http://www.atlargely.com/2007/08/you-guys-have-t.htmlYou guys have to see this...Dr. Pat Santy, with an M.D. in psychiatry (working the Aerospace industry looks like) has launched a rather delusional and unprofessional attack on me by claiming that I have said things I have not and quite literally smeared me Soviet style for my political views.
I wonder, is it considered a violation of ethics for a medical professional to smear someone as psychologically unstable, hysterical, and dangerous, and do it in the public sphere without ever having met the person?
I wonder too just how ethical it is for a medical professional to brand someone who disagrees with their political views as mental and in need of treatment? Seems to me the good doctor should not be practicing medicine given her rather overt abuse of alleged authority as a medical expert, especially that her entire attack on me as not remotely based on what I have written, but what she hallucinated I might have meant:
Here are some excerpts from the good Dr:
This histrionic post demonstrates exactly why it is impossible to engage members of the political and increasingly lunatic left in any sort of rational discussion about national security. It's like trying to dicuss responsibility with a self-indulgent and overly dramatic adolescent girl.
<snip>
None of the rhetoric has anything remotely to do with reality; but all that is necessary for the left is to feel intensely that something is so, and for them it is.
We are living in a police state! Bush is Hitler! Christians are trying to impose a theocracy on America. We are being persecuted! Blah blah victims blah oppression blah fascist blah blah blah! And so on and so forth.
When did I ever say Bush is Hitler or that Christians are trying to impose a theocracy on America? Nor have I said we are "living in a police state..." what I said in that post entitled, "it's official, we are police state" in response to the passage of absolute unchecked power given by the Dems to Alberto Gonzales via the FISA hatchet job, is as follows:
"Make NO mistake, we are in serious peril when an Attorney General who has subverted the Constitution per request of his boss, lied, obstructed justice, and defended torture, is now in full authority to declare who is going to be a target of warrant-less surveillance. You may not see this as seriously as I do, but then again, you have not lived under a dictatorship to know the difference. Mostly though, the people who failed most, are the citizens of this country - who should have taken to the streets and shut down all commerce, all traffic, and disengaged from the machine of government. You did not shut it down. You did not even try. You waited as your hopes were put entirely in the hands of cowards."
So why is the good Dr. putting words in my mouth do you suppose? Here is her answer to my incredibly fact based post, which she does not address on the points I make, but rather provides this medical diagnosis:
"Hysteria is a concept characterized by a wide variety of physical and mental symptoms that result from dissociating one's cognitive functioning from one's emotion and/or behavior. The psychological defense that makes this happen is known as dissociation.
For the hysteric emotions are primary and are not subject to an objective reality.
When we speak of someone becoming "hysterical" or "histrionic", we are talking about behavior that exhibits overwhelming or unmanageable emotional excess."
And this is a professional opinion then is it? Interesting, because the professional opinion of a 2 bit shrink distributed in order to smear a journalist for political reasons sounds to me like exactly the type of extremism I am talking about and
smells terribly familiar of the Soviet stench. It is also a very good reason reason to file a an ethics complaint against the good doctor. In the Soviet Union - a police state - medical experts often trotted out to discredit dissidents and free thinkers by applying such standards of medical practice. She appears to be proving my point rather nicely.
MORE
My response at Larisa's website is that hysteria (as in hystorectomy, as in remove part of the sexual organs in order to attempt to control what is considered "inappropriate" behavior by women, often also diagnosed as "nymphomania") is an outmoded and SEXIST 19th-century concept. Not only is the doctor unethical in presuming to diagnose Larisa without having met her, and lost several centuries back in attitude, but the doctor is a big fat jerk.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
