Enemies?

No, sorry, part of the benefit of the doubt concept is to ditch that 'enemy' stuff, ally by default. Obviously people can be an enemy in certain manners where their goals and ideals differ, but that's only a partial enemy in respect to a single dispute. As a whole, despite antagonism over issues, it's good to reach out and try to find what concepts you can agree and ally about.

I'm not talking about reckless benefit of the doubt (trust me, I've had my full of that shit) but rather, subjectively speaking during subjection and discourse. Basically, it's smart to take precautions (which has to be learned the hard way sometimes...) but it's good to stay polite and not totally sequester disagreeers.

I think in regards to choosing to trust a psychiatrist, studying laws related to what they're obligated to do, and obligated to NOT do, would help people to understand the role those professionals can play with them in each state. If they can't be outright honest, I still think it's possible to benefit from treatment through relating yourself to them through analogy.