There's a few different ways to do this Jack the criteria nobody's holding them to anything so the likelihood that snooze given if required isn't that weighs great. one of the more concrete ways I can see is identifying if I'll behavior is adaptive or maladaptive. For instance spending all of your time preoccupied with an asteroid crashing into Earth that may be a very real and very serious threat but unless your Elon Musk the average individual can't really do anything about that. Which would make spending every cent and moment a pretty maladaptive behavior because the likelihood they would accomplish anything by it is pretty low
But this makes a pretty clear case of there is no black and white it's highly dependent on individual circumstances which then builds the argument that if you don't want evidence about what your patients life is like as any mental health care professional if you're not willing to hear most of it then you have no business deciding it. You might not actually be able to because somebody like Elon Musk maybe you've never heard of him but flying to space and being obsessed with it well how delusional would that be for him? But what if you are a doctor who didn't know who he was and you are using state-appointed powers to play jailer and possibly in the state where you can profit for drugging him for what you label delusions? Anybody see the problem here I think it's this long-forgotten rarely brought up term called conflict of interest.
To expand on that his behavior is literally be most adaptive on a scope or scale of our entire species because a multiplanetary species is eliminating the right now all I have are species eggs are in one basket called Earth issue.
No of course you could argue from a perspective of misanthropy and maybe that's a maladaptive behavior in your eyes but if you can understand that it's not your place to enforce that sadly nothing is stopping you from becoming a doctor and the patient will suffer. Well not becoming a medical doctor because that's not her intended path I recently met a psychologist God I can never keep that straight without looking it up the one that is more concerned with analyzing and isn't the medical doctor in case I'm getting it wrong and transcribing this while I'm driving. She appeared to have gotten little to no formal word about how in her position projecting her worldview and overriding possibly what someone seeking her services could provide an evidence there seems to be no word of that where is I think it's pretty clear that if you reject your delusions on to a patient of how the world has to be rather than their objective provable reality than your therapeutic value is zero at best likely negative.
Actually she spurred me to look something up and there appears to be a mini debate about a century too late about if someone in that position or in the medical doctor version of it should disclose their own mental illness to their patient. well the cool thing about any part of that field be a medical doctor or otherwise is it came up with this really great concept called informed consent I think it's probably up there with the scientific method and what humans have reasoned out except g that's not really that's not good for everybody's profit all the time is it?
Well I mean no insult to her because this clearly wasn't her choice it might be somewhat genetics but it likely has a large factor of upbringing nurture and or failure to have needs met but it's kind of a sick joke. She's diagnosed schizotypal. She literally cannot relate would be my layman understanding of that. Off the top of my head again I'm driving right now and transcribing this she probably has the conscience with that condition but otherwise it's like BPD or NPD or aspd where sympathy and empathy are emulated if they're at all not something I felt it something calculated and that probably features just apathy towards trying as well
I've seen more than a few post to papers on the value of the healing value of empathetic moments between the client and the professional
if you both lack the ability to do that and have a tendency to project your worldview over what might be totally provable reality I can't see that helping anyone I can definitely see that hurting people but hurting in the way that's unlikely to be like the loss of an arm it's more likely to be court ordered more therapy when the therapy screws you up. What I've noticed is most of these people work in conjunction with the psychiatrist who can do prescribing and usually will do so on the recommendation.
once you start playing with neurochemistry all bets are off for stability of that person. If you do so based on your non factual belief ethics are gone.
I said non-factual because there's been a bit of a devious thing done to the definition of delusional by the American psychological association
Bigfoot very non specific wording that fails to specify a scope but if a culture or a group believe something even if it's factually not correct it's not a delusion by their definition. The problem with not specifying the size of the group is is that culture limited to the professionals in that organization so if one colleague happens to agree that this must be delusional or not be delusional disorder I'm going with this there's a lot of bad associated with that. I can see they probably wanted to exclude religious beliefs but they could have done so with concise language that didn't open this hole
Back on personally relevant; when police demonstrate they will cover up battery and three felony-level thefts. but you can have your rights stripped for the party doing it claiming they feel threatened while doing things that actually endanger your life any medical definition of sanity within ethics is gone.
Because there is no real adaptive behavior at that point. you can't control the party doing it government and law enforcement has that power but choose not to exercise it. Doing so in a discriminatory manner. Then you add that it's been demonstrated they can detain you three to five days based on the hearsay of that party and the doctor that becomes your jailer has no obligation to review evidence. This is like basically proving vie a demonstration that someone who wants to hurt you will be allowed to do anything they want or desire. Even if it doesn't definitively prove that for everyone in the chase that it's applied that individual has every right to believe they have no safety in which paranoia becomes almost adaptive yet there is no possible way you can prepare for any way someone could harm you. It security knows this physical security agents know this as well or agencies. To stop an attacker you have to be right or estimate 100% of vulnerabilities that never happens that never works it is an incredible amount of work to even come close to trying to say you might have 90% of them especially if it's a black box system without every eye you can have looking over the code if it happens to be code. thatapplies almost perfectly back to doctors that can diagnose you with anything and you have little recourse other than spend more time trying to find another doctor to correct it. The fact that 100,000 to 250k American's die from medical errors every year further justifies the paranoia of that state.
The mn starvation experiment demonstrated starvation and Mal nutrition can have profound detremental consequences on cognition. Of which emotional inhabition is part of.
The study of Epigeteics has also demonstrated that prolonged overstress alone can cause heritable genetic changes including activating genes associated with mental illness.
This system is hurting people for profit. There is no ethical way to judge sanity or as I pointed out in the last post attempt adative behaviors to over come and this compounds the issue and the terror.