A quick summary on the movie “My Doctor, My Lover” and what I understand what the film was about. A 30-year-old woman is feeling depressed and guilty about an extramarital affair she has just ended. She goes to a psychiatrist, but her condition keeps getting worse. After a year and a half, she quits therapy with him following a discussion in his office about how she and the doctor feel about each other. They then begin a sexual affair. The Colorado, Dr. Jason Richter, admitted to having sex with his former patient, Melissa Roberts-Henry. The dispute was whether he took advantage of her condition, as her lawsuit said, or whether she willingly entered into the relationship, as he said.
Even though this film was made in 1991, it was a powerful portrayal of what is ethical in a psychiatrist and his client relationship. I believe want Dr. Richter did was completely unethical and should have had more penalties against him and not his insurance. I believe most people who gain the courage to see a psychiatrist are vulnerable and fragile and should be handled with care. This doctor did not do this. He had only his well being in mind which was having a sexual conquest.
I would hate to call a woman weak minded but it was clear in watching the movie that she might have some of these characterizes and might be prone to suggestibility with easy letting her to be open to influence and exploitation. That is exactly what happened. I believe the Doctor was aware of this and took advantage of her state of mind and turmoil. I believe because she came to see him in such a state that he processed to cause damage mentally.
I was surprised that the relationship last 3 years and that it took her husband so long to notice her depressed state. ...
... middle of paper ...
...eatens, abuses, or intimidates the other. The Doctor isolated her from friends and family. She became suicidal, depressed and started cutting herself. What is even more hypercritical is that he even put in his notes that having sex with her would be destructive to her.
In conclusion, I am appalled that the doctor got off free. Yes, his insurance took a hit but it should have been him. In my experience with seeing a psychiatrist, I have never had one approach me in a sexual way. I believe it one did, I would try to get a new psychiatrist and possibly report him/her to the hospital that they work out. I would be interested if there has been any current cases that involved doctors and they client’s sexual behavior. I honestly believe that is a reason why ethical laws were made. It is because of doctors like this one that thinks it is okay to do what they want.
The narrator is forbidden from work and confined to rest and leisure in the text because she is supposedly stricken with, "…temporary nervous depression - a slight hysterical tendency," that is diagnosed by both her husband and her brother, who is also a doctor (1).
Although doctor-patient confidentiality is standard today, a caveat about this privilege is that it does not protect all statements made to therapists and only applies to regularly scheduled appointments. Additionally, if a patient reveals that they intend to harm someone, it is the therapist’s duty to report this fact to the proper authorities.
After being sexually assaulted, a victim herself, Annalise Mabe, on her article “You should have been more careful: when doctors shame rape survivors”, expressed her anger and concerns towards how doctors approach patients that have been sexually assaulted. Her explanation and tone make her seem trustworthy and credible.
Ostensibly, the narrator's illness is not physiological, but mental. John concludes that his wife is well except for a "temporary nervous depression--a slight hysterical tendency," a diagnosis that is confirmed by the narrator's own physician-brother (Gilman 10). John's profession, and moreover his diagnosis, is a license to closely observe, scrutinize, watch, gaze upon, seek out, and investigate his wife and her ailments, which consequently permits him to deploy seemingly inexhaustible (medical, scientific) means for (re)formulating and (re)presenting the hysteric female--not only for the purpose of giving her discursive representation, but in order to "de-mystify" her mystery and reassure himself that she is, finally, calculable, harmless, and non-threatening. To speak of John in psychoanalytic terms, his preoccupation with his wife, her body, and her confinement, reveals unspoken anxieties: the fear of castration and the "lack" the female body represents.
...treatment of mental illnesses and that their ways of treatment and cures were ineffective and often detriments to their patients. She shows Charlotte as a victim to the male idea that women were not competent nor capable. This piece shows the power of diagnosis and its empowerment of the male physician's voice and how it took over and disempowered the female patient's opinion and thoughts on her own treatment and life choices.
...viewed as a healthy relationship. For those doctors who believe in the death penalty, there should be no sanctions for participating in a legal procedure, which they are doing for the best interests of society, and in the name of justice.
As the reader is introduced to the woman we find her talking about very strange and unusual happenings occurring around her. She evens states that she has a condition that signifies insanity, but the doctor would never tell her straight to her face that she was insane. She says, “I think it is due to this nervous condition”(453). This shows that she knows there is something wrong with her. This nervous condition she refers to can only mean that she is having mental problems and is possibly going insane. We can infer this because during this time period, the doctors did not state that someone was insane because they had no medical proof. Instead they would just tell the patients that they have a nervous condition, and send them away. She says, “I always fancy I see people walking in the numerous paths and arbors, but...
Although the story does not pictures him quite evil, he believes the treatment is helping her and ignores his wife’s opinion that causes her to hide her feelings. He restricts her actions as part of her “rest cure”, and does not understand his wife any further than superficially by not seeing the pain she is inside. He is ignorant of her truly needs and the unbalanced relationship between them builds up as a wall keeping him from understanding her. He cares for her however his treatment destroys her and he faints in shock of seeing her creeping in the
Over the course of their therapeutic relationship, Dr. Davenport violates client confidentiality as it is described by the American Counseling
The doctor concerned with the treatment of Eve is depicted as often consulting with Dr. Day, who is a neurologist as he treats Eve. This practice is considerably unethical in psychoanalysis (Johnson et. al. 2004). Essentially, the ethics of psychoanalysis provides that the psychiatrist should converse freely with the patient rather than with a third party. Furthermore, the film depicts Dr. Luther as not using any organized psychotherapy technique in the treatment except when he hypnotizes Eve in a tactical attempt to access her repressed memory of presumed childhood
Besides, when the psychiatrist confronts her, he describes her as, “small, agitated, and dark, her face shaded by a disarray…Her eyes were very black, and she seemed to emit a musk. The psychiatrist hated her”. Besides, he was very angry and wanted to leap and attach the women.
As the story begins, the unnamed doctor is introduced as one who appears to be strictly professional. “Aas often, in such cases, they weren’t telling me more than they had to, it was up to me to tell them; that’s why they were spending three dollars on me.” (par. 3) The doctor leaves the first impression that he is one that keeps his attention about the job and nothing out of the ordinary besides stating his impressions on the mother, father and the patient, Mathilda. Though he does manage to note that Mathilda has a fever. The doctor takes what he considers a “trial shot” and “point of departure” by inquiring what he suspects is a sore throat (par. 6). This point in the story, nothing remains out of the ordinary or questionable about the doctor’s methods, until the story further develops.
According to The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, psychologists must comply with the standards of the APA Ethics Code as well as the rules and procedures used to carry them out. Having a lack of understanding of the ethical standards is not an acceptable cause to operate in an unethical manner. Furthermore, even though a specific regimen is not mentioned within the APA guidelines this does not exempt an unjust behavior (American Psychological Association [APA], 2010). The same rules apply to Dr. Betsy Jones, a small-town practicing psychologist unsure as to whether her actions would be considered ethical, so she reaches out to a professional colleague for guidance.
Patients are forced to do what the doctor says because they are in fear of their illness and the help of someone specialized in the field will soothe them. The doctor in the story knows that there is an increasing number of cases of diphtheria, a fatal disease affecting young children and he also knows that if he does not get a diagnosis now then the girl will die in a, “bed of neglect”. It is because of this fear that the parents cooperate with the doctor and allow him to use brutal force to open the girl’s mouth. The doctor possess power over the patient already has. While the doctor is in a calm state the patient is usually gripped with fear. This fear puts the patient in a bad position because the doctor doesn’t need to worry since he doesn’t have the illness. If the doctor is ignored then the patient runs the risk of dying from a disease they could have prevented and that in itself is very powerful. The patient will blindly trust the doctor because of the slur of emotions and panic. However what will happen if all the power of the doctor was removed? Will the world be a better place? Personally I believe that there needs to be some form of authority that a doctor must possess in order for
• The doctor’s dilemma is that if he leaves the girl alone he will not be able to check if she has Diphtheria and may possibly die. If he continues on the road he’s going he will have to resort to measures that are socially unacceptable and even cruel.