Nadeau-Incompetent/Bad Psychologists;
Nessa
the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:56:24 -0400, handlethis wrote
(in message <YcHU4.1851$jV4....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>):
> It really sounds to me as if this woman doesn't have her act together.
> Psychologists are required to make referrals to inquiring patients.
> She needs to hire a secretary to teach her effective ways of
> communicating with inquiries; how to use a fax and telephone
> answering machine.
>
>
Psychologists are required to make referrals? What law is this? What
country is it?
Kathleen is one of the most effective communicators I know.
You must project hostility since I can sense it just in your writing.
I will see her tomorrow and find out what actually happened for you.
Did you know that people are not automated and that their own experiences
of each day affect their reactions.
Maybe the dog died that morning. I know last week when I saw her she
was pretty shaken up by seeing a severe motorcycle accident on the
washington beltway that morning.
Since you have had only one encounter with her, I doubt you really have
any idea of what Kathleen is like.
--
Nessa
--
as seen on a purple pickup truck in a home depot parking lot:
Sorry I didn't go to Church on Sunday,
I was too busy learning Witchcraft
and practicing to be a lesbian.
Mark Morin
> Seems that following lines of communications is a problem for not
> just this psychologist-I was responding to another's post.
>
> Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
> is a friend of yours?
>
> The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
> professional who's working in a field where the primary
> expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
> and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
> then there is something wrong.
>
> As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
> pages from the American Psychological Association if you
> need to educate yourself in this matter.
The relevant sections are 1.08 and 1.20 and they are not as clear as you seem
to indicate:
1.08 Human Differences.
Where differences of age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin,
religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status
significantly affect psychologists' work con- cerning particular individuals or
groups, psychologists obtain the training, experience, consultation, or
supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make
appropriate referrals.
1.20 Consultations and Referrals.
(a) Psychologists arrange for appropriate consultations and referrals
based principally on the best interests of their patients or clients, with
appropriate consent, and subject to other relevant considerations, including
applicable law and contractual obligations. (See also Standards 5.01,
Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, and 5.06, Consultations.)
(b) When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate
with other professionals in order to serve their patients or clients
effectively and appropriately.
(c) Psychologists' referral practices are consistent with law.
You use the term "patient" loosely. Not everyone who calls a psychologist's
office is *their* patients. A psychologist's ethical and legal responsabities
lie toward *their* patient. Thus, if I call Dr. Joe Blowmeoff asking for a
referral and he doesn't have the time to deal with me, he has broken neither
law nor ethical principal. If I am Dr. Blowmeoff's patient and things aren't
working out and I ask for a referral, at that point, he has a reponsibility to
act.
The original posts have not hit my server yet so I'm not clear what the
question is but the issue of referrals is a tad more complex than handlethis
indicates. FWIT the ethical code can be found at:
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html
> --
> Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
> Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
--
**************
At the heart of any real intimacy is a certain vulnerability.
It is hard to trust someone with your vulnerability unless
you can see in them a matching vulnerability and know that
you will not be judged.
In some basic way it is our imperfections and even our pain
that draws others close to us.
Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
Kitchen Table Wisdom
http://www.goti.net/members/mmorin/index.htm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jim Manson
>Seems that following lines of communications is a problem for not
>just this psychologist-I was responding to another's post.
Imagine that, someone followed up to a post on Usenet. How dare you
Nessa! Obviously they posted it for millions to see because they
wanted it to be private. Have you no respect?
>
>Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
>is a friend of yours?
>
>The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
>professional who's working in a field where the primary
>expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
>and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
>then there is something wrong.
Amazingly small sample to be working from. Actually small enough to be
useless as an indicator. She had problems once with her answering
system and didn't get one fax. The HORROR of it! Obviously since it
happened once it has to be happening every time someone contacts her.
>
>As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
>pages from the American Psychological Association if you
>need to educate yourself in this matter.
I just love it when someone pulls this arrogance crap and ends up
being wrong.
Go read it again. It covers PATIENTS OR CLIENTS not someone wandering
in off the street.
I'll even quote it for you:
(a) Psychologists arrange for appropriate consultations and referrals
based principally on the best interests of their patients or clients,
with appropriate consent, and subject to other relevant
considerations, including applicable law and contractual obligations.
(See also Standards 5.01, Discussing the Limits of
Confidentiality, and 5.06, Consultations.)
Free clue- someone calling for the first time isn't a patient and the
psychologist has no duty to them under the law or the APA code of
conduct.
Next......
handlethis
Psychologists are required to make referrals to inquiring patients.
She needs to hire a secretary to teach her effective ways of
communicating with inquiries; how to use a fax and telephone
answering machine.
On 17 May 2000 12:35:20 -0000 theproblemisman
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> I like to relate an experience I had with Kathleen Nadeau,
> author of ADD in the Workplace and a clinical psychologist.
>
> I faxed her, after seeing her recommended by some of the members
> of this group.
>
> She did not reply to my fax seeking information on referrals for
> ADDH.
>
> When I subsequently phoned her, she picked up the phone in synch
> with her answering machine, which made it impossible to carry on
> the conversation. She then told me that she couldn't figure out
> how to turn off the answering machine!; that I should call back.
>
> When I called back, I got a fax squeal from her number.
>
> On the third call I finally got her. When I tried to ask
> her if she received my fax, she tried to brow beat me into
> retelling her on the phone all the contents of the fax; said that
> she never received the fax. I had previously confirmed her
> fax number with her secretary and the fax went through without
> errors.
>
> These are the kinds of "psychologists" that write books.
> Why? Probably because that's all they can do very well.
> Additionally, I read her book; it wasn't very good; what she had
> to say could have been said in 50 pages, not 240+. How can a woman
> who can't even figure out how to work her own phone lines or turn off
> an answering machine advise others on life decisions?
>
> Be careful when you approach people like this, you may get
> more or less what you'd expect.
handlethis
just this psychologist-I was responding to another's post.
Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
is a friend of yours?
The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
professional who's working in a field where the primary
expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
then there is something wrong.
As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
pages from the American Psychological Association if you
need to educate yourself in this matter.
On Wed, 17 May 2000 21:21:42 -0400 Nessa <ne...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:56:24 -0400, handlethis wrote
> (in message <YcHU4.1851$jV4....@c01read04.service.talkway.com>):
>
> > It really sounds to me as if this woman doesn't have her act together.
> > Psychologists are required to make referrals to inquiring patients.
> > She needs to hire a secretary to teach her effective ways of
> > communicating with inquiries; how to use a fax and telephone
> > answering machine.
> >
> >
>
> Psychologists are required to make referrals? What law is this? What
> country is it?
>
> Kathleen is one of the most effective communicators I know.
>
> You must project hostility since I can sense it just in your writing.
>
> I will see her tomorrow and find out what actually happened for you.
>
> Did you know that people are not automated and that their own experiences
> of each day affect their reactions.
>
> Maybe the dog died that morning. I know last week when I saw her she
> was pretty shaken up by seeing a severe motorcycle accident on the
> washington beltway that morning.
>
> Since you have had only one encounter with her, I doubt you really have
> any idea of what Kathleen is like.
> --
> Nessa
> --
> as seen on a purple pickup truck in a home depot parking lot:
> Sorry I didn't go to Church on Sunday,
> I was too busy learning Witchcraft
> and practicing to be a lesbian.
>
--
Tralalaah
"> These are the kinds of "psychologists" that write books.
> Why?"
You said a whole lot more, too, and in the process you slandered a professional
in public.
Linking her name in the title you chose was just wrong.
George
tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
> "handlethis" said:
>
> "> These are the kinds of "psychologists" that write books.
> > Why?"
>
The original poster was someone else. It's gone from Deja, so you are
probably not the only person who got confused. This guy just
perpetuated the slander.
George
> You said a whole lot more, too, and in the process you slandered a
professional
> in public.
>
> Linking her name in the title you chose was just wrong.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
handlethis
> "handlethis" <real...@inmessage.body.net> wrote:
>
> >Seems that following lines of communications is a problem for not
> >just this psychologist-I was responding to another's post.
>
> Nessa! Obviously they posted it for millions to see because they
> wanted it to be private. Have you no respect?
Another newbie who just got his computer from WalMart; hasn't
learned to read the author address to discern who posted what.
Have you no brain?
>
> >
> >Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
> >is a friend of yours?
> >
> >The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
> >professional who's working in a field where the primary
> >expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
> >and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
> >then there is something wrong.
>
> Amazingly small sample to be working from. Actually small enough to be
> useless as an indicator. She had problems once with her answering
> system and didn't get one fax. The HORROR of it! Obviously since it
> happened once it has to be happening every time someone contacts her.
Maybe, but it sounds like she can't seem to manage her office
communications very well.
>
> >
> >As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
> >pages from the American Psychological Association if you
> >need to educate yourself in this matter.
>
> I just love it when someone pulls this arrogance crap and ends up
> being wrong.
>
> Go read it again. It covers PATIENTS OR CLIENTS not someone wandering
> in off the street.
I love it when a hothead makes a fool out of himself; it is generally
accepted in the profession that when someone asks for a referral
you try to accomodate that person, whether they are a patient or
no. It may not be grounds for an ethics complaint, but it certainly
is poor form.
>
> I'll even quote it for you:
>
> (a) Psychologists arrange for appropriate consultations and referrals
> based principally on the best interests of their patients or clients,
> with appropriate consent, and subject to other relevant
> considerations, including applicable law and contractual obligations.
> (See also Standards 5.01, Discussing the Limits of
> Confidentiality, and 5.06, Consultations.)
>
> Free clue- someone calling for the first time isn't a patient and the
> psychologist has no duty to them under the law or the APA code of
> conduct.
>
> Next......
>
>
Next..... (actually, how about an intelligent reply next time?)
Jim Manson
>On Wed, 17 May 2000 21:03:47 -0500 Jim Manson <J...@Manson.com> wrote:
>> "handlethis" <real...@inmessage.body.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Seems that following lines of communications is a problem for not
>> >just this psychologist-I was responding to another's post.
>>
>> Imagine that, someone followed up to a post on Usenet. How dare you
>> Nessa! Obviously they posted it for millions to see because they
>> wanted it to be private. Have you no respect?
>
>Another newbie who just got his computer from WalMart; hasn't
>learned to read the author address to discern who posted what.
>Have you no brain?
Another example of the never ending September.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
>> >is a friend of yours?
>> >
>> >The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
>> >professional who's working in a field where the primary
>> >expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
>> >and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
>> >then there is something wrong.
>>
>> Amazingly small sample to be working from. Actually small enough to be
>> useless as an indicator. She had problems once with her answering
>> system and didn't get one fax. The HORROR of it! Obviously since it
>> happened once it has to be happening every time someone contacts her.
>
>Maybe, but it sounds like she can't seem to manage her office
>communications very well.
On the basis of one incident? There's little point to even worrying
about it.
>
>>
>> >
>> >As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
>> >pages from the American Psychological Association if you
>> >need to educate yourself in this matter.
>>
>> I just love it when someone pulls this arrogance crap and ends up
>> being wrong.
>>
>> Go read it again. It covers PATIENTS OR CLIENTS not someone wandering
>> in off the street.
>
>I love it when a hothead makes a fool out of himself; it is generally
>accepted in the profession that when someone asks for a referral
>you try to accomodate that person, whether they are a patient or
>no. It may not be grounds for an ethics complaint, but it certainly
>is poor form.
Wrong. You stated that the code of conduct REQUIRED referrals for
anyone contacting the psychologist. You are obviously wrong based on
the clear and unambiguous wording the relevant section. You then
insulted Nessa about her knowledge of it when you were wrong in making
the statement.
Most people that can use the English language would have little
problem seeing that. You on the other hand apparently can't.
>>
>>
>
>Next..... (actually, how about an intelligent reply next time?)
Amazing. Completely clueless and you're making it more apparent with
each post.
CGEORGE
handlethis <real...@inmessage.body.net> wrote in message
news:lVOU4.1923$jV4....@c01read04.service.talkway.com...
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 21:03:47 -0500 Jim Manson <J...@Manson.com> wrote:
> > "handlethis" <real...@inmessage.body.net> wrote:
>
> Another newbie who just got his computer from WalMart; hasn't
> learned to read the author address to discern who posted what.
> Have you no brain?
***Wow....glad my teens didn't start with this group! Whew....did your
mother or father never tell you that it isn't nice to degrade or humilitate
people? Do you feel superior to others when you put them down this way??
Goodness.... I hope you're not a teacher!**************
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >Guess your definition of hostility is criticism of anyone who
> > >is a friend of yours?
> > >
> > >The original poster raised some legitimate complaints. If a
> > >professional who's working in a field where the primary
> > >expertise is in communicating with others, especially patients,
> > >and she has no reliable method of phone/fax communications;
> > >then there is something wrong.
> >
> > Amazingly small sample to be working from. Actually small enough to be
> > useless as an indicator. She had problems once with her answering
> > system and didn't get one fax. The HORROR of it! Obviously since it
> > happened once it has to be happening every time someone contacts her.
>
> Maybe, but it sounds like she can't seem to manage her office
> communications very well.
>
> >
> > >
> > >As far as requirements for referrals, look up the ethical
> > >pages from the American Psychological Association if you
> > >need to educate yourself in this matter.
> >
> > I just love it when someone pulls this arrogance crap and ends up
> > being wrong.
> >
> > Go read it again. It covers PATIENTS OR CLIENTS not someone wandering
> > in off the street.
>
> I love it when a hothead makes a fool out of himself; it is generally
> accepted in the profession that when someone asks for a referral
> you try to accomodate that person, whether they are a patient or
> no. It may not be grounds for an ethics complaint, but it certainly
> is poor form.
> >
> > I'll even quote it for you:
> >
> > (a) Psychologists arrange for appropriate consultations and referrals
> > based principally on the best interests of their patients or clients,
> > with appropriate consent, and subject to other relevant
> > considerations, including applicable law and contractual obligations.
> > (See also Standards 5.01, Discussing the Limits of
> > Confidentiality, and 5.06, Consultations.)
> >
> > Free clue- someone calling for the first time isn't a patient and the
> > psychologist has no duty to them under the law or the APA code of
> > conduct.
> >
> > Next......
> >
> >
>
> Next..... (actually, how about an intelligent reply next time?)
Ann
>I love it when a hothead makes a fool out of himself; it is generally
>accepted in the profession that when someone asks for a referral
>you try to accomodate that person, whether they are a patient or
>no. It may not be grounds for an ethics complaint, but it certainly
>is poor form.
Since most of us know Jim is anything but a hothead, calling him that
just makes you look more like an idiot.
>Another newbie who just got his computer from WalMart; hasn't
>learned to read the author address to discern who posted what.
>Have you no brain?
You *did* say this, newbie, in your post, message ID
YcHU4.1851$jV4....@c01read04.service.talkway.com
>It really sounds to me as if this woman doesn't have her act together.
>Psychologists are required to make referrals to inquiring patients.
>She needs to hire a secretary to teach her effective ways of
>communicating with inquiries; how to use a fax and telephone
>answering machine.
Are you unable to remember what you post?
>Next..... (actually, how about an intelligent reply next time?)
Why bother....you ain't worth it.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net