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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005