By Charles Ornstein
ProPublica, Dec. 23, 2015
When a New Jersey lawyer named Philip received legal papers last year informing him that his former psychologist’s practice was suing him over an unpaid bill, he was initially upset they could not work out a payment arrangement outside of court.
It was only later, Philip said in an interview, that he scanned the papers again and realized something else: The psychology group to which he’d confided his innermost feelings had included his mental health diagnosis and treatments he received in publicly filed court documents.
The greatest fear of many patients receiving therapy services is that somehow the details of their private struggles will be revealed publicly. Philip, who requested his last name not be used to protect his privacy, said he felt “betrayed” by his psychologist. He worried that his legal adversaries would find the information and try to use it against him in court.
“It turned my life upside down,” he said.
The article is here.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Mental Health Reform Will Not Reduce US Gun Violence, Experts Say
Rita Rubin
JAMA.
Published online December 16, 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16421
Here is an excerpt:
But while few people would disagree with the need for mental health reform, scientists who study gun violence say it won’t make much of a dent in the number of homicides and attempted homicides committed with firearms. That’s because although mass shooters are likely to be mentally ill (but not necessarily diagnosed), high-profile mass shootings represent only a small fraction of US gun violence, the vast majority of which is committed by people who are not mentally ill. In addition, most people with mental illness are not violent; they are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of shootings.
People should realize that “even though it feels that mass shootings happen all the time, they’re still extremely rare,” said Jeffrey Swanson, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University.
Through early December 2015, about 450 individuals died in mass shootings in the United States last year, according to Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced website that defines a mass shooting as one in which at least 4 people have been shot but not necessarily killed (http://bit.ly/1MuHpVL). Compare that with 11 208, the number of people killed in homicides committed with firearms in 2013, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has US data (http://1.usa.gov/1GEJ0TN).
The entire article is here.
JAMA.
Published online December 16, 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16421
Here is an excerpt:
But while few people would disagree with the need for mental health reform, scientists who study gun violence say it won’t make much of a dent in the number of homicides and attempted homicides committed with firearms. That’s because although mass shooters are likely to be mentally ill (but not necessarily diagnosed), high-profile mass shootings represent only a small fraction of US gun violence, the vast majority of which is committed by people who are not mentally ill. In addition, most people with mental illness are not violent; they are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of shootings.
People should realize that “even though it feels that mass shootings happen all the time, they’re still extremely rare,” said Jeffrey Swanson, PhD, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University.
Through early December 2015, about 450 individuals died in mass shootings in the United States last year, according to Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced website that defines a mass shooting as one in which at least 4 people have been shot but not necessarily killed (http://bit.ly/1MuHpVL). Compare that with 11 208, the number of people killed in homicides committed with firearms in 2013, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has US data (http://1.usa.gov/1GEJ0TN).
The entire article is here.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Neuroethics
Richard Marshall interviews Kathinka Evers
3:AM Magazine
Originally published December 20, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
So far, researchers in neuroethics have focused mainly on the ethics of neuroscience, or applied neuroethics, such as ethical issues involved in neuroimaging techniques, cognitive enhancement, or neuropharmacology. Another important, though as yet less prevalent, scientific approach that I refer to as fundamental neuroethics questions how knowledge of the brain’s functional architecture and its evolution can deepen our understanding of personal identity, consciousness and intentionality, including the development of moral thought and judgment. Fundamental neuroethics should provide adequate theoretical foundations required in order properly to address problems of applications.
The initial question for fundamental neuroethics to answer is: how can natural science deepen our understanding of moral thought? Indeed, is the former at all relevant for the latter? One can see this as a sub-question of the question whether human consciousness can be understood in biological terms, moral thought being a subset of thought in general. That is certainly not a new query, but a version of the classical mind-body problem that has been discussed for millennia and in quite modern terms from the French Enlightenment and onwards. What is comparatively new is the realisation of the extent to which ancient philosophical problems emerge in the rapidly advancing neurosciences, such as whether or not the human species as such possesses a free will, what it means to have personal responsibility, to be a self, the relations between emotions and cognition, or between emotions and memory.
The interview is here.
3:AM Magazine
Originally published December 20, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
So far, researchers in neuroethics have focused mainly on the ethics of neuroscience, or applied neuroethics, such as ethical issues involved in neuroimaging techniques, cognitive enhancement, or neuropharmacology. Another important, though as yet less prevalent, scientific approach that I refer to as fundamental neuroethics questions how knowledge of the brain’s functional architecture and its evolution can deepen our understanding of personal identity, consciousness and intentionality, including the development of moral thought and judgment. Fundamental neuroethics should provide adequate theoretical foundations required in order properly to address problems of applications.
The initial question for fundamental neuroethics to answer is: how can natural science deepen our understanding of moral thought? Indeed, is the former at all relevant for the latter? One can see this as a sub-question of the question whether human consciousness can be understood in biological terms, moral thought being a subset of thought in general. That is certainly not a new query, but a version of the classical mind-body problem that has been discussed for millennia and in quite modern terms from the French Enlightenment and onwards. What is comparatively new is the realisation of the extent to which ancient philosophical problems emerge in the rapidly advancing neurosciences, such as whether or not the human species as such possesses a free will, what it means to have personal responsibility, to be a self, the relations between emotions and cognition, or between emotions and memory.
The interview is here.
Therapist drift redux: Why well-meaning clinicians fail to deliver evidence-based therapy, and how to get back on track
Glenn Waller and Hannah Turner
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Available online 15 December 2015
Abstract
Therapist drift occurs when clinicians fail to deliver the optimum evidence-based treatment despite having the necessary tools, and is an important factor in why those therapies are commonly less effective than they should be in routine clinical practice. The research into this phenomenon has increased substantially over the past five years. This review considers the growing evidence of therapist drift. The reasons that we fail to implement evidence-based psychotherapies are considered, including our personalities, knowledge, emotions, beliefs, behaviors and social milieus. Finally, ideas are offered regarding how therapist drift might be halted, including a cognitive-behavioral approach for therapists that addresses the cognitions, emotions and behaviors that drive and maintain our avoidance of evidence-based treatments.
The research is here.
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Available online 15 December 2015
Abstract
Therapist drift occurs when clinicians fail to deliver the optimum evidence-based treatment despite having the necessary tools, and is an important factor in why those therapies are commonly less effective than they should be in routine clinical practice. The research into this phenomenon has increased substantially over the past five years. This review considers the growing evidence of therapist drift. The reasons that we fail to implement evidence-based psychotherapies are considered, including our personalities, knowledge, emotions, beliefs, behaviors and social milieus. Finally, ideas are offered regarding how therapist drift might be halted, including a cognitive-behavioral approach for therapists that addresses the cognitions, emotions and behaviors that drive and maintain our avoidance of evidence-based treatments.
The research is here.
Monday, January 4, 2016
A Psychological Approach To Understanding Ethics And Martin Shkreli
Tori Utley
Forbes
Originally published December 22, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Business ethics are more than the class you take in college – they are the underlying values that must be strongly upheld in business dealings to maintain the values of our society. When morally ambiguous situations arise within our own lives or the lives of others, we must ask: How can I learn from this?
Opportunities for deception and dishonesty surround us every day. As professionals, there are choices to make about how we should conduct ourselves in every interaction and every situation we face in the workplace. By allowing ourselves to bend the rules, larger acts of rule-breaking simply become easier.
Truthfully, this article is not about Martin Shkreli or other business moguls who have hit the headlines for fraud allegations. This article is about us.
The entire article is here.
Forbes
Originally published December 22, 2015
Here is an excerpt:
Business ethics are more than the class you take in college – they are the underlying values that must be strongly upheld in business dealings to maintain the values of our society. When morally ambiguous situations arise within our own lives or the lives of others, we must ask: How can I learn from this?
Opportunities for deception and dishonesty surround us every day. As professionals, there are choices to make about how we should conduct ourselves in every interaction and every situation we face in the workplace. By allowing ourselves to bend the rules, larger acts of rule-breaking simply become easier.
Truthfully, this article is not about Martin Shkreli or other business moguls who have hit the headlines for fraud allegations. This article is about us.
The entire article is here.
Why are we humans so prone to believing spooky nonsense?
Stephen Law
Aeon - Opinions
Originally published December 15, 2015
Scientists working in the cognitive science of religion have offered other explanations, including the hyperactive agency-detecting device (HADD). This tendency explains why a rustle in the bushes in the dark prompts the instinctive thought: ‘There’s someone there!’ We seem to have evolved to be extremely quick to ascribe agency – the capacity for intention and action – even to inanimate objects. In our ancestral environment, this tendency is not particularly costly in terms of survival and reproduction, but a failure to detect agents that are there can be very costly. Fail to detect a sabre-toothed cat, and it’ll likely take you out of the gene pool. The evolution of a HADD can account for the human tendency to believe in the presence of agents even when none can actually be observed. Hence the human belief in invisible person-like beings, such as spirits or gods. There are also forms of supernatural belief that don’t fit the ‘invisible person-like being’ mould, but merely posit occult forces – eg, feng shui, supernaturally understood – but the HADD doesn’t account for such beliefs.
The article is here.
Aeon - Opinions
Originally published December 15, 2015
Scientists working in the cognitive science of religion have offered other explanations, including the hyperactive agency-detecting device (HADD). This tendency explains why a rustle in the bushes in the dark prompts the instinctive thought: ‘There’s someone there!’ We seem to have evolved to be extremely quick to ascribe agency – the capacity for intention and action – even to inanimate objects. In our ancestral environment, this tendency is not particularly costly in terms of survival and reproduction, but a failure to detect agents that are there can be very costly. Fail to detect a sabre-toothed cat, and it’ll likely take you out of the gene pool. The evolution of a HADD can account for the human tendency to believe in the presence of agents even when none can actually be observed. Hence the human belief in invisible person-like beings, such as spirits or gods. There are also forms of supernatural belief that don’t fit the ‘invisible person-like being’ mould, but merely posit occult forces – eg, feng shui, supernaturally understood – but the HADD doesn’t account for such beliefs.
The article is here.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Is It Immoral for Me to Dictate an Accelerated Death for My Future Demented Self?
By Norman L. Cantor
Harvard Law Blog
Originally posted December 2, 2015
I am obsessed with avoiding severe dementia. As a person who has always valued intellectual function, the prospect of lingering in a dysfunctional cognitive state is distasteful — an intolerable indignity. For me, such mental debilitation soils the remembrances to be left with my survivors and undermines the life narrative as a vibrant, thinking, and articulate figure that I assiduously cultivated. (Burdening others is also a distasteful prospect, but it is the vision of intolerable indignity that drives my planning of how to respond to a diagnosis of progressive dementia such as Alzheimers).
(cut)
I suggest that while a demented persona no longer recalls the values underlying the AD and cannot now be offended by breaches of value-based instructions, those considered instructions are still worthy of respect. As noted, the well established mechanism — an AD – is intended to enable a person to govern the medical handling of their future demented self. And the values and principles underlying advance instructions can certainly include factors beyond the patient’s contemporaneous well being.
The entire blog post is here.
Harvard Law Blog
Originally posted December 2, 2015
I am obsessed with avoiding severe dementia. As a person who has always valued intellectual function, the prospect of lingering in a dysfunctional cognitive state is distasteful — an intolerable indignity. For me, such mental debilitation soils the remembrances to be left with my survivors and undermines the life narrative as a vibrant, thinking, and articulate figure that I assiduously cultivated. (Burdening others is also a distasteful prospect, but it is the vision of intolerable indignity that drives my planning of how to respond to a diagnosis of progressive dementia such as Alzheimers).
(cut)
I suggest that while a demented persona no longer recalls the values underlying the AD and cannot now be offended by breaches of value-based instructions, those considered instructions are still worthy of respect. As noted, the well established mechanism — an AD – is intended to enable a person to govern the medical handling of their future demented self. And the values and principles underlying advance instructions can certainly include factors beyond the patient’s contemporaneous well being.
The entire blog post is here.
Saturday, January 2, 2016
CIA Torture is Unfinished Business
By Human Rights Watch
Posted December 1, 2015
Obama administration claims that legal obstacles prevent criminal investigations into torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are unpersuasive, and risk leaving a legacy of torture as a policy option, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Sufficient evidence exists for the attorney general to order criminal investigations of senior United States officials and others involved in the post-September 11 CIA program for torture, conspiracy to torture, and other crimes under US law.
The 153-page report, “No More Excuses: A Roadmap to Justice for CIA Torture,” sets out evidence to support the main criminal charges that can be brought against those responsible for state-sanctioned torture, and challenges claims that prosecutions are not legally possible. The report also outlines US legal obligations to provide redress to victims of torture, and steps the US should take to do so. It also details actions that other countries should take to pursue criminal investigations into CIA torture.
The post is here.
Posted December 1, 2015
Obama administration claims that legal obstacles prevent criminal investigations into torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are unpersuasive, and risk leaving a legacy of torture as a policy option, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Sufficient evidence exists for the attorney general to order criminal investigations of senior United States officials and others involved in the post-September 11 CIA program for torture, conspiracy to torture, and other crimes under US law.
The 153-page report, “No More Excuses: A Roadmap to Justice for CIA Torture,” sets out evidence to support the main criminal charges that can be brought against those responsible for state-sanctioned torture, and challenges claims that prosecutions are not legally possible. The report also outlines US legal obligations to provide redress to victims of torture, and steps the US should take to do so. It also details actions that other countries should take to pursue criminal investigations into CIA torture.
The post is here.
Friday, January 1, 2016
Why we forgive what can’t be controlled
Martin, J.W. & Cushman, F.A.
Cognition, 147, 133-143
Abstract
Volitional control matters greatly for moral judgment: Coerced agents receive less condemnation for outcomes they cause. Less well understood is the psychological basis of this effect. Control may influence perceptions of intent for the outcome that occurs or perceptions of causal role in that outcome. Here, we show that an agent who chooses to do the right thing but accidentally causes a bad outcome receives relatively more punishment than an agent who is forced to do the ‘‘right” thing but causes a bad outcome. Thus, having good intentions ironically leads to greater condemnation. This surprising effect does not depend upon perceptions of increased intent for harm to occur, but rather upon perceptions of causal role in the obtained outcome. Further, this effect is specific to punishment: An agent who chooses to do the right thing is rated as having better moral character than a forced agent, even though they cause the same bad outcome. These results clarify how, when and why control influences moral judgment.
The article is here.
Cognition, 147, 133-143
Abstract
Volitional control matters greatly for moral judgment: Coerced agents receive less condemnation for outcomes they cause. Less well understood is the psychological basis of this effect. Control may influence perceptions of intent for the outcome that occurs or perceptions of causal role in that outcome. Here, we show that an agent who chooses to do the right thing but accidentally causes a bad outcome receives relatively more punishment than an agent who is forced to do the ‘‘right” thing but causes a bad outcome. Thus, having good intentions ironically leads to greater condemnation. This surprising effect does not depend upon perceptions of increased intent for harm to occur, but rather upon perceptions of causal role in the obtained outcome. Further, this effect is specific to punishment: An agent who chooses to do the right thing is rated as having better moral character than a forced agent, even though they cause the same bad outcome. These results clarify how, when and why control influences moral judgment.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)