-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Max Grrl <maxtheangel@gmail.com> wrote in
news:020120072108165797%maxtheangel@gmail.com:
Resend.
> In article
> <b889be0188362dd5618d84f7b7419e73@msgid.frell.theremailer.ne
> t>, 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."
>
> I've looked all over the web and can't find a single
> reference to any law that exists to that effect. In fact,
> I've found several sites that say that unless a patient has
> admitted to ACTUAL sexual contact, there is NO need to
> report that patient, and confidentiality is protected.
>
> Not calling you as liar, per se, but if you personally have
> links to that information, I would appreciate it.
> Otherwise, I might suggest that you view Rind's documents
> with a bit more skepticism.
I don't have it, other than Rind's claim. As for Rind, as he
*is* a psychologist, I figured what he wrote is accurate.
There indeed might be some legal confusion about this.
"Newshould" (where is he/she now?) posted a while back a
Salon article entitled "Why I need to look at child
pornography" which talked about the press's need to look at
child porn in order to verify what governmental officialdom
and self-appointed defenders of children say--given the fact
that much of what they've told us, once someone *did* check
their "facts", was found out to be completely untrue
(organized crime child sex rings, satanist child sex rings,
the trade in child porn is worth more than the *entire adult
porn industry*, etc. etc. etc.). Salon pulled the article
after belatedly "discovering" that investigators can indeed
qualify under Federal Law to get permission to look at child
pornography.
However, I'm not so easily dissuaded. You see, the author
of the Salon article had consulted her superior's lawyers on
the law, and was going on *their* recommendations and
interpretations; she wasn't just basing her article on her
own knowledge of the law. So at least *some competent* people
interpreted Federal law as being far more stringent than
Salon.
My point? Even if the law does not in fact require a
therapist to turn your name over to the authorities for the
mere admitting to fantasies of sex with children, your
therapist, or his/her superiors, or their lawyers, might
interpret the law as requiring just that. Or in the case of
ambiguity, a lawyer might tell the therapist that there were
less legal jeopardy in a policy of reporting every such
confession as opposed to not reporting them. In fact, I
almost would expect such advice ("Screw the patient's
interest, cover your own legal butt!"). The only way to
prevent this is to have clear, unambiguous, language in the
law that *prohibits* such disclosures of what a patient tells
a therapist during therapy. I don't see why we can't, heck,
when I was in the hospital the nurses and doctors could not
disclose anything about the physical ailments of the patients
right next door without putting themselves in legal
jeopardy.
As such, I do not believe that admitting this is wise in
the US and other places. I have a poor opinion of psychiatry
anyways, it seems that the standard for being qualified to
give therapy, if nothing else, is a low one. (How else can
you have "Bible-based psychiatrists" advertising?).
If I were to go talk to someone about my own feelings, in
person, I'd do so to a pastor or priest, because I think that
what you tell them is still protected from disclosure.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this).
>> Are you *sure* your name was not turned over to the
>> authorities? How would you tell?
>
> AFAIK, therapists have to warn their patients about legal
> issues such as that . . . mine does. A group-mate admitted
> to sneaking around outside of an ex's house with a knife -
> the doc said he was under a moral and legal responsibility
> to report him to the authorities. And he did. My
> group-mate was then moved to another group and was arrested
> for stalking.
That would be good, though I think that this is a relatively
recent development. I recall a local talk-radio show long ago
where a man was arrested after a psychiatrist disclosed the
fact that he was having sex with kids. Surprisingly, many of
the callers were angry about this, because the man had
approached the therapist in order to seek help in stopping
his behavior, and they saw the arrest as a disincentive to
any who were seeking similar help. The public is smarter than
we give them credit for sometimes.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRaGJgT/rA6+b3AyhAQGEGwf+MZfnZ20aVNLUd13lruW7WVVv7h/Z7GRK
aUf/8vZz0tIPknp55/F7O/ptF7jOWJXCGpbCnvYrNUa6+9e2jseQVTjvJ2R1/FV3
8vEaWI8XSKZCqCTROyUU6IwPL6rA0geIY8IdXGbtpUMrSQ5QTfXQOK+2WVTgt4ZC
d7gQTlU74cgWNcQY1nr8GV3Si1P3Y57yNIhFl5o3Bq9Cs2cc1VZZ969FwYkNmk7B
N9593WZj1vblgWDbucrrWIpwINAQJV9nrOzbz1b8wVzDf7Xyb+Jxlg3MK9n+VXhO
+J18sqnsG817O9lbGxZeZQpWG5nIWxBruyQ1c24Mk7XhIbYfWA4W4A==
=fnHb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
|