|
DrVenkman posted:No she isn't Yes she is
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
You are correct that diagnosing someone without meeting with them personally is something that ethics boards do not allow. However the psych from Depp's team spent something like 10 hours with Heard to complete the evaluation. Still not that long a time when it comes to a personality disorder diagnosis for actual treatment purposes, but definitely enough time for a trained professional to get the lay of the land.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Midjack posted:Expert witnesses are a whole other area of medical adjacent stuff; I was on a jury a couple of months ago and we had expert witnesses from both sides, one of whom offered an evaluation based on file reviews only. It certainly can impact credibility, but in my case we decided in favor of the side whose expert witness didn't actually see the patient. Well, learned me something today. I imagine they get around it by stating that "while I can't OFFICIALLY diagnosis this person, they do appear to exhibit traits A and B consistent with diagnosis X" It's a dumb distinction and I got major mixed feelings about many of the ways that mental health is leveraged by the legal systems to secure certain outcomes. But if you allow it in certain situations, it feels hard to know where to draw the line....
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
deety posted:Something that may be appropriate for legal standards (or for a jury who's carefully considering all the evidence) is pretty different than all the random social media jerks crowing about how crazy she is after seeing snippets of testimony though. It's really gross how many people are buying into this heavy, well-funded push from Depp's PR team. Yeah, I agree about the grossness of labeling a person "crazy," that's never helpful. I've wondered if using how broad mental health diagnosis terminology could ever be useful in a courtroom setting. I feel that diagnosis (meaning the umbrella terms we use to signify a disorder rather than the discrete symptoms and behaviors that make up a diagnosis) is really only useful for the purposes of medical billing and offering patients a way to contextualize and validate their lived experiences. And even the second use might only exist as a need due to the overutilization of diagnostic labeling impairing our ability to feel self-validate and forces us to instead seek validation via the same sources of authority within the medical establishment that created the problem in the first place! Very unfortunate. It could be argued that the justice system is beholden to the same needs as the individual in terms of having to apply these broadly (mis)understood diagnostic labels in order to paint an accurate picture of the matter at hand. But the problem is that any diagnosis in the DSM represents a wide array of different possible symptoms in multiple different combinations and the result is to lump a bunch of people's unique, individual experiences and traits into a big bucket with all the rest of the folks who happen to meet the criteria but in a different manner. It then becomes inevitable that the general public (juries included) introduces their own narrative about it means to have "borderline personality disorder" or "PTSD" or "depression" created from their own experiences. A fair bit of this bias would rightfully be considered "stigma" and would still exist even if we stuck to simply describing someone's presentation, personality, symptoms, etc in a more specific and discrete manner but at least some of the bias has to attributed to the very nature of how we conceptualize and categorize a "disorder." I understand that yahoos online will still continue to weld diagnostic language in a caustic manner. But it could be a step in moving away from that tendency in society. whiggles fucked around with this message at 02:34 on May 8, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Exposure to decades of viral video, Twitter burns, and general internet acridity has me incapable of viewing any legal proceeding and come away thinking that an individual was in any manner SAVAGELY OWNED. The legal system is propped up by the delusion that you can somehow remove (or, at least, greatly reduce the roll of) the emotional mind when it comes to achieving justice. So getting ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED in court ends up coming across way more mild than it should. Plus, no crowd reactions!
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2022 00:17
|
|