Poll on 'ratting.' Question 2 of 3

Question 2.

 

Of the three scenarios I would say that this person has the potential to do the most damage. In the first scenario, the teacher, they are simply practicing petty theft and aside from the effect they have on the taxpayer, there is little damage.

In the other scenario, the nuclear safety person, not only do they already have a Masters degree but they are undoubtedly surrounded by people who will not let them make a grevious mistake (I hope).

The sex therapist operates in a private practice with no oversight. They have no training and there is no indication that they know anything about anything. I'd drop a whole bunch of dimes (to anyone and everyone) in order to stop this person.

But that's just me.
Jack

 

This viewpoint -- which I respect, by the way -- comes as no surprise given the fact that so many who do what you do for a living are in private practice and you can so easily, therefore, see the potential harm and the imperative to prevent it.

However, the teacher is committing far more than just petty theft of taxpayer dollars. First -- and this is really more of a technicality, I suppose -- the amount extra that they will be paid (note that I didn't use the phrase "that they will earn") could, with a single increased-amount paycheck, easily exceed what most states consider "petty theft." There are still states that consider anything more than $50 to be a felony. And, second, and more importantly, I would argue, that is no small thing on at least two levels: On one level, the amount, multiplied by however many teachers do it, might easily pay for a program that, because of increased teacher salaries, got bumped from the budget. On another level, this is, unambiguously, an ethics/morals issue. What getting a fake degree says about the character of the person whom we have asked to shape the values of our children; and, perhaps more importantly, what the impace on our children would be if they found out, is not "little damage"... at least not to me.

Much the same kinds of arguments can be made regarding the nuclear safety person. Maybe there are others who will ensure that said fake-degreed safety person will not act foolishly. But what level of integrity should we be demanding of someone charged with ensuring that the plant and -- everything within 50 or 100 miles of it -- won't be melted off the face of the planet, leaving radioactive, scortched earth that can't safely be inhabited by anything living for several generations?

As I said in the "question 1" thread of this poll trio: Wrong is wrong. Harm is harm. Both qualification and quantification cheapen the argument.

 

Sex therapy is a licensed profession in all states - in most it is a subspeciality of psychology. (Medical therapy would of course be a licensed profession but it would most likely be covered in the practice of gynecology or urology and after organic causes have been ruled out psychiatry.)

Obtaining a license to practice using fraudulent credentials is a crime in and of itself, practicing the profession would be yet another crime. It is imperative that the authorities be notified so that a proper investigation may be conducted post haste.

 

True. But, of course, Dr. Bear's three hypotheticals don't really have anything to do with that. He's asking us, in effect, to suspend disbelief for a moment and just deal with the issue of whether or not to rat-out the person in question.

Still, you make good points.

 

I find this the least disturbing of the three. The teacher scenario involves minors and the nuclear plant scenario involves public safety, both situations that would cause me to get involved. This scenario, however, involves adults (presumably) who should do their due diligence as consumers and check the bona fides of the service provider prior to beginning therapy.

 

I see that 15 people said write law enforcement. Were you thinking of local law enforcement? What do you think they can or will do? I suspect nothing - or very little.