[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Anna Conlan

It's not quite the same...

When you're in the dentist's chair, you're vulnerable and you have little control over what happens. When you're getting a reading, you are in control.

If only that were true. I'm not convinced at all.

If a psychic tells you that you were abused as a child and you know it's not true, then you discard it and you don't go back. You may feel disturbed or angry, but you don't come out with injuries.

Perhaps you didn't read the link in the OP? Perhaps also you don't know about the scandal in psychotherapy, from Freud onwards, regarding the false conclusions of child abuse that therapists divine from imaginary cues?

You're overlooking the fact that clients ARE in control of their lives, even if they appear to be addicted. Everyone has free will and must take responsibility for their actions.

We can dispute 'facts' if you like. Who must take responsibility for their own actions? Everyone? What about the very distressed and vulnerable, the intellectually challenged or whatever the pc term is these days, those with mental illness, children, people who have been brought up to be superstitious and don't know any science? I would bet that a significant number of clients of readers are vulnerable, superstitious, inexperienced in life, depressed, mentally ill, physically ill, stressed out, etc. The lack of boundaries of your argument seem to lead to strange conclusions, like the argument that people walk willingly into concentration camps and gas chambers. Discrimination is the beginning of wisdom. Bland principles chucked about are what causes half the bleedin problem.

Yes, psychics can get regulated and can state on their website that their readings are for entertainment purposes. Psychics are required (at least in the UK) to state that they're not genuine, which is sad but is a necessary precaution to take. Those who consult psychics are usually believers in psychic phenomena and see past those legal disclaimers The client knows that readings are clearly not for entertainment purposes - after all they are consulting the psychic because they believe the guidance is genuine!

Yes, I have changed my opinion about regulation and agree with you here. However, your last sentence sheds doubt on your insistence that clients are in control, as has been pointed out already. If you believe that you're talking to someone who has special insight into realities that you can't see, you tend NOT to remain in control and responsible for your actions. You move that person towards what is called your locus of control - the place where truth is decided. I'm not sure how you can't see how those things go together.

And yes, we want to regulate the crooks and get rid of them, but good psychics should not suffer in the process or take responsibility for people who are in the habit of giving away their power.

Regulate the crooks? Leave the 'genuine' psychics alone and just get rid of the crooks? I'm not sure you understand the idea of regulation. It means, in this case, that there would be some kind of register and people giving advice to others which they claim is of supernatural origin would have to give their details to that register. There would probably be some other requirements, too, such as signing a document concerning basic ethical practices, being required to give certain information to clients at the beginning of service provision, etc.. This, perhaps, could make it harder for people to practise dangerously or fraudulently. In some professions it is illegal to practise without registering, in others an additional title is granted, like 'Chartered', and the public are educated about the distinction, or pick up on it by word of mouth, and then know that a Chartered Whatever has more checks and balances behind him or her than a non-Chartered Whatever. There are lots of different models of regulation.

It isn't possible to just 'regulate the crooks'. Law and order would be a lot easier generally if we could just regulate crooks out of life without inconveniencing law-abiding folks.