On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:07:58 +0100, Secret Squirrel
<ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
>news:2o1kp2ts44f5d6rrq4mg9sko692ftcgele@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:54:28 +0100 (CET), Baal
>> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>>>Let's assume for a moment that Joe Blow has trouble dealing
>>>with his sexual attraction towards children and accordingly
>>>seeks professional help. Let's assume that Joe has no prior
>>>convictions, nor anything else in his background that would
>>>indicate his sexual predilections. As soon as Joe begins
>>>seeing a therapist, then his problems *really* begin. The
>>>therapist may be required by law to report Joe depending on
>>>what Joe reveals to the therapist. Once reported, Joe's
>>>name will almost certainly be added to a watch-list of some
>>>sort.
>>
>> As a former Social Worker, I can say that I don't know of
>> any law in the US, or at least the state I worked in, that
>> required anyone to report anything about someone's feelings
>> unless they started to affect behavior. Psychologists,
>> Social Workers, Counselors, Medical Doctors including
>> Shrinks and Teachers are required by law to report any
>> suspicions of child abuse or neglect to Social Services,
>> the sole authority for investigating complaints of abuse
>> and neglect, though we used to ask the State Troopers or
>> Countie Mounties for an assist in cases of excessive
>> violence or possible sexual abuse.
>>
>> Telling your shrink you're a pedophile in the US should do
>> nothing more than cause a notation in your chart. Telling
>> your shrink you've had some kind of sexual contact with a
>> child -- that has to be reported, although without some
>> details regarding the identity of the child, it probably
>> wouldn't matter. I hate to say it, but Social Services is
>> full of red tape, too -- and they are very strict about
>> what they can and cannot investigate. Hearing that some
>> child may have been molested doesn't do it. Then there's
>> the issue of jurisdiction, and while the law is a little
>> more flexible in that regard, individual agencies may not
>> be.
>
>Bruce Rind says otherwise, and agrees with Baal:
>
>Message-ID: <20061216233837.059$CW@newsreader.com>
>
>"Anyone in the U.S. who disseminates or even possesses child
>porn is subject to prosecution. Any therapist who attempts to
>treat a pedophile -- even someone who admits to fantasizing
>about engaging in sex with an under-aged person -- is
>required by law to turn that client over to the authorities,
>or risk arrest himself or herself."
>
>Are you *sure* your name was not turned over to the authorities?
>How would you tell?
>
>Secret Squirrel
I would very much like to see his documentation in this area.
I have just spent quite a bit of time reviewing the ethics as they
apply to psychiatry on the APA website. Although ethics do allow for
release of information when legally compelled to do so, the only two
instances in which it is ethical to release any information without
consent is when: 1) child abuse or neglect is suspected; 2) under
Tarasoft, the patient appears to be a threat to himself or the
community as evidenced by stating intentions to harm someone, and even
then, unless the patient names specific potential victims, then the
doctor or agency may not have any responsibility to warn as there
isn't anyone to warn.
I will also cite http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-09-04/analyst.html , in
which a supervisor for a psychatric program is being sued because in
the course of his work with a student of the program, he discovered
that the student had pedophilic fantasies. The supervisor took
apropriate steps, the student left the program but later did become a
child psychiatrist and was arrested for molesting two children in a
hospital/residential treatment setting. So far, the APA and all legal
advisors are supporting the supervisor's decision, specifically since
the laws of the state involved (Connecticut) do not require reporting
when there is no readily indentifiable class of victims (based on a
decision by Connecticut Supreme Court).
As to Baal's information, I believe that he clearly stated that it was
based on Canadian law, not US Law. Furthermore, in the case he
presented, the person did not go to a shrink and say, "I'm a
pedophile," he was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
4s00th
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|