The Effect of Divorce on Children Essay - 1104 Words

The Effect of Divorce on Children Divorce, once uncommon in our society, is now becoming more and more frequent, disrupting our childrens state of well-being. Some children of divorced families have long-term behavior problems such as depression, low self-esteem, poor school performance, acting out, and difficulties with intimate relationships. Children with divorced or divorcing parents often have a sense of abandonment, because their parents become too preoccupied with their own psychological, social, and economic distress that they forget about their kids? needs (Lamb and Sternberg, 1997). In 1988, Professor Jeanne Dise-Lewis conducted a survey of 700 middle school students. The students were asked to rate certain events as†¦show more content†¦Parental Actions: Custodial and Nonresidential Children?s behavior, development, and adjustment to divorce is affected closely by the actions of both of their parents. In a typical divorce situation, one parent has custody of the children and the other is c onsidered to be the nonresidential parent. Children whose nonresidential parents continue to support them financially, whose custodial parents are psychologically healthy, and those who can maintain a meaningful relationship with the nonresidential parent tend to be affected less by the divorce (Lamb and Sternberg, 1997). The nonresidential parent who supports the children economically through child support also tends to spend more time with the children. The situation is improved when there is no conflict between the two parents. Divorces do not always have to be bad; in some cases a divorce can offer members of dysfunctional families the chance to escape from family related stress and conflict (Zinsmeister, 1996). When ex-husbands and wives can work through their problems and go on with their lives, divorces can be considered successful. Personal Experience In the United States, about 45% of all first marriages are now dissolved, and in the United Kingdom, 41% divorce within 14 years (Lamb and Sternberg, 1997). Divorces are happening all around us. Most of us can relate directly, or have some friends that have been affected by divorces. Two of my closest friends now belong toShow MoreRelatedEffects Of Divorce On Children And Divorce1460 Words   |  6 Pagestoday’s world, most people accept divorce or separation as a way of life. Parents are unaware or do not understand the damage it can have on their children. However, in some instances, it is better to get out of an abusive relationship because that can be as toxic as divorce. On average, 50% of children who are born with married parents, will experience divorce before the age of 18 (Children and Divorce Baucom, 2010-2017). Along with divorce statistics, 40% of children in America are raised withoutRead MoreDivorce Effect On Children : Divorce1825 Words   |  8 PagesApril, 2016 Divorce Effect on Children Divorce seems to become more and more common nowadays. Divorce can be a simple or complicated process depending if children are involved. This process can have negative and positive effects in a child s life. A divorce is the legal process of a marriage coming apart. A divorce with children involve cost more and takes about eleven months for the marriage to end. The majority of the divorces happening in the United States involve children. Divorce has differentRead MoreThe Effects Of Divorce On Children And Children1255 Words   |  6 Pages The effects of divorce on children Throughout time, people from all over the world have chosen to live together, or â€Å"get married†. Marriage is a beautiful thing, but there are some couples who are unable to maintain their relationship, because they choose divorce as a solution to cope with the problems between husband and wife. Although divorce can be solution to cope with problem between the husband and wife, it still has dangerous effects especially on their children. Children with divorced parentsRead MoreEffect Of Divorce On Children1068 Words   |  5 PagesEffects of Divorce on Children While divorce may reduce strain on a failing marriage, it may cause damaging effects on the children. Often times parents are too concerned on the marriage to notice the effects on children. From the way parents react in front of the children to new marriages all can directly affect the daily lives, and behavior of children. Though, there are ways to mitigate some of the issues that can come with divorce, possibly avoiding some of the effects all together. UnfortunatelyRead MoreDivorce : The Effect On Children1084 Words   |  5 PagesNicole Halterman Professor Tausch CTI 102 D Written Communication 4 October 2014 Divorce: the Effect on Children In today’s society, divorce has become a normal occurrence. Married couples today are getting divorces due to many different reasons; conflicts in the marriage, a loss of romantic feelings, perhaps a spouse is having an affair, or other types of problems. Most divorces have children that are really young and due to their age, they do not have any idea how to deal with this type of situationRead MoreDivorce And Its Effects On Children1296 Words   |  6 Pages50% of all the children born to married parents today, will experience the divorce of their parents’ before they are eighteen years old. Divorce in and of itself doesn’t necessarily harm a child, but the conflict between parents does. A child’s behavior correlates directly with the effects of their parents’ separation. Deep emotional wounds are created before, during, and after divorce and separation. It is rare that you find a child that actually wants their parents to separate, unless the ma rriageRead MoreDivorce And Its Effects On Children1343 Words   |  6 Pagesknow that the divorce rate in the United States hovers around fifty percent, including forty percent under the age of 21. In that fifty percent one of every six adults is likely to go through a divorce twice. Not only does divorce affect the adults involved, but forty percent of children in the United States will experience parental divorce (Portnoy, 2008). Children with divorced parents struggle with negative consequences emotionally, mentally, and academically compared to those children from intactRead MoreDivorce And Its Effect On Children998 Words   |  4 PagesDivorce has become very popular in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, on average 50% of marriages result in a failed marriage. This percentage has been at it’s all time high. Not many couples have sustained a successful marriage in present days. Divorces have been around for a long time, and unfortunately kids have a lways been affected the most according to their age. As a result of divorce, there are many children that have to go through this situation at a very young ageRead MoreThe Effect Of Divorce On Children847 Words   |  4 Pagesbecome more unmanageable. According to Sirvanli-Ozen, recent studies confirm that the impacts of divorce on children are not restricted to the childhood period but are manifest during adolescence and adulthood as well. Many studies on the subject show that children who have experienced parent divorce have a lower degree of psychological accord and lower socioeconomic status in their adulthood (Amato Keith, 1991b; Biblarz Raftrey, 1993; Ross Mirowsky, 1999; Amato, 1996) and have more problemsRead MoreEffect Of Divorce On Children1207 Words   |  5 Pagesmarriages that end in divorce has been steadily increasing. When a marriage ends children are impacted and it’s not only emotional and devastating the couples but this also has a huge effect on the children of all ages involved. Many parents go thro ugh a divorce disaster with little knowledge of the effects that the children may go through. Some of the most common impacts that divorce has on children include the fact that children tend to start to blame themselves for the divorce, adjusting in areas

A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism Free Essays

string(209) " of the mugger and the unjust state, they suffer only in their reputation, losing the respect or fear and subsequent power they might have otherwise enjoyed, yet which, for their failure, they do not deserve\." A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism by Forrest Cameranesi In this essay I will present a summary and critique of Plato’s dialogue Crito, focusing especially on Socrates’ arguments in favor of his obligatory obedience to the Athenian state’s death sentence. In response I will argue the position that no one naturally holds any obligation to obey the arbitrary commands of another (or any body of others such as a state), and further that no one can come to hold such obligations even by contract; although people may still be obligated to obey commands issued to them, when what is commanded is obligatory independent of it being commanded by anyone. Thus I will argue that that if, as both Socrates and Crito presume, the command that Socrates be executed is contrary to true justice (that is, contrary to any natural moral obligations, independent of its legality), then Socrates has no obligation to obey it; and in fact those tasked to carry out the order are morally obligated to disobey it, and by their obedience become conspirators to a moral crime. We will write a custom essay sample on A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism or any similar topic only for you Order Now The dialogue begins with Socrates in prison, awakening to Crito’s presence in his cell, Crito having bribed the guards to gain entry. After brief pleasantries and some talk of when the day of Socrates’ execution will fall, Crito admits to Socrates that his purpose there is to free him from prison and take him abroad to Thessaly, which he assures him can be successfully done thanks to the aid of a number of foreign benefactors. But Socrates is hesitant to leave, believing himself obliged to remain and allow his punishment to be completed, even though his sentence, they both concede, is unjust. Still, Socrates is eager to be convinced otherwise, if Crito can do so by means of reason, and so Crito plies Socrates with many arguments in favor of his escape, arguing not only that it is possible and desirable to escape, and that Socrates could live well outside of Athens, but that it is the just thing to do: for the sake of the welfare of his children, who will suffer without his care; for the sake of standing fast against his enemies in the state of Athens, who are attempting to wrong him by this sentence; and for the sake of his friends’ reputations, which will be besmirched by those who know either Socrates nor his friends, and will think that Socrates died only because his friends could not or would not buy his freedom. But Socrates dismisses these arguments, especially the last, arguing at length that the opinions of the many are not a relevant consideration in any such decision; a very important argument, to which I will return later in this essay. For now the relev ant point is that Socrates’ only concern, in the question of whether or not to escape, is whether or not escaping is just; not what people at large may think of their decision or what other consequences may follow from it. On the topic of justice, and counter to Crito’s argument that Socrates is obliged to fight back against wrongs committed against him, Socrates suggests (and Crito accepts) the principle that to return harm for harm is harmful, to return evil for evil is evil, to return injustice for injustice is unjust, etc. ; and thus that such vengeance ought not be perpetrated, for it is just as harmful, evil and unjust as the act being avenged, and one must never do such wrongs. Socrates considers it harmful and unjust to the state to disobey its laws, and feels thus obligated to obey them instead, for to do otherwise would be harmful, unjust, and wrong; and here I disagree with Socrates. Though I accept his principle of justice, that one must not return wrongs in kind for to do so is merely to do more wrong, I do not believe that merely resisting attempted harm to oneself necessarily harms the attacker; and even if the attacker does suffer harm from the resistance it is as a result of his own wrongdoing, not any wrongdoing on the part of the defendant. If someone attempts to strike at me, I step out of his way, and he falls on his face as a consequence, I have not harmed him, although he has come to harm. If he attempts to strike at me, I hold up a shield, and he injures his fist upon it, I have not harmed him, although he has come to harm. Somewhat more analogously to the case at hand, â€Å"harm† may come to a street gang initiate whose initiation task is to mug me, inasmuch as he loses his status within the gang (and perhaps the gang itself loses status in the community), should I evade him and escape; but certainly I did not do that harm, though it was a consequence of my actions. Likewise, â€Å"harm† may come to the state as a consequence of successful disobedience against it, inasmuch as its power and thus its authority will be less respected, but this is not the same as the disobedient one directly harming the state, say in the way a foreign conqueror would. None of these situations involve doing anything directly to harm the aggressor, but rather only the consequences of the aggressor’s own actions failing. Thus, such resistance is not prohibited by the principle that one ought never do harm, for one is not doing harm merely by evading harm, even if harm indirectly results as a consequence of such evasion. Certainly we would not say that it is obligatory to allow oneself to be assaulted or robbed, even if we say that to retaliate in kind is forbidden. In all these circumstances, the aggressors are being harmed as a consequence of their own actions; and in the latter two cases, of the mugger and the unjust state, they suffer only in their reputation, losing the respect or fear and subsequent power they might have otherwise enjoyed, yet which, for their failure, they do not deserve. You read "A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism" in category "Essay examples" In my third example, as in the case before Socrates and Crito, the only loss suffered is a loss of reputation and the power that reputation often entails. This connection between reputation and power is an important facet of my argument, for it is self-evident to me that the only significant power the state itself has is its reputation, the respect and obedience that people give to it; with no obedient subjects to enforce its laws over those who are not so obedient, or with insufficient portions of the populace willing to tolerate such enforcement, the state would have no power. In fact I argue that in such a case the state would not exist; and really, that no states ever truly exist, in any strict sense. There are merely masses of people, with an assortment of opinions on what is good, bad, morally neutral, permissible, impermissible, and obligatory; all of whom exert whatever influence they can manage, by whatever means they find best, to see that their opinions on such matters are enforced — that justice, as they understand it, prevails. And when some person or block of people manages to secure sufficiently unchallenged influence ver the behavior of the other people in an area (that is, when sufficient people act to enforce one code of behavior and a sufficient portion of the remainder tolerate them), we falsely attribute the existence of some sort of social entity above and beyond the collection of individual people, and call that entity the â€Å"state†. But even a monarch only has his power because enough people believe in and support the monarchy, and enough of the remainder tolerate it; as has been demonstrated wherever a monarchy was overthrown from within by a democratic revolution. It is important to note, however, that this does not mean that democracy entails legitimacy; it only means that all states are on some deep level democratic, differing only in the degree that the people delegate their power to other people, in effect casting their vote as â€Å"whatever he says. † The prevailing opinions may still be entirely wrong; I merely claim that it will nearly always be the majority opinion which prevails. I say â€Å"nearly† because this phenomenon is dependent upon the relatively small differences in true personal power between most individuals, which are quickly diluted in larger groups, but still present in sufficiently small groups. A knight may be stronger and more skilled than any peasant, but it does not take many fed-up peasants working together to counter the power of that knight, so as the size of the group the knight is a part of grows, his relative power over the whole group decreases rapidly, unless it is bolstered by the support or at least tolerance of other members of the group. Thus for groups of any significant size, the differences in personal power between individuals can be safely ignored, and so the determining factor is not who supports a position but how many support it). The opinions of the people who encompass the legislature of this â€Å"state† — be it one person as in an absolute monarchy, some minority in an oligarchy, or the majority in a direct democracy — then become â€Å"the law†. Those things judged by such people as obligatory become required by law; those things judged as forbidden become prohibited by law; and those things judged as permissible are allowed by the law. But in any form of government, especially in a direct democracy such as ancient Athens, the laws of men are nothing but the opinions of men backed by power, that power resting ultimately in the will of the majority; the only differences between government thus being the degree and structure of power delegation, and what the opinions of those delegates are. With it thus established that states are no more than masses of people and their laws no more than the opinions of said people backed by power, not only do I object to Socrates’ insistence that he must be obedient to the state’s death sentence, but it is plainly obvious to me that Socrates himself ought to conclude this, if he was to be consistent with his own earlier position that the opinions of men, as such, are irrelevant, no matter what power they may be backed by. But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? † says Socrates. â€Å"Good men †¦ are the only persons who are worth considering†. Crito eventually concedes this point, agreeing that the opinions of the many are irrelevant; only the opinions of good men matter. But what is it that makes a man good? Is that not part of what is at question here: which sorts of acts are right and which are wrong, which are just or unjust? (A good man, I take it, being one who acts ri ghtly or justly). Certainly being good cannot be merely being seen as good in the eyes of the many, or supporting the commands of the many, for then the opinions of the many and the opinions of good men could never conflict, as good men by definition would always be of the opinion that the majority is right; and Socrates’ statements differentiating their opinions would make no sense. So Socrates must agree that goodness is something objective, independent of the opinions of the many. Yet in the dialogue, after Socrates and Crito discuss at some length their agreement to disregard the opinions of the many in considering what ought or ought not be done, and to consider only what is or is not just, Socrates proclaims â€Å"From these premises I proceed to argue the question whether I ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent of the Athenians†. But from where does this concern for the consent of the Athenians come, when we have just disregarded the opinions of the many (in this case the many of Athens); for what is consent if not simply the opinion that something ought to be permitted? Socrates answers, in the voice of the Laws of Athens (speaking to him): â€Å"You, Socrates, are breaking the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception, but having had seventy years to think of them, during which time you were at liberty to leave the city, if we were not to your mind, or if our covenants appeared to you to be unfair. In short, Socrates is concerned with his obedience to the people of Athens (or at least the government collectively representing them) because he feels he has implicitly agreed to be bound by the decisions of the Athenian government by remaining in the city. But in response I argue that no one can, by any contract implicit or explicit, alter the natural moral obligations which are binding on all men at all times. The most exemplary and broadly agreeable instantiation of this principle is that one cannot sell oneself into slavery, for all men have natural rights (which is to say, obligations naturally owed to them by others) which they cannot give up even if they so choose. For instance, if we grant that all are naturally obliged to refrain from striking me except in such instances as I consent to them doing so, then while I may vary whether or not I consent to be struck, and thus vary whether or not it is morally permissible to strike me at that moment, I cannot vary whether or not it is morally permissible to strike me contrary to my consent, for it is naturally obligatory that none do so. That is, I cannot, in a morally binding way, agree that â€Å"henceforth so-and-so may strike me as he pleases regardless of my consent at that moment†. Any such contract offering terms contrary to natural obligations is invalid; and thus contracts of slavery, whereby one waives all of ones natural rights (which is to say, all obligations naturally owed to oneself by others), are the epitome of invalid contracts. This relates to the situation at hand with Socrates and Crito in that a contract to obey the arbitrary commands of some entity (e. g. the state of Athens), provided only that they are issued forth in prescribed proper manner (e. . by the formal proceedings of the Athenian court) and otherwise irrespective of the contents of those commands, seems to me no different than a contract to slavery, with the entity in question (the state) as the slave master; for what is slavery but complete subjugation to the arbitrary will of another? Socrates himself admits this similarity, saying (once again in the voice of the Laws, speaking to himself) â€Å"can you deny in the first place that you are our child and slave? Yet Socrates has a reply here as well, already quoted above: he has had many years in which he was free to leave the city if he did not wish to be bound by its laws, and by remaining he has implicitly agreed to be bound by them. Certainly a man cannot be a slave if he is free to leave his bonds at any time. But I respond that even such â€Å"voluntary† bonds are contractually invalid, for remaining on the lands of another still does not make one subject to the arbitrary will of the landowner. The only obligation owed to the owner of some property, as such, is to refrain from acting upon his property contrary to his consent. Likewise the only punishment the property owner may apply simply for disobeying his commands (but not violating any natural obligations, e. g. harming someone or their property, which may warrant further punishment) is to refuse him the use of his property; in the case of land, ejecting him from the premises. By voluntarily entering and remaining in my home, my guests do not become subject to my arbitrary authority, to be enforced as I see fit; at most I have the authority to eject them from my home, if I grow tired of their presence there. Nor by voluntarily entering a corporate office do I become subject to the authority of the corporation, beyond the revocability of my permission to remain therein. Likewise, even if we grant that the city of Athens is the property of the state of Athens (i. e. of its people collectively, rather than parcelled out into individually owned plots), the greatest punishment morally justified simply for behaving in ways the state dislikes (but not in any way which is truly unjust) is banishment from the city. Thus, while the state may have the moral authority to forbid and punish legitimate injustices (which I agree it does, though no more so than any individual), it does not have the moral authority to enforce its arbitrary will upon those who reside within its borders; it merely has the authority to eject them from its lands if it chooses to do so, for which it needs no cause at all, if it is indeed the legitimate owner of those lands. Thus if Socrates truly believes that he has done nothing unjust, then he should not (if accepts my principle regarding contracts and natural obligations) feel subject to the punishment decreed for him, though he may concede the state’s authority to banish him, if he holds the state to be the legitimate owner of the city. I would further question whether it is right to presume that a state is the legitimate owner of its territory (rather than each citizen owning their own portion in private, as well as some public portions in common), and thus whether it even has the authority to banish the disobedient; but that is another lengthy topic, for which I do not have room in this essay. In conclusion, I see no reason for Socrates to consider the will of the people of Athens (as channeled via their government) binding pon him; and I believe he should seek an answer to the question at hand, whether or not to escape from his punishment, solely by asking whether he has done anything to warrant that punishment — and it appears that he believes he has not. There is no guarantee that his opinion on this matter is correct; the state of Athens may in fact be correct, and thus Socrtes’ punishment just. But to defer to the public opinion over one’s best judgment is never epistemologically sound. Men of reason do not turn to authority, even democratic authority, to answer questions of biology or chemistry or physics, but instead we appeal to evidence and sound logical arguments to determine the answers; and I see no reason why questions of ethics should be subject to any less rigorous and independent methodologies. By denying that any person, text, or institution has any special epistemic or alethic authority (the ability to magically divine or reveal the truth, or to create it by fiat), we do not deny the existence of objective truth. Nor by denying that any king, law book, or legislature has any special deontic authority (the ability to magically divine or reveal our obligations, or to create them by fiat) do we deny that there are objective standards of justice. In both cases we merely concede that we are all in the same standing regarding truth or justice, respectively; and we leave it to each individual to seek it for themselves, to sway others with arguments where they can, and to act upon it as they deem necessary or appropriate, regardless of decrees or prior agreements to the contrary. How to cite A Critique of the Crito and an Argument for Philosophical Anarchism, Essay examples

Online Therapy free essay sample

Little by little the internet and technology are expanding to incorporate more aspects of our daily lives. The expansion is so vast, one can now do Just about anything online. On line advances has no doubt positively contributed to businesses, education, communication, and quality of life in general, but when does one draw the line? Healthcare is a very serious subject because it deals with peoples lives and well being. Potential problems that may arise from it are not monetary, like those involved with losing a Job or failing a school course, but deal with lives and peoples weakest and perhaps most uncontrollable side of life. Psychological disorders usually arise from events and sources not under the control of patients. Unlike purchasing the wrong stock at the wrong time or having an unsuccessful online business presentation, depression, addiction, phobias, and other psychological disorders are delicate matters that are not a result of bad decision making, however, much like every service the internet offers us, cyber psychology does have its advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages and Solutions: The first glaring disadvantage is the loss of essential elements with the lack of face to face interactions. The fact that psychology is the study of behavior, it is imperative for a therapist to get a grasp on the patients complete behavior, which includes, but is not limited to, facial movements and body movements, tone of voice, posture, and appearance. To fully understand a client, a therapist must be able to be privvy to this side of the individuals personality to accurately diagnose and ultimately heal a problem or disorder. One way to solve this disadvantage could be for the therapist to request an initial face-to-face assessment that can then be followed by online treatments of various sorts. This enhances the screening process and leaves no room for misinterpretation or misdiagnosis that can arise from lack of personal interaction. Also, for cases or procedures involving video conferencing and webcam interactions, it is crutial for websites to continue to improve the video quality to avoid missing any words or movements that may be crucial to analyzing behaviors. Maybe once video conferencing is perfected, it will increase the validity of such therapeutic media and allow it to replace the need for an initial in person interaction. A second concern involved with web therapy is security. We are surrounded by warning signs oncerning various web securities, including scams, hacks, and phishing sites. In the past, we have seen many cases serious enough to make it to the news to increase awareness and warn people of the seriousness of certain situations. It is almost possible for hackers to invade most sites and this compromises the privacy of patients personal and diagnostic information. Also, confirming the validity of particular sites may be hard on some people since scam sites go into extreme measures to mimic credible sites. The fact that most on-line therapies require payment in advance, may seem tempting for people who make a living from online camming. Another potential leak in privacy may unintentionally arise from the clients themselves; the use of public computers or implying improper security features and practices to ones personal computer. To counteract security problems, websites are constantly working on maintain security and privacy. It is important for releasing financial or personal and emotional information. Psychologists are required to practice therapy in state(s) of which they are licensed for practice. Cyber therapy offers ways to go around that law. A patient, for example, may claim different residence to receive treatment from a particular therapist of agency. Also, since the world wide web spreads, well, worldwide, theres a chance that some of the sites are run internationally and this may give rise to cultural disconnect problems from misunderstanding situations, actions, and settings. Proper monitoring should be implemented on cyber therapy websites to avoid such breaches and complications. Advantages of Online Therapy: There are several advantages associates with online therapy. Time is something that seems to be becoming more scarce and harder to manage. Finding a service that can be molded around ones schedule, convenience, or from the privacy of ones ome is important to many people in todays fast paced way of life. Online therapy also offers a geographic advantage for people living in rural areas or people with transportation limitations. In addition, people with physical disabilities may now have an easier method of behavior therapy that does not interfere with their health issues. Finally, a very crucial advantage is financial. Online therapy makes it cheaper and thus easier to receive mental health therapy. Because of the lack of an office or facilities, transportation expenses, and the availability of different program levels to hoose from, therapy became an attainable thing and a cry for help that was heard by cyber space. The options of sending an email or having a telephone therapy session gives many benefits with the elimination of extended time charges and various office visit associated expenses. Websites Offering Online Therapy: The Online Therapy Institute is a website designated primarily for therapist seeking to introduce online therapy as an option to their practice. It offers intensive information about how to set up an online therapy site and what the rules and regulations are and general guidelines to follow to provide proper therapeutic echniques. It also assists therapists in the initial stages and provides a reference for any upcoming issues. E-Therapists Online provides services for patients seeking online therapy via e- mail, private chats, and phone counseling. It provides clear instructions on how to begin therapy and also price guideline. Payment is due prior to therapy. For example, an e-mail session costs $39. 95 and 4 e-mail sessions cost $149. 00. Telephone or chats cost $95. 00 for 60 minutes and $623. 00 for 7 60 minute chats or calls. Headworks is another website similar to e-therapists online. In addition to the ervices that e-therapists online provides, they offer free self-help information and customized services. Conclusion: Online therapy definitely has its advantages, but it should also be handled carefully. Not all cases of mental health should be able to be treated via cyber psychotherapy because some are much more complicated and need in person therapy. Once this service is solidified, this service will be more ideal for people who are in need of minor therapy, interaction with people, behavioral help, and guidelines in life but are unable to do face-to-face therapy for geographical or financial constrains.