SpecialFrog
Silver Meritorious Patron
My overall impression is that virtually all government / legal actions against L. Ron Hubbard's various Scientology-related enterprises (including Dianetics) were essentially appropriate responses.
Is this correct or are there cases where the treatment of the Church of Scientology was not justified by its own actions?
To start with, I would argue that the AMA / APA's rejection of Dianetics was their only possible response to a thesis that made such grandiose medical claims without an ounce of hard evidence to back it up.
I would also argue that the same material phrased as a working theory might have found some support within the mental health community provided Hubbard was willing to work with people to try to validate some of it rather than just taking his word as gospel.
Subsequent AMA / APA / FDA actions also seem to be reasonable responses to the unverified medical claims and lack of oversight into what was essentially a therapeutic practice.
Were there other government responses that were unjustified?
Is this correct or are there cases where the treatment of the Church of Scientology was not justified by its own actions?
To start with, I would argue that the AMA / APA's rejection of Dianetics was their only possible response to a thesis that made such grandiose medical claims without an ounce of hard evidence to back it up.
I would also argue that the same material phrased as a working theory might have found some support within the mental health community provided Hubbard was willing to work with people to try to validate some of it rather than just taking his word as gospel.
Subsequent AMA / APA / FDA actions also seem to be reasonable responses to the unverified medical claims and lack of oversight into what was essentially a therapeutic practice.
Were there other government responses that were unjustified?