Update about my situation...

[noname223]

I went for the jugular from my former therapist. I think she feels the pressure and currently looks for a lawyer. I think she fucked up the situation pretty hard and I think the lawyer had to be really good to make a real change. This week I have an appointment with my psychiatrist about the situation and I am very nervous...The appointment is pretty early at the morning. And that's not good. Maybe I will take a benzo beforehand. I have the feeling she sort of teams up with her...which is unfair.

The progressive woman who I had a date with didn't answer my text message. I wonder whether I should text her again. I am really not sure about her intentions. Maybe she is only playing with me.

I am invited to a birthday party of a friend this week. Not sure how this will impact my mental health. I need to stay stable.

I bought some things on the internet and it sucessfully distracts me. I notice though stimulation by academic texts are the best way to distract me from my issues. I get the feeling I have a committment to read enough texts on a daily basis to be such a smart-ass. The interesting thing though I am never a smart-ass about the things I actually read. If I have this much information on a topic I am hesitant to have a strong opinion. But I have strong position when it is about introspection. I think this is something I do all the time. But this is susceptible for biases.

I am getting clean of benzos the last days. I haven't touch them. Without withdrawal symptoms. But I am taking z-medication since 3,5 weeks straight. I think maximum should be 6 weeks. This could become crucial. My stomach still hurts all the time. I try not to binge eat. But my stomach is pretty insane lately.

I didn't go to the self-help group. I think the chemistry master student is manipulating one person to hate me. The dude who has the crazy postition that if there is a shooting he only has empathy for one person (the shooter).
But really I don't care this much. The person will realize eventually which kind of person she is. Recently, I had to think about something. Whether people who are in favor of Israel in the Middle East conflict are in generally a red flag. My former therapist was staunchly pro-Israel and criticized me for going to a pro-Palestine protest. She put me in the Nazi corner for it. She turned out to be really phoney. And I have the feeling many people who are in favor of Israel where I live are careerists. They posture themselves as morally superior on top of that. I know some people in favor of Israel. For example, the dude that gets manipulated by the chemistry master student. And another college friend. And I get the feeling either these people are pretty brainwashed, don't know dick about the actual conflict or are straight morally corrupt.

I think though being pro-Palestine is still no green flag for me. It is good but you cannot judge the moral integrity by that. I am not fully sure.

 

[-Link-]

I went for the jugular from my former therapist. I think she feels the pressure and currently looks for a lawyer. I think she fucked up the situation pretty hard and I think the lawyer had to be really good to make a real change. This week I have an appointment with my psychiatrist about the situation and I am very nervous...The appointment is pretty early at the morning. And that's not good. Maybe I will take a benzo beforehand. I have the feeling she sort of teams up with her...which is unfair.

Is she teaming up with her?

If a psychiatrist is doing anything less than actively discouraging legal action against a fellow mental health practitioner, I'd probably read that as a genuine intention and meaningful effort to support you. For her to endorse the idea of suing your therapist would be to speak against her colleague in the context of malpractice, and if this became public knowledge, it could have consequences for her own reputation and career. I'd expect anyone in your psychiatrist's position would figure themselves as being in a delicate position, caught in the middle between you and your former therapist amidst the prospect of legal action.

I would recommend trying to allow your psychiatrist a lot of latitude as far as what she says and does regarding this topic.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

I think though being pro-Palestine is still no green flag for me. It is good but you cannot judge the moral integrity by that. I am not fully sure.

Definitely. I've unfortunately met some people that only use being pro-Palestine as a guise to hide their other shortcomings.

Being anti-Indigenous, antisemitic (most accusations of antisemitism by big Zionists are false, but unfortunately it does exist in the community), capitalist, or antitheist (this might be a bit controversial for me to call a shortcoming on this site, but I fully believe that lumping all religions, even all Abrahamic religions together, is prejudiced).

 

[noname223]

Is she teaming up with her?

If a psychiatrist is doing anything less than actively discouraging legal action against a fellow mental health practitioner, I'd probably read that as a genuine intention and meaningful effort to support you. For her to endorse the idea of suing your therapist would be to speak against her colleague in the context of malpractice, and if this became public knowledge, it could have consequences for her own reputation and career. I'd expect anyone in your psychiatrist's position would figure themselves as being in a delicate position, caught in the middle between you and your former therapist amidst the prospect of legal action.

I would recommend trying to allow your psychiatrist a lot of latitude as far as what she says and does regarding this topic.

Thank you for this very helpful information. I need to stay calm. Thanks a lot Link you supported me so much through this. Thank you from the deepest of my heart. I know I have a very clear notion of what is right. But strategically my approach brought me in a pretty comfortable position who is more trustworthy in this conflict.

I am not sure whether she is teaming up. She is against escalation. I did not have a long conversation thus far. It gonna be this week though.

I am technically not sueing my therapist. I am just reporting her. That'a huge difference I think. I wasn't sure about the difference thus far. I don't know all the technical terms in English. I won't sue her that's for sure. It won't cost me money and there is way less risk for me in the comparison to sueing her. I just want to clean my medical records. And reporting her could fix that. I have a pretty strong case.

By the way she cannot threaten me with a lawyer. Actually, she could but this would backfire massively. I haven't made allegations towards her thus far. All I did was documenting and insisting on my rights as a patient.

 

[noname223]

I might have a smoking gun in the case..she admitted to something severe today...

 

[noname223]

So the whole thing got even way worse and way more cynical. I had an appointment with my psychiatrist and she actually teams up with my former therapist. That's sick.
She repeated in some ways her narrative. I would be paranoid and distrustful. And that I had OCD in controlling things. These are two tallking points my former therapist repeats to weaken my position.

I document the case really in-depth. That's true. But my distrustfulness is legitimized. I also argued that in a lengthy note I wrote yesterday for my psychiatrist. I was really careful how to put it. Because I dismantle allegations against me in this document. I might use it for my report.
My psychiatrist admitted though that some statements of my former therapist are indeed wrong. Especially, the ones with which she damages my trustworthyness towards instititutions. I still think I have a pretty good hand because of my documentation. I don't want to report my psychiatrist too. However, my therapist and psychiatrist seemingly phoned together about the case recently. And the way she put it makes it seem like this happened more than once. Because she refered to something that happened last week. And I already had the feeling they communicated. Actually, this isn't allowed. They are not allowed to talk about my case without my agreement. Not sure whether I should document that. I am not sure about the intentions of my psychiatrist. But she doesn't seem to an honest actor. She is biased and should actually be neutral instead.
My psychiatrist admitted not to have read all documents. I told her that's essential to understand the full context.

I still have one big argument. I still might have my smoking gun. It is not 100% clear I have this smoking gun. But I demanded my right to get that evidence. And surprisingly my former therapist is silent about this demand and seemingly panicks because I have the legal right to get that evidence. I also told my psychiatrist about it but in different words of course. If this holds, I have won the whole case probably. She might lose her licence. Even if this isn't my intention.
I still think even without the smoking gun I have a strong hand. But obviously it would have been better my psychiatrist supported me. But many people warned me that psychiatrists and therapists usually defend each other. The patient's counsellors almost all complimented a lot. for my texts They asked me whether I have studied law. Lol.

I also told my psychiatrist if there is a way to correct my medical records without reporting my therapist I would do that. And I will try that and the report is only a measure of last resort.

What is you opinion on that @-Link- ? thanks a lot in advance.

 

[-Link-]

I still might have my smoking gun.

If this is objective proof of a violation and grounds for getting your medical record amended, then that alone may be cause to stop discussing this any further with your psychiatrist or your former therapist, especially if they seem closed off to the idea of doing it on their own accord. If you already have the proof you need (or at least have a clear path to obtain the proof), then I'd question what benefit there is in further discussing it with them at all.

If this proof of violation is not grounds or helpful to your case as far as getting your medical record changed (which is your stated goal here), then I would be careful of connotations relating to any statements or actions that could be construed as, "Change my records or else I'll pursue this other thing" (ie. extortion). If this sounds accurate to your situation, then you'll want to tread very carefully and almost certainly want the guidance of a patients' rights advocate in doing so.

Another consideration here is whether the suspect information in your medical record is as consequential as what your fear is telling you and whether this fear could be tainting your interpretation of the information, especially contrast to how other medical professionals would interpret it.

As well, to the best of my knowledge and generally speaking, medical records aren't "changed"; they are amended, with original notes and information kept intact while amendments would note any inaccuracies or disputes. Your written dispute could (would?) become part of your record. If this is the case, then you might actually be drawing more attention to those suspect details than if you didn't dispute it in the first place. Even it's officially amended, that doesn't discount the "human factor" where anyone reading the amended record could still be influenced by the original information, subsequently affecting their opinions or decision-making process, even if only subconsciously and unofficially. I'd expect any patients' rights advocate to know more about this as far as what a "change" would actually look like, whether it's possible to literally erase something that's already been noted in your record, whether you'd be better off pursuing this or leaving it alone, and what impact you could anticipate from either option.

I don't want to report my psychiatrist too. However, my therapist and psychiatrist seemingly phoned together about the case recently. And the way she put it makes it seem like this happened more than once.

Generally speaking, medical practitioners can have a way of looking out for one another where malpractice implications are concerned because, for their purposes, it's in their collective best interest to limit as much as possible the number of claims and reports pushed forward and validated.

If a psychiatrist and therapist are communicating about a patient without that patient's consent, that's a wrong that would ideally be accounted for. But what is "ideal" is not always what's practical or realistic. With the burden of proof in mind, I would reconsider the idea of pursuing something against your psychiatrist over this and, instead, maybe the better thing to do would be to stop talking about it with her.

I had an appointment with my psychiatrist and she actually teams up with my former therapist. That's sick.
She repeated in some ways her narrative. I would be paranoid and distrustful. And that I had OCD in controlling things. These are two tallking points my former therapist repeats to weaken my position.

If you do discuss this further with your psychiatrist, it may help your own standing and credibility in the situation if you can concede that your former therapist did have some valid points. Even in a scenario where a therapist has done something that would cost them their license, that still doesn't negate the things they did right in their role as a therapist.

On the other side of this is you, yourself. Based on what you've shared about this situation, I'm surmising a high likelihood that obsessive-compulsive thoughts will indeed be aggravating or distorting some of your own viewpoints on this. I have to imagine it's OK to acknowledge this (if only to maintain your perceived credibility) and that there is a way to concede this while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of any official report or claim you make against your former therapist. (But this may call for a careful balance in how you phrase things.)

I am not sure about the intentions of my psychiatrist. But she doesn't seem to an honest actor. She is biased and should actually be neutral instead.

One way for her to "be neutral" would be to distance herself.

But the other way would be for her to try to actively support you while also looking out for the interests of your former therapist. So, I wonder if she actually is trying to remain neutral but that her effort is just having a less-than-ideal result -- ie. leading you to question her trustworthiness.

This by itself wouldn't necessarily mean your psychiatrist has been violating confidentiality. It could be that she's been getting information from patient records, or maybe she's just drawing her own conclusions and those conclusions happen to be similar to those of your former therapist.

In saying this, I'm just giving her the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't hazard an actual guess as to whether she's doing right or wrong.

The patient's counsellors almost all complimented a lot. for my texts They asked me whether I have studied law. Lol.

If these counsellors are in official capacity as patients' rights advocates, I would suggest picking the one that you feel most confident about and then deferring to their guidance on this. If they dissuade you from pursuing it (even with objective evidence in hand), I think you'd do well to abide by that advice. If they concede it may be worth pursuing and are willing to help see you through that, then you'd have the confidence of knowing an advocate is representing you and also sharing the burden and stress of your case, which I'm sure would be a lot less taxing on your well-being compared to pursuing it all on your own.

 

[noname223]

If this is objective proof of a violation and grounds for getting your medical record amended, then that alone may be cause to stop discussing this any further with your psychiatrist or your former therapist, especially if they seem closed off to the idea of doing it on their own accord. If you already have the proof you need (or at least have a clear path to obtain the proof), then I'd question what benefit there is in further discussing it with them at all.

If this proof of violation is not grounds or helpful to your case as far as getting your medical record changed (which is your stated goal here), then I would be careful of connotations relating to any statements or actions that could be construed as, "Change my records or else I'll pursue this other thing" (ie. extortion). If this sounds accurate to your situation, then you'll want to tread very carefully and almost certainly want the guidance of a patients' rights advocate in doing so.

Another consideration here is whether the suspect information in your medical record is as consequential as what your fear is telling you and whether this fear could be tainting your interpretation of the information, especially contrast to how other medical professionals would interpret it.

As well, to the best of my knowledge and generally speaking, medical records aren't "changed"; they are amended, with original notes and information kept intact while amendments would note any inaccuracies or disputes. Your written dispute could (would?) become part of your record. If this is the case, then you might actually be drawing more attention to those suspect details than if you didn't dispute it in the first place. Even it's officially amended, that doesn't discount the "human factor" where anyone reading the amended record could still be influenced by the original information, subsequently affecting their opinions or decision-making process, even if only subconsciously and unofficially. I'd expect any patients' rights advocate to know more about this as far as what a "change" would actually look like, whether it's possible to literally erase something that's already been noted in your record, whether you'd be better off pursuing this or leaving it alone, and what impact you could anticipate from either option.


Generally speaking, medical practitioners can have a way of looking out for one another where malpractice implications are concerned because, for their purposes, it's in their collective best interest to limit as much as possible the number of claims and reports pushed forward and validated.

If a psychiatrist and therapist are communicating about a patient without that patient's consent, that's a wrong that would ideally be accounted for. But what is "ideal" is not always what's practical or realistic. With the burden of proof in mind, I would reconsider the idea of pursuing something against your psychiatrist over this and, instead, maybe the better thing to do would be to stop talking about it with her.


If you do discuss this further with your psychiatrist, it may help your own standing and credibility in the situation if you can concede that your former therapist did have some valid points. Even in a scenario where a therapist has done something that would cost them their license, that still doesn't negate the things they did right in their role as a therapist.

On the other side of this is you, yourself. Based on what you've shared about this situation, I'm surmising a high likelihood that obsessive-compulsive thoughts will indeed be aggravating or distorting some of your own viewpoints on this. I have to imagine it's OK to acknowledge this (if only to maintain your perceived credibility) and that there is a way to concede this while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of any official report or claim you make against your former therapist. (But this may call for a careful balance in how you phrase things.)


One way for her to "be neutral" would be to distance herself.

But the other way would be for her to try to actively support you while also looking out for the interests of your former therapist. So, I wonder if she actually is trying to remain neutral but that her effort is just having a less-than-ideal result -- ie. leading you to question her trustworthiness.

This by itself wouldn't necessarily mean your psychiatrist has been violating confidentiality. It could be that she's been getting information from patient records, or maybe she's just drawing her own conclusions and those conclusions happen to be similar to those of your former therapist.

In saying this, I'm just giving her the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't hazard an actual guess as to whether she's doing right or wrong.


If these counsellors are in official capacity as patients' rights advocates, I would suggest picking the one that you feel most confident about and then deferring to their guidance on this. If they dissuade you from pursuing it (even with objective evidence in hand), I think you'd do well to abide by that advice. If they concede it may be worth pursuing and are willing to help see you through that, then you'd have the confidence of knowing an advocate is representing you and also sharing the burden and stress of your case, which I'm sure would be a lot less taxing on your well-being compared to pursuing it all on your own.

I am not sure how to evaluate the day. Maybe I have made myself a new way smarter enemy my psychiatrist. She is pretty savvy way smarter than my therapist. But honestly she was on the side of my therapist all along. I told my psychiatrist in a mail to please keep confidentiality. You might be right that I should not change the reocrd if it can be interpreted as extortion. The patient counsellors all say different things. I called them for more than 10 times. The last one said if I have proof the documents were changed retrospectively and I can prove it I really should report that. They all compliment me a lot.

The last counsellor told me I should contact my therapist for changing the record before reporting her. I think you are right I should not report my psychiatrist too. This would be strategically not smart. I will tell you more about the smoking gun in the private conversation.

Today my psychiatrist told me she called my therapist and specified that they talked about details of the case. I wonder whether my psychiatrist wants to be tied to a sinking ship. I asked her whether it is actually allowed to communicate about my case with her.

I will elaborate on certain parts more in the private conversation. Thanks a lot!

I am not sure about my psychiatrist. I promised her not to escalate the situation if it is unnecessary. I think she liked that. I am not sure about her real thoughts on the case. I had the feeling she felt the duty to defend my therapist.