Ing Says: Blaming the Victim is as Old as History Itself; It is Still Unethical
How institutions use your diagnosis to silence your complaint — and why that is legally and ethically indefensible
There is a tactic as old as institutional power itself.
When someone raises a complaint — about harm, about negligence, about conduct that should never have happened — the institution does not address the conduct. Instead, it addresses the person. It looks for reasons why this particular complainant is not credible, not reliable, not someone whose experience should be taken seriously.
In sexual violence cases, we call this the “what was she wearing?” defense. We recognize it instantly. We have named it, critiqued it, and built entire legal frameworks to prevent it from being used to dismiss survivors.
In mental health care, the same defense operates every single day — and most people have never heard it named.
I am naming it now.
What Diagnostic Discrediting Looks Like
Right now, a claim is circulating in response to the growing documentation of harm at The Guidance Center in Flagstaff, AZ.
The claim is this: the only people who complain about The Guidance Center are people with addictions, people with personality disorders, “neurotic” people, people who self-harm, people who “won’t take responsibility” for their mental health.
Let’s be precise about what this is.
This is diagnostic discrediting — the deliberate use of a person’s diagnosis, symptoms, or psychiatric history to invalidate their account of harm and shut down accountability before it can begin.
It reframes institutional conduct as client pathology. It transforms “this clinic harmed someone” into “this person is the kind of person who would say that.” It is institutional gaslighting at the systemic level — not just denying what happened to one person, but building a framework that makes it structurally impossible for certain people to be believed at all.
It is not subtle. And it is not a defense.
What the Law Actually Says
Here is the reality — legally and ethically — that diagnostic discrediting is designed to obscure:
A mental health clinic owes a duty of care to its clients.
Not to its preferred clients. Not to the easy ones. Not to the people whose presentation is tidy and whose complaints are comfortable to hear. To its clients. All of them.
And critically: when a client is struggling more, the clinic owes more care — not less.
That is not an opinion. That is the legal and ethical standard that governs every licensed mental health facility in this country.
If a client is harmed at The Guidance Center, the clinic is responsible for that harm — regardless of diagnosis, regardless of history, regardless of how much distress that client was in when they walked through the door. Even if no laws were broken, they remain responsible for recognizing harm and correcting it.
And when a clinic engages in alleged unethical or illegal conduct, a client’s diagnosis is utterly irrelevant. It does not excuse misconduct. It does not negate responsibility. It does not make the harm less real or the obligation to address it less binding.
A person with a personality disorder who is harmed by a mental health facility has been harmed by a mental health facility. Full stop.
A person with an addiction who is mistreated by clinical staff has been mistreated by clinical staff. Full stop.
A person who self-harms, who presents in crisis, who has a long and complicated psychiatric history — that person, when harmed in a clinical setting, deserves the same accountability response as anyone else. The complexity of their history does not reduce the institution’s responsibility. Under the duty of care standard, it increases it.
Why This Tactic Exists — And What It Tells You
Diagnostic discrediting is not random. It is strategic.
It exists because it works — because our culture still carries deep, largely unexamined assumptions about the reliability of people with mental health diagnoses. Because “she has a personality disorder” or “he has an addiction” lands, in some rooms, as a complete explanation for why a complaint doesn’t need to be investigated.
But here is what diagnostic discrediting actually tells you — not about the person making the complaint, but about the institution using it:
An institution that responds to documented harm by questioning the complainant’s diagnosis is an institution that cannot defend its own conduct.
If The Guidance Center could demonstrate that their care was appropriate, that their staff acted correctly, that their systems protected the people in their charge — they would do that. They would show the documentation. They would point to the training. They would demonstrate the outcome.
Instead, they are questioning who is doing the complaining.
That is not a defense. That is evidence of systemic failure.
Shaming, Blaming, and Silencing Is Not a Defense
I want to say this as plainly as I can, because it needs to be said for every survivor who has been through this — not just at The Guidance Center, but at every facility that uses this playbook:
Your diagnosis does not make what happened to you less real.
Your history does not make your account less credible.
Your distress — the distress you brought to the facility that was supposed to help you — does not reduce the institution’s obligation to treat you with dignity and provide competent, trauma-informed care.
When they tell you that only certain kinds of people complain about them — they are telling you something about themselves.
At Between Trust and Trauma: The Shaming Stops Here.
If This Mirrors Your Experience
You are not alone. What happened to you was not inevitable. It was a choice made by a provider or a facility — and choices can be documented, reported, and challenged.
File with your state’s licensing board, the Office of Civil Rights, and the Attorney General. File knowing that these bodies rarely impose meaningful consequences — because the record matters regardless.
And then come to us. Between Trust and Trauma documents what happened, names the providers and facilities responsible, and connects survivors who experienced the same pattern of harm.
One incident is enough. One person harmed is enough. We document it because it happened — not because we need a pattern to justify our pain.
“Nothing About Us Without Us.”
