"Preserving religious freedom in the mental health profession"

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

We try to be moral ethical agents for change, so our religious views do intersect with our professional craft. Say a black person comes to me for help with dealing with his/her Mormon neighbors. I can't use my religion to tell him/her that God is punishing him/her for not being sufficiently valiant in the Premortal life.

 

11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Believe me I've seen worse.

 

11 hours ago, Judd said:

That's not my question. Do you generalize these issues to encompass all issues of religion and therapy? Genuinely curious as you haven't responded to my other comments. 

Whatever you've seen, tss, it is not a fair example, because no Mormon who lives his religion would do such a thing, since the Church long ago disavowed the speculation that you are portraying.

[thesometimesaint]

Who ever said every Mormon lives their religion? Are you saying that no Mormons are racists. That is in direct opposition to what the Church has said about it being unworthy of any member to be such.

[The Nehor]

On 6/19/2017 at 9:49 AM, california boy said:

I can tell this thread is going to go well.  One poster calling anyone who has a different view on this subject "cultural bigots" and the next accusing the poster of not having deep seated religious convictions.  I think I will just watch from the balcony.

Can you pass the popcorn?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Who ever said every Mormon lives their religion? Are you saying that no Mormons are racists. That is in direct opposition to what the Church has said about it being unworthy of any member to be such.

If the guy is a racist, then deal with him as a racist, not a Mormon, since the leadership of the Church has disavowed what you just brought up.

This is what I meant just now by imagining up improbable scenarios to use as reasons for denying religious liberty to Mormons pursuing professions in the mental health field.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Can you pass the popcorn?

This thread is doing quite well and will continue to do so as long as we can stay on topic and keep the straw-man arguments at bay.

By the way, did you get that california boy was wrong? No poster on the thread had called anyone a "cultural bigot," much less anyone who "has a different view on the subject."

It was an example early on in the thread of straw-man jousting.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This thread is doing quite well and will continue to do so as long as we can stay on topic and keep the strawm-man arguments at bay.

By the way, did you get that california boy was wrong? No poster on the thread had called anyone a "cultural bigot," much less anyone who "has a different view on the subject."

It was an example early on in the thread of straw-man jousting.

I just want popcorn. Is that so wrong?  

[hagoth7]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

And he is totally biased.  His latest book is "The God Virus" which argues that religion is a virus which infects otherwise healthy people...

How would you react if I pointed you to a mental health expert that argued that atheism was a mental illness that needed to be cured?...

In the early Roman Empire, foreign beliefs were specifically referred to (and sometimes treated) as contagions.

Memetics suggest that their ancient model was/is sufficiently accurate to explain the spread/success of ideas. 

 

As to your post, faith...and doubt...can both be contagious.

[BlueDreams]

On 6/21/2017 at 4:08 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

You earlier told me therapists disagree with each other,  they disagree yes or no? Why does AASECT only attract liberal therapists? Isn't AASECT the leading 50 year old national body of sex therapists? Doesn't AASECT promote evidence-based therapy? 

Mormon BYU therapists not very like-minded? 

I do. However, I seen more research and evidence for the positions that you disagree with. 

No, I have no reason to deny evidence or good research. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. I already told you why I am a little skeptical. For example, if a Biologist tells me that Evolution is an unproven theory I won't quickly believe him. 

For me an expert has a PhD, MD, or the equivalent. Simple.***

Let Scott decide that, I am enjoying the conversation. 

i don't disagree. 

You've had several people give really good responses to several of these points. It's been a very busy end of the week with work, so I'm not going to focus on all that you've mentioned here. There's only 2-3 things I want to say

1.) It took a long time to realize that your actual concern with what I was saying was about what I said about religion/spirituality in therapy. I couldn't tell, because you largely went after my credentials to speak on this subject more than anything else. This is the 2nd or 3rd time that you've done this in a debate. To me, it's not much more than a character attack than really addressing the message itself. I don't appreciate having to explain WHY I can make statements over and over again as opposed to focusing on WHAT I'm actually stating and addressing that. If you disagree, disagree. And give evidence for your disagreement (such as the man you mentioned). That's your right. But please stop focusing on my actual credentials to this subject. 

2.) What I've stated about AASECT has been purposely tentative because of my limited interactions (an email list and relays from my boss). I'm hoping to go to their conference in colorado next year, but what I heard mentioned, is in someway that the overarching messages that AASECT has promoted can be alienating to others with differing viewpoints. They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right." And because of that there are varying viewpoints that automatically become questionable or "wrong." Evidence-based theory is apart of any model of therapy at some point, but models and guilds can end up adopting mindsets and policies that can shape that evidence. From what I've heard they used to be more pluralistic in thought. 

3. Religion and spirituality CAN be an asset in therapy. Just as culture, community, etc can also be. Just the other day I watched that with someone who is generally spiritual but not religious by any means and another who is Mormon. This is being recognized more and more. A quick google search can show several papers discussing this very concept. And, as I mentioned, the topic of spirituality in therapy was part of the AAMFT national conference roster a couple years back. Some therapeutic programs such as AA rely heavily on spiritual constructs.  Of course some therapists would be very opposed to it. I'm not one of them. BUT this isn't the same way of bringing up spirituality in say, church, as it is in my office. It's working within their spiritual/religious constructs to explore ideas or concerns and to find positive messages and tools within both to help them heal.  I follow their lead to whether or not it's a part of topics open for discussion. They're generally taking the lead and you work hard to make it clear if you have a suggestion that it's just that....a suggestion. Not necessarily an edict or correct...just something possible. One of the ways I differentiate from something more fact based v. opinions that may have some spiritual underpinnings in my practice is to label some thought I have as coming from the "Book of BD." I'll joke, if they're religious, that it's an apocryphal work, not yet added to holy writ (I joke a lot in therapy...so my clients are used to me being a little frivolous as is). After giving an opinion, I'll ask what they think. Sometimes they like it, sometimes it doesn't fit. I don't push it if it doesn't fit. It's just an opinion after all. I can see why bringing religion for therapists who are more directive or medical in model would be hard. Bringing up spirituality generally means needing to level down and place yourself in a very exploratory, curious, and non-expert role. I don't see myself as the dispenser of truth and facts in these spaces. I see myself as walking with them to explore how their current experience can better fit in their paradigm and move forward. People who get caught up in being the expert in the room may not like this. But I don't mind and never have. But I take a lot from post-modern models, such as narrative and experiential, that take the role of therapist as more of a facilitator than a director....though the nature of sex therapy does entail some directive roles at some point.  

 

****I find that limiting, but you are welcome to do so any way you want. 

 

With luv,

BD

[deli_llama]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I just want popcorn. Is that so wrong?  

Go ahead and take an armful, and make a treat...

[deli_llama]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But I take a lot from post-modern models, such as narrative and experiential, that take the role of therapist as more of a facilitator than a director....

I would give you two thumbs up for that line of text alone. 

[deli_llama]

I have been thinking about what everyone has expressed for a few days, trying to figure out how I feel about it.  It is way late in the discussion now, but I think I will toss this out anyways.  I keep going back to a personal experience. A while back we spent a bunch of years trying to nail down a medical condition I started displaying way back during the mission. While we were trying to nail down exactly what was occurring with me, part of the time I was working with a professional that was LDS who happened to have been in our ward and the EQ president for a time. Not while I was seeing him, but it wasn't that far in the past.

With hindsight I can see that it probably wasn't smartest decision. The worsening severity of the condition began to cause a lot of irrational anxiety, and things were snowballing. Now, this might say more about his skill and knowledge, maybe we was just a lousy mental health care professional, who knows, but at the time I was full on heeding the advice and recommendations that were offered. His solution to the anxiety (and he then proceeded to place the rest of what else was going on medically with me in the anxiety category) was to diagnose with a couple of anxiety disorders and then put me on a bunch of pills. One of his rationalizations, or more politely, his reasonings, was that I am LDS. LDS have a high rate of anxiety disorders partly because we don't self medicate-Word of Wisdom and all. Since I was LDS with anxiety it must be a disorder that could be treated with prescriptions, just like how many of my brothers and sisters were currently being treated (I very much simplified those conversations in the interest of my thumbs).  He then also tried to delve into my worthiness, as if that might be prompting some of this anxiety. Right there in his office I felt like I was having a Bishops's interview.  Not surprising really-he was a Bishop then. And so I took his pills and left feeling like I was some secret sinner and I was being punished.  It wasn't the only time we had that talk too. 

Here's the deal, he diagnosed it incorrectly, and because he made some assumptions about me from our shared religion, and injected his own assumptions based on his religious beliefs, I went several years down this path before I was finally admitted to the ER where MRIs and proper testing revealed what was really going on. I surprised the docs then, they couldn't understand how I was even functioning. Of course, I hadn't gone to the ER by choice, and because I was telling everyone that I was refusing to take the persciptions, and not just the anxiety meds, because the Spirit was telling me to, I also got to spend some time in the psych ward. Something about hearing voices telling me to not take my meds, shrug. 

I refused to see any LDS counslers, psychologists, or psychiatrists after that, and I admit, I made a stink about it.

For me, and in my case, I wish religious views, biases, and assumptions had been left out of the diagnosis and treatment. I came pretty close to dying then, and I just kept thinking at the time, and even some now, that it might have been different, better, easier, if my religion would have been left out of it period. 

There might be situations where it might be helpful, but...

I appreciate the professionals that written here about the ethical considerations, their understanding of the law, and their obligations and practices concerning this topic.  Thank you, especially TSSaint and BlueDreams. 

[Calm]

Deli...I think your situation was exacerbated by the personal relationship, but I have had several doctors insist my issue was depression when religion had never been mentioned when I would go in and talk about being exhausted.  This has happened in California, Kansas, Canada, and Utah.  Only the last would have assumed I was LDS. The others never were interested.  So I am not sure how much religion tied into the anxiety diagnosis and how much is that doctors everywhere for the last 30 years go to depression and anxiety for many conditions and because so many patients want quick fixes and insurance companies have limited what they will pay for, the pills come out first and foremost and one is lucky if after those don't work, the doctor actually follows up and suggests therapy.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[deli_llama]

Calm, I very much agree that the personal relationship played into it, but it really was a 'passing in church' relationship. In fact, one reason I was willing to see him was because there wasn't a personal relationship—I was a pretty private person then, probably still am.  It wasn't a consideration before, by any of the others pros, including while I was on mission. This was a one off.

I agree that there were a lot of doctors and mental health pros using the 'go to'- and for the reasons you give, but my presenting symptoms and concerns shouldn't have placed me near depression or anxiety meds. In this one case religion absolutely played into it, obviously there are some things (...the Lord has inspired the world to give us modern medicine so we can keep the WoW.., among other things) I left out.  My experience since, with all of the other mental health and other medical professionals, agrees with your assessment. It was an unfortunate situation, but not a common occurrence. From my experiences I appreciate that there are, and should be, some boundaries.  

[Calm]

Glad to hear it was an exceptional case.  There will always be those unfortunately (or blessedly when it turns out well).

I have decided not to go to friends or social acquaintances, including through church.  It is harder to complain that they missed something.  I put up with orthotics that didn't help for several years because I didn't want the original doctor to think I didn't like him...I was nervous they would ask for my records.

I am hoping I have got past that for the most part.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, deli_llama said:

I have been thinking about what everyone has expressed for a few days, trying to figure out how I feel about it.  It is way late in the discussion now, but I think I will toss this out anyways.  I keep going back to a personal experience. A while back we spent a bunch of years trying to nail down a medical condition I started displaying way back during the mission. While we were trying to nail down exactly what was occurring with me, part of the time I was working with a professional that was LDS who happened to have been in our ward and the EQ president for a time. Not while I was seeing him, but it wasn't that far in the past.

With hindsight I can see that it probably wasn't smartest decision. The worsening severity of the condition began to cause a lot of irrational anxiety, and things were snowballing. Now, this might say more about his skill and knowledge, maybe we was just a lousy mental health care professional, who knows, but at the time I was full on heeding the advice and recommendations that were offered. His solution to the anxiety (and he then proceeded to place the rest of what else was going on medically with me in the anxiety category) was to diagnose with a couple of anxiety disorders and then put me on a bunch of pills. One of his rationalizations, or more politely, his reasonings, was that I am LDS. LDS have a high rate of anxiety disorders partly because we don't self medicate-Word of Wisdom and all. Since I was LDS with anxiety it must be a disorder that could be treated with prescriptions, just like how many of my brothers and sisters were currently being treated (I very much simplified those conversations in the interest of my thumbs).  He then also tried to delve into my worthiness, as if that might be prompting some of this anxiety. Right there in his office I felt like I was having a Bishops's interview.  Not surprising really-he was a Bishop then. And so I took his pills and left feeling like I was some secret sinner and I was being punished.  It wasn't the only time we had that talk too. 

Here's the deal, he diagnosed it incorrectly, and because he made some assumptions about me from our shared religion, and injected his own assumptions based on his religious beliefs, I went several years down this path before I was finally admitted to the ER where MRIs and proper testing revealed what was really going on. I surprised the docs then, they couldn't understand how I was even functioning. Of course, I hadn't gone to the ER by choice, and because I was telling everyone that I was refusing to take the persciptions, and not just the anxiety meds, because the Spirit was telling me to, I also got to spend some time in the psych ward. Something about hearing voices telling me to not take my meds, shrug. 

I refused to see any LDS counslers, psychologists, or psychiatrists after that, and I admit, I made a stink about it.

For me, and in my case, I wish religious views, biases, and assumptions had been left out of the diagnosis and treatment. I came pretty close to dying then, and I just kept thinking at the time, and even some now, that it might have been different, better, easier, if my religion would have been left out of it period. 

There might be situations where it might be helpful, but...

I appreciate the professionals that written here about the ethical considerations, their understanding of the law, and their obligations and practices concerning this topic.  Thank you, especially TSSaint and BlueDreams. 

Was this guy a psychiatrist or a doctor? I'm so glad I can't despense drugs. They've been helpful for a few of my clients, particularly when they're veering non-functional by depression or anxiety. But sometimes they barely do anything because it's not really their problem in the first place. Both aren't necessarily in depth sources. They collect what they need to diagnose the symptoms and that's about it. The complexity of the story by them can easily be missed. 

There's a couple things that are very odd about that situation. For one, in therapy at least, you're supposed to avoid duel relationships as much as possible. If you had come to me in similar circumstances I would have tried to explain this, suggest referral, and if there wasn't another therapist available at that point (say if you live in a rural area with few resources or something), then take you on with some serious boundaries and expectations. (((reading your response to Calm, I can see why he may have felt ok taking you on.....but it's still something to do with great hesitancy))). For another, with anxiety medications, most starting prescriptions should start out low and then adjust as they go. And another, I'm not at all impressed by how he handled the situation. Quite the opposite. It vaguely disgusts me. In part because it definitely feels like he was taking an expert role in therapy and in doing so, wasn't really listening to you or allowing space to believe he was wrong or change course. For another, if religion is brought up, you're to follow the CLIENT's lead, not your own. If it makes you feel any better I have never ever given an interview even close to what you described, nor would I. It's unethical, IMO, again breaching the construct of duel relationships or roles (bishop/doctor), among other things.   

Plus some of the stuff you're describing in his reasoning is bump-kiss. It's just not accurate and based on his perception...not fact. Mormon anxiety is no more fancy than non-mormon anxiety. In that it's multifaceted and may have differing roots...between hormones, social circumstance (family, work, peer stress), cognitive distortions, etc. Church can play a role, sure. But I don't get why he'd need to check out your sin forecast. For example, I've been working down irrational anxiety this week. It's completely hormonal and based off of PMS. I know it'll be flushed out soon. I've also had mild anxiety after severe emotional distress in the past for brief stints. Neither of these warrant needing medication. And even if it did, it's a myth that mormons don't self-medicate. We do...just not with drugs usually.  I'm sure he tried to explore some parameters, but it sounds like he had a good amount of preconceived notions going on in that went unchecked. No bueno in my book. We all have biases that we need to be aware of so that what happened to you is less likely to occur.   

I'm sorry you had such a rough experience. I can understand your hesitancy. I've been to several therapists for my own stuff. They were probably all LDS (they were all at BYU or my mission) and followed differing models to therapy. The first was terrible. I was overwhelmed with family drama and had never spoken to anyone....ANYONE about it. So I went to this guy about it, opening up for the first time in my life. I stuck with small details, because he'd mentioned up front about needing to report certain things. This made me immediately cautious because I was very protective of my family. Then he suggested I go to group therapy. As in spill your guts to a group when it already took all of my guts to do it to one man in confidentiality. And lastly, he then became preocuppied about me being mixed. I had no problems tied to my racial identity at that time. He was barking up the wrong tree entirely. Cruddy professionals just happen. Plenty.    

For what it's worth. If you had been my client, I would have talked religion about as much as you did. Ie. if you asked, brought up some sort of spiritual based coping tools, talked about it particularly in your development of anxiety, etc. If you brought it up mostly in passing, I would have left it in passing. 

Side note: I'm glad you listened to the spirit....it sounds like it probably saved your life  

 

With luv,

BD

With luv,

BD

Edited June 24, 2017 by BlueDreams

[MormonVideoGame]

13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

2.) What I've stated about AASECT has been purposely tentative because of my limited interactions (an email list and relays from my boss). I'm hoping to go to their conference in colorado next year, but what I heard mentioned, is in someway that the overarching messages that AASECT has promoted can be alienating to others with differing viewpoints. They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right." And because of that there are varying viewpoints that automatically become questionable or "wrong." Evidence-based theory is apart of any model of therapy at some point, but models and guilds can end up adopting mindsets and policies that can shape that evidence. From what I've heard they used to be more pluralistic in thought. 

First I will admit I know very little about therapy, and psychology is mostly a soft science. 

I heard the same thing "They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right"" in other fields. For example, there are some Christian scientists that don't believe in Evolution, and say their views "automatically become questionable or "wrong." 

Some say the same thing about universities, the scientific community, and scientific organizations like NASA. Mythicists say the same thing about the scholarly community.  Ever heard of mythicism? For some reason leading national organizations are always very biased and authoritarian according to some. I am just letting you know, I am not judging. 

Isn't AASECT the leading national organiztion on sex therapy?  Doesn't it have thousands of members? I know it is not perfect, but who should I trust more? 

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

First I will admit I know very little about therapy, and psychology is mostly a soft science. 

I heard the same thing "They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right"" in other fields. For example, there are some Christian scientists that don't believe in Evolution, and say their views "automatically become questionable or "wrong." 

Some say the same thing about universities, the scientific community, and scientific organizations like NASA. Mythicists say the same thing about the scholarly community.  Ever heard of mythicism? For some reason leading national organizations are always very biased and authoritarian according to some. I am just letting you know, I am not judging. 

Isn't AASECT the leading national organiztion on sex therapy?  Doesn't it have thousands of members? I know it is not perfect, but who should I trust more? 

It is not "soft" science. The frequency distribution curve of IQ looks almost exactly like the frequency distribution curve of Iron fillings put into Sulfuric Acid.

Edited June 25, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

Yes. But 

Quote

I heard the same thing "They hold underlying assumptions as fact or "right"" in other fields. For example, there are some Christian scientists that don't believe in Evolution, and say their views "automatically become questionable or "wrong." 

Some say the same thing about universities, the scientific community, and scientific organizations like NASA. Mythicists say the same thing about the scholarly community.  Ever heard of mythicism? For some reason leading national organizations are always very biased and authoritarian according to some. I am just letting you know, I am not judging. 

This isn't a good comparison for what I've been discussing. Questioning evolution as a "theory" and main principle in life sciences would be similar to questioning whether Depression really exists. I'm sure you can find plenty of people (usually with little background in psychological fields) who would state such. But the field I work in is still fairly avant garde, in the sense that the research in it is still minimal and our understanding heavily based in our own exposure and preconceptions. So there is space for a number of conflicting ideals and approaches and there's space to rearrange and look at our own biases in this. In a way this would be how we APPLY the general models/principles of psychology to the public. Just as how we APPLY the principle of evolution varies and in certain circumstances can even contradict a bit. 

Psychology is not written in stone. Nor is science for that matter. You keep treating it as though it's this concrete absolute thing. But it's not. There's varying view points and varying models and varying therapists who use such in sometimes very different ways.

10 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

First I will admit I know very little about therapy, and psychology is mostly a soft science. 

Isn't AASECT the leading national organiztion on sex therapy?  Doesn't it have thousands of members? I know it is not perfect, but who should I trust more? 

This strikes me as ironic. That you admit knowing very little about therapy, but feel pretty solid in questioning my approaches and thoughts about it. 

 AASECT is. But that doesn't make it God or susceptible to biases. It's like how major health organizations and research into health can be influence by those who sponsor them. I'm not asking you, though, to "trust" me over them or them over me. I read their stuff and benefit from their members. I appreciate looking at differing perspectives and thoughts. Instead of assuming it's an issue of one must be right and the other wrong, think of it as having different view points that may both have validity, biases, and blindspots. 

 

With luv,

BD

[MormonVideoGame]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Psychology is not written in stone. Nor is science for that matter. You keep treating it as though it's this concrete absolute thing. But it's not.

I agree, I know it is not. I said in the previous post that psychology is a soft science. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not asking you, though, to "trust" me over them or them over me. I read their stuff and benefit from their members. I appreciate looking at differing perspectives and thoughts. Instead of assuming it's an issue of one must be right and the other wrong, think of it as having different view points that may both have validity, biases, and blindspots. 

Okay fair enough, we agree. Thumbs up. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 6/20/2017 at 3:29 PM, MormonVideoGame said:

I still don't get how a masters in Marriage and Family therapy makes you a mental health expert.  Is LMFT the equivalent to an MD? PhD? Isn't AASECT certified better?

and isn't LMFT different in every state? in Utah?  I am confused 

This seems a bit like an ad hom.

[deli_llama]

Thanks BlueDreams for your response.  I feel like I have matured since that whole experience, and part of that maturity is a different approach to who I see medically (in all aspects of my health). My wife is a nurse, and even she expressed later that at the time, some of his approach left even her feeling uncomfortable, but she admitted that at the time she placed some authority to his words based on our shared religious framework. I can't say this is true for every situation or person, but I often feel like, in the past, I have allowed the cultural focus on authority influence my decision making outside out of the realms in which any authority would be present. The correcting of that behavior just comes with age and experience I think.

It actually was listening to the Spirit that saved my life, including the tough decision to take a different path for treatment than anything that was being suggested (and wow, if that wasn't its own can of worms at the time—not only were 'voices in my head' telling me to get off the persciptions but also to try a somewhat controversial treatment), however staying the course proved the Lord out. Of course, all the humans involved, including myself, had the diagnosis all wrong, it was actually brain damage.  Live and learn.

I really do appreciate hearing your perspective and some of your stories, it has helped me feel better about something that usually leaves me with the grumpies when I think about it. 

[MormonVideoGame]

On 6/20/2017 at 6:39 PM, BlueDreams said:

your own bias

Let me just a few things. 1. It was just one example out of many in that discussion 2. the practice of drinking a lot of water is harmful.  3. The PhD psychologist did say "No evidence". 4. "more research" and "still unknown" can apply to anything, including how apologetics affects your life.  

Okay I am done, just wanted to clarify 1-4  points. Hopefully I don't get kicked out for saying a few more words, and I am busy right now anyway. 

"drinking too much can be just as dangerous" 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/drinking-too-much-water-can-be-deadly-new-guidelines-healthy-water-consumption-warns-340604

Last warning. The next time you derail a thread you will be banned from the board.

[Judd]

3 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Let me just a few things. 1. It was just one example out of many in that discussion 2. the practice of drinking a lot of water is harmful.  3. The PhD psychologist did say "No evidence". 4. "more research" and "still unknown" can apply to anything, including how apologetics affects your life.  

Okay I am done, just wanted to clarify 1-4  points. Hopefully I don't get kicked out for saying a few more words, and I am busy right now anyway. 

"drinking too much can be just as dangerous" 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/drinking-too-much-water-can-be-deadly-new-guidelines-healthy-water-consumption-warns-340604

Last warning. The next time you derail a thread you will be banned from the board.

As far as I can tell, you haven't linked to any PhD psychologists.

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Last warning. The next time you derail a thread you will be banned from the board.

Understood. I won't. It is just a message board.