Author Topic: Has anybody been to Daytop lately?  (Read 15373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2005, 04:30:00 PM »
What is said in treatment should be confidential -- including murder.  It is wrong to cover the kid's ass to protect Daytop's money, but you shouldn't have said anything.  By doing so, you're a snitch, nothing more.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2005, 05:04:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-08-15 13:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

"What is said in treatment should be confidential -- including murder.  It is wrong to cover the kid's ass to protect Daytop's money, but you shouldn't have said anything.  By doing so, you're a snitch, nothing more."

um, it's against the law not to report it.  you can get in serious trouble.  what if he hurt another kid?  then what?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2005, 08:32:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-08-15 13:30:00, Anonymous wrote:

"What is said in treatment should be confidential -- including murder.  It is wrong to cover the kid's ass to protect Daytop's money, but you shouldn't have said anything.  By doing so, you're a snitch, nothing more."

That's just plain stupid.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #18 on: August 24, 2005, 01:24:00 PM »
Actually its not against the law. The Federal Confidentiality Law specifically states that the only mandated reporting a substance abuse counselor has to make has to do with child abuse. Although many states have enacted laws that mandate counselors to report other things, federal law always comes first and the counselor must abide by it. The law was enacted because lets face it, drug addicts are criminals and would have never sought treatment if they knew that any info they shared about crimes they committed would be used against them while in treatment. You don't have to agree with the law but you must abide by it. As far as a question of ethics, if knowing you would be working with criminals bothers a person so much then that person has no business working in the substance abuse field period.

For more than a hundred years much complaint has been made of the unmethodical way in which schools are conducted...with what result?  Schools remain exactly as they were.
--Comenius,1632

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #19 on: August 24, 2005, 01:52:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-08-24 10:24:00, odie wrote:

"Actually its not against the law. The Federal Confidentiality Law specifically states that the only mandated reporting a substance abuse counselor has to make has to do with child abuse. Although many states have enacted laws that mandate counselors to report other things, federal law always comes first and the counselor must abide by it. The law was enacted because lets face it, drug addicts are criminals and would have never sought treatment if they knew that any info they shared about crimes they committed would be used against them while in treatment. You don't have to agree with the law but you must abide by it. As far as a question of ethics, if knowing you would be working with criminals bothers a person so much then that person has no business working in the substance abuse field period.

For more than a hundred years much complaint has been made of the unmethodical way in which schools are conducted...with what result?  Schools remain exactly as they were.
--Comenius,1632

"

Well, I guess I will just say that your "research" is flawed.

Are you saying that if a state has specific laws regarding the reporting of these events that federal law supercedes them and therefore the state laws can be disregarded?  If that's what you're saying, you are 100% dead wrong.  Maybe the wording of your post doesn't convey what you meant, but if it does, you are out in left field.

Not only is it legally required in New York to report this crime, it is also ethically required to prevent harm to other individuals with whom the dangerous person (in this case murderer) may have contact.

It is also a legal fact that murder confessions in counseling sessions are not protected by any privilege.  An example:

"...disclosure of psychotherapy notes is not protected, he stressed. For example, if a patient makes a threat against a third party during a psychotherapy session, the psychotherapist is permitted, and in some states required, to disclose the threat.  
For example, Willick filed an amicus brief on behalf of the California Psychiatric Association to protect the confidentiality of psychotherapy sessions in the high-profile murder case of Lyle and Eric Menendez, who confessed during a session with a psychologist to shooting and killing their parents. He explained that in two other counseling sessions the brothers threatened their therapist with violence if he disclosed the confession.  

The Menendez brothers were convicted in large part due to this testimony."

So, as you can clearly see, not only are the confessions to already committed crimes required to be reported, even the THREAT to injure another must also be reported.

Aside from this, everyone knows that the law isn't written to cover all contingencies.  Common sense and risk assessment should always be used when dealing with these matters.

Just for your edification, child abuse is only required to be reported if the child is in immediate danger.  Otherwise it is not required and most professionals would not report past acts if there weren't imminent danger to the child presently.

Are you a therapist (MA, MSW, PhD or MD)?  Or are you a "drug counselor"?  If you're still in the business, I'd suggest you read up or ask questions before you end up on the business end of a civil suit for negligence involving a crime.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164661
  • Karma: +3/-3
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2005, 10:49:00 AM »
The California case in which you refer to does not have anything to do with a substance abuse treatment setting. You must read the federal code first before you say I am in left field. If you have any other questions just ask...BTW anyone breaking someones confidentiality in a substance abuse program other than in a child abuse report is subject to being charged with a Federal Crime. And Yes, the law does supersede any state laws. READ IT!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2005, 10:57:00 AM »
I DID read it.  Apparently, you did not.  Wherever there are two standards, i.e. state and federal, the more stringent of the two needs to be followed.

Go back and read again, for comprehension this time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2005, 11:14:00 AM »
ONLY programs that fall under the "federal umbrella" must adhere to the federal law.  These include ONLY programs that receive federal money.  It does not apply to state facilities or private facilities.

You seem to have missed the "exceptions" part of the law (IF it even applies to the facility).

Certain exceptions allow providers
to share information with law enforcement without the patient?s written
consent. Providers may disclose
drug or alcohol treatment
records to law enforcement if the
provider determines any of the following
three conditions are met:

1) the patient?s situation poses a
substantial threat to the life
or physical well-being of themselves or another;

2) this threat may be reduced
by communicating relevant
facts;

3) the patient lacks the capacity
because of extreme youth or
a mental or physical condition
to make a rational decision

Before you say anything ignorant, go back and read #1 again.

Read, comprehend, THEN argue.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2005, 11:17:00 AM »
Yes, and the stringent refers to the clients rights, not the social worker or psychologist' s moral or ethical dilemma. 42CFR Part Six was enacted because the Government realized that drug addicts weren't seeking treatment because of the fear that if they talked about crimes they commited they could be prosecuted. I pray that you are no longer working in the field of substance abuse treatment because you are a reason why addicts never sought treatment in the first place. If you think you are so correct on this point, just notify the feds what you did. I'm sure they will be glad to let you know how much the fine is for the first offense. Then maybe you will realize why the law is in place.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2005, 11:19:00 AM »
non profits fall under the federal umbrella...they have tax exempt status therefore are federally subsidized.

To go to Journal of Applied Polymer Science go to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com and then journal search and put the journal number and year
-- Journal of Applied Polymer Science  Vol. 47, 1984

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline Antigen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12992
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://wwf.Fornits.com/
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2005, 11:30:00 AM »
Odie, instead of using bogus rehab as a cover for real crimes, wouldn't it be better to repeal laws against statutory crimes like substance use, acquisition and distribution? And wouldn't it be great if we had a defacto substance abuse treatment method that was based in science instead of newage religious belief?

I honestly think that's most of the problem. Program believers think they've got this God in a bottle cure for litterally anything. A true believer will not turn someone in for murder or rape when they're working their program? They actually buy into the idea that the Program will cure anything.

For something that has spread with all the forethought of kudzu, the Internet isn't half bad."
-- Newsweek, 2/27/95

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
"Don\'t let the past remind us of what we are not now."
~ Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Sweet Judy Blue Eyes

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2005, 11:35:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-08-25 08:17:00, odie wrote:

"Yes, and the stringent refers to the clients rights, not the social worker or psychologist' s moral or ethical dilemma. 42CFR Part Six was enacted because the Government realized that drug addicts weren't seeking treatment because of the fear that if they talked about crimes they commited they could be prosecuted. I pray that you are no longer working in the field of substance abuse treatment because you are a reason why addicts never sought treatment in the first place. If you think you are so correct on this point, just notify the feds what you did. I'm sure they will be glad to let you know how much the fine is for the first offense. Then maybe you will realize why the law is in place.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]

"

This is an exerpt directly from the statute you keep "quoting."

"(d) Criteria. A court may authorize
the disclosure and use of patient
records for the purpose of conducting a
criminal investigation or prosecution
of a patient only if the court finds that
all of the following criteria are met:
(1) The crime involved is extremely
serious, such as one which causes or directly
threatens loss of life or serious
bodily injury including homicide, rape,
kidnapping, armed robbery, assault
with a deadly weapon, and child abuse
and neglect.
(2) There is a reasonable likelihood
that the records will disclose information
of substantial value in the investigation
or prosecution.
(3) Other ways of obtaining the information
are not available or would not
be effective.
(4) The potential injury to the patient,
to the physician-patient relationship
and to the ability of the program
to provide services to other patients
is outweighed by the public interest
and the need for the disclosure."

How much clearer can that be?  Can you NOT read?

If you're having literacy issues, then I'm just wasting my time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2005, 11:38:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-08-25 08:17:00, odie wrote:

"Yes, and the stringent refers to the clients rights, not the social worker or psychologist' s moral or ethical dilemma. 42CFR Part Six was enacted because the Government realized that drug addicts weren't seeking treatment because of the fear that if they talked about crimes they commited they could be prosecuted. I pray that you are no longer working in the field of substance abuse treatment because you are a reason why addicts never sought treatment in the first place. If you think you are so correct on this point, just notify the feds what you did. I'm sure they will be glad to let you know how much the fine is for the first offense. Then maybe you will realize why the law is in place.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]

"

This is an exerpt directly from the statute you keep "quoting."

"(d) Criteria. A court may authorize
the disclosure and use of patient
records for the purpose of conducting a
criminal investigation or prosecution
of a patient only if the court finds that
all of the following criteria are met:
(1) The crime involved is extremely
serious, such as one which causes or directly
threatens loss of life or serious
bodily injury including homicide, rape,
kidnapping, armed robbery, assault
with a deadly weapon, and child abuse
and neglect.
(2) There is a reasonable likelihood
that the records will disclose information
of substantial value in the investigation
or prosecution.
(3) Other ways of obtaining the information
are not available or would not
be effective.
(4) The potential injury to the patient,
to the physician-patient relationship
and to the ability of the program
to provide services to other patients
is outweighed by the public interest
and the need for the disclosure."

How much clearer can that be? Can you NOT read?

If you're having literacy issues, then I'm just wasting my time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2005, 05:39:00 PM »
I strongly oppose any legalization of the use, distribution, or aquisition mainly based on the experiences that countries in Europe had when they tried it as a solution to their problem. As far as scientifically based treament, I'd say the programs using cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational enhancement therapy bear the most productive results. Of course there are far too many programs stuck in the past that for whatever reason refuse to look at recent scientific research because they think their way is the only way and because it worked for them it must work for everyone else. Of course in a perfect world where everyone was identical this may be true, but it isn't a perfect world and we have to deal with each person based on their strengths and begin there when trying to have them modify their behaviors.

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
--Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die

Offline odie

  • Posts: 179
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2005, 05:51:00 PM »
As far as continuing this debate, it looks like I'm dealing with someone who only wants to look at what they want to in the law and posting excerpts from it here. If anyone wants to take a look at the law for themselves go to Coded Federal Regulations and look at Section 42 Part 6. Like I said before, the case in California that this person claims to set precedent had nothing to do with Substance Abuse or a client in either a Substance Abuse program or receiving Substance Abuse Counseling. Those are the facts, plain and simple.

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek"

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
die