Why haven mental health practitioners been offering basic informed consent information regarding risks and dangers and alternative treatments all along?
For several reasons. First of all they have had no incentive to do so. As discussed above, state, federal and private reimbursement systems have not required mental health practitioners to prove that they have fairly, fully and truthfully disclosed known risks and alternative treatments to patients. Secondly, the training system for mental health professionals has, under the influence of these negative financial incentives, broken down to the point where therapists are not even aware of the research findings in their area of expertise. This dangerous state of affairs will be corrected by passage of this ACT. Finally, many therapists have arrogantly assumed that they are capable of “knowing” which treatments are effective based upon their own personal experience with patients. This is, of course, the golden road to quackery and was the basic rationale behind lobotomies, leeching, bleeding, rolfing, primal scream therapy, past life regression therapy and other known-to-be-ineffective or
Related Questions
- What are basic pre-foreclosure considerations for lenders and foreclosure practitioners when a foreclosure action is eminent?
- How do general practitioners manage subjects with early schizophrenia and collaborate with mental health professionals?
- What are the long-term dangers of smoking marijuana on mental health?
