General considerations are well-outlined here: The Ethics of Sharing Client Stories | Psychology Today. Essentially the ethical standard is to get permission OR change the details to be unidentifiable. I always do both, though I don’t share many stories unless they have a chance to do some good and the client themselves perceives a benefit (e.g., by seeing themselves as a source of inspiration to others). I would never include truly identifiable case information, but the only hypothetical way to do that would be to get a signed release of information for the specific disclosure use.
In this case it was essentially:
“This is a great example of how stressors become less threatening when you can find a way to exercise agency against them. Assuming I change the details enough to protect your identity, is this an example you’d want me to use to encourage others who might be feeling helpless or overwhelmed?”
“Hell yes.”
Generally the plan of action should be:
- neutral-sounding but substantively pro-Dem “good governance reforms”:
a. John Lewis New Voting Rights Act to reverse Shelby County and adopt much broader minimum standards for things like vote-by-mail.
b. Statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, and other territories (maybe an Oceania state incorporate Guam/Samoa and the Marianas??).
c. End filibuster
d. State-level proportional representation for the House
e. Try to push national popular vote interstate compact forward.
- Broad accountability for crimes committed under the Trump administration:
a. Politicians should not be directing criminal prosecutions, so there’s limited direct actions to be taken, other than making it clear that there won’t be any amnesties or pardons and that no one is off-limits.
b. Disband or severely punish institution that were coopted by Trump. ICE is the hashtag, but CBP is probably first on the chopping block. I’m not too familiar with the rules here, but there may need to be some legal changes needed to purge some of the career civil service people who will need to be purged.
- Consider adding two justices to the Supreme Court. Dangerous thing to do, but if it can be sold as a tit-for-tat measure, it’s a good idea.
1 Like