A well-developed justice system that we will hopefully see in the future needs to take into account expertise from medical professionals in addition to the ethics-based or, if one is trapped in Alabama, *morals*-based personal judgments of judges. Maybe even empirical evidence could be taken into account before final decisions are made instead of, for example, forcing the will of an older conservative minority upon the younger liberal majority. That would be a genuinely supreme legal system.
On a related note: "We need clear laws that authorize doctors to use their discretion to protect the health and lives of their patients under the new and restrictive laws adopted in much of the country."
The unwillingness of the judiciary to acknowledge (especially in financial crimes) what experienced judges are recognizing is exasperating. “Borders on pathological”. I don’t believe that comment. I believe the judge knew the truth but did not “say it” so the verdict couldn’t be challenged for the comment. I have a long history with narcissistic personality types. In fact I am having to relocate because of a particularly dedicated to my destruction one. Your Substack is fascinating. Thank you.
I’ve had the privilege to be able to observe psychiatrists and psychologists observe and treat patients and there is very little “hands on” evaluation. It is all observation ( mostly) and the few, brief questions serve mainly to fortify the diagnosis. This is to say an in-person exam or evaluation is not needed but rather is not always necessary.
I mean do you really need to be in the same room w someone running for president to realize that hawking sneakers is not “normal” and of itself has some psychopathology?
I love Caddyshack too much to ever compare that story with ours, so I'm not going there.
A well-developed justice system that we will hopefully see in the future needs to take into account expertise from medical professionals in addition to the ethics-based or, if one is trapped in Alabama, *morals*-based personal judgments of judges. Maybe even empirical evidence could be taken into account before final decisions are made instead of, for example, forcing the will of an older conservative minority upon the younger liberal majority. That would be a genuinely supreme legal system.
On a related note: "We need clear laws that authorize doctors to use their discretion to protect the health and lives of their patients under the new and restrictive laws adopted in much of the country."
Source: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-week-ahead-25c
I'm skeptical; I see what seems like too many women merely becoming just like conventional, testosterone-oozing, asinine men!
The unwillingness of the judiciary to acknowledge (especially in financial crimes) what experienced judges are recognizing is exasperating. “Borders on pathological”. I don’t believe that comment. I believe the judge knew the truth but did not “say it” so the verdict couldn’t be challenged for the comment. I have a long history with narcissistic personality types. In fact I am having to relocate because of a particularly dedicated to my destruction one. Your Substack is fascinating. Thank you.
.. such a benchmark moment within massmedia perceptions.. words are important .. 🦎🏴☠️
I’ve had the privilege to be able to observe psychiatrists and psychologists observe and treat patients and there is very little “hands on” evaluation. It is all observation ( mostly) and the few, brief questions serve mainly to fortify the diagnosis. This is to say an in-person exam or evaluation is not needed but rather is not always necessary.
I mean do you really need to be in the same room w someone running for president to realize that hawking sneakers is not “normal” and of itself has some psychopathology?
Thank you for another great article.
✨Excellent, thorough read !! ✨