Hello Lee. In Australia we have onerous defamation laws. I don't believe that anything I've written is defamatory. However, there are some articles in which it's sensible to make explicit my presumption that clinicians are attempting to help patients. That doesn't shift blame to the kids (they are, after all, only kids), nor does it excu…
Hello Lee. In Australia we have onerous defamation laws. I don't believe that anything I've written is defamatory. However, there are some articles in which it's sensible to make explicit my presumption that clinicians are attempting to help patients. That doesn't shift blame to the kids (they are, after all, only kids), nor does it exculpate clinicians who do harm with treatments lacking a solid evidence base. They must be held accountable & their own statements that these are vulnerable kids needing help only serve to reinforce that the standard for judgment is the outcome for the kids, not the intention of clinicians.
Hello Lee. In Australia we have onerous defamation laws. I don't believe that anything I've written is defamatory. However, there are some articles in which it's sensible to make explicit my presumption that clinicians are attempting to help patients. That doesn't shift blame to the kids (they are, after all, only kids), nor does it exculpate clinicians who do harm with treatments lacking a solid evidence base. They must be held accountable & their own statements that these are vulnerable kids needing help only serve to reinforce that the standard for judgment is the outcome for the kids, not the intention of clinicians.
That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.