- Joined
- Mar 7, 2020
From the context, I'm assuming Carmen is 'the body' so how the fuck is one of her alters her Mother? Did she birth herself?
From the context, I'm assuming Carmen is 'the body' so how the fuck is one of her alters her Mother? Did she birth herself?
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
They follow the famous maxim: Cogito Ergo Coom.
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
I'm pretty sure she meant "mother" in a guardian sense. But considering how these people tend to have a personality that fills this role, it makes me wonder if they really were abused as a child.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Very accurate. And those so called "experts" that these youtubes speak to tend to be from places that have an invested interest in diagnosing people for treatment that is expensive and not covered by insurances.
People on youtube talk of msging and phoning their therapists on a whim and having deep personal conversations about their lives. That would be against pretty much every standard of ethics we have.
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
I really don't think many of them actually go to a therapist. Therapy is extremely expensive and the main benefit is word vomiting all your shit onto someone else. When these DIDtubers start making money and also getting the gratification of whining to their followers I doubt they take their ad cents and spend it on therapy.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
Yep, which is even more proof how fake they are. Sadly those places the advertise do take advantage of people who are gullible and desperate.
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
I wonder how many hours they spent on piccrew. That “song association” bit in the bios reeks of maladaptive day dreaming
garbage man
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 21, 2020
She's a self diagnosed autistic 17 year old girl. I don't think it reeks of maladaptive daydreaming but just of being a stupid snowflake teen tbh.
She joined Twitter less than a year ago. That's a lot to discover in that time lol
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
How the fuck does TWITTER make you realize you've been abused by your parents
im busting at the seams!By far my favorite of her alters is Windfall, the pegasus trans alien. The creativity that one took! Here she/they/whatever the fuck is talking about their home plant. Kepler FOURTY FIVE TWO B!
NerdShamer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2018
Remember how people say "go to your happy place" to children?
This is what happens when they spend too much time in it.
This is what happens when they spend too much time in it.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2017
This account was created less than a year ago. Also, it's half retweets of troon shit and half female "alters" sperging (often about troon shit). I bet "Carmen" is male.
NobodyofAnyImportance
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
Here's an incredibly boring video from Bobo, talking about how hard it is to beg for money on YouTube on top of her Disability Benefits. She's recently been reported again, but is still doing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KPDtVgtjJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KPDtVgtjJk
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
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...
NobodyofAnyImportance
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2020
Pickless Ugly Friend
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
Digging around reddit and found some didfuck screamin foul over the DIDcon and the Toicunt stealin peoples casholah. 
looks like the “community“ keeps crumbling down. So glad I got etix, hope they don’t cancel the show.
looks like the “community“ keeps crumbling down. So glad I got etix, hope they don’t cancel the show.Attachments
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
Yikes. Talk about mad at the internet. I can't say I fully support them getting their refunds. Cancellation clauses exist. The fact that they are allowing resells is generous enough. Everyone who wants a refund was most likely a fangirl of the Nin/Nan relationship and attending the conference for the wrong reasons to begin with.
For that reason alone, I can not feel bad for you if you bought a $100+ ticket for a first year conference and then an additional Add On of $175 for a cringe gala dinner.
As of now TOI is still selling tickets to have dinner with Nan the sneeze jerker.
For that reason alone, I can not feel bad for you if you bought a $100+ ticket for a first year conference and then an additional Add On of $175 for a cringe gala dinner.
As of now TOI is still selling tickets to have dinner with Nan the sneeze jerker.
walter
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 14, 2020
Tomi, now going by Lyn, picked an interesting time to come back from a very long (2/3year) hiatus.
If you're not familiar, Tomi is an OG DIDtuber. I think Jess once said that Tomi was the one who inspired her to make DID videos. Her oldest video about DID is 11 years old.
If you're not familiar, Tomi is an OG DIDtuber. I think Jess once said that Tomi was the one who inspired her to make DID videos. Her oldest video about DID is 11 years old.
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
Gotta give props to Mimi for finally getting Tomi to lose some of that weight. Guess she was tired of just being a skinny girl on the inside.
I skimmed through her comeback videos, she seems no nonsense. But considering the timing I wonder if she'll mention the drama surrounding the big DIDinfluncers.
I skimmed through her comeback videos, she seems no nonsense. But considering the timing I wonder if she'll mention the drama surrounding the big DIDinfluncers.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2020
Jess from Multiplicity & Me is now an honorary assistant psychologist. She mentioned it briefly on her story but has now updated her Instagram. She'll be working directly with patients and may need to relocate in the future if she's offered a real position. The only upside to letting this lunatic loose on patients is that Chloe of DissociaDID will be consumed with jealousy around about now. I've also always found it rather amusing she describes herself as 'boss' when she currently works in administration almost at the bottom of the pile. Sure, she's the 'boss' of her shit YouTube channel, but that hardly counts.
- Joined
- May 7, 2020
What does she do? Get the real psychologist coffees? Found a similar job description from the NHS, this reeks of an other duties as assigned grunt position. But seeing as how she's, 'the girl from the BBC doc', she might end up being treated like a total Queen. The actual job description only mentions doing phone assessments and at the most hearing out grievances against the organizations services itself in person.