24 Mar The ethics of forced mental health treatment

On March 15, I criticized Dalhousie University for forcing whistleblower Ryan Millet, as a condition of graduating and on pain of financial ruin, to undergo treatment by a psychologist of Dalhousie’s choice, even though Millet suffers no psychological ailment or condition. Yesterday, a psychologist wrote that Millet was being treated not by a psychologist but by a social worker selected by Dal, adding:

I cannot imagine any professional, particularly a psychologist with their stringent ethical codes, cooperating with Dalhousie’s repugnant agenda with regard to this honourable young man who has the ardent support of many clear thinking people and the gratitude of many feminists.

This caused me to wonder aloud why social workers don’t have “ethical standards that would bar its practitioners from being co-opted to such an agenda.” More than one social worker responded, including this one:

I feel compelled as a social worker to respond to your statement that social workers are not applying their ethics in the same way as a psychologist would. I think there is so much assumption built into your statement that it is important to consider the following:

• That this young man might benefit from some support during this difficult situation
• That even though counselling can be ordered by a third party, it is defined by the two people in the room: Ryan and the social worker or therapist.
• That the social worker or therapist would have their client’s interests at heart, not an agenda of educating or “re-training” him
• That a feminist social worker or therapist would be especially mindful of the role of power in relationships and the ways in which Ryan has power and the ways in which he is experiencing powerlessness. 

Counselling is a beneficial practice that assists many people, even those who are ordered by third parties.  I don’t know how this counselling experience will be for Ryan but I trust that his defined goals of treatment will be defined by him.  Not by the social worker. Not by Dalhousie. Not by you.

I find social workers to be strong advocates for justice and very skilled at understanding the complexity and layers of injustice in situations like this one. Of course, Ryan will be the only one who can let us know how he found the counselling and if it was indeed helpful.  The issue of whether or not it should have been ordered needs to be dealt with separately from slamming a professional for their individual response in accepting a referral in this difficult situation.

I realize that courts sometimes order psychological assessments and even treatment, but context matters. Ryan Millet:

• Did nothing remotely serious enough to warrant official sanction
• Did much that was right
• Was tried in secret, over his protests and at Dal’s insistence
• Was forbidden to record or transcribe the secret proceedings against him
• Was prosecuted, tried, convicted, and sentenced by faculty under a cloud, with a stake in demonstrating how tough they are on misogyny
• Was punished more severely than the actual misogynists whose threatening behaviour caused the whole mess
• Was coerced into a program of “remediation” that included mandatory sessions with a therapist not of his choosing.

I raised these points in an email exchange, and the social worker quoted above responded:

I really am responding to your thought that social work is not as ethical as it should be in taking on this situation. 

I can’t speak to the social worker involved, but I know that third party referrals happen with clients who do not want to be receiving counselling. This happens with social work and psychology.  There are many psychologists who do assessments regarding whether a client might have an addiction and testify in various courts about their findings. This situation is not a legal process and that certainly complicates things.

I guess I just think that I would rather have a forced meeting with a therapist who has a social justice background than one who doesn’t.  And that would mean someone who is able to understand how Ryan has been mistreated and maligned by this situation. That is someone I would prefer to speak to if I were forced to talk to a counselor.

No one likes the lack of choice. Certainly not the counsellor. Certainly not the client. But it doesn’t mean that something beneficial can’t come out of it.  It doesn’t mean the social worker is lacking in ethics.

It is also possible the social worker tasked to treat Millet did not know the multiple injustices and hypocrisies Dal committed against his involuntary client, since the Halifax media dropped the ball on this aspect of the story. I think an ethical counsellor who knew the context should have declined the assignment.

But the real question is how Dal can get away with this behaviour.