Author Topic: Has anybody been to Daytop lately?  (Read 15372 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2005, 07:51:00 PM »
what it really looks like is that you don't know what you're talking about.  it's pretty clear what the law says and what you're saying isn't it.

at least the other side of the argument is coherent and has facts to support it, right from the document you claim to understand, but clearly don't.

are you sure you work in this field?
« 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 #31 on: August 26, 2005, 08:23:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-08-25 14:51:00, odie wrote:

"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"

"

You seem to think that this law throws a blanket over all situations.  It clearly, explicitly, does not.

It is a bit tedious holding up both ends of a "debate," but since you seem unable to actually argue your "side" of it, I'll help you to ask the questions you should have asked in the very beginning so that you could have had firm ground from which to launch any counterpoints.

Q:"Was the patient mandated by probation, parole, or the court to be in treatment?"

A:"Yes, he was mandated by the court."

Q:"When a patient is mandated into treatment, is there SOP that differs from someone seeking  treatment voluntarily?"

A:"Yes, there is.  Patients mandated by the court or other agency such as probation or parole are required to waive confidentiality for the duration of their treatment so that the court or other agency may review their records."

So maybe next time, rather than assuming baseline information, such as legal status of a patient, you should ask the pertinent questions before making an ignorant argument and obtuse, off-base conclusions.

I'm also wondering how you can be of service to clients when you are evidently rigid and unable to adapt your thinking to changing, fluid situations.  You seem to be more dogmatic than thoughtful.

Can I ask you again, do you have any sort of degree, formal education, or license to practice therapy?  Are you a former "resident" of a program who has become a staff member and whose training and education consist of completing the program and watching a video and reviewing handouts on confidentiality law?

You certainly seem to lack the critical thought process necessary to perform in the therapy business.
« 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 #32 on: August 26, 2005, 09:38:00 AM »
I take it choose to put yourself above anyone that might be a former resident of a program that may now be a counselor so I really shouldn't bother with a mindless twit like yourself but I am a licensed counselor and was a resident of one of those programs many years ago. I don't have a college degree but probably have more knowledge on the subject of substance abuse and ethics than most that do. You can keep ranting about how right you are but I'd be interested to know if you really did turn someone in that was in treatment, what hearings did you have to go through before the judge issued an order to release the records?

Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?
--Arthur C. Clarke, author

« 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 #33 on: August 26, 2005, 10:13:00 AM »
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected.  

Again, show some initiative and read first before asking frivolous questions.  Patients mandated into treatment have no confidentiality shield from the court.
« 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 #34 on: August 26, 2005, 10:44:00 AM »
Quote
On 2005-08-25 14:51:00, odie wrote:

"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"

"

Just one more correction that you may have missed in your bristling vigilance over federal regulations:  The document you are telling people to read, CFR "Section" (actually "Title")42 part 6, has nothing whatsoever to do with patient confidentiality.  

If you were to check your "facts" before posting, you'd see the the document title is "TITLE 42, PART 6?FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT COVERAGE OF CERTAIN GRANTEES AND INDIVIDUALS."

I think the document you may want to familiarize yourself and your readers with is Title 42, Part 2-"CONFIDENTIALITY OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE PATIENT RECORDS."

So, you claim to know "more" than most, do you?  

Not only do you not know more than most, you don't even have a clue as to the content of the documents to which you refer readers who want to "take a look at the law themselves."

If you're going to try to educate a reader, you could at least have the common courtesy of pointing them in the right direction.

And I'm a "twit," huh?  If I'm a "twit," you are surely "developmentally disabled."  You're about as sharp as a marble, buddy.
« 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 #35 on: August 26, 2005, 12:52:00 PM »
How can I put this gently? You are the most arrogant mindless twit I've met in a very long time. If you want to continue this debate just email me and stop making yourself look more and more like an asshole on this site.

No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober
--Samuel Stiles

« 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 #36 on: August 26, 2005, 02:17:00 PM »
Quote
On 2005-08-26 09:52:00, odie wrote:

"How can I put this gently? You are the most arrogant mindless twit I've met in a very long time. If you want to continue this debate just email me and stop making yourself look more and more like an asshole on this site.

No laws, however stringent, can make the idle industrious, the thriftless provident, or the drunken sober
--Samuel Stiles

"

That's called "projection."

There really is no debate.  You don't even know the source documents that you cite in your so-called argument.  You didn't even name the correct statute, much less show an iota of understanding of its content.

Why are you calling me a "mindless twit" when you have been self-revealed to be, let's say, "less than knowledgeable" on a subject in which you claim expertise?

Come on, man, for God's sake, you don't really know anything about this.  You want to appear knowledgeable by "quoting" laws, but you don't even quote the right ones, and you don't understand the application of them anyway.

Who really looks like an "asshole"?  Someone who logically presents facts, refutes your argument by showing the correct information, points out your errors in citing sources, or the someone who cannot construct a logical argument, cites the wrong sources entirely (or were we actually talking about tort law and not confidentiality?), has no education and has never been a therapist, but, when confronted with his glaring mistakes, resorts to name calling?

I think I'll take my chances right here in public.  I'm fine with that.

Why are you calling me names instead of just admitting you cited the wrong information in a rush to try to make me look foolish?  Your arrogance and one-upmanship reveal your true nature.  

Really, all you have succeeded in accomplishing is debasing yourself and providing irrefutable evidence that have not a shred of understanding about that which you portray yourself an expert.

Facts are stubborn things.  Cite your sources properly, construct a logical argument and don't resort to name calling simply because you are proven to be inaccurate.

Your behavior is typical of most "programmies."  

You try to make a point, show your woeful inadequacy, shift the focus, and, as a last resort, engage in base affrontery and subsequently withdraw.  

You're just a prototypical program "bot."

I thought "programs" taught one how to be introspective, recognize shortcomings, learn from mistakes and so forth. This is just more empirical evidence thet they don't work, or at least didn't work for you.

Good day.
« 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 Nonconformistlaw

  • Posts: 789
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • http://survivingstraightinc.com
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2005, 02:19:00 PM »
Hey I just wanted to throw out a few things, even though I am not part of this debate...which, if you know my background...then you know why I am interested and have attempted to keep an eye on it....

Anyway, I noticed the incorrect citation to 42 CRF 6 myself when I looked it up on Westlaw..thanks for clarifying...I wanted to read the correct federal statute to get a better understanding of this debate.

I have one question for DJ....was your analysis for the NY state law or the federal law, or both? Forgive me, but since I've been really busy this week, I haven't read the thread as carefully as I usually would have....Oh, and do you have a citation for the relevant NY statute?

BTW, DJ I am impressed with your approach to statutory interpretation....

Oh, and..reading case law interpreting both federal and state law on the same question is just as important as reading and understanding the statutes themselves....

I hope you guys continue the debate here...I'm fascinated! ::rainbow::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
quot;In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.\" George Orwell

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2005, 03:48:00 PM »
NCL,

Here is the NYS Statute authorizing release of the information:

MHL 33.13(c)(9)(ii) With consent of appropriate Commissioner, patient information may be disclosed to persons and agencies needing information to locate missing persons or to governmental agencies in connection with criminal investigations.

Here is the HIPAA regulation:

164.512(f)(1),(2): A covered entity may use/disclose PHI for law enforcement purposes, including in response to a law enforcement official's request for such info to identify and locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person, provided that the info disclosed is limited as prescribed.
(P.82815:2,3)

In this case, you can see that the NYS statute is more restrictive and would therefore apply, but clearly authorizes the release of the information.

Here is the State vs Federal vs HIPAA breakdown, as written by NYS:

Fact Dependent: State and Federal laws are generally consistent, provided requestor of PHI fits the definition of "law enforcement official" in HIPAA.

Why I said earlier that the reportage was required by law is because this particular patient was court mandated (confidentiality automatically waived) and the court stipulates mandatory reportage of criminal behavior as part of the conditions of bail/bond or ATI (alternative to incarceration).  Counseling notes are also reviewed by an agent of the court on a regular basis.

Again, I will repeat that it is ethically necessary to report that a murder has been committed, even if the patient is voluntarily in treatment.  This patient was inappropriate for the treatment setting in which he was placed and was a clear and present danger to the welfare of other patients and the community.

NY also has mandatory reporting statutes for child abuse and elder abuse, as well as some for HIV, but I'm not too familiar with those.

Hope that helps to clarify...

Really the focus of the "debate" I've been having with Odie is more academic.  I'm sure Odie is a good person who cares about the people for whom he provides services, but the point is that his argument is poorly constructed and  misinformed and the "facts" he cites have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, as you quickly noticed upon a cursory review.

Furthermore, even though it is crystal clear to both you and I that the source cited by Odie is irrelevent, he resorts to childish behavior rather than simply admitting he made a mistake.

Yes, I do get harsh with people, but generally only when provoked. I have many heated arguments with folks on this site and others that don't result in affrontery, but Odie, as it seems, is not able to recognize what a good argument looks like, but rather tries to ram home a point concluded from false premises.  Not very academic at all...

My point is this:  If you are unable to even cite your source correctly, how can you draw conclusions from it?  Further, how are others who see this mistake labeled as "mindless" when they simply point out the FACTUAL ERROR of the person making the satement?  That's plain ridiculous on its face.
« 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 #39 on: August 26, 2005, 03:53:00 PM »
NCL,

Here is the NYS Statute authorizing release of the information:

MHL 33.13(c)(9)(ii) With consent of appropriate Commissioner, patient information may be disclosed to persons and agencies needing information to locate missing persons or to governmental agencies in connection with criminal investigations.

Here is the HIPAA regulation:

164.512(f)(1),(2): A covered entity may use/disclose PHI for law enforcement purposes, including in response to a law enforcement official's request for such info to identify and locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person, provided that the info disclosed is limited as prescribed.
(P.82815:2,3)

In this case, you can see that the NYS statute is more restrictive and would therefore apply, but clearly authorizes the release of the information.

Here is the State vs Federal vs HIPAA breakdown, as written by NYS:

Fact Dependent: State and Federal laws are generally consistent, provided requestor of PHI fits the definition of "law enforcement official" in HIPAA.

Why I said earlier that the reportage was required by law is because this particular patient was court mandated (confidentiality automatically waived) and the court stipulates mandatory reportage of criminal behavior as part of the conditions of bail/bond or ATI (alternative to incarceration). Counseling notes are also reviewed by an agent of the court on a regular basis.

Again, I will repeat that it is ethically necessary to report that a murder has been committed, even if the patient is voluntarily in treatment. This patient was inappropriate for the treatment setting in which he was placed and was a clear and present danger to the welfare of other patients and the community.

NY also has mandatory reporting statutes for child abuse and elder abuse, as well as some for HIV, but I'm not too familiar with those.

Hope that helps to clarify...

Really the focus of the "debate" I've been having with Odie is more academic. I'm sure Odie is a good person who cares about the people for whom he provides services, but the point is that his argument is poorly constructed and misinformed and the "facts" he cites have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand, as you quickly noticed upon a cursory review.

Furthermore, even though it is crystal clear to both you and I that the source cited by Odie is irrelevent, he resorts to childish behavior rather than simply admitting he made a mistake.

Yes, I do get harsh with people, but generally only when provoked. I have many heated arguments with folks on this site and others that don't result in affrontery, but Odie, as it seems, is not able to recognize what a good argument looks like, but rather tries to ram home a point concluded from false premises. Not very academic at all...

My point is this: If you are unable to even cite your source correctly, how can you draw conclusions from it? Further, how are others who see this mistake labeled as "mindless" when they simply point out the FACTUAL ERROR of the person making the satement? That's plain ridiculous on its face.
« 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 #40 on: August 28, 2005, 11:36:00 AM »
Hel-looo....?  Ooooooooooo-dieeeeeeeeeeeeee....?


Must be busy formulating some other brilliant argument.  Those damned facts must have gotten in the way again...

All joking aside, this is pretty typical of program people.  When the facts are staring them right in the face, they must either admit that they were wrong, or withdraw.  Let's just say, an admission won't be forthcoming.  

I consider withdrawal tacit concession of the point.
« 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 #41 on: August 30, 2005, 02:12:00 PM »
A bot???? LMAO!! So I'm one of the programmed huh. Well I guess you just don't know me. Yes I am a Daytop Graduate but far from being programmed or a bot...lol. I said I wasn't going to debate the subject anymore on here but you declined my invitation. I'll just leave you with a few tidbits about the law ( gee do I know anything about law?....LMAO if you only knew) but anyways. Do you know who were the biggest lobbyists for HIPPA?....The insurance industry...but thats a whole different debate. You keep saying that patients mandated by the courts have no rights. We living under communist rule now? There may be consequences to the patient revoking consent in the case of being a criminal justice client but they have the right to do so . May records be used for criminal investigations or prosecutions? Yes, but only after a lengthy hearing process has taken place. Can the therapist initiate the hearing process? Yes, but its called a John Doe hearing for a reason so good luck and just remember if you initiate it and fails I doubt very much anyone else would ever trust to be your client again. Why I haven't responded sooner? Well I have a life and don't spend my whole day sifting through these posts. I'll be in New York in November, maybe we should have lunch. I'll even let you pay since I'm one of those programmed bots that probably makes measly money...LMAOROTF.

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant

« 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 #42 on: August 30, 2005, 06:06:00 PM »
you never explained why you quoted the wrong title and part of the law.  why did you do that and then not even admit it?
« 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 #43 on: December 12, 2005, 12:24:00 AM »
Hey Dysfunction - re your beef with Anonymous on page 3.  There seems to be a lot of confusing "laws" in America nowadays.  (If the difference depends on what program is funded by which part of government, I hardly think this counts as a law!)

But I was just thinking.  If you were a Catholic PRIEST... you couldn't tell anyone, even if a guy confessed to you to murder.  You couldn't tell anyone - by the rules of your CHURCH - if they said they were GOING to murder someone... which correct me someone if I'm wrong, I think is the only situation in which it is commonly accepted that the "professional confidante", including therapist, has a duty to tell anyone, to prevent the loss of a life.  I think that a Catholic priest might, and I mean *might*, say something in this situation - depending upon his own interpretation of the ethics involved.

It's not surprising to me that the authorities in America are trying to make it mandatory for people to tell on other people in all sorts of situations - it's a snitch society, and has become even more so since the "Homeland Security" act and other farces.

However, I BELIEVE that Catholic priests have been pressed to break the sanctity of the confessional before, in situations such as prisons, and they have always refused to do it.  Just refused, point blank.

And I expect that they are so powerful as a worldwide organisation that no authority would really dare cross them by saying that they *have* to be snitches.

If I heard some shit like that in a "program", anyway, I would never tell.  I simply don't believe in it.  If you DO agree to tell things that people say to authority, you can never have the trust of the people you are trying to treat.


PS.  This poster is not a Catholic, but I am interested in religion!  I like novels with religious characters in them.  (I don't count Miller Newton etc as men of faith, either!!)
« 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 #44 on: December 12, 2005, 09:19:00 AM »
MHL 33.13(c)(9)(ii) With consent of appropriate Commissioner, patient information may be disclosed to persons and agencies needing information to locate missing persons or to governmental agencies in connection with criminal investigations.

This is a NYS LAW, not a "regulation."  The fact that it "hardly seems like a law" to you is materially irrelevent.
________________________________________________
"which correct me someone if I'm wrong, I think is the only situation in which it is commonly accepted that the "professional confidante", including therapist, has a duty to tell anyone, to prevent the loss of a life."

Yes, you're wrong.  Here's the correction: child abuse must be reported.

Your argument comparing a priest to a therapist is deeply, deeply flawed.

Hope that helps.
« 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