Genuinely curious on this question.... If someone ran GET today and was genuinely sincere and high integrity to ensure all impacts were collected, thereby showing harm, what position would that put the person who ran it in from a liability point of view?
Is there something about not having a yellow card system that almost prohibits safety from being honestly reported on because it doesn't cover that issue in the same way that for eg drugs there must be protocols and protections for both participants and those running it to ensure those harmed are minimised in how badly (by it stopping) and it not having happened in vain because it is reported - but there must be some sort of cover that is built into the planning and sign off stage to ensure those running it are covered too?
Does this gap lead to a 'just put them in the drop-outs' and don't look too hard at it issue? and part of the reason why everyone is so in on the idea that harms are never to be tested by therapist-delivered/behavioural treatments?
