Patriot Act

[archipelago]

According to the codes that govern psychotherapists in the state of California, we must provide in our "informed consent" documents--the ones that initiate other ethical and legal matters, such as the notion of who has the "privilege" and when confidentiality can be breached--we must now place a statement about the Patriot Act and are forced by law to follow through and report anything that might be of a "national security" risk.

Problem is, I have strong ethical principles that put me at risk of violating this requirement, and therefore the law.

I believe in civil disobedience as a principle and have used it before. But in this case, someone else is involved and I have an ethical duty to "do no harm."

So this is more of a dilemma than an actual case, but one that I need some smart people to help me resolve.

What sorts of risks am I taking by simply not including the Patriot Act in my informed consent documents?

 

[presutin]

The risk of having your case thrown out...

 

[archipelago]

I'm not sure I follow. There is no case. This is a hypothetical before I decide to do anything in order to find out from those who are knowledgeable in areas of the law what the implications are of not doing something.

The informed consent documents are private and protected by confidentiality in most cases. The only way that they would ever appear out of the office would be if some act occurred that breached the confidentiality by virtue of some legal or ethical problem, which could be any number of things, from the patient, who has the privilege, requesting a copy of the files for the purposes of a court cases, related or not related to me, or the files being requested for a court case by another body due to particular sets of circumstances, either legal or ethical.

Additionally I am not saying that I would not do reporting were a patient to become a harm to others, either.

The Patriot Act however goes too far and I oppose it in principle. It also has potentially harmful effects on patients who are vulnerable and lacking in trust from the onset. It should not be required of us who treat individuals in such a situation to include a whole paragraph on how anything they say can and will be reported to the FBI without their consent.

 

[presutin]

Arch - I have seen your previous postings and I understand why you feel violated when it comes to your information being shared around due to the nature of the contents of comments one makes. What you seem to be stuck and don't seem to grasp is that we live in a different world today where safety and sovereignty are major concerns.

That being said, I suggest that you sit down with an attorney whose specialization is constitutional cases and see if s/he is willing to put up a fight for you in the event you decide to go ahead and challenge the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. A forum discussion will not provide you with the answers you want to see... Best of luck to you!

 

[archipelago]

I suppose that means that you have signed off then? Unclear as to your motives, but that I suppose is none of my business.

I do not wish to challenge the constitutionality of the Patriot Act by retaining an attorney. That would be an absurd waste of time and energy.

But does it follow that I have to obey laws that I find potentially harmful to others that I am duty bound to protect? Where does it say that in the law? It says there are consequences to any action or non-action, but nowhere does it say that you are forced into obedience to the law. It is a choice and must remain so.

To ask what are the possible consequences seems to be a reasonable thing to do, given that I am not an attorney and you all are. There are things I cannot foresee so am asking for consultation of a hypothetical type.

I'm puzzled. Would like some clarification. Not sure why that is so wrong to ask for.

And by the way, if you have read my posts then you know the context that makes the Patriot Act quite literally exploding at my front door. To say that I seem not to grasp that this world is dangerous seems to come out of nowhere and be a very strange thing to say indeed. Who else but a victim of domestic terrorism would be aware of the need for "major concern"? I don't understand.