Dr. Roberts Fundraising – ‘They Took My License’ for Branding Which ‘Took Place in My Personal Life’

Common sense would dictate that it is not appropriate for a medical professional to engage in behavior that causes harm to their patients or puts their well-being at risk. It would also be considered common sense that it is not acceptable for a medical professional to exploit or manipulate their patients, or to engage in behaviors that violate the trust and autonomy of their patients.

In Dr. Roberts’ case, her involvement in branding ceremonies that caused harm to women and required them to pledge embarrassing material in order to participate would likely be seen as a violation of common sense and a violation of ethical standards for medical professionals.

Common sense would also dictate that it is important for medical professionals to prioritize the well-being and autonomy of their patients at all times, and to make decisions that are in the best interest of their patients. This would involve respecting the rights and dignity of patients and making sure that they are treated with care and compassion.

It is not appropriate for a medical professional to use their skills or knowledge to cause harm to patients, regardless of whether or not they are acting in an official capacity as a doctor.

doctors are typically held to a higher standard than the general public, as they are trusted with the health and well-being of their patients. It is generally expected that doctors will adhere to ethical standards in their practice and will prioritize the well-being of their patients above all else.

In this case, it could be argued that Dr. Roberts’ actions, which involved causing harm to patients and violating their trust and autonomy, would be considered even more egregious given her status as a medical professional. It is important for doctors to uphold the trust that is placed in them and to act with integrity and professionalism at all times.

There are a few reasons why Dr. Roberts’ case may be seen as different from other situations in which individuals choose to get tattoos or brands, such as sororities or other social groups.

First, Dr. Roberts is a medical professional who has a certain level of knowledge and expertise about the human body and the risks and consequences of certain procedures. As a result, it could be argued that she had a greater responsibility to ensure that the women who participated in the branding ceremonies were fully informed about the risks and potential consequences of the procedure, and that they gave their fully informed consent.

Second, the branding ceremonies in which Dr. Roberts participated were not voluntary, as the women were held down against their will and subjected to a procedure that caused them harm. This could be seen as a violation of their autonomy and a breach of trust, which would be considered especially serious given Dr. Roberts’ status as a medical professional.

Finally, the fact that the branding ceremonies were part of a larger group known as DOS, which required the women to pledge embarrassing materials and engage in other activities that could be seen as exploitative, raises additional concerns about the overall context in which the branding ceremonies took place. This could be seen as further evidence of a violation of ethical standards and a breach of trust.

It is possible that Dr. Roberts may have been naive about the potential consequences of her actions and the impact they would have on the women involved in the branding ceremonies. However, it is also possible that she was fully aware of the risks and consequences and chose to participate in the branding ceremonies anyway.

It is also possible that Dr. Roberts was a victim of manipulation or coercion by Raniere and felt unable to refuse to participate in the branding ceremonies. It is important to keep in mind that individuals who are part of abusive or manipulative groups may be subjected to various forms of control and may feel unable to speak out or refuse to participate in certain activities.

The concept of informed consent is central to ethical medical practice and is based on the principle that individuals have the right to make their own decisions about their medical care and treatment. In order to give their fully informed consent to a medical procedure or treatment, individuals must be provided with sufficient information about the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives, and must be given the opportunity to ask questions and clarify any concerns they may have.

In the case of the branding ceremonies in which Dr. Roberts participated, it is important to consider whether the women who participated were provided with a deep understanding of the principles underlying informed consent. In order to give their fully informed consent, they would need to be fully aware of the potential risks and consequences of the procedure, and would need to have the opportunity to ask questions and clarify any concerns they may have. It is also important to consider whether any potential biases or power dynamics may have affected their decision-making.

It can be dangerous for individuals to rely on binary thinking, such as “I was not acting as their doctor” or “each woman consented,” because it can lead to a narrow and oversimplified view of a complex situation. In this case, Dr. Roberts’ use of these statements as a defense for her actions may obscure other relevant factors that could be considered in evaluating her behavior, such as her overall role in the branding ceremonies and the potential impact of the procedure on the women who participated.

Binary thinking can also lead individuals to overlook the potential for nuance and complexity in a situation, and can prevent them from considering alternative perspectives or taking a more comprehensive view of the situation. This can potentially hinder their ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions and to make more informed and ethical decisions.

Looking back from the future, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Porter were left to contemplate the devastating consequences of their actions and the choices they had made. Both bankrupted themselves fighting a traffic battle they could have avoided if they just listened to the advice of their friends and family. In the end, they were left to face the harsh realities of a world that does not always reward those who seek to justify their own wrongdoing.

it is important to recognize that arrogance can be a dangerous and destructive trait, as it can lead individuals to make poor decisions and to prioritize their own interests and viewpoints above those of others.

In the case of Dr. Roberts and Dr. Porter, it is clear that their actions have had serious consequences, both for themselves and for the women who were affected by the branding ceremonies. It is important for individuals to be self-aware and to consider the impact of their actions on others, and to be willing to take responsibility for their mistakes and to make amends when necessary.

Danielle? I do hope you can earn your license back. You earned it. But you also need to grow up! You should be a lady by now – not an overgrown and petulant teenager. Your arguments are weak and nobody else believes in your vanguard. Why do you insist on pushing his viewpoint? He really screwed you over, Danielle! You’re his fall girl, Danielle! Your license is revoked!!!+

Keith has used Danielle for all she’s worth and has tossed her on the trash heap.

One word from him and the Bronfmans would have the top legal subject matter experts on her case.

Sorry, Danielle, your cult lover boy doesn’t give a shit about you. Now you are a liability.

Watch out what you eat and drink, girlfriend. Keith’s discards have a history of contracting fatal cancer.

‘The Shrink Next Door’: Ike Herschkopf Is ‘Very Similar’ to Keith Raniere and NXIVM, Says Michael Showalter

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/the-shrink-next-door-ike-herschkopf-similar-keith-raniere-nxivm-says-michael-showalter.html/