File spoon-archives/marxism-psych.archive/marxism-psych_1996/96-12-11.201, message 75


Date: 08 Nov 96 16:49:02 EST
From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: M-PSY: Confidentiality



Confidentiality


Ben and I as co-moderators have had some discussions about issues of 
confidentiality, etiquette and security for the list, and would 
like comments. We do not want rigid rules, but it
could make a difference how this list develops over the next
six months.

Clinical confidentiality: 

What are the acceptable conventions about referring to particular
cases, which I would like to do, to contribute something concrete
to the discussion? Names can be removed, but a case with unusual
features could arguably be identified by people who know the 
poster. 

Subscriber confidentiality:

In order to leave options open, in setting up the list we said 
archives should be accessible only to subscribers. In practice
of course anyone who appears to be a bona fide applicant may
be subscribed and could read the archives, so that no-one should
post anything they would not feel they can defend in good faith, 
but at least it puts an onus of responsibility, and is some 
limited protection. We can change the decision about the 
accessibllity of the archives, but if we do, unless everyone 
is in agreement, perhaps we should start new open archives 
>from that moment.

I think it is fair to say that Spoons probably would prefer open
archives unless there is a specific reason, but I argued that
people working in the psychological field, might wish to think
about the boundaries carefully and we should not preempt the 
decision.

Ben and I have discussed the cross posting of Reynaldo's piece
about progressive collective methods of treating trauma in the 
Philippines. This was with a nursing list where professional 
conventions of confidentiality might be expected to apply.
In terms of content - multidisciplinary working - group methods -
non-stigmatising of the individual - power issues - it was 
all applicable. However particularly with the management of 
trauma in people who may be called criminals by their government, 
a poster giving possible evidence on this 
marxism-psych list of familiarity with treatment methods, may put
themselves under pressure if their post may be copied more 
extensively on the internet. 

This is the extreme end of the question of whether anyone 
associated with this list might be brought under some professional
pressure by those unsympathetic to marxism. 

Is it another option to quote without naming the author, or better
merely to summarise the argument? Or is it bad etiquette to refer
the content of any list on another list?

My own cautious tendencies are to see how this list develops 
as a quiet interdisciplinary resource which gradually explores
all the areas of overlap between marxism and psychology, both
academic and clinical, and has flexible but fairly coherent 
conventions which people can treat with some confidence.

Against that, there are it seems a large variety of lists 
already dealing with psychology and mental health, and cross 
fertilisation in some form is desirable for the good of 
our project here.

Ben and I would appreciate some discussion of these questions.

Chris Burford, co-moderator

London.


     --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005