...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The British journal of psychiatry : >Ethics of debating if it is ethical to diagnose public figures!
【24h】

Ethics of debating if it is ethical to diagnose public figures!

机译：辩论辩论如果是诊断公众人物的道德！

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Is it ethical to have a debate on ‘diagnosing a public figure who has not been personally examined?’ This question came to mind on reading the ‘In Debate’ article published in the November issue of the Journal.1 I find it is rather ironic that the debate by Gartner, Langford and O’Brien has diagnosed public figures by proxy. On the one hand, one may defend this debate in a scientific journal of repute as an academic or literary freedom – the right to free speech and to express views about anyone. However, in such a situation what happens to the privacy of the public figures discussed in the article and confidentiality regarding information about them, irrespective of the sources? Was any consent sought or taken from those who were quoted in this article? I find that the ethics of discussing public figures in the form of a debate is a proxy or deceptive discussion circumventing the Goldwater rule or principle. In order to make the debate ethical, the authors could have disguised or anonymised the names of the public figures. I wonder if one could take the same liberty of publishing a psychiatric assessment of the authors or other psychiatrists, without offending them? One could consider the views of the authors/debaters as a projection, displacement, suppression, repression, narcissism or any other psychoanalytic defence mechanism based on these authors’ writing, publications and use of their twitter or other social media. One cannot rule out any psychic determinism in opinions and views. (Likewise, somebody can do the same for me!) The role of the Journal in this connection can also be questioned: the Journal permitted the discussion of public figures who had not been personally examined, in contravention of the Goldwater rule and principle, under the guise of an academic debate!
机译：有辩论对“诊断尚未亲自审查的公众人物进行了辩论？”这个问题来思想阅读“在辩论”文章中介绍了11月期刊的“辩论”文章.1我发现它是相当讽刺意味的Gartner，Langford和O'Brien的辩论已经通过代理诊断出公众人物。一方面，人们可以在科学杂志中捍卫这一辩论作为学术或文学自由 - 自由言论的权利，并表达对任何人的观点。但是，在这种情况下，文章中讨论的公众数据的隐私会发生什么，以及关于他们的信息的机密性，无论这些消息来源如何？是否来自本文中引用的人的任何同意？我发现以辩论形式讨论公众人物的道德是一种避难所的代理人或欺骗性讨论。为了使辩论道德，作者可以伪装或匿名公众人物的名称。我想知道一个人是否可以采取对发布作者或其他精神科医生的精神科评估的自由，而不冒犯他们？人们可以将作者/堕落者的意见视为根据这些作者的写作，出版和使用他们的推特或其他社交媒体的投影，流离失所，抑制，抑制，自恋或任何其他精神分析辩护机制。一个人不能排除任何心灵确定主义在意见和意见中。 （同样，有人可以对我做同样的事情！）期刊在这方面的作用也可以质疑：期刊允许讨论违反金水统治和原则的公众人物，违反了金水统治和原则学术辩论的幌子！

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号