Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2010, at 9:08:30
In reply to Lou's views-in defense of Dymphna, posted by Lou Pilder on September 29, 2010, at 20:10:11
> > > Hi Dymphna.
> > >
> > > I don't know anything about you, and I have visited your website on just a handful of occasions. I was disturbed by your words to Maxime. Believe it or not, they would not be considered civil on Psycho-Babble, and the moderators would intervene on everyone's behalf. I don't take ownership of anyone's words but my own. Knowing how emotionally vulnerable and sensitive to criticism mental illnesses can leave one, I try to be communicate with others here with that in mind.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> >
> > I totally agree Scott.
> >
> > This part really bothered me:
> >
> > "If it is you that is responsible for making sure you obtain these medications, in whatever way possible, you are in need of therapy far more than you are in need of a place like CrazyMeds. Please do not ask any more questions along this vein. Your data does not add up, and we have an extremely low tolerance for such things""
> >
> > I won't comment further as I don't want to be banned but let's just say it didn't feel very civil to me.
> >
> > 49er
>
> Friends,
> I would like for you to nootice the skill that Dymphna used in the post in question. She saw that a combination of drugs could cause death as has been reported in the liturature. Now she may know that combinations of drugs are what is belived by many to have killed many famous people. People like Elvis and John Balushi, and Hank Williams and many others. I think that she gives a higher priority to having members be warned of the potential of death than to civility. And anyway, she is the moderator in charge and could be thinking of protectinng the members health and safety.
> You see, when chemicals are taken, there could be a life or death situation.
> Now reading dymphna's post in queston, she uses logic to cover what could be all the bases. First she addresses as to if the drugs were prescribed by one Dr, and then by more than one Dr. And then she writes,[... [IF} it is you that is responsible...]. Now she is covering if the drugs are taken outside of being prescribed although the grammatical structure could b interpretted differently, but I lean to that she was covering the possibility of a Dr not being involved in the obtaining of the drugs, but she asks if it is, and I do not see her stating that the drugs were obtained without a Dr prescribing because she opens with the statement with {IF}.
> One way tha could happen is if the person had taken the drugs previously as being prescribed in the past and some were shelved and then recalled later. Another way is if the drugs can be obtaned by mail, legally. If there is self-medicating, then I think that Dymphna was covering that possibility.
> I think that she coverd the possibilities and the members there could then have a logical explanation for what she posted to make their own determination as to take such a combination of drugs.
> She then states something that I think means that the site that she moderates does not want to foster the taking of those combinations. Now that is something as to their TOS as she explained here in this thread. The TOS can be a legal aspect of these internet forums. If someone died taking the combination of drugs in question, and the TOS of that forum was against such, and Dymphna did not sanction the post, then could it be possible that she could be held liable for the member's death in some jurisdictions because of indifference and/or negligence?
> Let's look at this in another situation. Suppose one member tells another member to take a particular drug. Then the member has a child born with horrific birth defects as a resuklt of taking the drug that she was told by the other member to take. Now the moderator, let's say, did not intercede with a warning about the possibility of birth defects. Could the moderator be held liable if she/he knew or {should have known}? You see, Dymphna may think that it is her duty to know because she is the moderator. It is my conviction that she knows a great deal about the chemical structure of drugs that act on the central nervous system and was alarmed at reading the drug combination in question.
> LouFriends,
Now I think that Dymphna is a concientious moderator. You see, she may have legal advice concerning what is known as criminal negligence and could have sanctioned the post in question with that in mind along with the other aspects of her moderation of that forum.
Now depending on the jurisdiction, Dymphna could have been aware of the concepts of criminal negligence and might foresee the consequences as a result of letting the post go or letting it stand without comment to point out that the combination of he drug(s) are contrindicated. The consequences listed in the liturature include death.
The concept of criminal negligence in many jurisdictions involves that someone could have the knlowlege to know that, in the case at hand, the combination of drug(s) could cause death and that the death(s) could be {avoidable} if the combinations that are contrindicated are pointed out, which she did. Now then a reasonable person standard looks at the moderator's knowlege of if the moderator could pose another to the risk of injury or death by what is known as {nonfeasance} or in the language of these forum, letting the post stand or letting it go.
But there is much more to this...
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:963115
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100926/msgs/964564.html