Meta Question

flo's avatar

Would you correct my English?

Asked by flo (7166 points ) March 20th, 2012

How would you make this Q better anyway? What could you add as detail/ tag etc., to make it more clear? And is there a spelling error?

“Title:
Can you think of a system of weeding out and/or committing psychiatrists and judges if they need to be?

Detail:
If I am searching for psychiatrist, I can’t pick
this one for sure, if he decided to go into private practice. Why? Because it makes sense to him to let Turcotte out even though he practically says “No I don’t want you to look into my head” by refusing treatment. And even though he can see doesn’t want to pay for his crime, even though he practically says that his children have no value since he just wants to live life like he did nothing, this doctor says he is safe to get out.
So is there a weeding out of psychiatrists (outside their own associations) and judges who obviously lost it, anywhere in the world?

Topics:
Psychiatrists, justice, mental institutions, law, courts, killers, judges,

Please don’t answer the question about the substance of the Q no matter how tempted you may be.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

16 Answers

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
augustlan's avatar

At this point in your editing process, this looks pretty good. When you first submitted it, it was fairly confusing to read. If you resubmit it now, it will likely get re-posted.

janbb's avatar

I still think the question is a little hard to understand as written. How about “Should there be a system for censuring or removing psychiatrists and/or judges who make terrible decisions?”

dappled_leaves's avatar

Does “committing psychiatrists and judges” mean that they psychiatrists and judges are going to be sent to mental institutions?

wundayatta's avatar

The facts you describe in the question don’t seem to be supported by the article. I would either find an article that supports your version of the facts, or change your facts to reflect what is said in the article.

gailcalled's avatar

I would not use “weeding out” and “committing” as terms for measuring professional competence. It is confusing, even as written.

I would also not use “lost it” to describe the lack of professional qualifications.

@janbb has written a concise and clear paraphrase of what I think you meant.

flo's avatar

Thanks all.
@augustlan I resubmitted 2 times it but it kept giving me back the old version to reedit.

@janbb thanks, what would you replace in the detail part?

@wundayatta what would your question be based on this article?

@gailcalled Yes the title that @janbb gave is great but what about the detail part? What would you improve about the detail? Fluther likes detail.

gailcalled's avatar

To me the details here were irrelevant to the question (and, to me, added to the confusion.) The link alone tells the story.

flo's avatar

Thanks @gailcalled.
I am still interested in a detail text even if it not so much about correcting mine.

gailcalled's avatar

Details are like the three bears. Too much, too little and just right.

janbb's avatar

I would say in my details for this question:

After reading this article, I can’t understand why the psychiatrist has assessed Trucotte to be of no danger and recommended his release. Do you think psychiatrists and mental health workers who seemingly show gross incompetence should be assessed and barred from practice? How can an individual seeking treatment evaluate the competence of a practitioner they might consult?

wundayatta's avatar

I think your issue is with the two psychologists who recommended the release of the inmate. I don’t think the article says anything about how such panels are chosen in Canada. If you want to talk about qualifications to be on the panel, which is what your question is about, then you need to provide information about that process.

Your question might be; “How could this psychologist think this child murderer was no longer a danger to society?” Or “If this guy is now sane, shouldn’t he be punished?” or “What is this psychologist thinking?”

Details:
A psychologist has recommended that a man who murdered his own children three years ago be set free. The murderer had been put in an institution for the mentally ill, instead of prison because [whatever it says]. Now the review board is saying he exhibits no illness and is prepared to make his own way in society.

I am outraged. [Explain why]. I think it is perfectly obvious he should not be released [explain why]. I think the rules of psychology are badly out of touch with reality [explain why using relevant descriptions of mental illnesses]. Do you agree or disagree? Why?

gailcalled's avatar

@janbb: Go to the head of the class.

janbb's avatar

@gailcalled Tthank you, teach!

flo's avatar

@janbb that is perfect. Thank you.
@wundayatta I want to respond to your posts but not here, since it would be about the story itself not so much about the language.

flo's avatar

@wundayatta
In your post ”Now the review board is saying he exhibits no illness and is prepared to make his own way in society.”
I believe the board finished hearing the experts/sychiatrists and is set to make a decision soon.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther