I am just back from having read the CAN site.
This is from their "Facts To Consider" page:
"Autism Resources > Treating Autism
Factors to Consider
In creating a treatment approach or an intervention plan, some of the factors to consider first are:"
And you guys know because...?
"the behaviors the person is exhibiting
the functioning level of the individual
whether or not the person is an auditory, visual or kinesthetic learner - that is, do they learn best by seeing how something is done, hearing how something is done or by doing it themselves
the person's strengths and weaknesses (e.g. are they persistent, or do they become frustrated easily even by simple tasks)
and any medical challenges the person may be facing."
Has none of these buggers actually thought of how we are feeling?????
"Other factors to consider when analyzing treatment options are:"
Okay... f*ckin' hit me with it......
"the risk to the individual
the overall effect of the treatment on family life
the financial cost
the research that the supports the treatment
how the effectiveness of the treatment will be measured
and what support the family will need to be able to consistently follow through on the treatment plan."
But what about how the "treatment" actually makes us feel????
How hard can it be for people like CAN and DAN and the ABA-salespeople lot to ASK US AS AUTISTICS how we actually fucking feel about what they do to us?
And here's a thing:
Mulick the Git is a professional psychologist who works with people with developmental disabilities. He has a PhD in psychology, and the usual bachelor and master degrees required to be a professional psychologist in the US. I see no evidence that, during his attenpt to attack the character of one Michelle Dawson, he actually considered what his actions might achieve (in terms of actions having consequences) with regard to Michelle's own state(s) of mind. It seems that - because he is a professional psychologist - he can say and do precisely as he likes, regardless of whom he might cause offence to, or the state of mind his actions might put that person in.
I see nothing in his comments on Michelle Dawson (in the so-called Schafer Autism Report) that can convince me that he did not intend to cause offence to Ms Dawson and, by association really, all other vociferous autistics who happen do have the balls to turn round to him and his kind and say "F*ck off, we don't believe you!" His idea seems to be that it is perfectly okay to rescind, on a unilateral basis, the diagnoses that clinicians have made without any by-your-leave from either the clinician or his patient.
Is this the behaviour of a professional psychologist, as we can reasonably expect it to be?
Try this:
(From the Code of Ethics, APA, 2002;
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html)
"3.03 Other Harassment
Psychologists *do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status*."
If his behaviour in suggesting that Ms Dawson "had convinced her government that she had a disability and was living off that status" was not knowingly "to engage in behaviour that might be harassing or demeaning" to its target, then I, ladies and gentleman, am the fucking pope.
"Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity
Psychologists respect the *dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination*. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists *are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups*. Psychologists *try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices*."
On the same issue, he hasn't gone out of his way to respect this principle, has he? (For the Mulick fan club out there, the answer to this question, simple as it is, is "No, he has not!")
"3.04 Avoiding Harm
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable."
I see no evidence of his trying to avoid any harm to Ms Dawson, either physical or mental.
"4.04 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy
(a) Psychologists include in written and oral reports and consultations, only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made.
(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information obtained in their work only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters."
By prefessing such an opinion, Mulick has breached this simple, but very important, part of his own ethical code.
"9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments
(a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers.
(b) Psychologists inform persons with questionable capacity to consent or for whom testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations about the nature and purpose of the proposed assessment services, using language that is reasonably understandable to the person being assessed.
(c) Psychologists using the services of an interpreter obtain informed consent from the client/patient to use that interpreter, ensure that confidentiality of test results and test security are maintained, and include in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, discussion of any limitations on the data obtained. (See also Standards 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality; 9.01, Bases for Assessments; 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons.)"
In having professed to be able to - and actually claiming to have, or hinting at having - diagnosed someone basd on an assessment that had not been given informed consent, this one went out the window. Didn't it, Mr Mulick?
"4.06 Consultations
When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research participant, or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality.)"
By having decided to proffer a diagnosis made by a competent authority (or a refutation of such a diagnosis), and then to publish it in something like the so-called Schafer Autism Report, he's gone clearly outside the bounds of this bit, hasn't he?
"4.05 Disclosures
(a) Psychologists may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of the organizational client, the individual client/patient, or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by law.
(b) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1) provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropriate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose. (See also Standard 6.04e, Fees and Financial Arrangements.)"
In fact, in breaking the previous one, he also committed a breach of this one too.
In his dealings with Michelle Dawson, a diagnosed autistic, from Canada, Professor James Mulick has been entirely unethical of his treatment of her in what he has allowed of his writing on her to be published. In proffering his opinion, he effectively made any conversation he has had with Ms Dawson a consultation.
As a trainee in applied psychology, and one who will be judged by the standards ot psychologists like Professor Mulick, I cannot remain silent on my wish NOT to be seen in the same light as him. What he did was unethical and unforgivable, and should result in his removal from the board of the APA. He is Council Representative for Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities:
"Division 33 - Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
President-Elect: Bruce L. Baker, PhD
Member-at-Large: Matthew P. Janicki, PhD
Council Representative: James A. Mulick, PhD"
(
http://www.apa.org/governance/results.html)
See also:
http://cor.apa.org/reps/jamesmulick.htmlGiven his behaviour towards Ms Dawson, I cannot help but feel very uncomfortable at his presence on the Council of Representatives.
Anyone who wishes to have him removed and censured should e-mail me at: dna138@jippii.fi
I am preparing a complaint letter against him to the ethical committee of the APA, not purely for the behaviour towards Ms Dawson, but also towards any autistic who dares to disagree with him.
David
