Unethical.

[amy123]

Also, why was this not raised about the support ticket yesterday? This debate belongs firmly on this forum. I have no doubt about that, either did ANY of your staff. Oh, you either.

i agree,i thought it was freedom of speech,why submit a support ticket?i still wanna know why it was ammended?

[lucy]

you cerntannly dont know me else you would of never of suggested i stick up for Josh

i just dont agree with you

[Fairy]

I am sorry Lucy, I was just disgusted by this service, and I am aware some people may think this does not belong on the forum, but not Josh, or his staff, yesterday. I am irritated by his........ ambivilance. I don't know why, after all, this really is a BPD World!

Fairy xxx

[amy123]

:rolleyes:

WHY WAS IT AMMENDEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD??????????????????????????????????????????

PLEASE ANSWER MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[lucy]

I am sorry Lucy

no worries ;)

[Joshua]

Fairy, adjusting the wording was due to the feedback raised in this thread. It was not an admission that the information was unclear, I amdended it in an effort to make it as clear as possible.

I thanked Lucy as her comments were the other side of a debate you have brought up, that was also valid. Are you suggesting I must only respond to you and no one else who posts?

[Fairy]

No Josh I am not.

When something is wrong, unethical, there is no other side. Also, Lucy said about it being in the forum, not about you being right.

[amy123]

No Josh I am not.

When something is wrong, unethical, there is no other side. Also, Lucy said about it being in the forum, not about you being right.

absolutley

[Joshua]

Lucy is not arguing the point on whether this service is ethical or unethical I agree, This is the argument you are putting forward. I think it may be helpful to me to understand exactly what you mean by unethical? Could you explain further how you see this service to be unethical?

[Fairy]

No, I won't.

It is blatently clear in the posts I wrote yesterday, I suggest re-reading them. I will only be repeating myself.

Also, Friday night Josh, can live without this repitition, as I am sure you can too. You ammended, I responded to Tammy, there is the answer.

Have a good evening.

Fairy xxx

[Joshua]

Fairy

I am sorry you feel unable to explain exactly what you mean by unethical.

Your first posts relates to offering a diagnosis and this being unethical when the person offering them is not a psychiatrist (A word you have frequently used but you refuse to explain or add any context)

Later in your posts you accept that the wording explains that this service does not offer a formal diagnosis. The origional wording made it clear that an opinion would be given on whether the service user may reach the diagnostic criteria for BPD, thus enabling the service user to become better informed on whether to pursue a formal diagnosis. This would be done by the service user completing a series of questions and completing them honestly. There was also a statement which explained no warranty can be provided in respect of this service and people may be refered to their phychiatrist.

After your comments i amended the wording to be as clear as i possibly could, i did this on the basis that i thought it was clear enough (along with other team members) but wanted to show that i took on board your comments that some people may not believe it is clear enough. I must also say that many people have taken advantage of this service and there has been no confusion over whether the user would receive a formal diagnosis.

You have been quick to make assumptions and jump in to argue a point. I have simply asked for a little more clarity to enable me to see where you are coming from.

[amy123]

Getting abit nasty this thread :rolleyes:

[Fairy]

Yes, sometimes walking a way is better.

[amy123]

Yes, sometimes walking a way is better.

i agree

[gun_747]

Hello guys,

Before I came to BPDworld I came with a formal diagnosis from a psychiatrist not know fully what BPD was or how it affects people. Before hand I did do online personality tests - thinking to myself that my issues were not a collective issue of depression - a generalised form of the GP saying "piss off and take some meds".

Personally if you think you have BPD the best place to go and get a diagnosis is from a mental health professional...one you can trust enough to talk about symptoms...the problem with online tests are that your body language is nullified - and the risk of being given a wrong diagnosis is huge...to place someone within a "mould" of...hey you have BPD...when they don't...makes the person become a self fulfilling prophecy - they will look at symptoms other people exert and they end up becoming the very mould they have been fitted to. Psychiatrists can rarely make a right diagnosis based entirely on 72 hours observing behaviour ("how mad are you" tv programme emphasised this) so I don't see how the positive affects of "you have bpd and here's some advice" can be measured against the huge risk of making a wrong diagnosis based on written down paper evidence...which is dependent on the individual's mood of the day (if they are very sad then their perception will be altered to reflect this and the converse is true) and lacks any personal interaction...

yes this service outside of the forum is not a formal diagnosis...but anyone with a grain of intelligence and knowledge of the MH industry will know that if I came with a form saying...hey ive got BPD will not get me the services I need...it will not provide any medications...the sufferer will have to go to the psychiatrist first to get the services/medications so they might as well do so since its going to happen inevitably. Making money off of it and registering as a charity to avoid the tax implications also to me is unethical and I must agree with the original poster in this respect...

the staff should look up "fiduciary" responsibilities in respect of this matter...I am a trained legal professional tax account with an ACA and CTA hence my qualifications mean people will rely on tax advice that I give them for the purposes of their financial affairs...I have a fiduciary responsibility to them that if I give a wrong opinion....people lose a lot of money and I can be held liable. If you give a wrong "opinion" and people "perceive" that you are qualified to give something that is akin to an accurate diagnosis then you should be held liable for any mental health damage you do as a result of providing a wrong diagnosis.

if you pay for a service (therefore a contract is established for provision for services for consideration of money)...and it renders an incorrect opinion...you become more mentally unstable as a result of the "professional" opinion...then the professional should be held liable under law of contract for failing in their fiduciary responsibilities, and moreso....people with mental health issues are deemed like those with physical health issues to be "vulnerable" in the eyes of the law - open to manipulation.

Thats an opinion from an educated man who has his own fiduciary relationships.

Disgusting

[yorkiegal73]

I think it's good to bring these issues up on the open forum, as opposed to submitting a support ticket. After all the majority of us are now contributing towards maintaining the site either by taking on extra jobs or giving our cold hard cash. It's healthy to talk such subjects through and affect changes where necessary. That's how a community should work. And I'd like to think that we are a community, not a dictatorship.

I would always be wary of online diagnosis, mainly because it is too easy for us, the clients, to only give the info we want to give. I don't think bpd can be diagnosed by anyone who hasn't spent time face to face with the client. I know it's not a diagnosis per se which is being offered here but i do think that is how most people would read it. Otherwise they could just fill out one of those personality tests for free. The fact that it is being charged for seems to hint at a validity which in reality probably doesn't exist, because I doubt any real mental health professional would be prepared to take notice of it, even if they should.

[Fairy]

Thank you guys, Amy and I do not stand alone, as UK residents realising the unethical implications of this service. Also Gun you make a fantastic point about tax, something I had overlooked.

This is not some nasty vendatta. I don't need to repeat myself over and over. I don't need to point out the context of the word "Psychiatrist", and the difference between Josh and one. I don't need to explain the meaning, nor context of the word "Unethical".

Josh, you wrote I was unable to explain, if you re-read, I wrote, I wouldn't, I am quite able. It simply is not necessary.

Fairy xxx

[amy123]

i think its also awful the way certain people take the piss on this thread about SPELLINGS!

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

i'm so PISSED OFF

[Fairy]

Amy, anything like that comes under the umbrella of bullying.

Fairy xxx

[amy123]

NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT WAY FAIRY.

FUCK EM

BTW WELL SAID GUN AND YORKIE YOU ARE BOTH SPOT ON.

[Joshua]

"Making money off of it and registering as a charity to avoid the tax implications also to me is unethical and I must agree with the original poster in this respect..."

Maybe you could explain this a little further for me, so I am perfectly clear on what you are alleging.

Added - After reading something from a team member it would appear that you are alleging that I registered BPDWORLD as a registered charity to avoid paying tax and get to pocket money from offering this particular service. Should this be the case i am appauled at how such a suggestion could be made. It certainly highlights the many assumptions that are being made here with little thought of how these are affecting people.

For the record I make no money through this service or any other provided through BPDWORLD. I offer my services along with many others as a volunteer, I have done so for many years and in fact its actually the money i earn through other professional commitments that keeps BPDWORLD running.

[Lily-Bee]

You know what I wonder about, so you made your point you think its unethical so what now.............Why keep going on and on about it???

Joshua has responded given his opinion. You disagree with him thats clear and thats your right but what now?? What do you want???

Lilly

[Joshua]

Yes, I tend to agree with Lilly.

You have aired your opinion. I have heard what you have to say and responded.

Yesterday you stated that enough has been said and you were going to walk away.

Where is it you would like to go with this?

"Josh, you wrote I was unable to explain, if you re-read, I wrote, I wouldn't, I am quite able. It simply is not necessary."

Also with this comment, you say its unnecessary to answer my question and to give me the clarity i have asked for. Yet i could have simply said it was Unnecessary to respond to you in the first instance as I know myself that I have not and would not offer any formal diagnosis over the internet. Furthermore i would not make it seem that this was on offer.

[gun_747]

Joshua,

A business registered as a charity has many reliefs available to the business, given it is a not-for-profit organisation and you are a professional provider (deemed by your academic qualifications, expertise and current research - your book may count as such research)

all "donations" provided attract a government top-up of 20/80th for donations received after 6th april 2008 (previously was 22/78th) - called the gift aid scheme - since you have the names/addresses of the individuals you survey you can easily claim that the amounts received were donations and so claim extra money (many christian organisations do this - deed of covenant).

as a charity you are entitled to a VAT reduction on certain expenses used for the purpose of carrying out your not-for-profit organisation - there are many others which i will not go into here,,,

it just seems from the information contain therein that you do do the required minimum to just get the reliefs available and extra money so that you and you alone benefit from this whilst trying to hide yourself within a veil of unaccountability - I believe because you charge for your service Joshua that you initiate the law of contract and by doing so trying to hedge the fiduciary responsibility you have towards everyone in here...the problem is that you cannot do so...for statute and case law puts so much emphasis on the protection of individuals and their rights especially when they are "vulnerable" individuals.

its just my opinion sir

stevie

[Fairy]

Josh,

I guess you are asking me. I am not the only person to have responded, I was simply saying I am not alone in thinking this is unethical. I am human, I did wonder why no one else felt strongly, why you seemed not to understand what I was saying. Tonight, I have merely said, it was clear, I am not alone in my thinking. That is validating for me.

I felt yesterday you wanted an argument, I did not feel it was appropriate, when I could see you were only asking me to repeat. There seemed to me that repeating was pointless. Now, you also see that. Although I think I was clairifying, not repeating. Making a point that I had been clear.

I have no power as to what you do, Gun has made a very interesting point, so, the debate is not now repeating, it has new information and views.

Am I to be excluded as I spoke yesterday?

Fairy xxx