YouTube video by PUNK'n'DELIC 64-67

YouTube video by Council of Geeks

YouTube video by Anitemare

YouTube video by El Presto

YouTube video by Slayer - Topic

YouTube video by MEINL Cymbals

Dr Michael Johnston _Michael is a senior fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. He leads the Initiative’s work on education. He is a cognitive psychologist with a background in literacy research, educational assessment and psychometrics._ New Zealanders who visit psychologists would expect their clinical conversations to be private and confidential. But a draft code of ethics from the New Zealand Psychologists Board (NZPB), the professional body that registers practising psychologists, would weaken the privacy rights of Māori clients. The NZPB claims that “…concepts of privacy and confidentiality may be somewhat altered [for Māori] when the sharing of information leads to additional support and culturally appropriate processes…” In other words, psychologists may be required to water down the privacy rights of Māori clients based on the NZPB’s characterisation of Māori as a “collectivist culture” in its draft code. The issue was surfaced in a recent article by Dr Arna Mitchell, a Māori psychologist, published in the _Journal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists_ (NZCCP). Dr Mitchell raised the privacy issue in the context of the NZPB compelling psychologists to adopt practice based on cultural values rather than scientific evidence. Under pressure from the college, the journal editors retracted the article. They justified the decision on the grounds that the article is “not aligned with the values of the NZCCP” and “could perpetuate harm to Māori”. A peer-reviewed article published in an academic journal should be retracted only in extraordinary circumstances. Proven plagiarism or falsification of data would be grounds for retraction. Saying things that powerful interests do not like should not. Dr Mitchell argued that the NZPB has expanded its scope beyond its statutory function and abandoned political neutrality. Most New Zealanders would probably agree that the board should be a neutral regulator. Instead, it has become, in its own words, a “values-based organisation”. This stance, Dr Mitchell argued, threatens the scientist-practitioner model under which psychologists operate internationally. The model requires psychologists to follow scientific evidence in their practice, rather than spiritual or cultural beliefs lacking empirical support. She supports psychologists learning cultural competence. Psychologists should be aware of their clients’ cultural backgrounds to ensure that treatment is conducted with sensitivity to their beliefs and customs. However, Dr Mitchell objected to Māori being treated as a homogeneous group. The NZPB is not alone. The Real Estate Authority, the Teaching Council and the Nursing Council have all adopted provisions that threaten practitioners with consequences if they don’t toe the ideological line. These bodies must be brought back to their core business. ACT’s new policy to require professional regulators to be politically neutral would be a good start. This article was originally published by the New Zealand Initiative and republished by Brash and Mitchell.

YouTube video by Council of Geeks