Who would be legally responsible for the application of mainstream wrong psychological/psychiatrist therapies?
<p>Several times has happened that the definition of mental disorders/ psychological-psychiatrist therapies/theories have been proven wrong. Yet they have been applied over people causing them problems and harm in their lives. Usually graduated psychologists/ psychiatrists are ignorant which is the supposed proof of these theories. They've been told they have been proven sometimes, sometimes they've been given some details, and they don't know they don't have a real basis behind them until it's massively accepted they are wrong. Personally, I see little to no responsibilities in them. In the other hand, governments and states promote these theories in secondary schools, they teach them and form professionals in national universities, and they hold the power to treat people in trials and to internate someone for being ill under these theories. Some other organizations, which I'm not very aware who they are, but I assume they might be colleges or agrupations of psychiatrists/psychologists regulate their professional's activities, and I assume they might be the ones giving the content to national universities for the formation of professionals under these theories. When one of these theories/therapies are proven wrong and have caused harm over people, who is the legal responsibility? </p>

<p>I assume there aren't many cases like this, but I make the parallelism with biological sciences. If an association or group produces a medicament which is proven harmful for people later, and that association teaches doctors to give this medicament to people, with the approval and fundings/places of national government created universities, it would be pretty much the same. Then, in the case stated in the topic question, who would be legally responsible for the application of these mainstream wrong psychological/psychiatrist therapies?</p>

<p>Your question is almost too general to answer, but the basic answer is; being wrong is not a crime. Negligence is, but applying generally accepted medical diagnoses and treatments is not negligent. Malpractice is also a crime (or at least reason to suspend a medical licence); but evolving a theory based on experimental evidence, submitting it to peer review and having it generally accepted, and then later seeing it superseded by another theory is not malpractice, it is the normal scientific method.</p>

<p>And no definition has ever been "proven wrong" since a definition, like an axiom, is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. The definitions of disorders vary betweeen countries, and most certainly change over time, but that is not because of any discovery or proof.</p>

<h1>Do your best</h1>
<p>If a skilled and licensed physician does her best and follows what is currently medical best practices, she generally does not bear liability even if those best practices are later shown to be misguided. Medicine is a field where best practices are determined within the community of professionals rather than by law (with some exceptions where specific treatments are made illegal). Doctors know that they need to balance treatment against the possibility that their actions could do more harm than good. Here's one version of the Hippocratic Oath. Several passages reflect the fact that doctors don't know everything and are really trying to do their best.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this
covenant:</p>
<p>I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in
whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with
those who are to follow.</p>
<p>I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are
required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic
nihilism.</p>
<p>I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and
that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's
knife or the chemist's drug.</p>
<p>I will not be ashamed to say &quot;I know not&quot;, nor will I fail to call in
my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's
recovery.</p>
<p>I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not
disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread
with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a
life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life;
this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.</p>
<p>I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth,
but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family
and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related
problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.</p>
<p>I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to
cure.</p>
<p>I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special
obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and
body as well as the infirm.</p>
<p>If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected
while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always
act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I
long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.</p>
</blockquote>

criminal-law