An interview with the author Hilde Rød-Larsen in the Danish newspaper Information before Christmas has put the spotlight on an unnamed Norwegian psychiatrist and his practice. This is the start of the media’s creation of a story about a person and their actions seen from one side. From this moment on, people form an opinion about this person. We don’t know what is right or wrong, true or false, or what it looks like from the other person’s point of view. After this, two former patients have come forward and told about their treatment by the psychiatrist. Four notifications must now be delivered to the State Administrator, stating that supervision has been initiated. The psychiatrist’s lawyer has been able to comment on the cases to a limited extent. Patients are looked after in the Patient and User Rights Act. Those who believe they are exposed to inappropriate treatment have the right to request that the authorities carry out inspections. In that case, it may trigger a process where the person who is sued gets access to the case’s documents and the opportunity to make a statement. Legal security for both parties is safeguarded. In these cases, the State Administrator has found reason to investigate the conditions more closely. We do not yet know what the outcome of any of the cases will be. So what is the problem? The problem is that two parallel processes are now being run against the psychiatrist. One process with the authorities, where the person who is sued gets the opportunity to make a statement, and where there are strict legal certainty requirements. And one process in the media, where the psychiatrist has already been convicted. How is this compatible with press ethics? We don’t know what is right or wrong, but it is subordinate. The important thing is that the accusations are serious, with the potential to destroy a person. We think that there are several violations of the Vær varsom poster. The press has a responsibility to ensure that different views are expressed. The person who is exposed to strong accusations must have the opportunity to comment on the case, pre-judgment must be avoided, and the person in question must not initially be able to be identified. Already in the first press report, so many specific characteristics were given that the psychiatrist had in practice been identified. The psychiatrist cannot comment on the subsequent cases as the women are former patients. In such relationships, healthcare personnel have a statutory duty of confidentiality. Even if the complainants were to lift the confidentiality obligation, many will probably claim that it is unethical to comment on their own patients in the media. We form an opinion about another person based on brief glimpses in a first meeting. If we are then presented with more detailed stories and pictures, and we know who is accused, for most people that will be enough to draw conclusions. We make a judgment in advance. A judgment against a person who has no real opportunity to defend himself. The public must not make any decisions or make any judgments. That is the task of the authorities and the courts. No one benefits from a public gaping stick. The consequences of public prejudgment and humiliation can be fatal. We know little about other people’s tolerance levels. As lawyers and psychologists, we work with cases that always have several sides. The ability to think like this is something you train through education and practice. We constantly have to ask ourselves whether we have all the information on the matter. How does this look from the other person’s point of view? And in this matter: How would I want others to treat me if I were in the media’s spotlight? As a rule, we will not have sufficient information in cases that do not involve us. Therefore, we should not always choose a side either. But the media does not make it easy not to. The case touches on important social issues. But in the public debate, it is more useful to talk about how we can combat border-crossing behavior and mistakes that occur in the therapist/patient relationship. Why is such a debate not based on cases that have been thoroughly investigated and where objectionable conditions have been concluded? Until the cases are fully dealt with, we should be a little more generous. Both with the person who is accused and the person who feels that they have been wronged.
ttn-69
Pre-judgment of psychiatrists in the media – Speech
