-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
4s00th <4s00th@thetruth.com> wrote in
news:hv8mp29llh1q3mgpfkqmpkjnagofft95np@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:07:58 +0100, Secret Squirrel
> <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote:
>>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?
> 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.
OK, let's say someone says he (or she) is attracted to
"children". Let's say also that he/she has a crush, or
expresses a liking, or says is cute, one specific youngster
(without saying that he/she's actually *done* anything sexual
with the kid).
Do you not see the ambiguity? There is no admission of
criminal activity, but at least some might interpret a
statement of "the neighbor's boy Jonny sure looks cute and I
admit that I have fantasized about sex with him" to be
reasonable grounds that Jonny is "in danger" and the
patient is "a threat" to him.
What about the person who who fantasizes about going on a
killing spree, a la James Huberty, killing people he doesn't
know? Is that someone who should be reported under these
ethics? Or would the fact that no identifiable victims or
class of victims are present prohibit it?
I can tell you how most lawyers I've known would answer: if
in doubt, report it. Your potential legal liabilities are
probably less if you report than if you don't.
> 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).
I'll look at this link.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRZ7mgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFB1Qf9GmqvgKbywdDSt8Tjobt1Db0PTPzLKlaS
dABl2RgNtj1mTXGfDHZemGlu/hg2Hx1oBOx8Qg93tFF3ft2OCVztZ5yVP2n3XNhH
oY2NYiY1CPk9OYwmcmWqrqZ2V45ZiVxNCGJnXXTy4G9LANhiMKvsArKCILkaAOtO
ssJb/QH/3jFpKfH+5fMCuv7L+fdRqt0VpbbHczdvFsJQUKXyeeXfHUeSI592CkxW
Dmw6guWv0yDI2sZjMw+51wLy2uAa1dRaMGrip1yYgWV7qiDtDUq6Wm8sOmS8CKxG
ref3QhU/ljTW0/XZCzBDV3LZErPuym6H4LYwswJ3YNDKcgdReV552Q==
=aAAq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|