HOT CASE 1: UNETHICAL ETHICS

DISCLAIMER: The material outlined below has not been written or solicited by the victims of the abuse described.

Some readers have expressed concern that this article is insufficiently referenced. The original references were removed at the victims’ request on the grounds that these might identify them and result in further intrusion on their precarious privacy. The Psybirdnest team can categorically confirm that these documents exist and are quite authentic.

The profession of psychology claims to be a highly ethical one. What is ethical to one psychologist, however, is not necessarily ethical to another.

In January of 2007, the President of the Australian Psychological Society, Amanda Gordon, issued a press release condemning a 62 year old psychologist who was accused of sexually abusing, humiliating and physically assaulting a patient.

Ms Amanda Gordon, President, Australian Psychological Society.

Ms Gordon was reacting to media descriptions of the trial by journalists with space constraints and no credentials in psychology. According to these reports the psychologist claimed in court that his non-standard treatment of a patient was within the ethical guidelines of the profession. Ms. Gordon did not agree.

Ms. Gordon, however, did not attend the Trial and was ignorant of the evidence presented at it. Even worse, the public statement was issued before the trial was completed (sub judice). This is a crime under Australian law because it is considered an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Only days later, the psychologist who Ms Gordon defamed was speedily acquitted by a jury who had heard the evidence.

NOT WHAT IT SEEMED

Unknown to Ms Gordon, the court heard evidence which confirmed that the psychologist’s patient was a habitual liar and that she had lied in other courts of law. They learned that her mother had apparently involved her in schemes intended to defraud and that she and her mother had unsuccessfully attempted to lure the psychologist into writing reports which supported false claims of impairment due to two seemingly staged motor vehicle accidents.

The court learned that the mother insisted that her daughter was suffering from bulimia but that the patient had not cooperated with this identification of the problem. The psychologist diagnosed her with a more inclusive condition which appeared to stem from sadistic and prolonged sexual abuse in childhood by a 62 year old man. Among other things, the client had developed a paradoxical satisfaction in being humiliated, dominated and physically abused. It was argued that her dominating mother exploited this situation by apparently arranging for her daughter to be sexually abused by her employer.

As the British Medical Service acknowledges is common in cases of this type, the patient failed to respond to conventional approaches to treatment, and the court learned that a string of these had been tried over the course of several years without significant success. The psychologist turned to a systems theory model, a model which was once criticized by some as covert, manipulative and even unethical. The criticisms were silenced when the model was repeatedly shown to be effective, especially in cases which were resistant to other forms of intervention.

The court learned that the psychologist had consulted a colleague at Murdoch University who had research interests which helped the treating psychologist understand the mechanisms at work in his patient’s disturbed world. Because this person’s private life had at one time included the practice of BDSM they were able to help the treating psychologist construct realistic role plays aimed at joining with the patient in a fantasy of her distorted sexual world in order to lead her out of it. The treating psychologist instructed his patient to bring personal items which she used in this world to her therapy sessions. The aim of the exercises was to successfully elicit her paradoxical satisfaction in these events so that the emotions, then overt, could be therapeutically addressed. The approach appeared to be working and the patient finally began to cooperate with therapeutic strategies aimed at helping with other aspects of her disorder, including her bulimic state.

COMPENSATION SCAM

The approach came unstuck when the patient’s mother became aware of the details. Apparently the mother saw this as a golden opportunity to obtain the compensation payouts which she had hoped would accrue from the motor vehicle accident scams which the psychologist had failed to support. She persuaded her daughter to complain to the police that she had been raped, humiliated and physically assaulted by the psychologist. A systems model would view this as a catastrophic response by the mother to the threat of losing her position of power over her daughter, and a risk which was not easy to predict or avoid.

In the light of all the evidence, the jury determined that the psychologist had not been guilty of harming or humiliating his client and was only trying to help her.

This should have been the end of it, but it was not.

ETHICS UNDER PRESSURE

During the course of the trial the psychologist had been asked to identify his Murdoch colleague. His colleague had asked not to be named on the grounds that the press would hound the person for the person’s salacious practice of BDSM, a situation which would harm the person, the person’s family and the person’s career. Neither the Murdoch contact nor the psychologist on trial were satisfied that a court suppression order would prevent the press from identifying the person to those who could cause harm. Both the psychologist on trial and his Murdoch contact had recent personal experience of such orders being thoroughly ineffective. The psychologist on trial refused to name his colleague on these grounds.

Remember the expressed concern of these two psychologists as it is proved to be justified by subsequent events.

The prosecutor, realizing she had lost her case, directed her fight in a different direction. She managed to have the otherwise acquitted psychologist convicted of contempt of court and fined $10,000 Australian. It was clear from the reaction in the courtroom that this was an unpopular decision among those present. It amounted to a conviction for upholding principles enshrined in the United Nations universal declaration of human rights, rights which are mirrored in almost every nation’s professional code of ethics for practicing psychologists. Several incensed people offered to pay the fine and one insisted.

Nor was this the end.

THE DEFAMATION TEAM

Neil McClean, Perth Psychologist

Immediately after the trial, Mr. Ian McLean, a cognitive behaviorist psychologist from the University of Western Australia who has a research interest in eating disorders, was quoted in a newspaper in relation to this case saying that the industry only works with treatments that have proven results. Like Gordon, McLean is an active member of the Australian Psychological Society. Like Gordon, it was clear that he, too, had not checked his facts before defaming the acquitted psychologist.

Prof. Iain Walker, Murdoch University Psychology Dept..

Shortly after the trial, a magazine of the Australian Psycho logical Society published an article by Prof. Iain Walker, then the head of the psychology department at Murdoch University, which stated categorically that the psychologist’s Murdoch colleague did not exist. The insinuation was that the psychologist who had been acquitted of sexual and physical assault had committed perjury in the courtroom and fully deserved his conviction for contempt of court. The magazine refused to publish a refutation by a colleague of the acquitted psychologist who knew the information to be false and could identify the allegedly non-existent individual. The editor of the magazine, who originally offered to accept the article, retracted his permission at the direction of a “senior adviser” from the Australian Psychological Society. The inference is that Ms. Gordon was involved at some level in issuing that directive.

IN SEARCH OF HEALING

Both the acquitted psychologist and his wife developed severe post traumatic stress disorders as the result of the false allegations, the public humiliation, the trauma of the trial and the subsequent events. Other family members were also psychologically distressed. It is no small thing to spend a couple of years dealing daily with the frightening possibility that your husband or father could spend eight years in jail for a crime that you knew he had not committed.

The final devastation was extreme. The psychologist had lost his business, his profession, his reputation, his peace of mind, his health, his house, his life savings and the opportunity to help his daughters through the last stressful years of Australian senior secondary schooling (US-college-level). Although his marriage was intact it was under enormous strain. The exhausted couple moved to a country town and worked for a pittance as building laborers in order to survive. Although past normal retirement age this man could not afford to retire.

Acknowledging that his ordeal had seriously impaired his ability to provide first class therapeutic treatment the psychologist resolved to permanently retire from the profession and have his name removed from the State’s register of licensed practitioners. He stated his intention to the press, wrote a letter of resignation to the Board, returned his certificate of registration and ceased to pay licensing fees. The Board, however, refused to accept his resignation and elected to keep him on the register by waiving the fee requirement. The Board’s legal agent argued that this man’s crimes were too severe for the Board to de-register him in this manner: it was paradoxically necessary to keep him registered until the State Administrative Tribunal could direct that he be de-registered. It is difficult to understand why this would protect the public better than accepting this man’s request for immediate de-registration due to permanent disability.

THE BULLY BRIGADE

Apparently based on Ms. Gordon’s sub judice statement the State Psychologists’ Board commenced proceedings against this man, accused him of 17 counts of misconduct and alleged that the conviction of contempt of court was a crime which made him unfit to practice psychology. It alleged that the nature of the conviction and the alleged instances of malpractice was sufficiently serious to have the State Administrative Tribunal de-register him in “poor standing”, fine him up to $25,000 and probably make him pay the Board’s legal costs. The idea of making someone pay for their own harassment and abuse should send shivers down anyone’s spine, especially when the only outcome which did not involve the imposition of further financial distress could have been achieved by accepting the unfortunate psychologist’s resignation in the first place.

The Board’s legal agent twisted the knife by insinuating to the press that the psychologist was guilty of a serious crime (unspecified) and that he had deliberately failed to resign from the profession in spite of his public promise to do so. The psychologist was unaware of this news report at the time as he had left the State in an attempt to recuperate from his frightening ordeal.

While he was out of the State the Board’s agent attempted to subpoena the Psychologist’s daughter to obtain information about her father’s whereabouts. For the next seven months the agent sent that daughter details of what the Board was doing to harm her father. Needless to say, the daughter was very distressed by this.

When the psychologist returned to the State, the Board’s agent used electricity company records in the wife’s name – records that the general public believe to be private and confidential – to find the psychologist in order to serve him with notification of the new nightmare.

ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLENCE

The suit has now reached the State Administrative Tribunal.

The standard of justice available in the administrative court is lower than that provided by the higher court. Furthermore, the respondent is cognitively, physiologically and emotionally impaired which renders him unable to participate effectively in such a process or to participate without significant and severe harm to his health and well-being. The respondent has no financial means of procuring legal representation and is not eligible for legal aid in an administrative matter. In any case, it is doubtful that the acquitted psychologist could properly instruct one even if made available by the Tribunal. He is being assisted by a former colleague with no legal training who offered to do what she could to help. The Board, on the other hand, have indicated that they intend to employ a “very senior” barrister to argue the case against an impaired person assisted by a legal amateur. Perhaps the Board’s agent recognizes that the Board’s case is weak enough to fail even in the face of puny opposition.

The Board’s case for misconduct consists almost entirely of allegations which are answerable by attention to material in the transcript of the State Trial which the Board has chosen to ignore, or omit. This requires that the main elements of the original traumatizing case be rerun in a lower court with a lower standard of evidence required for conviction. This is double jeopardy at its most cruel.

The Board’s agent, Ms Melanie Naylor, argued that the Board’s case was essentially different from the State’s case because the State was intent on punishing wrongdoers while the Board was intent on protecting the public. She did not explain how the public would be protected by refusing to remove this acquitted man’s name from the register before severely punishing him and his wife with the re-traumatising process of administrative law. She appears to be using the words “punish” and “protect” to mean something other than the meaning given these words by the average English speaker.

Central to the Board’s argument is that the psychologist’s patient was humiliated by the treatment she received. This allegation was specifically dismissed by the District Court after hearing testimony from the patient. Since the Tribunal has no power to interview or cross examine the patient itself the acquitted psychologist’s only means of defense is to regurgitate material from the previous trial. For someone suffering from PTSD induced by the legal system this is equivalent to psychological torture.

Other allegations from the Board’s case concern attributions of unethical behavior relating to the use of a systems theory model. The Board members are clearly not familiar with this model and are unaware that the ethical issues it raises were dealt with and resolved in peer reviewed journals in the late 1980s and early 1990s. An administrative tribunal is not the place to adjudicate professional turf wars.

The remaining complaints are frivolous, ludicrous, unethical, dubious or demand a standard of perfectionism which no competently practicing psychologist could hope to achieve and which, if present, would indicate a personality unsuited to the provision of effective therapy. The following are examples.

It was twice suggested that the psychologist’s handwriting was untidy. It was suggested that the psychologist should have admitted the patient to a hospital to which he had no admitting rights and that he should have done so against the will of his patient. He was admonished for not obtaining information from an extremely uncooperative patient and for failing to act on the information not supplied by the patient. It was suggested that he should have contacted a medical practitioner who had never contacted him about the patient and who he had no reason to believe was continuing to see the patient. It was suggested that he contact this practitioner without permission from the patient. It was suggested that the patient’s after-hours suicide prevention management should have been restricted to contact with a public crisis management service in spite of the probability that she would be unable or unwilling to contact such a service in an emergency. The psychologist was admonished for failing to write medico-legal reports in the absence of medical information which the patient continually refused to provide and which there was reason to suspect would not support her case for compensation if it were provided. He was castigated for not keeping adequate notes in spite of the fact that the Board’s advisor complained that the notes of the patient’s psychiatrist were even scantier.

CONTEMPT

The Board’s case for the seriousness of the contempt of court charge has resulted in some unintentional black humor.

According to the Board, the offense involved interference with the administration of justice. Wasn’t that what the President of the Australian Psychological Society, Amanda Gordon did when she issued a sub judice press release? In her case, however, the intent was apparently not to protect a colleague but to negligently harm one. That appears to be a far less justifiable crime.

As you will recall, the accused psychologist refused to name his Murdoch colleague because both he and the colleague had good reason to believe that a judicial suppression order would be insufficient to prevent members of the public from becoming aware of this person’s identity and thus the knowledge of this person’s history of the practice of BDSM.

In the current case the presiding judge of the Tribunal did not issue an order that the name of the psychologist’s colleague be suppressed, if identified, although this was requested by a colleague speaking for the accused psychologist. His Honor did, however, order that the name of the psychologist’s patient be suppressed.

In spite of this suppression order the Board filed a public document which clearly lists the name of the client and her birth date on page four. This itself, is a contempt of court. It is also dramatic proof that the accused psychologist and his Murdoch colleague had reason to distrust the efficacy of a judicial suppression order.

That fact elevates the accused psychologist’s “contempt” to the status of “necessary professional sacrifice” on behalf of his colleague. Ms. Gordon’s act has no such redeeming feature.

Neither can the Board justify their carelessness. In the Board’s case it is a strong argument for the professional negligence of the five psychologist’s on the Board and their failure to responsibly monitor the actions of their agents. As for Ms Melanie Naylor, the Board’s legal agent, she has a case to answer to the gatekeepers of her own profession.

THE “ETHICS” EXPERT

The Board took advice from Alfred Allan, the Deputy Chairperson of the Australian Psychological Society’s Ethics Committee. Professor Allan began his professional life as a Prosecutor for an apartheid regime, has specialized in the interface between psychology and the law and has a research interest in sexual predators. The implications of this collection of specialties is that the Board chooses to believe that it is dealing with a sexual predator who has somehow escaped conviction, perhaps because of the caliber of his barrister.

Prof. Alfred Allan, Australian Psychological Society Ethics Code Author.

Professor Allan has little to no experience in areas relevant to the case. Unlike the 30 years of experience accrued by the accused psychologist, Allan has a mere five years of part time experience as a clinical psychologist working within the restrictions of a university clinic in South Africa. He has no experience working as a psychologist in a solo practice.

He does not let this lack of expertise prevent him from evaluating psychological assessment tools which he has never given, questionnaire scoring practices he does not understand, models of therapy he does not recognize and modes of service provision he has not experienced. Some of his suggestions are insulting (the acquitted psychologist, who was a supervisor of supervisors of therapists, should be supervised) while others (noted above) are clinically inadvisable and even dangerous.

It is clear that Prof. Allan failed to inform himself of all the available facts about this case; he seemingly made no attempt to access the complete transcript of the original trial in spite of his legal background. He apparently failed to advise the Board of the probable repercussions of advancing this case in the absence of these facts. This is an extraordinary number of ethical blunders from someone who is entrusted with policing the professional ethics of other psychologists.

Prof. Allan’s choice of weapon was the 2007 Code of Ethics of the Australian Psychological Society which Allan proudly claims to have developed. In a real sense, the new Code is on trial in this case.

To begin with, there is something wrong with using a new code to condemn a psychologist who worked under the old one. There is something very wrong with a Code of Ethics which is better equipped to destroy a psychologist who is the victim of a client’s crime rather than used to support such a person or aid their recovery. There is something especially wrong when it is wielded in such a manner by the person who claims to have developed it. When a Code can be so efficiently used to promote professional bullying and legal thuggery it does not function as a code of Ethics.

Professor Allan teaches Ethics to future clinical psychologists at Edith Cowan University in Perth. This is somewhat concerning. Being a University employed psychologist, Allan is not required to be registered with the State licensing Board, and so may be outside the Board’s disciplinary jurisdiction. While he is answerable to his own Code of Ethics as a member of the Australian Psychological Society one wonders how such an apparently corrupt Society would deal with a complaint about the main author of its Code.

The psychologists on the Board have failed to recognize or acknowledge the limitations and shortcomings of their adviser. Nor did they endeavor to investigate the case properly. From the outset of the State case the psychologist offered to liaise with a person appointed by the Board, but this was not taken up. No-one representing the Board attended the District Court Trial and no-one appears to have read the complete transcript of that Trial with any significant degree of comprehension or attention, if at all.

TORTURE BY REMOTE CONTROL

The effects of this unjustified and renewed attack on the acquitted psychologist have been devastating. Both he and his wife now suffer from re-activated post-traumatic stress disorders and both of them now have permanent life-threatening medical disorders which result directly from this. Their family doctor has twice written to the Board advising them of her extreme disquiet about its behavior in this matter.

The Psychology Board has known from the outset that their victim developed a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) consequent to the original court case. It could be expected that a Professional Board concerned with regulating those who provide assistance for those with mental illnesses would be offering assistance to a colleague in this situation. Instead, the Board ignored this from the outset of their pursuit of this unfortunate man.

After being reminded of this man’s condition on several occasions, the Board finally received a copy of a report from a very senior psychiatrist which confirmed the severity of the PTSD and attributed its exacerbation directly to the Board’s actions. There could be no doubt of the authenticity of this report as the psychiatrist was the Tribunal’s own expert in this area.

There are five psychologists who sit on the Board: Dr Deborah Wilmoth (Presiding Member) (Western Australian Health Department), Dr John Manners (Private Clinical Practice), Associate Prof. David Leach (Academic, Murdoch University), Mr. Alan Plumb (Chairperson, Perth Branch of the Australian Psychological Society) and Dr Jennifer Thornton (Academic, Curtin University). Every one of them ratified their legal agent’s proposal that the psychologist be further traumatized by a hostile assessment of his condition. It was proposed that he be re-assessed by a psychiatrist chosen by the Board who would fly in from another State and who would not be permitted to provide treatment for the torment he or she provoked. The acquitted psychologist’s appalled treating doctor made a complaint about this to the Board.

Deliberately creating or exacerbating a mental illness without benefit to the victim is not behavior which should be condoned for anyone, and especially not for a psychologist. If the Board’s psychologist members are not grossly unethical then there must be some doubt about the degree of monitoring and the level of control which the Board exerts over its legal agents and therefore of the competence of these Board members to serve on this body.

A CORRUPTED PROFESSION

The Chairperson of the Perth Branch of the Australian Psychological Society is a member of the Board and the Board’s advisor in this case is the ex-Chairperson of the Australian Psychological Ethics Committee. The circumstantial evidence suggests that the Western Australian Psychologists’ Board has allowed itself to be manipulated by, or has colluded with, the Australian Psychological Society. The joint aim appears to be to victimize a health-impaired former psychologist in order to obtain a Tribunal finding which justifies, or at least mitigates, the unprofessional behavior of Ms. Amanda Gordon during the 2007 District Court Trial. If collusion is proved, then the Board has knowingly used government resources to support a commercial body and is clearly corrupt. No psychologist who has been party to this chain of events should be allowed to hold public office again or to continue to practice psychology.

It appears that Australian psychology is out of control. Those in power are abusing their positions and damaging the profession. Juniors are passing judgment on seniors and those from one school are being allowed to pass judgment on those of another, humanity is absent and lawyers are manipulating and controlling psychologists for ends which are incompatible with the best interests of the profession. Practicing psychology competently and ethically has become a risky business in this country. If the reputation of Australian psychology is to survive this crisis then capable, experienced and compassionate practitioners must arrange to take back control and find ways to ensure that they retain it.

UNREMITTING VIOLENCE

The papers for this case were served on the victim and his family in January of this year. It is now June but the former psychologist and his family are still being legally stalked and terrorized. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each of the regular communications from the State Administrative Tribunal or the Board’s agents has a catastrophic effect on the couple’s social, emotional, mental and physical integrity. The pain can be ignored and denied by the perpetrators and facilitators because they are not there to witness it. Distance makes it easier to inflict unspeakable misery without losing the self-induced delusion that one is behaving in an upright and moral manner for the good of humanity. These people need to be firmly faced with reality.

AND SO ….

Introductory studies in social psychology generally include the story of Kitty Genovese. This woman was axed to death in her front yard while her neighbors watched but did nothing to help.

Professors usually teach that the story illustrates how reluctant people are to become involved in assisting someone they see to be in need when they perceive that there are other people around. They prefer to assume that others will or should take the active role. Students always believe that they would have behaved more honorably if it were they who had witnessed the event but the teaching staff generally believe that this is wishful thinking.

Modern day hatchet jobs can now be conducted by remote control so that those who inflict horrific injury do not directly experience the suffering of the victim. We now know that stress at the level administered in the case described above can literally kill or permanently maim people; it just takes a little longer than the injuries inflicted by an actual axe at close quarters.

What this means is that you have just been presented with a real life example of a hatchet murder in progress. Now you can find out whether your real life response conforms to the beliefs of the professors or the students. If you follow through on any of the suggestions below, or if you respond in some other way, please acknowledge this in the comment section below.

Here are some things you can do in response to this story.

1. Discuss this story in the Comments section below.
2. Make a supportive gesture or comment to the main victims of this saga. You can do this here.
3. Make a complaint to the Registrar of the Western Australian Psychologists’ Board and ask for an investigation of the role in this saga of the psychologists serving on the Western Australian Psychologists’ Board. You can do this here.
4. Make a complaint to the Registrar of the Western Australian Psychologists’ Board and ask for an investigation of Alfred Allen’s role in this saga. You can do this here.
5. Make a complaint to the Registrar of the New South Wales Psychologists’ Board and ask for an investigation of Amanda Gordon’s role in this saga. You can do this here.
6. Make a complaint to the Executive Director of the Australian Psychological Society and ask for an investigation of Amanda Gordon and Alfred Allan’s roles in this saga. You can do this here.
7. Make a complaint to the Vice Chancellor of Murdoch University and ask for an investigation of Prof. Iain Wilson’s role in this saga. You can do this here.
8. Provide financial assistance to the impoverished psychologist and his family. You can do this here.