Ethics in sin

I rebel!

I can not understand how mental health professionals discuss "professional ethics" without sharing even one representative of those who deal with it - those who deal with mental distress ... these issues are not professional in nature, but first of all morality, that is, universalism!

When I studied philosophy, a highly respected and wise professor declared that in moral matters academic degrees were irrelevant, for it was quite possible that an anachronist would be immensely moral, whereas an expert in philosophy or psychiatry might be corrupt to the bone. If these are people who must consider and decide on complex ethical issues, there should be a joint body of judges, professionals, and the most important of contenders and family members. That ethics is the profession, but its implications are expressed, sometimes even difficult and painful, on hundreds of thousands of patients in the State of Israel. Therefore, if the patients are significantly affected by them, they too should have the right to be partners in the character and assertions embodied in the professional ethical code.

In my opinion, mental health professionals alone are not at all suitable to determine their own professional ethics. A cat can not and should not keep the cream. I believe that the 160,000 mentally disabled people living in the State of Israel (2% of the population - global statistics) have the right to be heard by their elected representatives in any forum where they are discussed above their bowed heads in "professional ethics."