cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/37697209
- Pope Leo XIV has said he will not authorise the creation of an AI avatar of himself, as it would blur the lines between truth and fiction.
- The Pope also noted that he is concerned with AI’s impact on human dignity and jobs.
- If automation replaces too many people and only a few can work, that could be a “huge problem” the Pope said.
friendly reminder from an athiest; this pope is a good dude and a mathematician, he knows what’s up.
Boggles the fucking mind that an elderly white male high ranking Catholic is a sane and solid pick for president considering the current state of things.
If the founding fathers were still alive, the very idea of this would kill them.
Woke Pope!
Didn’t know he had a degree in mathematics - that’s a fun one to share with my students.
Thanks!
Do you point out that you are an atheist to give credit to your comment? Sad…
He’s been a very very bad man. Thank you for your attention on this matter.
The pope? I mean… I’d say pedophiles are worse than “very very bad”, but I can see why you people think it’s just a minor (pun not intended) thing.
Didn’t he threaten to defrock priests who turned in child rapists?
If you’re referring to priests turning in child rapists via breaking the seal of confession, no. Doing so is an automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church, that’s not something he’s instituted.
This week he did affirm his zero-tolerance policy on not only child abuse within the church, but also any attempts to cover them up. So the closest thing I can think of is the fact that’s he’s essentially threatened to defrock child abusers and anyone who covers for them.
If he really had a zero tolerance policy, he’d get rid of the rule that bar priests from turning in child rapists.
Because it’s literally the Catholic Church’s policy to protect child rapists otherwise.
That’s not a rule he can get rid of. The seal of confession is a matter of doctrine and divine law and the pope isn’t authorized to overrule god.
Also, again, there’s no rule against turning in child rapists. There’s a rule against breaking the seal of confession. If a priest finds out about a crime in any manner besides confession, they’re free to contact authorities.
And it’d be a dumbass idea anyway. If a criminal is coming to confession in the first place then there is some remorse for what they’ve done, which means that person might be encouraged to turn themselves in. If you started reporting them when they came to confession, it’ll work once or twice and then criminals would just stop going to confession. Which additionally, is an anonymous act. The priest doesn’t know who you are when you go to confession.
That’s fucking bullshit, sorry. My therapist is a mandatory reporter, but a fucking priest isn’t? Nah.
In many states priests are mandatory reporters.
But they can’t be forced to abandon their religious beliefs by the government by breaking the seal of confession.
Then they should be prosecuted for it. Their beliefs are a direct detriment to public health and safety.
Great idea, let’s just disregard the first amendment entirely. And then once we’ve done that, the government would also be free to establish a state religion and force all of us to follow it.
I think we better put that monkeys paw back where we found it.
FYI a dokter/psychiatrist is just as banned from exposing a confessed murder or rapist,
What they do instead is highly encourage you to turn yourself in.
The reason professional secrecy is so important is because the moment you leave the tiniest gap, no one will trust the profession anymore when processing the guilt of their own actions. Potentially making the problem worse. These people are not well in their head and require treatment, the bar for treatment must be as low and safe as can be.
I believe Dokters do have a rule when someone has full intention to do harm to a person in the near future they have to call law enforcement but i don’t think they need to provide information about the perpetrator if they aren’t the person in danger.
This may be subject to specific local laws but i always assumed it was modeled after how the church did it, pastors used to act as primitive psychologists.
Doctor patient confidentiality does not override the public interest.
Have we resorted to stating overt lies now? The most basic internet search will provide you with reliable sources that show this absurd statement is untrue.
No, i just know how to read.
From your source:
“disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm.”
Admitting something happened in the past is not a risk something will happen in the future. I mentioned how they have an exception for when people are in danger in the near future in my comment.
Its not uncommon for patients to confess to something in the past that was covered up and is since no longer happening.
Also note how i said local laws may be different, this is a uk source. The professionals i asked this question where not from the UK.
To give you as much straightforward an example.
If a patient admits to having harmed many kids while they have or work with kids, thats is a reason to break secrecy.
But if they said they raped and murdered a kid 30 years ago. That alone is not enough to break secrecy, there is no automatic assumption of repeat offending.
That is not the full paragraph. It reads:
“If it is not practicable or appropriate to seek consent, and in exceptional cases where a patient has refused consent, disclosing personal information may be justified in the public interest if failure to do so may expose others to a risk of death or serious harm. The benefits to an individual or to society of the disclosure must outweigh both the patient’s and the public interest in keeping the information confidential.”
Let’s not forget that you had previously stated:
From this UK source, doctors are explicitly exempt from violating doctor-patient confidentiality in the aforementioned case. This directly contradicts your statement.
I’m eager to read your referenced citations from the individuals you’ve interviewed in other regions where doctors would be banned in such cases.
The fuller quote does not add more nuance here. I am not sure how you are deriving at your interpretation. Can you give an example of an “afformented case” that validates this exception?
It is not in the public interest to break doctor patient confidentiality about events that happend in the past when It is vastly better if the patient understands their wrongdoing and goed to law enforcement themselves. There is usually plenty of time to convince them if its clear there is no actual risk to a living person in the now.
There is no interview, there is a question i was curious about years ago while i had access to psychiatric professionals so inquired them about what the law said about it.
But can he?
It’s all made up bullshit, so yes.