Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Daytop Village => Topic started by: girlfriend on April 24, 2005, 12:20:00 AM
-
My boyfriend is there, in adult Daytop. Everything I read about is teens and 10 years ago. What's it like now?
Scoundrels are predictable, but you're a man of honor and that frightens me.
Robert Heinlein, Glory Road.
-
I dunno. Can you talk to him at all? Write letters? Would you know if they were sort of self censored?
The Internet is now safe for free speech.
-- Christopher A. Hansen on the overturning of the Communications Decency Act
-
No, I haven't heard a word in two months. I was told he can't write or call becuz we used to drink together, and they know that. I'm straight now, and wondering what's happening to him.
May your days be joyously challenging and your words artfully true.
--Ginger Warbis
-
Sounds like nothing has changed since I was there 5 years ago. First off who told you that he can't speak to you because you drank together? If you are now sober you should be able to get screened by their staff to be able to communicate with your boyfriend. Have you written to him and not had the letters returned to you unopened? If not then do it so you can know that he is at least there or not. Federal law forbids anyone from interfering with the U.S. Mail. Try to contact his counselor to see how he is doing. Just pray that they afforded him the oppurtunity to sign a release of confidentiality for you to know his status in treatment otherwise you are basically screwed because then they won't and can't even acknowledge that he is there.
All thinking men are atheists.
--Ernest Hemingway, American author
-
Thanks, I appreciate any info I can get. First, I have no way of knowing which Daytop center he is at, only that he is in NY. He called me just before he went into "intake" and said he'd write or call. Nothing. Next, I am not on speaking terms w/his family, they hate me... very long story. I'm not too fond of them either. I am so afraid I'll get him in trouble if I give them my name. I've called and asked, and immediately they want to know my name. I'm afraid I'll get him in trouble from everything I've read... He probably didn't sign a confidientality agreement for me... he was freaked out when I last talked to him, and said he was just going to do what they said until he could get out of there, and get some sort of "certificate" of graduation to keep from going to jail. He is 24yo, in "adult treatment". I have no contacts and I'm wondering if maybe he found another girlfriend in there! Maybe I'm being dumped and I'm just stupied. It's been almost 2 months. I really just want to know if he wanted to, could he get ahold of me or not? Can he get to a phone or write letters? Any input would be more appreciated than you can ever know.
-
Haven't been up to Daytop in a while, but I do see the vans full of druggies going down the parkway a few times a week...
-
You can call their intake facility in Far Rockaway or the family assocation at their main headquarters at 54 W. 40 ST in NYC for information. Between the entry unit and orientation in upstate treatment it should take him about 60-90 days to get writing priveledges.
Don't sweat the
- Petty Things
Don't pet the
- Sweaty Things
Water what you want to grow.
--Curiosity
-
Thank you SO much. That explains a lot.
-
You were right on, Odie. He got phone privilages after 82 days. He said you have to get authorization for just walking. And writing privilages. He said there's people in there getting out of prisons for felonys, murder, rape... bad a**'s. He said he's been just playing it low key, doing what they want. He can't wait to get out... we're gonna take a vacation. I felt so sorry for him, it's like he's doing time, not being "rehabilitated." Whatever that means. He just got into a mess he couldn't get out of w/DUI's, so instead of going to jail, this was the alternative. It's so sad, really. Do these places help? I think they set you straight about making sure when you drink or get high, you do it at home and take all precausions not to get busted and end up in the "system."
-
Well one thing peculiar about programs like Daytop is how they come to the decision to put a person in long term residential treatment to begin with. Do they follow ASAM criteria or do they just throw anyone in just because they need to fill a bed and oh yeah...fill their pockets with more state monies. I think its the latter. I don't see how someone with a few DWI's fits that criteria if thev'e never been in any other counseling at all. I wonder if any state regulatory authorities have ever really taken a good close look at Daytop to see if they are treating legitamate substance abusers or are they just taking anyone to fill their beds.
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor
-
Well I can tell you this, my b/f said there's all kinds of characters in there, including hard core inmates getting out of prison. He said it's the most obserd thing he's ever been through, but he's convinced the system will put him in jail if he doesn't complete the year "sentenance." I know it's not doing him any good, just taking a year of his life and putting him on hold. I'd like to know who comes out of this better? They monitored his calls and I think he said something wrong because I haven't heard from him in 2 wks... I wonder if they listened in, or if someone told them what he said he thought of the place. Scary.
-
The next time you speak to your boyfriend make sure he signs a release of confidentiality so you can speak with his counselor if you ever have questions or haven't heard from him in awhile. This way they can't stonewall you when you try to find out any info.
If TCs were interested in treating substance abuse, half the time they'd tell mom "Sorry ma'am, we can't help him. He's not an addict, he's just an asshole.
--GregFL
-
On 2005-07-30 08:17:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"Murders, rapists? Tell him to learn how to make a shank... never know when that might come in handy. "
I can tell you for a fact that these types are at Daytop. When I worked there, a kid (18yo) in my group just up and confessed to killing another boy over a drug deal.
I reported this to my director (Frank Lanza) and his response was "Don't say anything, just try to work with him. If we tell the court they'll pull him and we'll have an empty bed. We can't afford empty beds."
-
How nice that these places respect human dignity the rules of law....not. But for all you know, it could have been a group confession that has no basis in fact, just made up as a means to protect oneself or deflect attention.
Money-grubbing bastards with no respect for human rights.
-
On 2005-08-04 08:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"How nice that these places respect human dignity the rules of law....not. But for all you know, it could have been a group confession that has no basis in fact, just made up as a means to protect oneself or deflect attention.
Money-grubbing bastards with no respect for human rights. "
This actually turned out to be legit. Of course, my code of ethics prevented me from heeding the director's order. I had to report to police BY LAW.
The kid ended up being arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder.
That is sad in and of itself, but it's even sadder that people would overlook a dangerous violent felony to keep an ass in a chair...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com) and then journal search and put the journal number and year
-- Journal of Applied Polymer Science Vol. 47, 1984
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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::
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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!!)
-
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.
-
I have looked over the arguments on this topic and can see where both sides are coming from so I looked a little deeper and sought legal advice because I had heard something in a treatment program once that I know for a fact wasn't reported to any authorities and it wasn't child abuse. To my amazement I was told that it is true that clients in substance abuse programs are protected by federal law's regarding confidentiality and nothing they reveal in a therapy session with a substance abuse counselor with the exception of child abuse can be reported. I showed him the arguments presented in this forum and he showed me the precedents in which all employees of a substance abuse treatment program are bound by the same laws, regardless of their position or their own licensing requirements. Not looking to create more controversy here just stating what I was advised. But the lawyer did tell me that as another client of one of these programs I am not bound by any such laws so I'm right back where I started at. :scared:
-
On 2005-12-20 12:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I have looked over the arguments on this topic and can see where both sides are coming from so I looked a little deeper and sought legal advice because I had heard something in a treatment program once that I know for a fact wasn't reported to any authorities and it wasn't child abuse. To my amazement I was told that it is true that clients in substance abuse programs are protected by federal law's regarding confidentiality and nothing they reveal in a therapy session with a substance abuse counselor with the exception of child abuse can be reported. I showed him the arguments presented in this forum and he showed me the precedents in which all employees of a substance abuse treatment program are bound by the same laws, regardless of their position or their own licensing requirements. Not looking to create more controversy here just stating what I was advised. But the lawyer did tell me that as another client of one of these programs I am not bound by any such laws so I'm right back where I started at. :scared: "
It's different when the client is mandated by the court and is required to waive confidentiality as part of the deal that gets them into treatment.
-
Hello fellow daytopians
It is nice to see there is a web site for the successful heads for old daytop. First of all I was at parksville from 1989 to1991, then I worked with them in far rockaway, to shipped to texas to help at a new facility in palestine tx. I see there is alot of negative and postive comments about the program. I must say that back in the day Daytop was probably the toughest tc to be in. For me it worked. It was not easy and yes I was screamed at, degrade and de humanized but I have been successful. I was a counselor and worked with senior counselors that thought they new every thing. Today I continue to be successful, I am a masters level social worker and continue to work and help needy families. I actually broke away from daytop texas before they closed down. I need to spead my wings and get from underneath Daytop wings. Alot of people tend to become so dependant in Daytop after finishing their program then working for them. It was the hardest thing I every did in my life back then and I have absolutely no regrets
-
Well hello Tricia. I'm glad that you have done so well with your career. I must say it's impressive for a former Daytop Counselor to become "classically educated" and become an MSW. You'd think that by some of the rantings on this board that would be an impossibility.