XPost: alt.psychology, sci.psychology.misc, alt.politics.libertarian   
   From: mcsg-admin@charter.net   
      
   brainfart wrote:   
   > The recent fuss about that crazy astronaut got me thinking about something.   
   > NASA's response to the diaper/kidnap incident was to declare stricter   
   > psychological screenings for astronauts, so what is going to happen is that   
   > a number of perfectly normal astronauts are going to have their careers   
   > ruined because they fail the extremely subjective psychological exam.   
   >   
   > How can someone possibly defend themselves against something like this?  I   
   > don't see how it's fair to force someone to submit to an intrusive and   
   > highly personal interrogation when they have no idea how they are supposed   
   > to answer and that your personal and subjective interpretation of whatever   
   > they say is grounds to deny them employment.  This has begun expanding into   
   > the criminal justice system, with defendents who have yet to go to trial   
   > forced to submit to psychiatric exams in a no-win situation where you must   
   > answer the psychologist's questions and therefore incriminate yourself, or   
   > the psychologist declares you insane and you are locked up in a mental   
   > hospital and never permitted to go to trial to prove your innocence.   
   >   
   > In the case of NASA astronauts, someone who has devoted his to the space   
   > program can be declared "unstable" by some Dr. Phil crackpot and reduced to   
   > serving french fries until he retires, with no legal liability on Dr.   
   > Phil's   
   > part if his diagnosis of witchery was inaccurate.   
      
   That's a good point.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)