Community Chat

[sophiamarie]

On 2/7/2015 Smaug said:

It's my understanding if he advises additional counseling, intervention or therapy the show pays and that includes a per diem. I've never been on so I'm not 100% positive.

Thanks. Yes, I understand that his "gift" of counselling, therapy, etc., is paid for. He sends these people to the best and most expensive places and for however long it takes. Most of them accept and a few have not. If I were the parent of an addicted child, I would welcome a gift like that - all paid for and even therapy for the parents. But, they don't get any other monies for appearing, I don't think.

[Free2be]

On 2/6/2015 Smaug said:

On 2/6/2015 straitgirl said:

Why would you watch "a jerk". At least he has credentials which I don't think any of you bashing him have.

He may have credentials but he lacks sense.

BTW you might find this interesting:

" … In January 1989, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists reprimanded Phillip McGraw, Ph.D. for having an inappropriate dual relationship with a patient. As noted below, the Board concluded that McGraw had hired a former patient and that "probable cause existed with regard to a possible failure to provide proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment." McGraw was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, complete a course in professional ethics, and have his practice monitored for one year. His complaint file was closed in June 1990 after the Board determined that he had satisfactorily complied with its order…"

http://www.casewatch.org/board/psych/mcgraw.shtml

I found this in an article by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/18/dr-phil-charged-with-practicing-without-a-license-in-britney-sp...

"McGraw gave up his license in Texas before he completed disciplined measure meted out by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989. He was accused by a former therapy client of having an improper relationship with her. McGraw gave her a job but denied improper physical contact. He was nevertheless found guilty of violating professional rules and officially reprimanded. He then closed his practice completing the specific punishments. It is difficult to get the full story on this earlier allegation. The Texas Board record <<a href=”a refers to a “dual relationship/violation of code of ethics” for a Phillip C. McGraw."

And to answer your question, of course I wouldn't see an unlicensed counselor, not sure why you would ask that. My point was that licenses are relative to the state one wishes to practice in and that a previously licensed clinician doesn't mean they aren't very qualified and talented at their profession. Any ethical clinician will start the licensing procedure when they move from one state to another if they intend to practice, which McGraw did not.

[Say Nay]

On 2/7/2015 Free2be said:

On 2/6/2015 Smaug said:

On 2/6/2015 straitgirl said:

Why would you watch "a jerk". At least he has credentials which I don't think any of you bashing him have.

He may have credentials but he lacks sense.

BTW you might find this interesting:

" … In January 1989, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists reprimanded Phillip McGraw, Ph.D. for having an inappropriate dual relationship with a patient. As noted below, the Board concluded that McGraw had hired a former patient and that "probable cause existed with regard to a possible failure to provide proper separation between termination of therapy and the initiation of employment." McGraw was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, complete a course in professional ethics, and have his practice monitored for one year. His complaint file was closed in June 1990 after the Board determined that he had satisfactorily complied with its order…"

http://www.casewatch.org/board/psych/mcgraw.shtml

I found this in an article by Jonathan Turley at http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/18/dr-phil-charged-with-practicing-without-a-license-in-britney-sp...

"McGraw gave up his license in Texas before he completed disciplined measure meted out by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989. He was accused by a former therapy client of having an improper relationship with her. McGraw gave her a job but denied improper physical contact. He was nevertheless found guilty of violating professional rules and officially reprimanded. He then closed his practice completing the specific punishments. It is difficult to get the full story on this earlier allegation. The Texas Board record <<a href=”a refers to a “dual relationship/violation of code of ethics” for a Phillip C. McGraw."

And to answer your question, of course I wouldn't see an unlicensed counselor, not sure why you would ask that. My point was that licenses are relative to the state one wishes to practice in and that a previously licensed clinician doesn't mean they aren't very qualified and talented at their profession. Any ethical clinician will start the licensing procedure when they move from one state to another if they intend to practice, which McGraw did not.

I'm sorry Free but Im a bit confused. I don't see where I asked you that. Can you please point it out?

[Free2be]

Smaug, it was post #70. It's not important, just odd. Don't give it a second thought.

[Say Nay]

On 2/7/2015 Free2be said:

Smaug, it was post #70. It's not important, just odd. Don't give it a second thought.

I see it now. Thanks. I think licensing of professionals benefits and protects the public. They have to follow state and federal regulations. The must keep educated and current in their field. Disciplinary action is imposed by state boards. Professional misconduct is recorded and accessible to the public.

I asked you because when it comes to obtaining the best care we (generic) look for licensed professionals. I believe (from reading a variety of articles on the public's perception of the Dr title) that many believe it is synonymous with licensed and there is a common misconception that Dr Phil is a licensed professional. He has never come on air and said publicly that he has not held a license in over a decade.

Anyway my personal view. Hope you have a good evening.

[croemer]

On 2/7/2015 SweetWood Max said:

I may be in the minority but I never miss a show

You're not I do as well. I have enjoyed watching many of his shows.

[60sgirl]

On 2/7/2015 Smaug said:

On 2/7/2015 mochachino said:

most reality shows could be accused of exploiting people, think of the shows about the morbidly obese people, little people, Dr Drew, etc. However, when it comes right down to it, the people who go on these shows are not forced to, they have free will, I assume some of them do it for the money, some for the fame, whatever. You can only be exploited if you are doing something either against your will or perhaps not understanding it, i.e. like a child whose parents put them on TV. Those kids are exploited IMO.

Whether you like Dr Phil or not, I think he does some good with these people who might otherwise never seek counseling due to money factors or just don't know where to turn.

I will say I did not like his interviewing Michelle Knight so quickly after she escaped the kidnapping house, BUT, he did give her a lot of money to help her restart her life. A LOT of money. So I guess they both won.

I guess my question is if they are doing it for the money how is that not exploiting them? We certainly don't condone women in need selling their bodies for money even if it is consensual. Although his guests aren't selling their bodies they are selling their stories for the benefit of the show.

I don't think comparing selling your bodies to selling your story is the same thing. The stories they tell are ones where it appears people genuinely need some kind of help and by going on his show they may receive that, women selling their bodies are exploiting themselves for money.

As a side note, there was a thread the other day about the plus sized model in SI and most posters thought she looked great and found nothing wrong with that. She was in fact, selling her "image" to reach out to customers who want to buy that product but are afraid they may not look good. So she posed for money. Although professional pictures are airbrushed and photoshopped, how many women now had the courage to bo out and buy a bathing suit because this ad said is was "okay"?

That "K" clan sells their stories every week and I find that they do nothing to help anyone who watches, save for maybe thinking better of yourself after watching that group, but at least his show for the most part puts their money and clout behind their entertainment by giving people options for help.

[Say Nay]

On 2/8/2015 mochachino said:

On 2/7/2015 Smaug said:

On 2/7/2015 mochachino said:

most reality shows could be accused of exploiting people, think of the shows about the morbidly obese people, little people, Dr Drew, etc. However, when it comes right down to it, the people who go on these shows are not forced to, they have free will, I assume some of them do it for the money, some for the fame, whatever. You can only be exploited if you are doing something either against your will or perhaps not understanding it, i.e. like a child whose parents put them on TV. Those kids are exploited IMO.

Whether you like Dr Phil or not, I think he does some good with these people who might otherwise never seek counseling due to money factors or just don't know where to turn.

I will say I did not like his interviewing Michelle Knight so quickly after she escaped the kidnapping house, BUT, he did give her a lot of money to help her restart her life. A LOT of money. So I guess they both won.

I guess my question is if they are doing it for the money how is that not exploiting them? We certainly don't condone women in need selling their bodies for money even if it is consensual. Although his guests aren't selling their bodies they are selling their stories for the benefit of the show.

I don't think comparing selling your bodies to selling your story is the same thing. The stories they tell are ones where it appears people genuinely need some kind of help and by going on his show they may receive that, women selling their bodies are exploiting themselves for money.

As a side note, there was a thread the other day about the plus sized model in SI and most posters thought she looked great and found nothing wrong with that. She was in fact, selling her "image" to reach out to customers who want to buy that product but are afraid they may not look good. So she posed for money. Although professional pictures are airbrushed and photoshopped, how many women now had the courage to bo out and buy a bathing suit because this ad said is was "okay"?

That "K" clan sells their stories every week and I find that they do nothing to help anyone who watches, save for maybe thinking better of yourself after watching that group, but at least his show for the most part puts their money and clout behind their entertainment by giving people options for help.

I understand where you're coming from. We just disagree

I didn't see the other thread about the plus sized model. I'll see if it's still around and read it.

[60sgirl]

it's okay, we can disagree. I'm not even saying I like or dislike him, just seeing things from all angles I guess. I personally do not like Dr Oz because he was a successful doctor who sold his soul for fame and money and now spends his time promoting garcinia cambogia and other weight loss kwap. To me he is a real charlatan and can be dangerous to the flocks of people who would go out and buy hundreds of dollars of supplements without taking advice from their own doctor first.

[KatieB]

I don't like him either. Like another poster said, he is a legend in his own mind. And he has a nasty mouth.

KatieB