This is from Anon from areyoutargeted.com responding to the topic "psychiatric credentialing-conclusions""Quick outline of Psychologists’ Professional Obligations as weighed vs. use of deception in Hmn Subj Rsch:(excerpted & summarized from the grad paper I mentioned a few posts back)A crash course in Psych and the Law, 501 level, if you’re interested:Van Hoose’s Five (5) Fundamental Duties of the Psychologist(Swenson, L.C., Psychology & Law)1) Autonomy - duty to uphold the right to self-determination2) Beneficence - duty to benefit the client3) Nonmalficence - duty to not cause harm to or compromise the dignity of the client4) Justice - protection of civil rights5) Fidelity - duty to promote trust inherent in fiduciary relationships and in contract with the publicEthics summary: Use of deception in Human Subject Research must be weighed against the 5 duties.-The Duty to Autonomy necessarily intersects with Constitutional Rights, including Habeas Corpus-The Duty to Beneficence includes the extent to which the participant will benefit from the experience of inclusion in the research, or from application of its findings-The Duty to Justice weighs deception against civil rights, specifically as per any increasing levels of invasion of privacy-The Duty of Fidelity weighs deception against averse effects on the public trust, to include consideration of: the future ability to recruit participants and conduct research, the profession itself as a model of societal conduct, and the overall continuance of trust in the profession-The Duty of Nonmalficence weighs deception against actual physical and psychological harm to the subject. Breach of this duty is grounds for civil action through Tort suits for socially unreasonable conduct of individuals or institutions that in some way injures a private individual. Breach of duty occurs when the researcher’s conduct can be considered unreasonable and imprudent.––DHHS and Human Subjects Research in recent news:Even weighing what has been, by some accounts, the most lax Human Subjects Research set of guidelines issued to date (see Federal Register, Vol 68 No 119, June 20, 2003, Rules and Regs) “45 CFR Part 46 Waiver of the Applicability of Certain Provisions of DHHS Regulations for Protection of Human Research Subjects for DHHS Conducted or Supported Epidemiologic Research Involving Prisoners as Subjects”Here are the stipulations for allowing researchers to waive informed consent (for the vulnerable population of prisoners):The research at issue:-Involves no more than MINIMAL RISK and no more than MINIMAL INCONVENIENCE to the subjects-The prisoners are not a particular focus of the research-Reasonable provisions are made to protect the privacy of the subjects-Reasonable provisions are made to maintain the confidentiality of the data–-And now, a word from US:Now, knowing that the above 4 stipulations were made for waiving informed consent for prisoners in an epidemiological study, where does that leave us as HmnSubjs for the current “study?”Let’s turn the idea of deception on its head and frame the study as follows:Who would sign up for a study where the researchers told the prospective subjects that the following would occur:-You will be subject to physical and psychological torment-You may be subject to assault by instrumentation-You may be subject to humiliation and degradation-You will be subject to conditioning models designed to shape your behavior, and in the long term, reshape your belief systems, including but not limited to: your religious/spiritual beliefs, your political beliefs, your purchasing and consumer habits-Your relationships and social networks will be disrupted, you may be defamed or cast in intentionally misleading light regarding your character; relationships will be used as leverage to shape your person, including threats, intimidation, coercion-You will incur real-world medical expenses for which you will be responsible-You may incur real-world consequences by way of experimental inducements, to include, but not limited to institutionalization or incarceration-You may be required to relocate due to destitution or eviction due to perceived nuisance-You may not leave the study at any time-You will not know the identity of the researchers nor the source of the study funding-You will not be debriefed at any time about the true nature of the study––One final note, the fact that one potential outcome is this:or even become functionally mentally ill due to brainwashing.is just rich, and it shows what an epistemologically-closed loop this particular “study” was developed in.Because in essence, if they were at all concerned with, you know, intersections with other realities like the Rule of Law, they’d realize they’re admitting to grounds for civil Tort actions. If they represent that the effects of the study have made you mentally ill, and you’re not, that’s a False Light Tort.If they represent that the effects of the study have made you mentally ill, and you are, then that’s an Intentional Tort. Speaking of credentialing, either Tort is grounds for stripping someone’s license.The idea that they can continue to detain you indefinitely because you’re now damaged goods is exactly the same appalling, despicable logic being used at G.tmo. It’s sick. They’re saying, “lookie, we broke em, they’re really pissed off about what we did to them. That makes them a higher risk. Can we keep em?”––-This is no ordinary study. In fact, it is more of a CTP op in the disguise of a study.It could be said that DHHS (the ultimate governing body, if there even was one), was thoroughly deceived in green-lighting this project."http://areyoutargeted.com/2011/03/psychiatric-credentialing/#comment-BLLThh
I believe in animal morals. It's like, you did this to me and now you have to try to undo it. It's logical. It's easy to break a pot, it would take the work of some genius to put it back together. The enemy will do this to yours; why not know how to undo what the enemy has done? They tried to numb me afterwards, and that doesn't work. That just disables them further.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology