Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Daytop Village
Has anybody been to Daytop lately?
Troll Control:
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?
Troll Control:
--- 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"
--- End quote ---
"
--- End quote ---
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.
odie:
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
--- End quote ---
Troll Control:
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.
Troll Control:
--- 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"
--- End quote ---
"
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version