Lawful Path Forums

Hi,

What do you think about this ethic problem by psychiatric examination?

The psychiatric examination has a common question "was there anybody from your family in psychiatric etc?"

"-Yes, 1 of my grandmothers was a victim of commies: they raped her, then forced-move her to another city, then she killed herself after she got out from a psychiatric, because that continuous stalk was a psychological torture for her. And we cannot get her murders names (commies) though even the laws allow it."

If I say "No" then I lied to the doctors and against myself in psychological examination,
If I say "Yes" then doctors can be prejudice, because this is a sensitive issue in Hungary, nobody likes to hear "agent (commie) list" (it's a can of worms). (It's quite like expecting a “confession, inquisition” from a relative of Holocaust victim where the Holocaust denying has not yet consequence, or would be freely judged there where Hitler’s members, fans etc can be present with their wishes.)

Some people said that "you don't have to go there.." but that's already a label on me, and limiting my human rights because my ex-family-doctor wanted this examination when I tried to renew my driver licence in 2015.
Earlier in 2014, I was stalked, threatened, bulled even to kill myself, and I did go voluntary for help in Austria and they found me healthy when stalkers on Internet bulled me to kill myself in a manipulative way.

When I talk about this problem some people say I've mental problem, and others try to turn away from the answer in a polite way.

Welcome, Knorbert!

In the KJV, Matthew 10:16-17 says,

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils,”

To be as “wise as serpents”, we need to be able to speak like serpents. This includes the use of mental reservation, equivocation, and casuistry when forced to reply to the serpents’ questions, and to avoid being “delivered up".

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 1901, defines these terms:

Mental reservation

The intentional withholding of some word or clause necessary to convey fully the meaning of the speaker or writer; the word or clause so withheld.

Equivocation

1. In logic, a fallacy depending upon the double signification of some one word: distinguished from amphibology, which depends upon the doubtful interpretation of a whole sentence.

2. Ambiguity of speech; specifically, the use, with a view to mislead, of words or expressions susceptible of a double signification; prevarication.

Casuistry

1. In ethics, the solution of special problems of right and duty by the application of general ethical principles or theological dogmas ; the answering of questions of conscience.

Hence—2. Over-subtle and dishonest reasoning; sophistry.

Here are some possible answers to the question:

“Was there anybody from your family in psychiatric care?”


Mental reservation –

“To my knowledge, there was nobody in my (immediate) family in psychiatric care.”

“To my knowledge, nobody in my family received psychiatric care (care being protection and watchfulness which would have prevented my grandmother from committing suicide).”

The word(s) in parenthesis are thought but not said, and you state a truth as your grandmother is not in your immediate family and she did not receive care.


Equivocation –

“I have no verifiable history of any mental illness in my family.”

“I have no firsthand knowledge of any family members receiving psychiatric care.”

Either of these statements would be true. You weren’t there. You did not see any care being given to your grandmother. There is no proof of her ever being mentally ill. You can’t personally verify that the secondhand information you have received is accurate. Can you prove that she received psychiatric care? Even if she was in a psychiatric facility, where is the evidence she received care?


Casuistry -

I can’t think of any good replies using the casuistry technique. I’d probably circumvent the question due to its unethical nature in one of the following ways:

“I personally refrain from discussing others’ personal medical records, as I expect your ethics would demand."

“Wow! I’m offended that you would ask me about someone else’s private health records! You ARE keeping everything we discuss here private, aren’t you? Maybe I shouldn’t say anymore to you…”

“I find it irresponsible and discrediting to spread rumors and hearsay, don’t you?”


I’m sure there are many ways this question can wisely be answered. Hope some of these suggestions may help you to at least think differently about how to approach the serpents’ questions.

Thank You!!

You're right, that's it, I shouldn't be "can opener", so (you open this can not me).

"To my knowledge, nobody in my family received psychiatric care (care being protection and watchfulness which would have prevented my grandmother from committing suicide)."

“I have no verifiable history of any mental illness in my family.'


Thanks again !