A year ago, Franky Dean, a 24-year-old documentary film-making master’s student, decided to make a phone call she’d been avoiding nearly half her life. She was sitting in a dark computer room in New York University’s journalism institute in Manhattan when she FaceTimed her parents. They were in the living room at her home in the UK, where she grew up. Franky told them she’d just filed a police report about something that had happened more than a decade earlier. When Franky was 12, she had been sexually abused by a close friend’s dad.

And then her mum said two words that would change her life, again, for ever: “We know.”

It was meant to be a climactic moment – a revelation that Franky had been building up to for years. Instead, it was the beginning of another story – the unravelling of a shadow narrative that spanned half of Franky’s life. It’s a story about what happens when police assume survivors of sexual abuse to be “unknowing victims” – a series of misinterpretations and missteps that amounted to Franky spending 12 years hiding her abuse from her parents while they spent 12 years hiding it from her.

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, it is not. That is not informed.

    Information being shared with the patient is not something that takes their consent. It is the baseline bare minimum obligation of every provider in every circumstance.

    A lawyer can’t allow a client to decline to hear a plea offer. A doctor can’t choose to allow a patient to make any decision without being fully informed of everything the doctor knows relevant to their case. The information is always mandatory, and it’s always malpractice not to provide it.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So am I.

        The person being fully informed is the baseline legal requirement all the time because it’s literally the only way they can possibly make decisions about their best path forward.

        Not informing them isn’t just unethical. It’s fucking unadulterated evil with no theoretical justification.

        • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right, so the answer to my earlier question is “yes” in this instance your are anti-choice. Is fine, but own it or we end up going on a big circle to get where we should have been three or four comments ago.

          And we could have had a conversation about that, but honestly, I’m just not that invested in the conversation anymore, it’s been a long day and I’m out of patience for random strangers who are more interested in being right than communicating.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Being informed is not a choice. Care is the choice.

            Being informed is a prerequisite to decide care. There is no other possible way to make a rational decision.

            • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Look around you, being informed is absolutely a choice. This place is a great example of people choosing pleasant fictions over uncomfortable realities every day.

              Just because you think it is an unacceptable choice doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                It’s really not a choice, because enough of you knows to be massively harmed. And there are numerous potential physical consequences. But ignoring that, it’s not a choice you’re entitled to.

                Literally any doctor, mental health professional, police officer, or other person in any other position of influence/authority who doesn’t give you the information for any reason is an unforgivable monster who belongs in a maximum security prison cell for a minimum of half a decade per offense, with every other person in there knowing that they’re there for covering up sex crimes.

                • mrcleanup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  it’s not a choice you are entitled to.

                  Just… Wow.

                  The true test of being kind is not just empowering others when it makes you feel good, but empowering others when their choice makes you uncomfortable.

                  Someone absolutely has the right to say “my life has been fucked up enough already, don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.”

                  The truth is you would take that way from them just so you can feel good about yourself, whether it caused depression, or suicide, or hurt. You would take their choice away because you don’t agree with it so you could feel “just” whether it re victimizes them or not.

                  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    That right does not exist, because it is literally impossible to have the information required to make it, and it inherently requires someone else to do inexcusable, unforgivable things. You don’t have the right to compel someone else to be a monster.

                    The act causes the hurt. The knowledge of the source of the hurt is the only way it can possibly be addressed.