*hands you a mental grilled cheese*
Dissociative identity disorder on tumblr - Self-dx fun times
- Thread starter Kawi6n-Er
- Start date
lots of DIDfaggots on Twitter (likely tumblr refugees). Most of them obviously LARPing as their original characters.
I've seen a few claiming to be "tulpas". If you don't know what a "tulpa" is it seems to be the "adult" version of "create your own imaginary friend". Which… is at least a little delusional. I knew some psycho bitch who'd tried to self diagnose herself schizophrenic who believed in "tulpas" too.
I mean, these people are delusional, not in the way they want to be. I'm sure their histrionic behavior is symptomatic of a problem. I'm old enough to remember when the attention whores of the previous generation of cows were claiming to be cluster b personality disordered. I'm kind of glad that's dissipated, cluster b's have an actual problem. With the amount of DID fakers I'm starting to doubt DID exists or that it's highly exaggerated in terms of figures. It'd basically render a person too r-tarded to live so I'm doubting there's 200k people out there (as the figures claim) who have it. People who are too r-tarded to function couldn't run sns accounts, let alone be cognisant of their "altars". If it even exists and ain't just delusional psychosis/some other condition
found a few cringeworthy ones. they even come with their own extended "headmate" profile pages.
I've seen a few claiming to be "tulpas". If you don't know what a "tulpa" is it seems to be the "adult" version of "create your own imaginary friend". Which… is at least a little delusional. I knew some psycho bitch who'd tried to self diagnose herself schizophrenic who believed in "tulpas" too.
I mean, these people are delusional, not in the way they want to be. I'm sure their histrionic behavior is symptomatic of a problem. I'm old enough to remember when the attention whores of the previous generation of cows were claiming to be cluster b personality disordered. I'm kind of glad that's dissipated, cluster b's have an actual problem. With the amount of DID fakers I'm starting to doubt DID exists or that it's highly exaggerated in terms of figures. It'd basically render a person too r-tarded to live so I'm doubting there's 200k people out there (as the figures claim) who have it. People who are too r-tarded to function couldn't run sns accounts, let alone be cognisant of their "altars". If it even exists and ain't just delusional psychosis/some other condition
found a few cringeworthy ones. they even come with their own extended "headmate" profile pages.
Last edited:
why are tumblruinas so obsessed with self diagnosis as a way to get cookie points for discussing whatever shitload they choose. DID is real but just go identify as a kinnie is you want to be special so bad. People actual struggle with stuff, tumblr shouldve been shut down a long time ago
Solar plexus clown glider
kiwifarms.net
Not sure if this belongs here or in the random tumblr posts thread but. Here you go
DID community is fucking wild.
Even the doctors that profit from the diagnosis are crazy:
This was one of the main DID people kinda like the Colin Ross or Pottergate of the Nederlands.
He just permantly lost his licenses for his behavior towards at least one patient for 20 years.
"Her practitioner is an emeritus professor at Utrecht University, specializing in chronic traumatization. He is now 78, but still a scientist who is known worldwide. He is one of the founders of the Dutch treatment method for patients with dissociation, a phenomenon that occurs in people with traumatic experiences. Many Dutch trauma centers work according to this method. The emeritus professor wrote several standard works, won awards and chaired the international professional association for a year. He received a royal award in 2011 for his earnings."
It began with sending daily messages and about how he needed her and how emotionally connected he was with her.
He stops writing treatment plans or case notes and treats it more as a friendship then therapy. He began to unload on her as if she was the therapist and not him. He told her that threapy wasnt working for her and begins calling her after appointments.
Next he begins sending her gifts and cards, as well as calling her daily for long conversations. Gifts included CDs, books and jewelry, and there were almost 224 cards.
He began to constantly hug her which is against the principles of the countries therapy rules which is no touch beyond a simple handshake.
Towards end he was having her come 2 to 3 days a week for 5 and a hlf hours at a time. He would come to her home now for therapy sessions as well. During one such session she got angry and pushed him he grabbed her in such a way that she fell with him on top and broke her wrist. His comment was : "Of course I am very painfully and sadly aware of your wrist broken in response to my intolerable utterances."
She said during treatments he would stomp on the floor and pull his hair in anxiety. When she ends therapy he "becomes ill" offers her to continue for another six months, provided she does not file a complaint.
"The disciplinary committee calls the therapist's behavior 'incomprehensible' and writes in the verdict that he violated professional standards 'in an unacceptable manner'. According to the Commission, there are 'significant and completely unacceptable deviations'. He is held accountable for continuing the treatment for years, knowing from the beginning that it "sustained and even intensified" her suffering and "was harmful." Because the therapist had been a trainer for years, the disciplinary committee writes, "his behavior is all the more stressful.""
"Almost all complaints are well-founded, the therapist may never practice his profession again. He has already had himself deregistered from the professional register, but may never register again from the disciplinary committee. "
Decision:
The complaints parts 3.1., A to d, declare to be well-founded;
Imposes on the respondent the measure of the prohibition of re-enrollment in the BIG register
This decision is then published in the major psychological journals in the Nederlands.
www.sin-nl.org
This was one of the main DID people kinda like the Colin Ross or Pottergate of the Nederlands.
He just permantly lost his licenses for his behavior towards at least one patient for 20 years.
"Her practitioner is an emeritus professor at Utrecht University, specializing in chronic traumatization. He is now 78, but still a scientist who is known worldwide. He is one of the founders of the Dutch treatment method for patients with dissociation, a phenomenon that occurs in people with traumatic experiences. Many Dutch trauma centers work according to this method. The emeritus professor wrote several standard works, won awards and chaired the international professional association for a year. He received a royal award in 2011 for his earnings."
It began with sending daily messages and about how he needed her and how emotionally connected he was with her.
He stops writing treatment plans or case notes and treats it more as a friendship then therapy. He began to unload on her as if she was the therapist and not him. He told her that threapy wasnt working for her and begins calling her after appointments.
Next he begins sending her gifts and cards, as well as calling her daily for long conversations. Gifts included CDs, books and jewelry, and there were almost 224 cards.
He began to constantly hug her which is against the principles of the countries therapy rules which is no touch beyond a simple handshake.
Towards end he was having her come 2 to 3 days a week for 5 and a hlf hours at a time. He would come to her home now for therapy sessions as well. During one such session she got angry and pushed him he grabbed her in such a way that she fell with him on top and broke her wrist. His comment was : "Of course I am very painfully and sadly aware of your wrist broken in response to my intolerable utterances."
She said during treatments he would stomp on the floor and pull his hair in anxiety. When she ends therapy he "becomes ill" offers her to continue for another six months, provided she does not file a complaint.
"The disciplinary committee calls the therapist's behavior 'incomprehensible' and writes in the verdict that he violated professional standards 'in an unacceptable manner'. According to the Commission, there are 'significant and completely unacceptable deviations'. He is held accountable for continuing the treatment for years, knowing from the beginning that it "sustained and even intensified" her suffering and "was harmful." Because the therapist had been a trainer for years, the disciplinary committee writes, "his behavior is all the more stressful.""
"Almost all complaints are well-founded, the therapist may never practice his profession again. He has already had himself deregistered from the professional register, but may never register again from the disciplinary committee. "
3.1 The complainant accuses the defendant of:
a. treated her incorrectly from August 1995 to December 2015,
b. is guilty of transgressive behavior,
c. violated professional secrecy,
d. incorrectly and badly conducted the file,
e. has issued an incorrect report and that he
f. has not adequately referred her to another practitioner.
The complainant has broken down the complaint under a into the following partial complaints:
1. Partial complaint regarding anamnesis,
2. Partial complaint regarding problem inventory,
3. Complaint related to the diagnosis,
4. Complaint regarding information about the treatment,
5. Partial complaint regarding the treatment agreement,
6. Sub-complaint regarding treatment plan,
7. Sub-complaint regarding failure to act inadequately,
8. Complaint regarding the “inheritance”,
9. Sub-complaint regarding the failure to use general principles of psychotherapy for recovery,
10. Partial complaint regarding incorrect to no treatment,
11. Partial complaint regarding coping therapist with his absences,
12. Partial complaint regarding the invocation of colleagues;
13. Partial complaint regarding whether or not to continue / discontinuous therapy and
14. Partial complaint regarding the termination of therapy.
The complainant has divided a number of partial complaints into sub-complaints to clarify and substantiate the partial complaints.
The complainant has broken down the complaint under b into the following partial complaints:
1. Partial complaint regarding counter-transfer or therapist,
2. Partial complaint regarding pathologization,
3. Complaint regarding identification of therapist with client,
4. Complaint regarding therapist's defensive behavior,
5. Partial complaint regarding attracting and rejecting by therapist,
6. Complaint with regard to making the therapist dependent,
7. Complaint physical contact,
8. Complaint related to the performance of substitute actions,
9. Complaint therapist lets client buy rugs for his therapy room and
10. Complaint regarding marriage therapist in therapy.
a. treated her incorrectly from August 1995 to December 2015,
b. is guilty of transgressive behavior,
c. violated professional secrecy,
d. incorrectly and badly conducted the file,
e. has issued an incorrect report and that he
f. has not adequately referred her to another practitioner.
The complainant has broken down the complaint under a into the following partial complaints:
1. Partial complaint regarding anamnesis,
2. Partial complaint regarding problem inventory,
3. Complaint related to the diagnosis,
4. Complaint regarding information about the treatment,
5. Partial complaint regarding the treatment agreement,
6. Sub-complaint regarding treatment plan,
7. Sub-complaint regarding failure to act inadequately,
8. Complaint regarding the “inheritance”,
9. Sub-complaint regarding the failure to use general principles of psychotherapy for recovery,
10. Partial complaint regarding incorrect to no treatment,
11. Partial complaint regarding coping therapist with his absences,
12. Partial complaint regarding the invocation of colleagues;
13. Partial complaint regarding whether or not to continue / discontinuous therapy and
14. Partial complaint regarding the termination of therapy.
The complainant has divided a number of partial complaints into sub-complaints to clarify and substantiate the partial complaints.
The complainant has broken down the complaint under b into the following partial complaints:
1. Partial complaint regarding counter-transfer or therapist,
2. Partial complaint regarding pathologization,
3. Complaint regarding identification of therapist with client,
4. Complaint regarding therapist's defensive behavior,
5. Partial complaint regarding attracting and rejecting by therapist,
6. Complaint with regard to making the therapist dependent,
7. Complaint physical contact,
8. Complaint related to the performance of substitute actions,
9. Complaint therapist lets client buy rugs for his therapy room and
10. Complaint regarding marriage therapist in therapy.
5.1 For reasons of a procedural economic nature, the Commission will first review what happened in the ten-year period before submitting the complaint and assess what this should lead to.
5.2 At the start of this ten-year period, the complainant had been under treatment by the respondent for approximately 11 years. Until December 31, 2013, the defendant worked at “G”, where he also treated the complainant. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, the defendant worked in his own practice “H” and dealt with the complainant there.
5.2.1 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under a, concerning incorrect treatment, as further elaborated in the associated partial complaints and sub-complaints, the Commission considers that the respondent has expressly acknowledged that the treatment relationship has been defective . In short, there has been a derailed treatment relationship. The defendant has acknowledged that he did not act in accordance with the Professional Code for Psychotherapists on many of the points mentioned by the complainant under 3.1., Under a. Viewed against this background, the Commission suffices with a brief descriptive representation of what has happened in the treatment relationship. The complainant was treated by the respondent for more than 20 years.Certainly in the last ten years - at least the years at issue here - there has been an extraordinary and unusually intensive contact between the defendant and the complainant. For example, in the period 2012 to the end of 2015, there were two to three sessions per week. Sessions that were not limited in time and sometimes took five and a half hours at a time. In addition, telephone contact took place almost daily throughout the ten-year period; during a very long period there were two telephone contacts per day, which lasted at least between 15 and 25 minutes. Home visits were also made. In addition, the defendant sent emails to the complainant containing very personal and related texts, and he also sent over 200 cards with such texts, the defendant gave the complainant a considerable amount of gifts (including CDs,books and jewelery) and recorded the aforementioned answering machine on the complainant's answering machine. This - in summary - to show the complainant that he (even when he was abroad) thought of her and did not leave her alone. The defendant also spoke extensively with the complainant about problems that concerned him personally, including problems of the defendant from the past and marital problems at the time as a result of the intensive contact between the defendant and the complainant. Furthermore, respondent often ended the therapy sessions with an embrace / hug. This defendant's course of action is certainly not in accordance with what is customary and accepted within the profession.The relationship that has arisen between the defendant and the complainant is one that went considerably further and was more intense than indicated and is customary in order to arrive at good treatment.
5.2.2 It does not follow from the file submitted by the respondent that treatment plans and treatment goals have been formulated periodically and frequently as usual within the professional group. Nor does it follow from the file whether, and if so, what progress has been made in the treatment and what goals have been achieved. Although the complainant and the defendant do not entirely agree with each other on how many treatment plans have been drawn up, discussed and evaluated, even if the position taken by the defendant is taken as a starting point, there is no question of this taking place in the usual manner within the profession.
5.2.3 That which is stated under 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is in itself already incorrect, but the more objectionable now that the defendant is at least already at the start of the period in question (in the defense and by the defendant) (actually argued from the beginning of the treatment) the idea existed that the treatment offered was not effective. The defendant describes this idea in his defense as follows: "He felt that the treatment perpetuated and even intensified the complainant's intense suffering." However, the respondent did not end the treatment relationship until the end of 2015, mainly as a result of the complainant's treatment. had become completely exhausted and suffered from panic attacks. Although the respondent has repeatedly, also on the advice of colleagues,attempted to end the treatment relationship (respondent even went into therapy himself), but failed. This because he always feared serious consequences for the complainant. Moreover, a fear that was expressly put to the hearing by the defendant was based on his assessment and not on threats made by the complainant.
5.2.4 Although the file shows that the respondent regularly consulted colleagues with questions about how he could improve the treatment, it does not show that he used a structured form of peer review as is usual within the profession. In view of the very long and complex problems that were at issue and the respondent's own problems, the respondent had
- especially now that he is an expert in the field of feedback - it should be known that simply asking for advice or help does not provide sufficient guarantees for a proper analysis of the problem and a good understanding of one's own actions.
5.2.5 It follows from the above that this part of the complaint is based on the aforementioned ten-year period. The fact that the complainant considers that she has received too little attention in the sense that she has not been treated well, or has not been treated at all, and the defendant has taken the view that he has been treating too much, leads to the opinion that the defendant acted contrary to the standards applicable in the profession, no different.
5.3 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under b, concerning cross-border behavior, as further elaborated in the partial complaints and sub-complaints, the Commission considers as follows.
5.3.1 This complaint is broadly divided into two parts. One part concerns the way in which the treatment took place, the way in which the respondent involved his own problems in the treatment and the giving of gifts. This complaint section has already been discussed above and does not require separate discussion. The defendant acknowledged that this procedure was not correct.
5.3.2 With regard to the other complaint component that relates to “Physical contact” and to making unexpected home visits, the Commission considers that the defendant has acknowledged that embraces and embraces have taken place after the therapy sessions. He explained that the termination of the hearings was extremely difficult as a result of the complainant's trauma. With these actions he wanted to show that he was there for her, to offer her comfort and to show his compassion to her. The defendant acknowledged in the defense and at the hearing that he should not have expressed his intentions in this way. Furthermore, the defendant has not denied that there have been unexpected home visits. On the basis of this, this complaint component is already well-founded,since it concerns actions that do not comply with the standards applicable in the profession.
5.4 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under c, concerning violation of professional secrecy, the Commission considers as follows.
The complaint concerns the defendant's violation of professional secrecy towards his wife and a colleague. The defendant acknowledged that he had violated his professional secrecy towards his colleague. He asked a colleague to take over the complainant's treatment and, without the complainant's consent, discussed the complainant's situation and mentioned her name. The defendant also took the position that he had requested and received permission to have his wife read a so-called second opinion on (the further treatment of) the complainant, and to make a number of procedural agreements with his wife regarding the complainant's therapy, including coordinating the defendant's family vacations with the complainant's therapy.The complainant has contested that the defendant has requested and obtained this permission.The Commission follows the complainant's point of view, because the medical file offers no clues as to the correctness of the defendant's position.
This part of the complaint is therefore also well-founded.
5.5 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1, under d, regarding incorrect file formation, the Commission considers as follows.
In the statement of defense and at the hearing, the defendant stated that the complainant's allegation that the file is incomplete because emails are missing is justified. The defendant regrets that not all correspondence is included in the file. He is also unable to enter these emails because he deleted the email correspondence with the complainant from his computer. The respondent did not dispute in the defense either at the hearing that two files were conducted. There was a personal file and an official file. The personal file contains cases concerning the treatment - in particular relating to the marriage of the defendant - that are not included in the official file.It is incorrect that the e-mail correspondence conducted is not included in the file and it is contrary to what is accepted in the profession that two files concerning the same client are kept. In this way, when the client is transferred, it is not guaranteed that all relevant data will reach the subsequent practitioner.
In view of the above, this complaint component is also well-founded.
5.6 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under e, concerning incorrect reporting issued, the Commission considers as follows.
This part of the complaint concerns the letters from the respondent to, among others, the complainant's doctor. The Commission does not share the complainant's view that the letters written in this context contain incorrect, incomplete and one-sided information. The respondent has clearly described the complainant's problem and his role in the treatment. The fact that such letters, written after more than 20 years of treatment, do not contain all the detailed information of what happened during this treatment does not make these letters incorrect, incomplete or one-sided.
This part of the complaint therefore has no purpose.
5.7 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under f, concerning an inadequate referral, the Commission considers as follows.
The Commission does not follow the complainant's view that the respondent acted carelessly and inadequately due to the sudden discontinuation of the therapy at the end of 2015 and that he made it impossible, due to his name recognition, performances and refusal to give open information, that the complainant will ever receive the correct treatment. from another therapist. It is important to remember that the sudden discontinuation of therapy was the result of the defendant's illness. The defendant has attempted to obtain clarification for the complainant about what could be a good further treatment option through a second opinion from two colleagues who specialize in how best to follow up jammed treatment processes. However, the complainant did not want to cooperate with this.The defendant cannot be charged for this. As is clear from 5.6,the respondent has correctly transferred the complainant to the general practitioner. In the situation in which the defendant was in a position as a result of his health situation, this was an entirely acceptable course of action. The Commission has not discovered any abuse of his name recognition or his professorship by the defendant.
This part of the complaint therefore has no purpose.
5.8 What the complainant has stated under “Other” needs no discussion, since this does not relate to the defendant's actions. The complainant describes what - in her view - the consequences of this treatment, or the lack thereof, have been and still are for her. Disciplinary law - very briefly summarized - only concerns the question whether the defendant acted in a manner that fits within the standards applicable in the profession.
5.9 The conclusion of the above is that the complaints are partly well-founded. By failing to adhere to what is customary and accepted within the professional group, the respondent acted in violation of the care that he should have shown to the complainant under Article 47 (1) of the BIG Act.
5.9.1 Without striving for completeness, the Commission refers to what is included in the Professional Code for psychotherapists about formulating the demand for care, monitoring developments, including drawing up treatment plans and evaluating what has (or has not) been achieved. , and to what is included in the code about the relationship between therapist and treated person, including what is said about interventions such as touch, peer supervision and the obligation to file.
5.9.2 The Commission considers the following with regard to the measure to be imposed.
There has been a very long treatment relationship of almost 21 years in total. The last ten years of this relationship can certainly be considered extremely complex. The complainant was fully convinced that the respondent was the only practitioner who could help her. Defendant has certainly been in a position in the last ten years in which he knew that he had to terminate the treatment relationship because he was unable to come to a proper treatment, but was unable to do so. Not even after he sought advice from colleagues and involved colleagues in the treatment. The defendant has continued with the treatment, knowing - as he put it himself - that his treatment perpetuated and even intensified the complainant's intense suffering. Entertainment in view of the positions he takes in his books and propagates at congresses,it is incomprehensible that the respondent in the complex situation in which he was wrong did not provide sound feedback and / or intervision, but merely consulted and involved from colleagues during the handling and advice from colleagues until the termination of the relationship has always failed.
In doing so, the respondent did not comply with the rules and principles that apply to his professional group. In this context, the Commission refers to what has been considered under 5.2.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. This did not involve minor deviations from what is customary within the profession, but significant and completely unacceptable deviations. The defendant as a practitioner should have been expected to have terminated the treatment relationship at least at the beginning of the ten-year period in question - it had been clear to him for some time that he was no match for the situation. Instead, he continued the treatment relationship for ten years in a way that he knew was definitely inappropriate and even harmful to the complainant.The Commission charges this defendant heavily. In the opinion of the Commission, the respondent's request that the imposition of a measure take into account the enormous complexity of the treatment relationship and all attempts that he has made to get it back on track. if the therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the client's problems and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.In the opinion of the Commission, ignores the fact that the respondent as a therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the problems of the client and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.In the opinion of the Commission, ignores the fact that the respondent as a therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the problems of the client and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.
Now that the defendant is no longer registered in the BIG register, the imposition of the measure of the prohibition of re-registration is appropriate. The defendant's illness at the end of the treatment gives the Commission no reason to arrive at a different opinion. This is because the defendant's disease has not played a role in a very large part of the period to be assessed and the complaints that relate in particular to the termination of the treatment relationship are unfounded. The Commission sees no reason to determine that its decision will take effect immediately, because the Commission is sufficiently convinced that the respondent will not be able to re-register in the BIG register in the short term.
5.10 In view of what has been considered above, what the complainant has argued about the passing of the prohibition contained in the BIG Act to assess conduct that took place more than ten years ago does not require discussion. After all, imposing a more far-reaching measure as is done is not an option. In addition to the long-term storage of files in the defendant's garage, alleged by the complainant, the complainant's complaints in question relate to conduct that closely resembles the conduct that took place during the period assessed by the Municipal Executive.
5.2 At the start of this ten-year period, the complainant had been under treatment by the respondent for approximately 11 years. Until December 31, 2013, the defendant worked at “G”, where he also treated the complainant. From 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2015, the defendant worked in his own practice “H” and dealt with the complainant there.
5.2.1 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under a, concerning incorrect treatment, as further elaborated in the associated partial complaints and sub-complaints, the Commission considers that the respondent has expressly acknowledged that the treatment relationship has been defective . In short, there has been a derailed treatment relationship. The defendant has acknowledged that he did not act in accordance with the Professional Code for Psychotherapists on many of the points mentioned by the complainant under 3.1., Under a. Viewed against this background, the Commission suffices with a brief descriptive representation of what has happened in the treatment relationship. The complainant was treated by the respondent for more than 20 years.Certainly in the last ten years - at least the years at issue here - there has been an extraordinary and unusually intensive contact between the defendant and the complainant. For example, in the period 2012 to the end of 2015, there were two to three sessions per week. Sessions that were not limited in time and sometimes took five and a half hours at a time. In addition, telephone contact took place almost daily throughout the ten-year period; during a very long period there were two telephone contacts per day, which lasted at least between 15 and 25 minutes. Home visits were also made. In addition, the defendant sent emails to the complainant containing very personal and related texts, and he also sent over 200 cards with such texts, the defendant gave the complainant a considerable amount of gifts (including CDs,books and jewelery) and recorded the aforementioned answering machine on the complainant's answering machine. This - in summary - to show the complainant that he (even when he was abroad) thought of her and did not leave her alone. The defendant also spoke extensively with the complainant about problems that concerned him personally, including problems of the defendant from the past and marital problems at the time as a result of the intensive contact between the defendant and the complainant. Furthermore, respondent often ended the therapy sessions with an embrace / hug. This defendant's course of action is certainly not in accordance with what is customary and accepted within the profession.The relationship that has arisen between the defendant and the complainant is one that went considerably further and was more intense than indicated and is customary in order to arrive at good treatment.
5.2.2 It does not follow from the file submitted by the respondent that treatment plans and treatment goals have been formulated periodically and frequently as usual within the professional group. Nor does it follow from the file whether, and if so, what progress has been made in the treatment and what goals have been achieved. Although the complainant and the defendant do not entirely agree with each other on how many treatment plans have been drawn up, discussed and evaluated, even if the position taken by the defendant is taken as a starting point, there is no question of this taking place in the usual manner within the profession.
5.2.3 That which is stated under 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is in itself already incorrect, but the more objectionable now that the defendant is at least already at the start of the period in question (in the defense and by the defendant) (actually argued from the beginning of the treatment) the idea existed that the treatment offered was not effective. The defendant describes this idea in his defense as follows: "He felt that the treatment perpetuated and even intensified the complainant's intense suffering." However, the respondent did not end the treatment relationship until the end of 2015, mainly as a result of the complainant's treatment. had become completely exhausted and suffered from panic attacks. Although the respondent has repeatedly, also on the advice of colleagues,attempted to end the treatment relationship (respondent even went into therapy himself), but failed. This because he always feared serious consequences for the complainant. Moreover, a fear that was expressly put to the hearing by the defendant was based on his assessment and not on threats made by the complainant.
5.2.4 Although the file shows that the respondent regularly consulted colleagues with questions about how he could improve the treatment, it does not show that he used a structured form of peer review as is usual within the profession. In view of the very long and complex problems that were at issue and the respondent's own problems, the respondent had
- especially now that he is an expert in the field of feedback - it should be known that simply asking for advice or help does not provide sufficient guarantees for a proper analysis of the problem and a good understanding of one's own actions.
5.2.5 It follows from the above that this part of the complaint is based on the aforementioned ten-year period. The fact that the complainant considers that she has received too little attention in the sense that she has not been treated well, or has not been treated at all, and the defendant has taken the view that he has been treating too much, leads to the opinion that the defendant acted contrary to the standards applicable in the profession, no different.
5.3 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under b, concerning cross-border behavior, as further elaborated in the partial complaints and sub-complaints, the Commission considers as follows.
5.3.1 This complaint is broadly divided into two parts. One part concerns the way in which the treatment took place, the way in which the respondent involved his own problems in the treatment and the giving of gifts. This complaint section has already been discussed above and does not require separate discussion. The defendant acknowledged that this procedure was not correct.
5.3.2 With regard to the other complaint component that relates to “Physical contact” and to making unexpected home visits, the Commission considers that the defendant has acknowledged that embraces and embraces have taken place after the therapy sessions. He explained that the termination of the hearings was extremely difficult as a result of the complainant's trauma. With these actions he wanted to show that he was there for her, to offer her comfort and to show his compassion to her. The defendant acknowledged in the defense and at the hearing that he should not have expressed his intentions in this way. Furthermore, the defendant has not denied that there have been unexpected home visits. On the basis of this, this complaint component is already well-founded,since it concerns actions that do not comply with the standards applicable in the profession.
5.4 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under c, concerning violation of professional secrecy, the Commission considers as follows.
The complaint concerns the defendant's violation of professional secrecy towards his wife and a colleague. The defendant acknowledged that he had violated his professional secrecy towards his colleague. He asked a colleague to take over the complainant's treatment and, without the complainant's consent, discussed the complainant's situation and mentioned her name. The defendant also took the position that he had requested and received permission to have his wife read a so-called second opinion on (the further treatment of) the complainant, and to make a number of procedural agreements with his wife regarding the complainant's therapy, including coordinating the defendant's family vacations with the complainant's therapy.The complainant has contested that the defendant has requested and obtained this permission.The Commission follows the complainant's point of view, because the medical file offers no clues as to the correctness of the defendant's position.
This part of the complaint is therefore also well-founded.
5.5 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1, under d, regarding incorrect file formation, the Commission considers as follows.
In the statement of defense and at the hearing, the defendant stated that the complainant's allegation that the file is incomplete because emails are missing is justified. The defendant regrets that not all correspondence is included in the file. He is also unable to enter these emails because he deleted the email correspondence with the complainant from his computer. The respondent did not dispute in the defense either at the hearing that two files were conducted. There was a personal file and an official file. The personal file contains cases concerning the treatment - in particular relating to the marriage of the defendant - that are not included in the official file.It is incorrect that the e-mail correspondence conducted is not included in the file and it is contrary to what is accepted in the profession that two files concerning the same client are kept. In this way, when the client is transferred, it is not guaranteed that all relevant data will reach the subsequent practitioner.
In view of the above, this complaint component is also well-founded.
5.6 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under e, concerning incorrect reporting issued, the Commission considers as follows.
This part of the complaint concerns the letters from the respondent to, among others, the complainant's doctor. The Commission does not share the complainant's view that the letters written in this context contain incorrect, incomplete and one-sided information. The respondent has clearly described the complainant's problem and his role in the treatment. The fact that such letters, written after more than 20 years of treatment, do not contain all the detailed information of what happened during this treatment does not make these letters incorrect, incomplete or one-sided.
This part of the complaint therefore has no purpose.
5.7 With regard to the complaint referred to under 3.1., Under f, concerning an inadequate referral, the Commission considers as follows.
The Commission does not follow the complainant's view that the respondent acted carelessly and inadequately due to the sudden discontinuation of the therapy at the end of 2015 and that he made it impossible, due to his name recognition, performances and refusal to give open information, that the complainant will ever receive the correct treatment. from another therapist. It is important to remember that the sudden discontinuation of therapy was the result of the defendant's illness. The defendant has attempted to obtain clarification for the complainant about what could be a good further treatment option through a second opinion from two colleagues who specialize in how best to follow up jammed treatment processes. However, the complainant did not want to cooperate with this.The defendant cannot be charged for this. As is clear from 5.6,the respondent has correctly transferred the complainant to the general practitioner. In the situation in which the defendant was in a position as a result of his health situation, this was an entirely acceptable course of action. The Commission has not discovered any abuse of his name recognition or his professorship by the defendant.
This part of the complaint therefore has no purpose.
5.8 What the complainant has stated under “Other” needs no discussion, since this does not relate to the defendant's actions. The complainant describes what - in her view - the consequences of this treatment, or the lack thereof, have been and still are for her. Disciplinary law - very briefly summarized - only concerns the question whether the defendant acted in a manner that fits within the standards applicable in the profession.
5.9 The conclusion of the above is that the complaints are partly well-founded. By failing to adhere to what is customary and accepted within the professional group, the respondent acted in violation of the care that he should have shown to the complainant under Article 47 (1) of the BIG Act.
5.9.1 Without striving for completeness, the Commission refers to what is included in the Professional Code for psychotherapists about formulating the demand for care, monitoring developments, including drawing up treatment plans and evaluating what has (or has not) been achieved. , and to what is included in the code about the relationship between therapist and treated person, including what is said about interventions such as touch, peer supervision and the obligation to file.
5.9.2 The Commission considers the following with regard to the measure to be imposed.
There has been a very long treatment relationship of almost 21 years in total. The last ten years of this relationship can certainly be considered extremely complex. The complainant was fully convinced that the respondent was the only practitioner who could help her. Defendant has certainly been in a position in the last ten years in which he knew that he had to terminate the treatment relationship because he was unable to come to a proper treatment, but was unable to do so. Not even after he sought advice from colleagues and involved colleagues in the treatment. The defendant has continued with the treatment, knowing - as he put it himself - that his treatment perpetuated and even intensified the complainant's intense suffering. Entertainment in view of the positions he takes in his books and propagates at congresses,it is incomprehensible that the respondent in the complex situation in which he was wrong did not provide sound feedback and / or intervision, but merely consulted and involved from colleagues during the handling and advice from colleagues until the termination of the relationship has always failed.
In doing so, the respondent did not comply with the rules and principles that apply to his professional group. In this context, the Commission refers to what has been considered under 5.2.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. This did not involve minor deviations from what is customary within the profession, but significant and completely unacceptable deviations. The defendant as a practitioner should have been expected to have terminated the treatment relationship at least at the beginning of the ten-year period in question - it had been clear to him for some time that he was no match for the situation. Instead, he continued the treatment relationship for ten years in a way that he knew was definitely inappropriate and even harmful to the complainant.The Commission charges this defendant heavily. In the opinion of the Commission, the respondent's request that the imposition of a measure take into account the enormous complexity of the treatment relationship and all attempts that he has made to get it back on track. if the therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the client's problems and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.In the opinion of the Commission, ignores the fact that the respondent as a therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the problems of the client and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.In the opinion of the Commission, ignores the fact that the respondent as a therapist is responsible - no matter how complex the problems of the client and the relationship between the client and the therapist - that the treatment relationship remains pure and limited as referred to in the Professional Code. The respondent has been a trainer for years and his actions are all the more pressing.
Now that the defendant is no longer registered in the BIG register, the imposition of the measure of the prohibition of re-registration is appropriate. The defendant's illness at the end of the treatment gives the Commission no reason to arrive at a different opinion. This is because the defendant's disease has not played a role in a very large part of the period to be assessed and the complaints that relate in particular to the termination of the treatment relationship are unfounded. The Commission sees no reason to determine that its decision will take effect immediately, because the Commission is sufficiently convinced that the respondent will not be able to re-register in the BIG register in the short term.
5.10 In view of what has been considered above, what the complainant has argued about the passing of the prohibition contained in the BIG Act to assess conduct that took place more than ten years ago does not require discussion. After all, imposing a more far-reaching measure as is done is not an option. In addition to the long-term storage of files in the defendant's garage, alleged by the complainant, the complainant's complaints in question relate to conduct that closely resembles the conduct that took place during the period assessed by the Municipal Executive.
The complaints parts 3.1., A to d, declare to be well-founded;
Imposes on the respondent the measure of the prohibition of re-enrollment in the BIG register
This decision is then published in the major psychological journals in the Nederlands.
Tuchtzaak: beroepsverbod tegen hoogleraar Onno van der Hart psychotherapeut ivm grensoverschrijdend gedrag - SIN-NL
zie hier de uitspraak van het regionaal tuchtcollege Amsterdam dd 7 nov. 2019, alsmede onderaan. Er is geen hoger beroep ingesteld. Op basis van de verstrekte feiten bijkt dat het em. Prof. Onno van der Hart betreft. Overigens vermeldt www.bigregister.nl in het overzicht Maatregelen tegen...
Kuromiisweets.
kiwifarms.net
Lol, i actually meet someone in a Amino chat in my community that actually has the Whole system thing.
She notifies that someone " switches" by changing the emoji on her profile as well as name and has all the info on her " alters"
It always felt bizarrely fake, but they were more or less friendly towards me so i never got on her case for it / no she's not officially diagnosed with DID/ .
She notifies that someone " switches" by changing the emoji on her profile as well as name and has all the info on her " alters"
It always felt bizarrely fake, but they were more or less friendly towards me so i never got on her case for it / no she's not officially diagnosed with DID/ .
White women are so boring lol, they latch on to whatever to make them look special whether it be suddenly being bisexual despite showing no initial interest in the same sex prior, Vidya, or bullshit psychology. The latter Reminds me of the Myers Briggs personality test craze a couple years ago lol. Every white girl claimed to be INFJ (The rarest personality that MLK jr and Ghandi supposedly had. The irony is that Hitler and Osama probably had it too lmaoo). Also they take way to much space in the deathfats forum lol.
Keep dating chinks, faggot, the cope is hard with this one
in all seriousness, i wouldn't say it's all white women, although they make up a good majority. i think richer/upper middle class teenage girls are more likely to fake mental illness and be faggots about it.
Yeah it’s the rich kids mostly that do this because they don’t want to admit that they’re privileged. They could be minorities even but the root cause of a lot of sjwism is middle, upper middle, and upper class kids trying to distance themselves from “privilege” and looking for ways to prove that their lives are so-ooo hard.
Kuromiisweets.
kiwifarms.net
Winch is of course bullshit lolol. Life's tough withouth unnecessary drama.
Here's the gal (?) profile in question. It used to be Lexi so yeah. Also There is no discernable difference in any of her alters personalities even though she has switched a few times. She legit acts friendly and put together rather then a attention seeking dumbass so i am puzzled.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been browsing the danganronpa fandom to find an OC to redraw for the redraw thread, and I came across somebody in the fandom that says they have a system of 200 "alters" or something. Either this person is really into roleplaying or they're some sort of fucked up I can't comprehend.
The fucky thing about Tumblr is that it makes trying to tell somebody with actual DID apart from somebody who's merely deluded themselves into thinking their imaginary headmates are real more work, and then you got the people that there's definitely something wrong with them, and they're very clearly mentally ill, but they do the DID thing on the internet when it's probably something psychosomatic.
Lots of not fun all around.
My favorite part is how the fakers shit all over people who actually have the disorder, they call them 'traumascum' and 'sysmed' and yell at them to commit suicide all the time. It's the same shit trenders do in the trans community, so it's not just a one-off phenomenon. People who do this kind of thing are some of the worst folks online IMO, they pretend to have something they don't, then scream at everyone who actually suffers from it that they're evil bigots and throw them out of their own support groups. And since they always choose a rare thing to latch onto, the fakers are bound to outnumber real sufferers.
I hope one day these DID fakers will realize that they spent years taking huge dumps on victims of child sexual abuse so they could feel special and come to terms with what garbage they are, but narcissists don't tend to acknowledge their own mistakes.
I hope one day these DID fakers will realize that they spent years taking huge dumps on victims of child sexual abuse so they could feel special and come to terms with what garbage they are, but narcissists don't tend to acknowledge their own mistakes.
"they are salty bc they were abused" takes their obvious contempt for actual DID sufferers to the next level. It's pretty stupid to pretend to have such a mental illness for pity points, it's another entirely to make fun of abuse victims...
But they'd probably blame it on a mean alter or something if confronted about it. Gotta love who they often have a very convenient "alter" they can blame all their shitty behavior on.
Because their dads forced them into wrestling and they still haven’t forgiven them for making them exercise.
Roleplaying most likely. Danganronpa does have a serial killer with a split personality.
Similar threads
- Locked
LARPing Narc and Wannabe DissociaDID
