Quote:
Originally Posted by mindmechanic
@ susannahsays: Thank you for your feedback. I wonder a lot, too, if she has some resentment towards me. When I ask her, she denies having any anger or negative feelings towards me.
Oh, she is not very tech savvy, but she is well aware that Skype is not HIPAA compliant. She just didn't expect it to have such a feature. lol
I don't think she or anyone else gets to decide whether what I did with the names is wrong or not. I didn't cause harm. I did it as a hypervigilant thing to protect myself. I Google professors, teachers, coworkers, supervisors, and peers. I do that to keep me safe. If I kill someone in self-defense, that killing is not morally wrong.
And question. Patients' names aside, the therapist also said that it was wrong for me to look up the names if I thought that they could be family or friends. But early and throughout her work, she was well aware that I knew stuff from Google about her and her family. But she affirmed that it wasn't wrong or snooping and instead said that what is public, is public. So it's okay to look her and her family up on Google; it's not wrong or snooping. But looking the Skype names up is wrong?? That's not very consistent. |
I don't think looking up family or friends is morally wrong. However, you have indicated that you thought that they could be clients, so the possibility that they are just family or friends seems moot to me. But I don't know what your therapist's reasons were for changing her stance. I think invading the privacy of another client is different because they did not choose to out themselves, but the negligence of the therapist disclosed their association with her. I don't know if I agree with your definition of harm. Technically, people who view pictures of naked children for sexual gratification are not putting hands on the children. Yet they are invading the privacy of those children. What they are doing is immoral.