Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 2364

Shown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:

 

Toby, can you settle this?

Posted by racer on January 15, 1999, at 11:14:20

In reply to Re: Update. Mixed news, posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 1999, at 23:16:39

> > (BTW, Toby, I've just assumed that you were a woman. Is that so? Just curious.)
> Funny, I've made the other assumption. :-)
> Bob
Isn't it peculiar that Dr Bob, a man, assumes that Toby is a man; while I, a woman, assume that Toby is a woman. Hm, this probably has something to do with how accessible Toby seems to be...

So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?

 

Re: Toby, can you settle this?

Posted by Toby on January 15, 1999, at 12:37:08

In reply to Toby, can you settle this?, posted by racer on January 15, 1999, at 11:14:20


> So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?

Regrettably, no. At the risk of sounding pompous, which I hope I am not, I wish to be all things to all people. I try to keep my advice gender neutral and unbiased but I didn't realize I'd done such a good job of keeping myself gender neutral. :)

 

Re: Toby, can you settle this?

Posted by danielle on January 15, 1999, at 14:19:16

In reply to Re: Toby, can you settle this?, posted by Toby on January 15, 1999, at 12:37:08

Definitely woman.

 

Re: Toby, can you settle this?

Posted by Jef* on January 15, 1999, at 19:19:09

In reply to Re: Toby, can you settle this?, posted by danielle on January 15, 1999, at 14:19:16

I assumed Toby was a male. But what do I know I thought racer was also!

 

Re: Toby, can you settle this?

Posted by Janice on January 16, 1999, at 10:43:30

In reply to Re: Toby, can you settle this?, posted by Toby on January 15, 1999, at 12:37:08

> > So, Toby, will you settle this for us or
not?
> Regrettably, no.

Why the mystery? Why should this be a
secret? Your unwillingness to answer the
question, your lack of forthrightness and
honesty, should raise a few flags in some
people's mind, as it does in mine.

> At the risk of sounding pompous, which I
hope I am not, I wish to be all things to
all people.

Only God can be all things to all people, and
even he has trouble. Isn't people-pleasing
something that gets a bunch of us in trouble?

> I try to keep my advice gender neutral and
unbiased but I didn't realize I'd done such
a good job of keeping myself gende
neutral. :)

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. You
can keep your 'advice gender neutrual' and
still tell us your gender. We can handle it,
we're all big boys and girls.

This dishonesty reeks, especially in the
field of psychology.

Who are you, what are you, and what are your
qualifications?

Are we so needy, we should accept any bone
tossed to us?

Could *Toby* be more than one person, thus
the need to be a composite, a universal?
Something's not right, this smells fishy!
I'm going to check out your previous responses
to see if they've been consistent. If not,
you're expposed!

User, BEWARE!

:) Just my 2 cents worth.

 

Answering questions

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 1999, at 2:04:20

In reply to Re: Toby, can you settle this?, posted by Janice on January 16, 1999, at 10:43:30

> > > So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?

> > Regrettably, no.

> Why the mystery? Why should this be a
> secret? Your unwillingness to answer the
> question, your lack of forthrightness and
> honesty, should raise a few flags in some
> people's mind, as it does in mine.

One thing about this online world, there aren't pat answers here.

It's natural to want it to conform to the "real" world, in which it would be clear what gender we were. Usually, anyway. :-)

The National Board for Certified Counselors was one of the first groups to propose standards for "web counseling". Their current version is at:

http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/wcstandards.htm

Under item 7, they do say that:

>WebCounselors may wish to ensure that, minimally, the
>WebClient has the same data available about his/her service
>provider as would be available if the counseling were to take place
>face to face (i.e., possibly ethnicity, gender, etc.). Compelling
>reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.

I'd like to point out, however, that they probably wouldn't consider exchanges here to be "web counseling". But still.

OTOH, does this in fact need to be like the "real" world? The ability to be genderless is certainly one of the attractions of the Internet.

I don't know.

Some people will be more comfortable with an ambiguous person than others. If you're not comfortable not knowing more about someone, then you might not want to listen to them. Caveat emptor, as they say.

I do think professional qualifications, however, are relevant. I was disappointed that no one responded to my post a long time ago on this. It's not too late :-) it's still at:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/199809/msgs/604.html

Bob

 

Re: Answering questions-psychology anyone?

Posted by pej on January 17, 1999, at 11:13:57

In reply to Answering questions, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 1999, at 2:04:20

> > > > So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?
> > > Regrettably, no.
> > Why the mystery? Why should this be a
> > secret? Your unwillingness to answer the
> > question, your lack of forthrightness and
> > honesty, should raise a few flags in some
> > people's mind, as it does in mine.
> One thing about this online world, there aren't pat answers here.
> It's natural to want it to conform to the "real" world, in which it would be clear what gender we were. Usually, anyway. :-)
> The National Board for Certified Counselors was one of the first groups to propose standards for "web counseling". Their current version is at:
> http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/wcstandards.htm
> Under item 7, they do say that:
> >WebCounselors may wish to ensure that, minimally, the
> >WebClient has the same data available about his/her service
> >provider as would be available if the counseling were to take place
> >face to face (i.e., possibly ethnicity, gender, etc.). Compelling
> >reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.
> I'd like to point out, however, that they probably wouldn't consider exchanges here to be "web counseling". But still.
> OTOH, does this in fact need to be like the "real" world? The ability to be genderless is certainly one of the attractions of the Internet.
> I don't know.
> Some people will be more comfortable with an ambiguous person than others. If you're not comfortable not knowing more about someone, then you might not want to listen to them. Caveat emptor, as they say.
> I do think professional qualifications, however, are relevant. I was disappointed that no one responded to my post a long time ago on this. It's not too late :-) it's still at:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/199809/msgs/604.html
> Bob

>>Although Toby has been generous with answers that, I for one appreciate, this is a little odd.
After seeing several psychologists and psychiatrists over the years, I have a general observation. Psychologists could be a little more understanding about meds and psychiatrists
could learn more than a little about communications. I've seen more than a few psychiatrists who could use some good talk therapy!
Whether on the internet or not, honesty is always the most important issue between people.
I now hold the opinion that Toby could use some time on the couch. Phil(not Phyllis)

 

Re: Answering questions

Posted by mistica on January 17, 1999, at 13:33:36

In reply to Answering questions, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 1999, at 2:04:20

> > > > So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?
> > > Regrettably, no.
> > Why the mystery? Why should this be a
> > secret? Your unwillingness to answer the
> > question, your lack of forthrightness and
> > honesty, should raise a few flags in some
> > people's mind, as it does in mine.
> One thing about this online world, there aren't pat answers here.
> It's natural to want it to conform to the "real" world, in which it would be clear what gender we were. Usually, anyway. :-)
> The National Board for Certified Counselors was one of the first groups to propose standards for "web counseling". Their current version is at:
> http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/wcstandards.htm
> Under item 7, they do say that:
> >WebCounselors may wish to ensure that, minimally, the
> >WebClient has the same data available about his/her service
> >provider as would be available if the counseling were to take place
> >face to face (i.e., possibly ethnicity, gender, etc.). Compelling
> >reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.
> I'd like to point out, however, that they probably wouldn't consider exchanges here to be "web counseling". But still.
> OTOH, does this in fact need to be like the "real" world? The ability to be genderless is certainly one of the attractions of the Internet.
> I don't know.
> Some people will be more comfortable with an ambiguous person than others. If you're not comfortable not knowing more about someone, then you might not want to listen to them. Caveat emptor, as they say.
> I do think professional qualifications, however, are relevant. I was disappointed that no one responded to my post a long time ago on this. It's not too late :-) it's still at:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/199809/msgs/604.html
> Bob


I would like to point-out to everyone that Toby has answered the question of his/her qualifications, (it's in a previous post refering to a somewhat similar question about qualifications or something)!! ALSO I think that we should not, nor do we really have the right to pass judgement on anyone, much less - I will be so bold to say - Toby, for not wanting to give certain personal info. about themselves. Afterall, advise given to us by professionals on this board or those who have esperienced situations similar and want to help people, is done so of their own free will and they aren't getting paid!! I am very greatful for the info. many have supplied, esp. TOBY!!! I don't think we should pass judgement, we should just be greatful, as I'm sure most of us would agree Toby has been quite helpful and very selfless with his /her time. And that fact alone should give us all the info. we need, not to mention I think it's rather obvious that Toby i s qualified (just read his responses) and very experienced and knowledgeable!!!
At the risk of offending anyone, I say SHAME on anyone who would pass any sort of judgement, or try to imply that Toby is oblilgated to answer any personal or professional questions, (that are actually personal questions regarding prof. qualifications)!

 

Re: Answering questions

Posted by Danielle on January 17, 1999, at 16:21:56

In reply to Re: Answering questions, posted by mistica on January 17, 1999, at 13:33:36

Toby hasn't changed.
We have grown fangs.

Again.

 

Re: Update. Mixed news

Posted by Jef* on January 17, 1999, at 19:00:23

In reply to Update. Mixed news, posted by racer on January 13, 1999, at 1:37:43

Toby I would like to thank you for the advice you give freely. And I'm extremely grateful for the time you spend giving this advice. I hope others curiosity about your gender will not change your helpful manner! Jef*

 

Re: Answering questions

Posted by David K. on January 18, 1999, at 4:41:25

In reply to Re: Answering questions, posted by Danielle on January 17, 1999, at 16:21:56

> Toby hasn't changed.
> We have grown fangs.

I wish I'd have written that ... ;)

 

Re: Response to Dr. Bob

Posted by Janice on January 18, 1999, at 6:03:58

In reply to Answering questions, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 1999, at 2:04:20

> > > > So, Toby, will you settle this for us or not?
> > > Regrettably, no.
> > Why the mystery? Why should this be a
> > secret? Your unwillingness to answer the
> > question, your lack of forthrightness and
> > honesty, should raise a few flags in some
> > people's mind, as it does in mine.
> One thing about this online world, there aren't pat answers here.
> It's natural to want it to conform to the "real" world, in which it would be clear what gender we were. Usually, anyway. :-)
> The National Board for Certified Counselors was one of the first groups to propose standards for "web counseling". Their current version is at:
> http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/wcstandards.htm
> Under item 7, they do say that:
> >WebCounselors may wish to ensure that, minimally, the
> >WebClient has the same data available about his/her service
> >provider as would be available if the counseling were to take place
> >face to face (i.e., possibly ethnicity, gender, etc.). Compelling
> >reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.
> I'd like to point out, however, that they probably wouldn't consider exchanges here to be "web counseling". But still.
> OTOH, does this in fact need to be like the "real" world? The ability to be genderless is certainly one of the attractions of the Internet.
> I don't know.
> Some people will be more comfortable with an ambiguous person than others. If you're not comfortable not knowing more about someone, then you might not want to listen to them. Caveat emptor, as they say.
> I do think professional qualifications, however, are relevant. I was disappointed that no one responded to my post a long time ago on this. It's not too late :-) it's still at:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/199809/msgs/604.html
> Bob


Well, Dr. Bob:

I dunno, it's your web page, and if you are
happy with this ambiguousness, then... ???
I've read your
arguments; yet, there is something deep
inside that tells me this ambiguousness is
not right. That's just the way I feel.
You could tell me 2 + 2 = 9, but.....

How can you address someone with a
question when you don't know their area of
expertise?

No, the internet is not the real world,
but if it is going to thrive, people need to
be honest with each other. If you can't
believe what you read, why take the time
to read it? This nameless, faceless environ-
ment is an excellent opportunity for some to
play games, mislead others.

I'm not accusing Toby of anything, nor am I
trying to drive Toby away. When I posted
the previous post, I had woke up kind of
cranky, so I want to apologize for the tone
of it. Also, I tend to exaggerate, and
frequently say things in an joking,
half-serious way. Also, when I go off
meds, there is a period where I feel
as if I'm being mocked by the world,
that is, almost every bad (or perceived
as bad) look, word, or deed that has
occured in my lifetime is remembered.
And last but not least, I have been
living in and tolerating a somewhat abusive
relationship, for sometime -- I guess this
was my chance to speakup without fear of
too much retribution. (I don't like the
way Brain treats Pinky, either, but that's
a whole nother story)

I guess I've alienated Toby; he/she will
probably never answer any of my future
questions :(

But, at least, I did get a response from
you :) ...finally. Ahhh, relief. I was
expecting negative feedback, but you were
moderate. I probably would of told me to
'get bent', which you may have done if so
many eyes weren't watching. And in the
real world, I probably would have been
told to get bent (at least by some people.)

In closing, what I said previously was
just my opinion, sorry for being
dissonant.

Take care.


 

Re: Answering questions - Dr. Bob

Posted by Elizabeth on January 18, 1999, at 9:27:47

In reply to Re: Answering questions, posted by Danielle on January 17, 1999, at 16:21:56

Dr. Bob, I read your "credentials blurb" and think this sort of thing is a very good idea (though I'm not sure that persons giving professional advice should necessarily be expected to divulge information like gender, etc.). (BTW can anyone point me to where Toby's creds are identified? I can't find it but have been wondering about that.)

For your amusement only:
Name: Elizabeth Shapere. Degree: BS. Certification: None, unless you count CPR. License: Also none, don't even have a driver's license. Position: sitting, slightly hunched over. Home page: in flux. Email: ditto (don't even try). Interests: biological and phenomenological psychiatry, mood and anxiety disorders, sleep, addictions, epilepsy. Referrals: uh, sure! How to refer: "Your Excellency" will do fine. Conflicts of interest: Too numerous to list.

 

Re: Answering questions

Posted by Shelley in Seattle on January 18, 1999, at 13:38:58

In reply to Re: Answering questions, posted by David K. on January 18, 1999, at 4:41:25

I have posted once or twice (changed my name from just plain Shelley, since there seem to be a few Shelley's around here :-) -- but I read nearly every post. I have learned so much from everyone; I am grateful for this board.
But, I don't think anyone has the right to know anything about someone posting here other than their qualification to go beyond sharing experiences and into dispensing medical advice. Self-disclosure is at one's own discretion; can we please thank Toby for the many times he/she has helped us out, and not scare him/her away with pointless bickering?
We are all very fortunate to have Toby posting here at all. Please, let's move on to another topic!

 

What he said!

Posted by racer on January 18, 1999, at 22:15:40

In reply to Re: Update. Mixed news, posted by Jef* on January 17, 1999, at 19:00:23

> Toby I would like to thank you for the advice you give freely. And I'm extremely grateful for the time you spend giving this advice. I hope others curiosity about your gender will not change your helpful manner! Jef*

Absolutely, Toby. Thank you, whatever your gender. I'm sorry for starting this, and hope you don't mind too much. Thank you for your time and generosity in answering so many questions here.

 

Credentials

Posted by DL on January 18, 1999, at 23:50:50

In reply to What he said!, posted by racer on January 18, 1999, at 22:15:40

The following is "cut and pasted" from an October post. I hope it calms the waters. One of the reasons I post here is because I know I don't have to reveal any more about myself than I choose.....I see no reason why this should be different for anyone else. This site has sustained me in some very difficult times and Toby's caring suggestions over the last few months have helped me deal with some less than helpful professionals. So I say, thank you to Toby--many times over.

Posted by Toby on October 26, 1998, at 16:11:28

In reply to Follow-up for Toby, posted by carter on October 23, 1998, at 21:35:03

I am indeed a doctor, board certified in psychiatry and neurology.

 

Response to Janice

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 19, 1999, at 0:20:41

In reply to Re: Response to Dr. Bob, posted by Janice on January 18, 1999, at 6:03:58

> I dunno, it's your web page, and if you are
> happy with this ambiguousness, then... ???

I wouldn't say I'm happy with it, but I'm willing to see how it goes.

> I've read your
> arguments; yet, there is something deep
> inside that tells me this ambiguousness is
> not right. That's just the way I feel.

I'm not sure there's an obvious "right" or "wrong" here. I do, however, agree that:

> >Compelling
> >reasons for limiting disclosure should be presented.

Toby did give a reason, but I don't know if I would call it compelling. It reminds me of the "blank screen" approach that used to be advocated by psychoanalysts. Their idea was that the less they interfered with what patients thought (by answering their questions, for example), the more "true" the process was. I think that most psychoanalysts now, however, would acknowledge that *not* answering questions can itself interfere with the process. So whether you answer a question depends on whether you think it will be more helpful to do so or not. I assume that in this case, Toby thinks it will be more helpful, or helpful to more people, if he doesn't.

(There's no doubt that he's been helpful. The issue I'm trying to address here is whether it enables him to be *more* helpful if he doesn't answer this question.)

> This nameless, faceless environ-
> ment is an excellent opportunity for some to
> play games, mislead others.

I agree, it is. But I wouldn't say Toby is being dishonest or misleading anyone. Not answering is different than lying.

> I guess I've alienated Toby; he/she will
> probably never answer any of my future
> questions :(

Maybe he won't hold a grudge for *too* long. :-)

But, seriously, would you *want* an answer from him, given all this?

> I was
> expecting negative feedback, but you were
> moderate.

Well, I guess I'm sort of the moderator here. :-)

> In closing, what I said previously was
> just my opinion, sorry for being
> dissonant.

Don't be too apologetic. A little dissonance can actually add to a melody. :-)

Bob

 

psych*ists/pej

Posted by Elizabeth on January 19, 1999, at 22:23:32

In reply to Re: Answering questions, posted by Danielle on January 17, 1999, at 16:21:56

Is it just me, or are there too many quotes in this thread? Anyway....

All psychoanalysts have undergone their own analysis - it's a required part of their training (or possibly a form of hazing). A lot of other psychiatrists and psychologists have been on the receiving end of psychotherapy too, either for educational purposes (e.g., during residency), or for personal reasons. As for couches, they're great, but hardly anyone uses them anymore. :( (Not that I think psychoanalysis is all that useful, I just like couches.)

I think you're right that psychotherapists and biologically-oriented psychiatrists too often have an adversarial relationship, as if they feel like they have to compete with one another. I'm not a big fan of psychotherapy personally, but I do try to be fair and not to wear the implicit sneer that I sometimes detect when I hear people talking about the problems with talking therapies (hmm, wouldn't it be funny if Dr. Klein were reading this?).

About the anonymity thing, there's been ongoing flamage on sci.med about this, but I think the issue there was a little different (the person posting anonymously was giving very unsound advice and insulting those who disagreed with him/her). A thought I have is that a nice thing about the internet is that it's *not* real life...you can do things a little differently. If we demand that a person's gender be public information, we might as well demand that everybody be totally open about whether they've been boffing the interns (or the residents :-).

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by Toby on January 22, 1999, at 11:23:04

In reply to psych*ists/pej, posted by Elizabeth on January 19, 1999, at 22:23:32

I just today came back to this post and didn't realize what has been transpiring here. My original answer was intended to run along the lines of what Dr. Bob said about being a "blank slate," especially considering that I had noticed that different people made different pronoun references to me. I figured that meant something to them, but was not ever going to address it since their questions were about medications, not about therapy issues. I noticed that men tend to think I'm a man and women tend to think I'm woman, though not exclusively, obviously. I never corrected anybody so that we wouldn't have to get in a discussion about men not understanding women's issues or women not being as smart as men or any other misunderstanding. In "real life" patients often want to know about their therapist's marital status, drug use, and all sorts of other pesonal information. They don't mean to be nosy, they just want to be able to relate better, to not feel alone. But this only "helps" in the short term; in the long run, any perceived similarities fall apart because no similar experiences are ever identical and no differences truly mean that the patient cannot be understood by the therapist. Before Racer asked the question (and I'm not offended that she did) no one questioned their own assumptions about me (or anyone else online). Now that their curiosity hasn't been immediately gratified, I'm suddenly an uncaring, dissimulating quack. I wonder if this attitude has anything to do with difficulties they experience with their own "real life" doctors and therapists. Those who were able to take a second look at their immediate reaction and be open to other opinions as well as relate that reaction to other real life experiences where things were withheld from them resulting in real harm, are probably on the way to real recovery. I'm not saying that because they turned around and embraced me, but because they are open to changes and that's a good thing. As for me, I'm a board certified psychiatrist and certified in addiction medicine. I practice in a mental health center in emergency and inpatient psychiatry. I'm certified in EMDR and use it 3-4 times per week. I'm an associate professor of psychiatry at a psychiatry residency program where I live (which basically means I can lecture students and residents and supervise psychotherapy for residents in psychiatry). I try to give "advice" here where I feel qualified to do so and always recommend that that advice is discussed with your real life doctor. Whether I'm male or female or a vegetarian doesn't have anything to do with those qualifications (and that's about as miffed as I can get about this). Peace, folks.

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by pej on January 22, 1999, at 20:09:46

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Toby on January 22, 1999, at 11:23:04

Thanks Toby. Your info is a helluva lot more important to me than your gender. I know I can be quick to judge and, coming from my background,
trust is always difficult for me personally. My apologies...Phil


> I just today came back to this post and didn't realize what has been transpiring here. My original answer was intended to run along the lines of what Dr. Bob said about being a "blank slate," especially considering that I had noticed that different people made different pronoun references to me. I figured that meant something to them, but was not ever going to address it since their questions were about medications, not about therapy issues. I noticed that men tend to think I'm a man and women tend to think I'm woman, though not exclusively, obviously. I never corrected anybody so that we wouldn't have to get in a discussion about men not understanding women's issues or women not being as smart as men or any other misunderstanding. In "real life" patients often want to know about their therapist's marital status, drug use, and all sorts of other pesonal information. They don't mean to be nosy, they just want to be able to relate better, to not feel alone. But this only "helps" in the short term; in the long run, any perceived similarities fall apart because no similar experiences are ever identical and no differences truly mean that the patient cannot be understood by the therapist. Before Racer asked the question (and I'm not offended that she did) no one questioned their own assumptions about me (or anyone else online). Now that their curiosity hasn't been immediately gratified, I'm suddenly an uncaring, dissimulating quack. I wonder if this attitude has anything to do with difficulties they experience with their own "real life" doctors and therapists. Those who were able to take a second look at their immediate reaction and be open to other opinions as well as relate that reaction to other real life experiences where things were withheld from them resulting in real harm, are probably on the way to real recovery. I'm not saying that because they turned around and embraced me, but because they are open to changes and that's a good thing. As for me, I'm a board certified psychiatrist and certified in addiction medicine. I practice in a mental health center in emergency and inpatient psychiatry. I'm certified in EMDR and use it 3-4 times per week. I'm an associate professor of psychiatry at a psychiatry residency program where I live (which basically means I can lecture students and residents and supervise psychotherapy for residents in psychiatry). I try to give "advice" here where I feel qualified to do so and always recommend that that advice is discussed with your real life doctor. Whether I'm male or female or a vegetarian doesn't have anything to do with those qualifications (and that's about as miffed as I can get about this). Peace, folks.

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 1999, at 1:35:13

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Toby on January 22, 1999, at 11:23:04

Toby,

Thanks for your response. My preference would still be for you to say who you are, because that way what you've said could be verified, but let's go with some ambiguity, if that's what you want.

Bob

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by Tess on January 23, 1999, at 6:11:22

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 1999, at 1:35:13

> Toby,
> Thanks for your response. My preference would still be for you to say who you are, because that way what you've said could be verified, but let's go with some ambiguity, if that's what you want.
> Bob

I had a therapist like Toby once and I fired him! My preference will always be for full honesty and disclosure. I'm not sure who has the problem here but I do know that it is not easy for women to gain respect in what is still a man's world. Just a hunch.

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by Shirley on January 23, 1999, at 15:10:02

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 1999, at 1:35:13

I don't notice a lot of psych professionals posting responses here. Maybe they aren't in the mood to take on the additional demands of the "HELP ME TOBY!!!!!" variety. Could be the bad reputation that the internet has with the medical community. My own doctors have expressed nothing but contempt at the mere mention of the internet as a source of medical information, which I think grossly underestimates the intelligence of their patients. I believe that they assume lowly non-dr-types lack the intelligence and judgement necessary to distinguish between quackery and good information. It does throw them when I ask them if I shouldn't believe what the PDR says about a particular medication--after all, I read it on the "internet".


Also, could liability be an issue here? Particularly if you are releasing a lot information about yourself which could be traced? It would be very easy for anybody knowing Toby's name, or even geographical location to use the internet to trace not only his (sorry) professional credentials, but also his prof. address as well. I guess if you really knew what you were doing you could dig deeper. Personally, I would have a concern about that. If I were Toby, my fear would be that the more information I released, the easier it would be for determined folks to track me down. Then I would be faced with desperate phone calls or even knocks on my front door, not just website messages. Part of the beauty of this format is anonymity. Obviously, there's a down-side as well.

When I originally read Toby's post in which his/her credentials were mentioned, it never occurred to me to wonder about gender (although I have to admit, my image was always of a man. I think of the name "Toby" as a male name first.) His (I'm sticking with this image) advice seems reasonable, and the folks here seem to by and large be truly appreciative. I have to admit though that my critical side is open to the possibility that Toby is really Dr. Bob's alter-ego, or one of your students, or who knows!

Glad to see he's back, though.

Shirley

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by David K. on January 23, 1999, at 16:06:40

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Tess on January 23, 1999, at 6:11:22

I think that there are different obligations for a therapist who's giving advice for free on the Internet, and for one that you're PAYING for office visits. Credentials are necessary in both cases, of course, to validate the medical advice, but "full disclosure" is too much to DEMAND on the internet. (You can ask, of course.)
In an office where we're being charged, we'd be the guests and Toby would have the role of the obliging host. On a public message board I think we're all guests and should treat each other as such.

You know?

(I don't mean to drag this thing on and on and on...)

 

Re: Whew!

Posted by shelley on January 23, 1999, at 19:26:47

In reply to Re: Whew!, posted by Toby on January 22, 1999, at 11:23:04

Thanks Toby! I don't need to know if you're male or female. What I appreciate most about this site is that my anonymity as a "patient" is protected. I would want the same were I on the other side.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.