How to Prevent False Allegations in a #MeToo Era

[AD04]

Male politicians no longer meet with females alone. Wall Street executives are not dining alone or mentoring female employees.

Have false allegations been a problem for physicians?

What can physicians do to protect themselves? What if you run a solo cash practice?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Horners]

A good way to prevent it is to remain professional with everyone you meet, men and women. You can be friendly without hugging co-workers/patients. You can be charming without borderline offensive jokes/comments.

I think worrying about false allegations as a man is probably the same as worrying about someone going out of their way to hurting you and I think in both cases you can defend yourself fairly well.

For example, let’s say you fire a woman employee for whatever good reason. She comes around and decides to raise a false sexual allegation against you, a good lawyer would be able to defend you against this sort of thing.

I don’t think false allegations happen without an inciting vengeful incentive. I don’t think many women would even consider this sort of allegation if they were trying to hurt you, but maybe I am naive to the world.

I do think the vast majority of allegations hold some sort of merit vs ones that are purely vengeful so if you act professional, I wouldn’t worry about this sort of thing happening to you. Though I imagine it is a nightmare if it does happen to you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Bartelby]

I know one private practice psychiatrist who records himself without sound during every psychotherapy session. He does not record the patient, and all patients are informed of this (and it is part of their signed agreement). Honestly it seems a bit much to me, but is an option.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Deleted.

 

[deleted480308]

A good way to prevent it is to remain professional with everyone you meet, men and women. You can be friendly without hugging co-workers/patients. You can be charming without borderline offensive jokes/comments.

I think worrying about false allegations as a man is probably the same as worrying about someone going out of their way to hurting you and I think in both cases you can defend yourself fairly well.

For example, let’s say you fire a woman employee for whatever good reason. She comes around and decides to raise a false sexual allegation against you, a good lawyer would be able to defend you against this sort of thing.

I don’t think false allegations happen without an inciting vengeful incentive. I don’t think many women would even consider this sort of allegation if they were trying to hurt you, but maybe I am naive to the world.

I do think the vast majority of allegations hold some sort of merit vs ones that are purely vengeful so if you act professional, I wouldn’t worry about this sort of thing happening to you. Though I imagine it is a nightmare if it does happen to you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

It only takes one liar

 

[twospadz]

I think this is why Kavanaugh appointment was so needed and monumental. People who are sexual abusers do need to be punished but we had to recognize that false allegations or ones with little proof should not be held with merit until justified.

 

[Shufflin]

I was once...

Sounds awful. Sorry you went through that. There's a nurse who always gives me a hug, I should be careful but she likes to...

 

[Horners]

False accusations are such a damn shame. Not only does it completely destroy men, it cheapens the many real cases against women and prevents them from coming out against their abusers. False accusers should be punished very harshly.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Lawpy]

False accusations are such a damn shame. Not only does it completely destroy men, it cheapens the many real cases against women and prevents them from coming out against their abusers. False accusers should be punished very harshly.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Hence why professionalism is important. Definitely not a good thing to get involved with behaviors that can be interpreted as inappropriate, such as hugging. CYA is a key principle to follow.

 

[wolfvgang22]

Deleted, sorry.

 

[Lawpy]

People like to justify this bizarre behavior by saying "innocent until proven guilty" only works in courts but it's perfectly okay for "guilty until proven innocent" to be mainstream across workplaces. I'm really sorry that @wolfvgang22 underwent difficult experiences of false accusations, but it's exactly the disturbing prevalence of false accusations that made me admittedly paranoid and careful on what I do.

I admit that sometimes even despite being professional, there are always sociopaths out there who are out to destroy you. But professionalism will serve as a vital factor that will redeem you from false accusations. The only way for "guilty until proven innocent" to end is through large-scale social changes where society admits false accusations are unacceptable and the accused should have a fair say to defend themselves without dealing with a high risk of losing their career and damaging their reputation.

 

[Stagg737]

This thread just makes telepsych sound all the more appealing...

I know one private practice psychiatrist who records himself without sound during every psychotherapy session. He does not record the patient, and all patients are informed of this (and it is part of their signed agreement). Honestly it seems a bit much to me, but is an option.

This is an interesting point. I'll have to keep this in mind if I go into PP.

 

[Mass Effect]

@wolfvgang22 sorry that happened to you. I'm going through something very similar as we speak, though it's not about the #metoo movement. The emotional toll it takes on you is unimaginable.

 

[hamstergang]

it's exactly the disturbing prevalence of false accusations that made me admittedly paranoid and careful on what I do.

Do we know anything about what this prevalence actually is?

 

[deleted480308]

Do we know anything about what this prevalence actually is?

Much like rape, any prevalence is too much

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I think this is why Kavanaugh appointment was so needed and monumental. People who are sexual abusers do need to be punished but we had to recognize that false allegations or ones with little proof should not be held with merit until justified.

uh.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Idk about you guys I intend on having a security camera in my office. We are frequently dealing with individuals who have significant impulse control or emotional disinhibition due to substances and or psychiatric disorder.

 

[FlowRate]

Much like rape, any prevalence is too much

(I'm hoping this is sarcastic given the RS avatar, but if serious..) And suicide and death and literally everything else that sucks when it happens to people. How much do you give up to try and prevent these things before it's too much?

I had an interesting interaction at work yesterday. Was talking with a male team member at their cubicle and we wanted a female team member to help us figure something out about a patient which required quickly accessing a part of the EMR. Female team member leaned over male team member to use the male team member's computer/EMR. Male team member didn't do anything for a second and then seemed to have a realization related to this topic because he jumped out of his chair as if to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety.

 

[deleted480308]

(I'm hoping this is sarcastic given the RS avatar, but if serious..) And suicide and death and literally everything else that sucks when it happens to people. How much do you give up to try and prevent these things before it's too much?

I had an interesting interaction at work yesterday. Was talking with a male team member at their cubicle and we wanted a female team member to help us figure something out about a patient which required quickly accessing a part of the EMR. Female team member leaned over male team member to use the male team member's computer/EMR. Male team member didn't do anything for a second and then seemed to have a realization related to this topic because he jumped out of his chair as if to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety.

Not sarcastic at all. Any is too much. I meant that.

What I didn’t mean (which might be what you are reacting to) is that massive and restrictive preemptive measures should be required. We should simply adequately investigate and then severely punish proven wrongdoers.

 

[Shufflin]

Not sarcastic at all. Any is too much. I meant that.

What I didn’t mean (which might be what you are reacting to) is that massive and restrictive preemptive measures should be required. We should simply adequately investigate and then severely punish proven wrongdoers.

you thinking pillory, flogging, or drawn and quartering?... for an inappropriate hug? or what...

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Do we know anything about what this prevalence actually is?

Somewhere between 3-10%

 

[Mad Jack]

you thinking pillory, flogging, or drawn and quartering?... for an inappropriate hug? or what...

I mean, I think anyone that falsely accuses and is clearly proven guilty of such should have the same penalties as the accused would have, because that is what they were willing to do to another human being

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I mean, I think anyone that falsely accuses and is clearly proven guilty of such should have the same penalties as the accused would have, because that is what they were willing to do to another human being

You'd have to make a clear difference between false accusations and those accusations that just can't be proven.

 

[Shufflin]

I mean, I think anyone that falsely accuses and is clearly proven guilty of such should have the same penalties as the accused would have, because that is what they were willing to do to another human being

Ah, I agree. I was simply suggesting repercussions should be graded for the offense. If someone hugs me and I get accused of sexual harassment my repercussion should not exceed a verbal cautioning. the old Greek code of an eye for an eye.

 

[raisinbrain]

You'd have to make a clear difference between false accusations and those accusations that just can't be proven.

This. So much. There are bound to be many cases of things that happen behind closed doors where it is difficult to say with any certainty what truly happened. But that does NOT mean there was a false accusation at hand. Of course truly false, and proven false, accusations are bad. I’d bet more things are not proven in either direction and the actions/events were interpreted differently by parties on both sides. Doesn’t mean it’s a malicious false accusation.

 

[Mad Jack]

You'd have to make a clear difference between false accusations and those accusations that just can't be proven.

Hence why I said falsely accused and is proven to have done so. Not unproven, falsely accused.

 

[st2205]

(I'm hoping this is sarcastic given the RS avatar, but if serious..) And suicide and death and literally everything else that sucks when it happens to people. How much do you give up to try and prevent these things before it's too much?

Well, I think that depends. I think if we look outside of things that are current sociopolitical issues, that we give up quite a bit to prevent these things. For instance, what are the odds that I’m going to end up being so disabled that I can’t practice psychiatry? It’s pretty small. Very small. I’m going to assume that it’s not going to happen, yet I’ll be looking at paying like $3-4k/yr to insure against it. I’m also pretty sure I won’t die in the next ten years, either, but the devastating consequences it could have on my family should that happen have caused me to spend over $20k to protect (financially) against that, and the insurance company thinks the likelihood of my death is so significantly small that they’re willing to put up $4M to my measly $20k. As physicians, we engage in all sorts of practices that shape our decisions and affect patient care because something “could” happen.

When viewed from that lens, it may not be that different from any other risks we try to mitigate. It may sound silly to change behavior for something so unlikely to happen, but we do it all the time. I couldn’t imagine someone coming on here saying that they’re going to moonlight for one shift a month and inquire as to whether it would be okay to go without malpractice insurance for that. Nobody would be saying “well as long as you’re just doing appropriate things, the odds of being sued is so unlikely, especially at just once a month, that you shouldn’t worry about it.”

 

[deleted480308]

you thinking pillory, flogging, or drawn and quartering?... for an inappropriate hug? or what...

I’d be fine with a rapist becoming 4 equal quarters of a formerly living rapist

Inappropriate hug after someone says not to hug them? That’s battery and should be prosecuted as such

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Hence why I said falsely accused and is proven to have done so. Not unproven, falsely accused.

Sorry I should have been more clear, that was a generic you, not specifically you.

 

[Stagg737]

uh.

I mean, without turning this into a massive off-topic political debate, the person you responded to is right. If we allow any accusation with minimal to no evidence other than x-said-y-said to prevent people from being appointed/obtaining any position, then all anyone has to do to any candidate is make an accusation to halt someone's career. I'm not saying we should discredit or not believe someone claiming to be a victim at all. However, I don't believe the guilty until proven innocent stance is appropriate either and we shouldn't be destroying people's careers without very good reason.

(I'm hoping this is sarcastic given the RS avatar, but if serious..) And suicide and death and literally everything else that sucks when it happens to people. How much do you give up to try and prevent these things before it's too much?

I had an interesting interaction at work yesterday. Was talking with a male team member at their cubicle and we wanted a female team member to help us figure something out about a patient which required quickly accessing a part of the EMR. Female team member leaned over male team member to use the male team member's computer/EMR. Male team member didn't do anything for a second and then seemed to have a realization related to this topic because he jumped out of his chair as if to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety.

To the first statement, whatever is within reason. If those accusations are being made seriously, a full investigation will occur anyway. If something is proven then appropriate punishment should be given, regardless of who is proven to have committed a crime.

To your story, why do you think that happened? Do you think that was an unreasonable response? Because the possible outcomes of having a sexual harassment accusation being brought against you (even for something small) range from a verbal warning to a firing with criminal charges being pressed (had a co-worker in hs almost have criminal charges pressed against them for hugging a co-worker). Both rape and the false accusations can be devastating to the victim, and just because one typically causes more harm to the individual doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to prevent both.

 

[birchswing]

I mean, without turning this into a massive off-topic political debate, the person you responded to is right. If we allow any accusation with minimal to no evidence other than x-said-y-said to prevent people from being appointed/obtaining any position, then all anyone has to do to any candidate is make an accusation to halt someone's career. I'm not saying we should discredit or not believe someone claiming to be a victim at all. However, I don't believe the guilty until proven innocent stance is appropriate either and we shouldn't be destroying people's careers without very good reason.

I think, like in the case of Woody Allen and others, this was an unknowable situation.

But if it weren't so public and if there weren't the political motivation, don't you think even a hint of something like this would make a normal job interviewer/college admissions say, "I think we're going to go in another direction."

There wouldn't even be a chance to claim innocent until proven guilty (I prefer innocent unless proven guilty).

They wouldn't give a reason. But they wouldn't take the risk.

Maybe that should lead to larger philosophical questions on hearsay, but most people's instincts are to protect themselves. You don't generally patronize a restaurant where several people claim but don't have enteric proof that they've had food poisoning. Granted it's unfair, but should that level of unfairness be lifted for a judicial nominee? I don't know the answer to that question because I think it opens up a bad precedent either way you fall on it.

But in this particular case, I think there was enough background in this case that all parties agreed to was factual, including Kavanaugh, to not give approve him—not based on allegations of sexual misconduct. I still think that core allegation is unknowable.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I mean, without turning this into a massive off-topic political debate, the person you responded to is right. If we allow any accusation with minimal to no evidence other than x-said-y-said to prevent people from being appointed/obtaining any position, then all anyone has to do to any candidate is make an accusation to halt someone's career. I'm not saying we should discredit or not believe someone claiming to be a victim at all. However, I don't believe the guilty until proven innocent stance is appropriate either and we shouldn't be destroying people's careers without very good reason.



To the first statement, whatever is within reason. If those accusations are being made seriously, a full investigation will occur anyway. If something is proven then appropriate punishment should be given, regardless of who is proven to have committed a crime.

To your story, why do you think that happened? Do you think that was an unreasonable response? Because the possible outcomes of having a sexual harassment accusation being brought against you (even for something small) range from a verbal warning to a firing with criminal charges being pressed (had a co-worker in hs almost have criminal charges pressed against them for hugging a co-worker). Both rape and the false accusations can be devastating to the victim, and just because one typically causes more harm to the individual doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to prevent both.

I think referencing a event where enormous amounts of witnesses were never asked and the investigation was purposely superficial for the established purpose of putting someone on the supreme court whose political views included believing the courts are not able to investigate or ouster the president for collusion or obstruction of justice isn't helpful here at all.

There are obviously false accusations. But I don't think referencing the above actually aids that position. In fact it just says that someone with the right friends and enough power can play by different rules.

 

[Stagg737]

Maybe that should lead to larger philosophical questions on hearsay, but most people's instincts are to protect themselves. You don't generally patronize a restaurant where several people claim but don't have enteric proof that they've had food poisoning. Granted it's unfair, but should that level of unfairness be lifted for a judicial nominee? I don't know the answer to that question because I think it opens up a bad precedent either way you fall on it.

But in this particular case, I think there was enough background in this case that all parties agreed to was factual, including Kavanaugh, to not give approve him—not based on allegations of sexual misconduct. I still think that core allegation is unknowable.

Not going to touch on his actual confirmation or reasons for/against it, just wanted to point out that not appointing him based on the accusations and sparse evidence would have set a pretty horrible precedent. If people wanted to make other arguments, that would have been a completely different story, but that was not the route that those who were against him took in terms of attempting to prevent his appointment, which is where my original statement came from.

In terms of the restaurant analogy, I think it's both fair and represents some interesting fallacies in logic. If a couple people say a restaurant was terrible/they got food poisoning there, I'd still probably try it myself if their menu sounded good. If I went on yelp and saw that they had 500 reviews and 250 were 2/5 or lower, I think that changes the situation as there's corroboration. To parallel this to the #metoo movement, this is like what happened with Cosby. It wasn't just one or even 2 people coming forward. It was over 20. When you have multiple people coming forward and corroborating a consistent pattern of behavior, it's different than a single data point (at least from a logical standpoint). There's a logical fallacy there too in terms of just looking at numbers, but I do think that would hold more power (especially given the pattern) than a single event. That doesn't mean there's a difference in burden of proof, but imo it would likely make it far easier to achieve that burden given so many data points.

I think referencing a event where enormous amounts of witnesses were never asked and the investigation was purposely superficial for the established purpose of putting someone on the supreme court whose political views included believing the courts are not able to investigate or ouster the president for collusion or obstruction of justice isn't helpful here at all.

There are obviously false accusations. But I don't think referencing the above actually aids that position. In fact it just says that someone with the right friends and enough power can play by different rules.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Ford-Blasey was falsely accusing Kavanaugh or that she was intentionally lying about anything she said. I'm also glad that an investigation happened even if you think it was "purposefully superficial". My only point was that it's not okay to damage someone's career or enact criminal charges against them when the only significant evidence that an event even occurred was from the person making the accusation.

Additionally, there were at least 6 different accusations brought against Kavanaugh that I read about. One of them involved some ridiculous accusations (without any proof or corroboration) and 3 of those individuals later came out and said they had made their stories up. Given the way this case was handled (aka a wildly inappropriate media circus) do you really think the "right friends with enough power" argument is what happened here? Because of all the level-headed individuals I've talked to irl, everyone agreed that there were many other problems with this case which did far more to harm the credibility of the #metoo movement than help it.

 

[FlowRate]

To your story, why do you think that happened? Do you think that was an unreasonable response? Because the possible outcomes of having a sexual harassment accusation being brought against you (even for something small) range from a verbal warning to a firing with criminal charges being pressed (had a co-worker in hs almost have criminal charges pressed against them for hugging a co-worker). Both rape and the false accusations can be devastating to the victim, and just because one typically causes more harm to the individual doesn't mean we shouldn't make efforts to prevent both.

I thought it was interesting as an anecdote about how much men are trying to avoid even the appearance of something "inappropriate" even if they were the RECIPIENT of the "inappropriate" behavior (she chose to lean across him instead of any number of other ways of going about that situation.)

 

[deleted480308]

I think referencing a event where enormous amounts of witnesses were never asked and the investigation was purposely superficial for the established purpose of putting someone on the supreme court whose political views included believing the courts are not able to investigate or ouster the president for collusion or obstruction of justice isn't helpful here at all.

There are obviously false accusations. But I don't think referencing the above actually aids that position. In fact it just says that someone with the right friends and enough power can play by different rules.

Except it wasn’t purposely superficial at all... the accusers were interviewed. They also didn’t have “enormous amounts” of corroborating witnesses that were ignored. And the congressional panel isn’t even the jurisdiction to investigate criminal complaints, that’s a local law enforcement role and those jurisdictions are available should any accuser wish to properly have their claims investigated

 

[birchswing]

Not going to touch on his actual confirmation or reasons for/against it, just wanted to point out that not appointing him based on the accusations and sparse evidence would have set a pretty horrible precedent. If people wanted to make other arguments, that would have been a completely different story, but that was not the route that those who were against him took in terms of attempting to prevent his appointment, which is where my original statement came from.

I agree that the line of argument was mostly over Ford's testimony. I think there were some people on the fence over Kavanaugh's temperament. To me, the world I saw exposed of drinking to excess and the general lifestyle would have been enough even if nothing else were true. It sounded like they went to one of those schools you see in teenage horror films where everyone's always at a party after school and there are seemingly no parents. I was most surprised at the alternate universe I didn't know existed of such youthful indiscretions I've only ever seen on film. I know this sounds snobby, but to me the whole milieu that he came from and seemed to still embrace sounded a bit gauche.

As far as precedent, I think the precedent already exists in most areas of society. I do think it would be a new precedent to set under public scrutiny.

I’m guessing you hear from colleagues about problem patients without necessarily having evidence and a hearing and may choose to stay away from treating them. Or if not you, that can’t be an uncommon practice. Or the restaurant example. I don't know, maybe you're a very unassuming person. But in general in life, people don't have the benefit of having the consequences of accusations against them decided on whether they are provable. My point is that we all (or most of us) choose to go on unverifiable claims for our own protection. But making it public, as in the case of Kavanaugh, makes us question the propriety of doing so. I agree it would be a different type of precedent in that we would be consciously affirming our decision to give into doubt and publicly maligning someone's character based on unprovable claims. But don't we do this privately?

 

[Crayola227]

Yes, and I've pointed out multiple times that NOT losing your job, but merely being passed over from one extremely powerful position to which you will remain, and NOT being PROMOTED to arguably one of the most powerful lifelong appointments in the entire world, is NOT exactly punishment, and on the basis of what dirt was actually there to be found, is again....

Also looking at this from a risk reduction standpoint. Innocent guy gets passed up for promotion vs repeat sex offender is now SCOTUS.

Somewhere I'd have to dig up my essay on the fact that false rape cries, while extremely bad, the signal to noise ratio of real vs fake is such that I'm not sure why it seems a bigger worry than actual truthful rape allegations going unheeded. And when you actually look at the picture, false rape allegations as a political weapon is NOT the threat that some people seem to think it is.

This simply would NOT have "opened the foodgates" to a precedent like people think it might. Logic might suggest it. The truth is, and we all should know this, those are not the elements at play when it comes to a woman making an allegation, truthful or not.

If it's not only a powerful weapon but one that is apt to be used, then why don't we see more unsubstantiated claims? Why do we know of so many claims that are never spoken of outside a victim's trusted circle?

Because even when it's true, it's frankly usually not worth the trouble to report. Even if Kavanaugh had not gone through, and women started coming out of the woodwork to block their favourite political candidates from election/appointment, we all know just how pointless it is. Look at what happened. You can be a respected professor and speaking out against an obvious douchebag, and now you've got death threats. This was never a viable political tool, and that would have been true no matter which way it went against him.

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, and I've pointed out multiple times that NOT losing your job, but merely being passed over from one extremely powerful position to which you will remain, and NOT being PROMOTED to arguably one of the most powerful lifelong appointments in the entire world, is NOT exactly punishment, and on the basis of what dirt was actually there to be found, is again....

Also looking at this from a risk reduction standpoint. Innocent guy gets passed up for promotion vs repeat sex offender is now SCOTUS.

Somewhere I'd have to dig up my essay on the fact that false rape cries, while extremely bad, the signal to noise ratio of real vs fake is such that I'm not sure why it seems a bigger worry than actual truthful rape allegations going unheeded. And when you actually look at the picture, false rape allegations as a political weapon is NOT the threat that some people seem to think it is.

This simply would NOT have "opened the foodgates" to a precedent like people think it might. Logic might suggest it. The truth is, and we all should know this, those are not the elements at play when it comes to a woman making an allegation, truthful or not.

If it's not only a powerful weapon but one that is apt to be used, then why don't we see more unsubstantiated claims? Why do we know of so many claims that are never spoken of outside a victim's trusted circle?

Because even when it's true, it's frankly usually not worth the trouble to report. Even if Kavanaugh had not gone through, and women started coming out of the woodwork to block their favourite political candidates from election/appointment, we all know just how pointless it is. Look at what happened. You can be a respected professor and speaking out against an obvious douchebag, and now you've got death threats. This was never a viable political tool, and that would have been true no matter which way it went against him.

If a completely unsubstantiated accusation had been allowed to thwart a scotus appointment it absolutely would become a viable political tool

 

[Shufflin]

...If it's not only a powerful weapon but one that is apt to be used, then why don't we see more unsubstantiated claims? Why do we know of so many claims that are never spoken of outside a victim's trusted circle?...

good point. just adding that lots of really rich men pay accusers to keep quiet, we can name some famous actors and sports figures here... just sayin... now back to our late night program...

 

[whopper]

Sexual assault allegations are the ultimate WTF moment IMHO in terms of lack of ability to do much unless there's strong physical evidence in a situation that is so frustrating and anger provoking.

And to act upon this in a defensive manner (as a physician, not in other situations) is going to have you do a heck of a lot of work for a situation that is likely not going to happen. E.g. if you start recording your interviews, you might be in a state where it's not legal to do so without the patient's permission. They might refuse Then storing the recordings will be a pain in the ass.

I can't say Kavanaugh was innocent or guilty. We don't know. I will say, however, that the hypocrisy was so thick you could cut it and this was from both sides. The Right typically pointed fingers and Bill Clinton and wanted him to be guilty by accusation. I'm not just talking about the "Right" as a political movement but specific individuals such as Sean Hannity who keeps alleging Clinton was guilty simply based on the accusations, but then defends Kavanaugh saying accusations aren't enough. He simply times the statements by making sure he doesn't say them in the same breath and spaces them about a month apart so his followers don't readily notice it. The Left that typically stands up for women turned a blind-eye to Clinton's accusers. Then Clinton's out of office and all of a sudden it's more acceptable to hold contempt against people based on accusation with several stating, "well time's changed."

(I didn't want Kavanaugh in but this was before the accusation was even made and it wasn't cause he's on the Right. The reason is he's been a GOP-party loyalist and not an independent conservative. Same reason why I didn't Harriet Miers-she was a Bush loyalist and not an independent conservative. Face it, yes you cannot get the person you always want in the SCOTUS but you could at least get an intellectually honest one whose disagreeing opinion you respect and you know is based on strong legal merit and study of the Constitution. When the accusation came out, it didn't change my opinion, cause I already had one based on other issues, but I did think the entire thing became a circus.)

The overwhelming majority of rape accusations per forensic studies are true. How much? Well over 95%. In some it's about 98%.
But does that mean we automatically believe the accuser? Of course not. We all know there's a certain type of personality that makes false allegations, and even enjoys it.

Again it puts people in the ultimate WTF do we do? We want to hold people guilty over this but to do so violates a basic principle of requiring proof.

The process to prove one was raped (or assaulted) is mired with causing re-traumatization for the victim. Further to prove one was raped, one often times has to go to an ER and let things linger on the victim's body such as semen. This obviously is something that most victims will want to wash off immediately and not just cause they feel disgusted. Fear of pregnancy would make anyone want to get that gunk off.

Further, if one feels boundaries were crossed, that in and of itself is highly embarrassing and brings up tons of legal BS making the process to clear out some unintended but inappropriate boundary issues difficult.

IMHO the only real way to do something that has any good chance is pretty much record everything going on and this too brings up problems.

 

[clausewitz2]

Same reason why I didn't Harriet Miers-she was a Bush loyalist and not an independent conservative.

Harriet Miers was also hilariously unqualified for the Supreme Court, having been a commercial litigation attorney and small time politician who had never been a judge in any capacity and had minimal personal courtroom experience. She was withdrawn when she proved entirely incapable of answering basic questions about constitutional law posed to her by Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I agree that it is dispiriting seeing the highly motivated reasoning that comes from either side when they vehemently denounce the scuzzbuckets from across the aisle but refuse to apply the same standards to the scuzzbuckets with the same letter after their name.

 

[whopper]

Kavanaugh's qualifications are oustanding-but as a GOP attorney. E.g. he worked in the Bush White House positing arguments that presidents shouldn't be investigated, while Clinton was in office he was a head guy in the Lewinsky investigation-even pushing Ken Starr to make the cross-examining questions as damaging as possible for Clinton in a political sense. E.g. he pushed Starr to make the sex questions as graphic as possible knowing it'd be public and to try to make the incident even more of a circus. Something that some critics brought up against Kavanaugh when he complained he was being politically-victimized and the event was a circus, since he's quite familiar with politically-victimizing others and making a circus himself.

Which is what I mean when I say he's not an independent conservative. Someone that would've fit that bill would've held everyone accountable to equal standards no matter the person in the hot seat. He's a GOP-loyalist that did cases that the party told him to do that favored the party politics. I'd be dubious against someone a Democrat nominated that did anything along the same lines. E.g. If Micheal Avenatti were nominated I'd be against him too (though between Kavanaugh and Avenatti, Kavanaugh is more highly qualified. At least Kavanaugh has high credentials as a lawyer including some highly respected teaching positions. Avenatti is more of a legal-clown and showman, but like Kavanaugh, Avenatti has been hired by high up Democrats to politically destroy opponents)

So when the accusation came out, I was not as inflamed over it as to how it will affect my opinion. I already made my decision about it and spent several hours looking into Kavanaugh. Also I've noticed that many on the Left and Right allowed the media to shape their own opinions instead of looking at the guy's record from a purely judicial standpoint.

 

[Salpingo]

I think the standard advice of “document well” and “don’t say/do weird stuff” holds.

So many men imagine they’ll be Ben Affleck in “Gone Girl”. The reality is I hear way more (corroborated) stories about doctors groping patients or trainees than a sole borderline PD patient bringing down a respected physician. The standards may be different for, say, college campuses (a different thread), but generally it’s not so easy putting your personal/sexual life up for scrutiny with these accusations.

 

[birchswing]

If a completely unsubstantiated accusation had been allowed to thwart a scotus appointment it absolutely would become a viable political tool

We already have a system where Merrick Garland didn't even receive a vote. So it's not like we narrowly averted political dysfunction.

 

[birchswing]

I think the standard advice of “document well” and “don’t say/do weird stuff” holds.

So many men imagine they’ll be Ben Affleck in “Gone Girl”. The reality is I hear way more (corroborated) stories about doctors groping patients or trainees than a sole borderline PD patient bringing down a respected physician. The standards may be different for, say, college campuses (a different thread), but generally it’s not so easy putting your personal/sexual life up for scrutiny with these accusations.

I just saw that movie. Was it just me or was that a 2 hour commercial for Volvo? What a nice car, and the police never even searched it!

 

[pbdoctor1]

good point. just adding that lots of really rich men pay accusers to keep quiet, we can name some famous actors and sports figures here... just sayin... now back to our late night program...

Nicely stated and more likely this is related to a power dynamic issue. This mirrors a lot of the issues in the other thread relating with malignant residencies vs "problem residents" and this culture of silence in medicine and training. I wonder if the same concern and defense happens when abusive attending and directors are actually held liable for "punishing" or ending the careers of "problem" residents and trying to keep them quiet and forcing conformity. Power can be abused but when called out, it's cried foul and sometimes those with power claim to be "victims" themselves. Absolute power corrupts absolutely so they say.

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Probably would be easier if we tried to have real accountability of abusers and provide justice to the victims who are truly powerless. If they become ignored and grow so numerous and the tables reversed in a tipping point, a broad scale approach will encapsulate everyone involved. Maybe those in power need to heed the warnings signs in that by allowing abusive directors or attendings to recklessly punish "problem residents" with impunity that it will cause unintended consequences especially if it is ignored or in denied of its existence.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[deleted480308]

We already have a system where Merrick Garland didn't even receive a vote. So it's not like we narrowly averted political dysfunction.

Which doesn’t improve if we start validating accusations without any burden of proof

 

[whopper]

Completely agree sb247. Aside that the Left and Right are in a trench war, a better way is to have an actual system for people compete to give people better services. Part of that is the process needs to have high standards instead of being a trench war.

 

[ridethecliche]

This thread hurts my head.

I guess psychiatry is prone to the same BS as just about everything else. A few recent threads on here have just been.... icky.

 

[Alakazam123]

A good way to prevent it is to remain professional with everyone you meet, men and women. You can be friendly without hugging co-workers/patients. You can be charming without borderline offensive jokes/comments.

I think worrying about false allegations as a man is probably the same as worrying about someone going out of their way to hurting you and I think in both cases you can defend yourself fairly well.

For example, let’s say you fire a woman employee for whatever good reason. She comes around and decides to raise a false sexual allegation against you, a good lawyer would be able to defend you against this sort of thing.

I don’t think false allegations happen without an inciting vengeful incentive. I don’t think many women would even consider this sort of allegation if they were trying to hurt you, but maybe I am naive to the world.

I do think the vast majority of allegations hold some sort of merit vs ones that are purely vengeful so if you act professional, I wouldn’t worry about this sort of thing happening to you. Though I imagine it is a nightmare if it does happen to you.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Be that as it may, I know of some cases personally where people have been falsely accused. The claims were entirely fabricated and in some cases the two individuals barely knew each other, and it was done out of spite. Even in the current #MeToo movement there have been false accusations, such as those against Morgan Freeman.

On the whole, I am happy that sexual harassment is being called out. I think it's a despicable behavior to engage in, and has gone on in many industries for too long. That being said, I feel the rabid "mob justice" we see online and even in social circles, is not really going to be very helpful for anyone.