendants' legal
malpractice, Jardine has suffered general and special damages believed
to exceed $1 million. Jardine is also seeking damages for emotional
distress.
Robert A. Fink, M. D.
between physician and patient, is a matter of *power*, not physical or
financial aspects.
When someone is in a subservient position as to power, consent to sex
is not full consent. Thus, sex is prohibited between pastor and
churchgoer, officer and enlisted person, prisoner and guard, etc.
Thus, sex between attorney and client is no less damaging (and
illegal) than between doctor and patient.
Best,
Bob
Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C.
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555
FAX: 510-849-2557
<http://www.rafink.com>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"
Gaylord
<raf...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> The issue (of sex between client and lawyer) is, like the same thing
>between physician and patient, is a matter of *power*, not physical or
>financial aspects.
>
>When someone is in a subservient position as to power, consent to sex
>is not full consent. Thus, sex is prohibited between pastor and
>churchgoer, officer and enlisted person, prisoner and guard, etc.
>
>Thus, sex between attorney and client is no less damaging (and
>illegal) than between doctor and patient.
>
Neither a doctor nor a lawyer relationship with their clients is of
the nature you compare it to, ala bosses regards employees, guards
regards prisoners, officer regards enlisted persons.
Doctors and lawyer are hired by the client, and generally easily
fired.
Any power in the relationship between a doctor and client, or a
lawyer and client, is ceded to the doctor or lawyer, by the amount of
trust given them by the client.
And, Doctors are overwhelmingly perceived as extremely trustworthy
while lawyers are overwhelmingly perceived as untrustworthy.
Expectations regards Doctors conduct and behavior are high, and more
is entrusted to them. .
Expectations regards Lawyers behavior are low, and less trust,
therefore power, ceded in the relationship. .
If the lawyer betrays what little trust, their clients place in them,
the damages are mitigated by the belief that lawyers are schmiels
anyway, what else would one expect.
When a Doctor misbehaves, abuses their clients, exploits them its
shocking, devastating, disillusioning, and much more damaging.
because the expectations are higher.
Perhaps, medical professionals do not share the general publics high
opinion of medical professionals. Maybe a case of familiarity with
ones brethren, breeding contempt of one's professional associates. So
doctors themselves would not have high expectations of their brethrens
conduct, and wouldnt be as damaged by misconduct as the general public
with its higher expectations. .
Mark
> Dear Dr. Mark
>
> I am here in Canada, but would very much like to try Focalin. As you are from the
> US, I believe, and an md, I was wondering if you were willing to give me your
> professional opinion as to how I ought to approach this situation. My history is
> well documented, etc., etc.
>
> thanks in advance
> alex
>
Alex,
I'm sorry, but I don't know really where you're coming from with this.
I don't know your history or why you're asking me about Focalin.
In any case, I have no working knowledge of this particular product.
I have never prescribed it, and I haven't studied it that much. I do
have a good bit of experience with other stimulant/ADHD meds, and I
think that in the proper setting they are good meds. I'm definitely
not a "Ritalin Doc", but I think there are certainly circumstances
where the stimulant meds are appropriate and useful.
If you have specific questions or want to fill me in on your situation
and curiosity about Focalin, I'll try to answer as best I can.
Mark, MD
^
>Why keep changing the subject from abusive perverted therapists and doctors to
>one about lawyers??
Talk about the pervert of your choice.
Steve Harris
> The issue (of sex between client and lawyer) is, like the same thing
>between physician and patient, is a matter of *power*, not physical or
>financial aspects.
>
>When someone is in a subservient position as to power, consent to sex
>is not full consent. Thus, sex is prohibited between pastor and
>churchgoer, officer and enlisted person, prisoner and guard, etc.
>
>Thus, sex between attorney and client is no less damaging (and
>illegal) than between doctor and patient.
COMMENT:
It is indeed less illegal, and that's not contestable. Whether it's less
damaging of course depends on the case. Which is the point.
As for the power issue, you shouldn't conflate widely different issues.
People in prison are much more powerless than free people who choose to
believe in some religious or medical guru. Or are you having problems with
the concept of free will? If so, you'll make a bad district attorney
prosecuting these cases. If I tell you that God told me you should have sex
with me (or give my parish a million dollars for that matter), it's
certainly your problem if you believe it (we assume here that you're an
adult with full mental faculties). How is it that we are to believe in free
will for those who persuade or seduce (else how can we justify punishment
them for them), but not for those who ARE? I don't think anyone would argue
that people being treated for mental problems by doctors should not be
having sex with them, but even here I'm not at all sure you can make a
really good moral and ethical argument for why no in all casest. There are
mental problems and there are mental problems, and not all mental problems
make you legally incompetent to manage your affairs (ahem). Would we say
that all people who see a psychiatrist should be treated as minors and their
ability to consent to have sex with ANYONE should be legally removed until
they get mentally better? I think many of them would object strenuously to
that, and rightly so. So why is any of this YOUR business, as a member of
John Q. Public?
The other problem is that power in sexual relationships is a complicated
thing, as any of the cast of Ally McBeal could tell you <g>. You can't
always measure it by formal social indicators like age, position, money, and
status. The 50 year-old rich actor marries the 25 year old model. Who has
more power? If you look at the case of Goldilocks sleeping her way to the
top of a large corporation, will her fellow office workers complain that she
has too little power, too much power, or JUUUST right?
And let's consider coercion for a bit. Can a woman (or a man) refuse to
have sex with his or her spouse without any problems of adverse economic,
social, and emotional consequences? Sure, for a night or a week or a
month--- but if you stretch out the time too much past this you're going to
come upon a place where you'll looking at continued refusal to have sex may
well possibly wipe out a spouse's whole way of life. So why is this not an
inherrently coercive situation? Has there ever been a case where a married
person had sex when they didn't really want to, but did so for the sake of
the "relationship" (or the kids or the house or whatever). Should we look
at this sort of thing with a legislative remedy?
Lastly, let's forget sex for the moment entirely and look at other social
situations. The really ill patient is in a pretty bad position with regard
to the doctor, power-wise. But so also (for that matter) is the guy whose
car is broken down in a lonely place vis-a-vis Triple-A, or the guy in jail
with regard to the bailbondsman on a Friday night. Does that mean that all
these relationships are inherently immoral? No, because the patient and the
guy on the road and the guy in jail can usually pick the competition (which
nearly always exists) without fear of too many adverse consequences. By
analogy, the woman who refuses a sexual advance from her allergist or
dermatologist is hardly in the same position as the woman who refuses one
from her commanding officer, corporate supervisor, or jailhouse guard. So
why treat the situations as if they were the same?
And let us even grant the flagrant case where the dermatologist is
attempting use sex as a power lever ("Lady, I won't remove that mole until
you sleep with me") ROFL. Oddly, in medicine, it's not even the attempt at
coercion for sex that is illegal (as it is in the workplace)-- it's the act
of sex itself, whether coercion is involved or not. Indeed, whether the
proposal is made by the patient or not. This does not make sense. So don't
try to defend it-- you'll just get yourself into a place where you look
sillier and sillier.
Steve Harris
> I know of a couple of tatoo artists who do tatoos on private parts and
then
>take them for a "test drive". I wonder if this isn't a violation of the
trust
>between and artist and their canvas.
I'm thinking of Winston S. Churchill describing his first experiments with
painting and the canvas "Anyone could see it couldn't hit back.." But I
suppose that's not true of the Illustrated Man (or woman).
*
news:FpPL8.842$AK3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> Don't believe I said otherwise. But I was asking why lawyers should
> skate
> because their people aren't as vulnerable.I am saying they are every
> bit as vulnerable and should be taken out and (professionally)
> neutered just like the docs are.
>
For once I think we're in total agreement. Go figure!