You fear the public image of the photographer will be damaged.

That's generally the concern for professional photographers, yes

This has nothing to do with what the client actually gets. It can be done as easily with jpegs as with raw files. On the contrary, if your client is determined in processing the pictures anyway, they may come out better if you provide raws.

The client should be hiring a photog based on that photog's style, artistic vision, capabilities, etc. This is why many photogs do, or at least should, include restrictions of use in their contract.

You can protect your public image via the contract. The rules you put there can include both, raw and jpeg usage.

Sure, you could, if that's something you wanted to allow. Most pro photogs that I know of, locally or nationally, do not allow this. Again, they want their images known for their own artistic values, vision, capability, name recognition, etc. If they condone anyone editing their work, there's a possibility for damage to that brand. No regular client is going to want to edit the raws and then not post them on facebook, instagram, etc. So it's highly unlikely any edits will only be for private use. I mean, sure, there will be fringe cases, but I'm speaking to the general populace where that's simply not the case.

IMHO, excluding any image manipulation by the client will get you extinct faster than any client-manipulated image floating on the internet could. A sane way to go, again IMHO, would be to allow for redistribution and public display of any jpeg you produce and for private use of whatever they come up with. If you're especially generous, you could also allow public use of client-derived content as long as it's clearly stated that it's derived content.

You're welcome to your opinions. But the reality is that many photogs don't do this, especially nationally-recognized ones.