Brian Wilson Mental State Research Article

[KittyKat]

There's nothing illegal about this university thesis. It wasn't published with the intent of profit. It just so happens with the existence of the internet, it is available online. It doesn't pretend to be anything but an academic paper in the field of experimental psychology, and psychology is a social science. His sources are cited and are all from things that have already been published and are still available. Even Brian's autobiography, while subject to multiple lawsuits in the US, is still being published in other countries (and the guy who wrote it lives in a country that isn't the United States).

[the captain]

I didn't read the paper and am not commenting on its legality, just for the record. Just the concept of legality of health information in general.

[filledeplage]

There's nothing illegal about this university thesis. It wasn't published with the intent of profit. It just so happens with the existence of the internet, it is available online. It doesn't pretend to be anything but an academic paper in the field of experimental psychology, and psychology is a social science. His sources are cited and are all from things that have already been published and are still available. Even Brian's autobiography, while subject to multiple lawsuits in the US, is still being published in other countries (and the guy who wrote it lives in a country that isn't the United States).

Kitty Kat - First, I'm not so sure about whether it is "illegal" or not.  Do you mean "criminally illegal" or in a "civil" or "damages" context?  

Second, "psychology" might be considered by some to be a "social science" but not really.  Psychologists, with advanced degrees can and are very much actively involved in the "medical" context and some both "treat" and "prescribe" (usually under supervision) Is a school psychologist a medical "provider?" - no, they aren't.  They deal with testing to measure academic ability and work within the school context.  This is a Ph.D, outside of the US.  

But, I would bet you could "redact" (remove the names) from that mess (I have no other word for that "psycho-babble") and hand it out as a law school exam, and allow the students might find lots of "actionable" offenses contained therein.  It is of no consequence that there was no profit.

And, I was "offended" by this..."We can infer this from his unremarkable (even poor) lyric-writing ability." I bet there are people on this board who can rattle off all of the songs where Brian did both music and lyrics, even if he had Cracker Jack lyricists. Brian is credited with Surfer Girl, Girl Don't Tell Me, I'm Bugged at My Old Man, The Little Girl I Once Knew, Til I Die, etc. to name a few, and this looks like it could be construed to be kind of slander of his profession.  

It is Brian's gift for finding simplicity in complexity, that is part of his genius in my book. "Cork on the ocean, rock in a landslide, leaf on a windy day." Bad lyrics? I don't think so. Brian found the essence of life; that is a philosopher.

As others have alluded to, above, there are very special protections for behavioral health patients and their providers.  Whatever Brian and Melinda chose to, and revealed "generally" is not the same as the conjecture that this person engaged in.  First, he "particularized" his impressions, and second, he "named names" and drew inferences from the work products of others.  I only know of one exception for a "treating provider" to reveal information, and that is if the patient would cause another risk of imminent serious bodily harm.  

Other information could be required by a court, if that behavior was in issue with respect to a crime or a defense to that crime.  There are other limited exceptions.  Largely it is a locked vault.  He does not appear to be a treating provider. Ray L. enlarged that concept well.

But, I find it offensive, and no less so, than I am offended by so much of this excess testing that goes on in school systems for someone to get a doctorate, or for a book company to sell textbooks.  They are no less predatory in my view, as someone (the kids) is being "exploited" to "benefit" another.

Money isn't the only kind of compensation.  It could be some kind of recognition, or a job as a professor, or even a scholarship, sort of a kind of bartering that gives something "of value."

Happy 2015 to all!  

And good health to all the BB/BW sphere! You have enriched us all with your work and voices!

But don't   and drive!  

[Mikie]

Happy New Year, Ray! 

[KittyKat]

The point is, it's a school paper. The main judge and audience for it would be college professors, and perhaps other professionals who want to read it and can judge for themselves whether it's worthy. If Brian's lawyers want to go to the UK and sue the guy, then let them. I just don't think it rises to that level. Unless they want to sue Peter Ames Carlin, Todd Gold, and whoever else's work was used as a source for the paper.

[urbanite]

The writer can't be sued for sharing his opinions and analyses of information in the public domain.  Didn't Brian disclose to the NY Times in a short interview that he was taking Luvox and another medication some years ago?  I also recall someone posted a link to a magazine article in which Brian was asked in detail about his auditory hallucinations and he answered candidly and in detail.  His medical records are absolutely confidential under California law unless and until he consents to their release.   

[filledeplage]

The writer can't be sued for sharing his opinions and analyses of information in the public domain.  Didn't Brian disclose to the NY Times in a short interview that he was taking Luvox and another medication some years ago?  I also recall someone posted a link to a magazine article in which Brian was asked in detail about his auditory hallucinations and he answered candidly and in detail.  His medical records are absolutely confidential under California law unless and until he consents to their release.   

urbanite - this is an old paper, relatively speaking. When I read it, it just didn't pass the ethical "smell test." It matters who the "actor" is.  It is not a college freshman in psych 101, studying BF Skinner and the rats, and doing a copy-and-paste from wiki.  This is a person with a doctorate, who is held to  a higher standard or code of behavior in this profession.

We are all governed by codes of ethics in the professions.  There are codes for research as well.  Over time, many "experiments" have been conducted in predatory manners, such as in institutions where the "cohort" for "experimentation" have been behaviorally or developmentally challenged orphans, or others.  The history of self-policing has been poor, abysmal, really. 

That is not to include professionals who are honest, engage in full-disclosure, are "transparent" about research methods and who are not afraid of "informed consent."  I've met and dealt with both good and bad, so it isn't fair to paint everyone with the proverbial broad brush. I've dealt with some true gems in education, and my fair share of fakers, looking to pad their "client load." And, outside the scope of education, as well.  The most ethical among them enjoy great reputations among clients, but may not do so well "industry wide" because they don't always "play the game." Just my personal experience and opinion.

And I started with the American Psychological Association first, who cover in their code, "scientific, educational, and professional" then looked to the British side, and they, too, have a canon of ethics for those who work in the field, do research and publish findings.  There is a site called  simplepsychology (research ethics) which I found to be a good starting point.

This is a guy with a doctorate in psychology who is attempting to infer that Brian is gifted musically (in the composition context) but maybe not so much, as a lyricist and connect it through some psychological matrix. (I maybe expressed that poorly.)  Hardly the work of a psychologist, whose work credentials are not as an expert in that field.  His opinions offend me, as a BB/BW fan, and it appears that he has wandered into territory that isn't his field of expertise, with an analysis of a proven singer-songwriter. Art is received by each person differently, and isn't always "quantifiable" in a way he might like to "quantify" it. 

[JakeH]

Apologies for bumping this one but I saw the original post before New Year's and it made me want to join the board specifically to offer an opinion on this before the thread fades for good.

I agree that the article is poorly reasoned, poorly researched, and at points, absurd (making judgments on Brian’s "intelligence"). All that's a different issue than, I suppose, the ethical or legal questions involved in the decision to write and publish the article in the first place.  In any case, ethical (and moral) treatment of Brian Wilson was sadly thrown out the window sometime in the early 1940s. So things are what they are.

Because Brian has been viewed for so long as drug burn-out (at least that’s the general impression I remember getting from the media when I was a kid), and now more recently, as a man bravely battling mental illness and/or depression, the nature of his "illness" gets misinterpreted and/or obfuscated and/or outright buried.  Medical professionals presumably have to ascribe a technical name to whatever Brian Wilson's symptoms are, but for the layman it all comes down to child abuse. In my opinion, the only disease or illness that Brian Wilson has suffered from is the impact of a disease that makes a parent attack a child.  That disease is social. The article whose link was posted at the top of this thread, for all its technicality (and the reference to a computer program as a diagnostic tool), says nothing compared to what Brian himself says in the song “Love and Mercy,” in which he, in effect, identifies the disease and then offers a remedy.

There is a stigma attached to both depression and mental instability, but there's a greater stigma attached to either being abused, and/or being a survivor of abuse. If this stuff was addressed more openly, maybe some of the mystery surrounding Brian's interesting and important life would become clearer, and the huge scale of his achievements better recognized.

This is a heavy and unpleasant topic, but I thought this viewpoint should be aired (there - I feel better now...)