Addiction Is a Choice

[Guest guest]

Just curious...has anyone read this book? I had obviously heard of

Schaler but didn't know he had written any books (that's being a little

generous, I think, but I don't know what else to call it) until I saw it in

the bookstore last week and bought it. I'm not normally a literary critic but

next to the Hazelden propaganda this is probably the worst book written on

addictions I've ever read. One would think in a fairly brief text (under 150

pages) some original idea would be emphasized...or at least brought up. There

is nothing original that I could find in this book! Isn't the comparison of

addictive " disease " to diabetes getting kind of old? What really seemed

bizarre was the paranoid tone, and constant references to " Orwellian

double-think " , etc., (the " Project MATCH " cover-up??) as well as his stance

on moderation, that the heaviest drinkers are the best " moderators " . So that

means that those who drink less have more difficulty with moderation? I

suppose maybe that was the intention of this book, to tout moderation again.

It's too bad there can't be more open criticism of AA which doesn't have a

tone of criticizing abstinence as well.

Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick --

I agree that it was a very poorly written book (Schaler will

never win a Pulitzer for his writing style), but it does contain some

very important information for those seeking to challenge coerced

treatment and the whole " disease " concept.

Why do you think it was " paranoid " , and what do you object to in

Schaler's comments about Project MATCH? The so-called " conclusions "

drawn from Project MATCH were definitely bogus -- how can anyone make

the claim that any of the treatment methods " worked " at all, when

there was no control group of people who had no treatment?

Additionally, as Stanton Peele has repeatedly pointed out, " treatment

success " was defined as a significant reduction in the number of

drinking occasions per month, with a significant reduction in amount

drunk on each occasion -- i.e. MODERATION (though the word was never

used). Yet all the treatment methods were abstinence-oriented, and

the treatment providers and people connected with MATCH were all

shrill, " abstinence is the only way " types.

Where do you get that Schaler is against anyone abstaining?

This is the type of rhetoric that steppers tend to engage in --

suggesting that those who support moderation as a possible treatment

option are saying that anyone who is currently abstaining " ought " to

start drinking again. This is false. Abstinence is a perfectly

valid personal choice, and many regard total abstinence as belonging

to the moderation continuum, rather than seeing moderation as being

on the problem drinking continuum. After all, in order to

successfully engage in a responsible, moderate drinking style, you

have to be able to abstain totally at appropriate times -- such as

when you will be driving, etc. Obviously, anyone who has gotten into

trouble with drinking and wishes to avoid similar trouble in the

future needs to make a commitment to change. Total abstinence is one

option for change, and may be the best option for some. Others can

successfully change problem drinking behavior without complete

abstinence. I think that's all that Schaler and other open-minded

therapists are saying.

Schaler is an intense man, and holds some views that I find

somewhat obnoxious -- but he has integrity. He is not " paranoid " --

he has been publically attacked, and lost a college teaching position

despite excellent peer and student reviews, solely because of his

anti-12-step, anti- " disease " viewpoint. This is documented in

correspondence he received from that college, which he posted on his

website.

~Rita

> Just curious...has anyone read this book? I had obviously heard of

> Schaler but didn't know he had written any books (that's being a

little

> generous, I think, but I don't know what else to call it) until I

saw it in

> the bookstore last week and bought it. I'm not normally a literary

critic but

> next to the Hazelden propaganda this is probably the worst book

written on

> addictions I've ever read. One would think in a fairly brief text

(under 150

> pages) some original idea would be emphasized...or at least brought

up. There

> is nothing original that I could find in this book! Isn't the

comparison of

> addictive " disease " to diabetes getting kind of old? What really

seemed

> bizarre was the paranoid tone, and constant references

to " Orwellian

> double-think " , etc., (the " Project MATCH " cover-up??) as well as

his stance

> on moderation, that the heaviest drinkers are the

best " moderators " . So that

> means that those who drink less have more difficulty with

moderation? I

> suppose maybe that was the intention of this book, to tout

moderation again.

> It's too bad there can't be more open criticism of AA which doesn't

have a

> tone of criticizing abstinence as well.

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick --

I agree that it was a very poorly written book (Schaler will

never win a Pulitzer for his writing style), but it does contain some

very important information for those seeking to challenge coerced

treatment and the whole " disease " concept.

Why do you think it was " paranoid " , and what do you object to in

Schaler's comments about Project MATCH? The so-called " conclusions "

drawn from Project MATCH were definitely bogus -- how can anyone make

the claim that any of the treatment methods " worked " at all, when

there was no control group of people who had no treatment?

Additionally, as Stanton Peele has repeatedly pointed out, " treatment

success " was defined as a significant reduction in the number of

drinking occasions per month, with a significant reduction in amount

drunk on each occasion -- i.e. MODERATION (though the word was never

used). Yet all the treatment methods were abstinence-oriented, and

the treatment providers and people connected with MATCH were all

shrill, " abstinence is the only way " types.

Where do you get that Schaler is against anyone abstaining?

This is the type of rhetoric that steppers tend to engage in --

suggesting that those who support moderation as a possible treatment

option are saying that anyone who is currently abstaining " ought " to

start drinking again. This is false. Abstinence is a perfectly

valid personal choice, and many regard total abstinence as belonging

to the moderation continuum, rather than seeing moderation as being

on the problem drinking continuum. After all, in order to

successfully engage in a responsible, moderate drinking style, you

have to be able to abstain totally at appropriate times -- such as

when you will be driving, etc. Obviously, anyone who has gotten into

trouble with drinking and wishes to avoid similar trouble in the

future needs to make a commitment to change. Total abstinence is one

option for change, and may be the best option for some. Others can

successfully change problem drinking behavior without complete

abstinence. I think that's all that Schaler and other open-minded

therapists are saying.

Schaler is an intense man, and holds some views that I find

somewhat obnoxious -- but he has integrity. He is not " paranoid " --

he has been publically attacked, and lost a college teaching position

despite excellent peer and student reviews, solely because of his

anti-12-step, anti- " disease " viewpoint. This is documented in

correspondence he received from that college, which he posted on his

website.

~Rita

> Just curious...has anyone read this book? I had obviously heard of

> Schaler but didn't know he had written any books (that's being a

little

> generous, I think, but I don't know what else to call it) until I

saw it in

> the bookstore last week and bought it. I'm not normally a literary

critic but

> next to the Hazelden propaganda this is probably the worst book

written on

> addictions I've ever read. One would think in a fairly brief text

(under 150

> pages) some original idea would be emphasized...or at least brought

up. There

> is nothing original that I could find in this book! Isn't the

comparison of

> addictive " disease " to diabetes getting kind of old? What really

seemed

> bizarre was the paranoid tone, and constant references

to " Orwellian

> double-think " , etc., (the " Project MATCH " cover-up??) as well as

his stance

> on moderation, that the heaviest drinkers are the

best " moderators " . So that

> means that those who drink less have more difficulty with

moderation? I

> suppose maybe that was the intention of this book, to tout

moderation again.

> It's too bad there can't be more open criticism of AA which doesn't

have a

> tone of criticizing abstinence as well.

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick

as I'm on one of Jeff Schaler's lists, a little discretion might be a

good idea, but actually I think Schaler is something of a loon, and an

embarrassment to the pro-moderation lobby. He had a fallout with

Stanton Peele just before they were due to appear together on the same

side in a TV debate on moderation. Schaler as Captain " sacked "

Stanton, and he claims that a crazy-eyed Stanton turned up at the

studio uninvited (Stanton says that the studio sent the limo so he

he thought he was still participating) and refused to leave the Green

Room at Schaler's request (apparently he insisted on finishing the

complmentary sandwhich he had started nibbling, which sounds like

Stanton). Both men posted details of this incident on their websites.

IIRC Schaler also attacks another prominent moderation advocate, Fred

Rotgers, for Rotgers' failing to inform the authorities when a member

of the MM mailing list confessed to having murdered his daughter. I

think this may have been a mistake on Rotgers' part, but in fact the

authorities were not interested in the confession when reported by a

lurking Jim Shirk and others, until the man made a direct confession

to the police in person, which after subsequent investigation resulted

in his now serving a minimum of 20 yrs. Rotgers advised the man to

seek a therapist in San Diego, where he was headed. Presumably if he

repeated the confession to the therapist the latter would become

subject to professional and legal requirements, which in California

probably means compulsory reporting (Kayleigh, anyone?). In the post

Rotgers refers to him as " my friend " . IIRC Schaler posted this

correspondence on his website too.

Schaler is of the Szsasz mold and amongst other things advocates

abolition of the Insanity Plea, thereby imo returning the legal

process to an age of barabarism. As such, he escapes my Randian

" judgement " only by entering an insanity plea himself. If he gets to

see this, that might be an end to my membership of his list, but so be

it!

P.

> Just curious...has anyone read this book? I had obviously heard of

> Schaler but didn't know he had written any books (that's being a

little

> generous, I think, but I don't know what else to call it) until I

saw it in

> the bookstore last week and bought it. I'm not normally a literary

critic but

> next to the Hazelden propaganda this is probably the worst book

written on

> addictions I've ever read. One would think in a fairly brief text

(under 150

> pages) some original idea would be emphasized...or at least brought

up. There

> is nothing original that I could find in this book! Isn't the

comparison of

> addictive " disease " to diabetes getting kind of old? What really

seemed

> bizarre was the paranoid tone, and constant references to " Orwellian

> double-think " , etc., (the " Project MATCH " cover-up??) as well as his

stance

> on moderation, that the heaviest drinkers are the best " moderators " .

So that

> means that those who drink less have more difficulty with

moderation? I

> suppose maybe that was the intention of this book, to tout

moderation again.

> It's too bad there can't be more open criticism of AA which doesn't

have a

> tone of criticizing abstinence as well.

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick

as I'm on one of Jeff Schaler's lists, a little discretion might be a

good idea, but actually I think Schaler is something of a loon, and an

embarrassment to the pro-moderation lobby. He had a fallout with

Stanton Peele just before they were due to appear together on the same

side in a TV debate on moderation. Schaler as Captain " sacked "

Stanton, and he claims that a crazy-eyed Stanton turned up at the

studio uninvited (Stanton says that the studio sent the limo so he

he thought he was still participating) and refused to leave the Green

Room at Schaler's request (apparently he insisted on finishing the

complmentary sandwhich he had started nibbling, which sounds like

Stanton). Both men posted details of this incident on their websites.

IIRC Schaler also attacks another prominent moderation advocate, Fred

Rotgers, for Rotgers' failing to inform the authorities when a member

of the MM mailing list confessed to having murdered his daughter. I

think this may have been a mistake on Rotgers' part, but in fact the

authorities were not interested in the confession when reported by a

lurking Jim Shirk and others, until the man made a direct confession

to the police in person, which after subsequent investigation resulted

in his now serving a minimum of 20 yrs. Rotgers advised the man to

seek a therapist in San Diego, where he was headed. Presumably if he

repeated the confession to the therapist the latter would become

subject to professional and legal requirements, which in California

probably means compulsory reporting (Kayleigh, anyone?). In the post

Rotgers refers to him as " my friend " . IIRC Schaler posted this

correspondence on his website too.

Schaler is of the Szsasz mold and amongst other things advocates

abolition of the Insanity Plea, thereby imo returning the legal

process to an age of barabarism. As such, he escapes my Randian

" judgement " only by entering an insanity plea himself. If he gets to

see this, that might be an end to my membership of his list, but so be

it!

P.

> Just curious...has anyone read this book? I had obviously heard of

> Schaler but didn't know he had written any books (that's being a

little

> generous, I think, but I don't know what else to call it) until I

saw it in

> the bookstore last week and bought it. I'm not normally a literary

critic but

> next to the Hazelden propaganda this is probably the worst book

written on

> addictions I've ever read. One would think in a fairly brief text

(under 150

> pages) some original idea would be emphasized...or at least brought

up. There

> is nothing original that I could find in this book! Isn't the

comparison of

> addictive " disease " to diabetes getting kind of old? What really

seemed

> bizarre was the paranoid tone, and constant references to " Orwellian

> double-think " , etc., (the " Project MATCH " cover-up??) as well as his

stance

> on moderation, that the heaviest drinkers are the best " moderators " .

So that

> means that those who drink less have more difficulty with

moderation? I

> suppose maybe that was the intention of this book, to tout

moderation again.

> It's too bad there can't be more open criticism of AA which doesn't

have a

> tone of criticizing abstinence as well.

>

> Nick

[Guest guest]

> Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only planned

> or future crimes.

Oddly enough, my impression is that for therps the convention may be

the reverse - that statement of intent to commit crime is not passed

on but confession of committted crime, at least of child sexual abuse,

is!

Apparently, the Menendez brothers' murder of their parents was only

brought to light by the following extraordinary route: One of them

confessed to a therapist who did not report it. However, the therp

was having an affair with his secretary, who overheard the confession,

and when the therp ended the affair she informed on the therp for

revenge!

P.

[Guest guest]

About the confession on the moderation list, a couple of thoughts.

First, if one is a participant in a email group or chat room, but

with no professional responsiblity, what does that do to the

obligation to report crimes (whatever that obligation is)?

Second, I suspect that the ratio of false to true confessions online

is very high.

[Guest guest]

Your question about obligations to report confessions becomes more

interesting because one of the members was in NJ and the other was in,

I believe, CO. So if there is a crime here, it has to be federal.

> About the confession on the moderation list, a couple of thoughts.

>

> First, if one is a participant in a email group or chat room, but

> with no professional responsiblity, what does that do to the

> obligation to report crimes (whatever that obligation is)?

>

> Second, I suspect that the ratio of false to true confessions online

> is very high.

[Guest guest]

Your question about obligations to report confessions becomes more

interesting because one of the members was in NJ and the other was in,

I believe, CO. So if there is a crime here, it has to be federal.

> About the confession on the moderation list, a couple of thoughts.

>

> First, if one is a participant in a email group or chat room, but

> with no professional responsiblity, what does that do to the

> obligation to report crimes (whatever that obligation is)?

>

> Second, I suspect that the ratio of false to true confessions online

> is very high.

[Guest guest]

Your question about obligations to report confessions becomes more

interesting because one of the members was in NJ and the other was in,

I believe, CO. So if there is a crime here, it has to be federal.

> About the confession on the moderation list, a couple of thoughts.

>

> First, if one is a participant in a email group or chat room, but

> with no professional responsiblity, what does that do to the

> obligation to report crimes (whatever that obligation is)?

>

> Second, I suspect that the ratio of false to true confessions online

> is very high.

[Guest guest]

Ah hah! A chance to share one of my favorite sites!

Cheers,

Kate

Excerpt from " The Crime Library " ( http://www.crimelibrary.com/ )

The Menendez Brothers--The Tapes

http://www.crimelibrary.com/menendez/menendeztapes.htm

Santa Superior Court Judge Albrecht ruled that the

threats Lyle made to Dr. Oziel erased the patient-therapist

confidentiality barrier and ordered that the Oziel tapes be given to

the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. There were three

tapes at issue. Two of the tapes contained Oziel's dictated notes

following the October 31, November 2 and November 28 sessions. The

third tape was of the December 11 session, taped with the consent of

the brothers' attorney at the time, Gerald Chaleff.

In California, the law protecting the patient-therapist privilege is

well established and remains in effect even in situations where a

killer confesses to his therapist that he murdered someone. Even in

that situation, the privilege guarantees that the therapist cannot go

the police.

If the therapist goes to the police, he can be sued for malpractice.

The reason that the privilege is so strong is because the legislature

recognizes that in order for psychotherapy to work, a patient must be

free to reveal the most intimate details of his life.

There were several hearings about the tapes and after one of the

hearings, the sheriff's department announced that they had discovered

that the links in Lyle's ankle chain had been cut. To the sheriff's

department, this indicated that Lyle was attempting to escape. At

another hearing on the tapes, 's nose appeared to be swollen and

bruised, the result of a jail beating that the sheriff's department

said they were investigating.

On August 6, 1990, Albrecht gave the prosecution a major victory. He

said that all of the tapes could be used as evidence against the

brothers. The judge said, " I have found by a preponderance of the

evidence that Dr. Oziel had reasonable cause to believe that the

brothers constituted a threat and it was necessary to disclose those

communications to prevent the threatened danger. " Abramson

promptly appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals. On

March 2, 1991, the California Court of Appeals overturned Albrecht's

decision. The prosecutors then filed an appeal with the California

Supreme Court.

Part of the Court of Appeals' decision said that Oziel had not acted

as a psychotherapist during the last two taped sessions, but acted

out of " self-preservation and that the purported therapy was in fact,

a charade. " The decision quoted freely from the tapes and was

released to the public. For the first time, it was revealed that the

Menendez brothers had killed their parents. The effect of this

revelation on the Menendez and Andersen families ranged from shock to

disbelief. Some family members who had been very vocal in their

support of the brothers soon dropped out of sight.

> I don't know how it may be in Britain, but therapists in this

country

> are uniformly obligated to report when patients may be dangerous to

> themselves or others. (This came from the CA Tarasoff case.) This

is

> far less clearcut than a lawyer's obligation to report planning of

a

> crime.

>

> I don't think you got the Menendez brothers' situation exactly

right,

> but mostly. The hitch was that the therapist taped the

confession.

> The issue went to the CA Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken, but

not

> on the issue of whether the therapist had an obligation to report,

but

> on the issue of whether the tapes could be used as evidence against

> the younger brother, given his right not to testify against

himself.

> That's an interesting case, and I may look it up.

[Guest guest]

Ah hah! A chance to share one of my favorite sites!

Cheers,

Kate

Excerpt from " The Crime Library " ( http://www.crimelibrary.com/ )

The Menendez Brothers--The Tapes

http://www.crimelibrary.com/menendez/menendeztapes.htm

Santa Superior Court Judge Albrecht ruled that the

threats Lyle made to Dr. Oziel erased the patient-therapist

confidentiality barrier and ordered that the Oziel tapes be given to

the Los Angeles County district attorney's office. There were three

tapes at issue. Two of the tapes contained Oziel's dictated notes

following the October 31, November 2 and November 28 sessions. The

third tape was of the December 11 session, taped with the consent of

the brothers' attorney at the time, Gerald Chaleff.

In California, the law protecting the patient-therapist privilege is

well established and remains in effect even in situations where a

killer confesses to his therapist that he murdered someone. Even in

that situation, the privilege guarantees that the therapist cannot go

the police.

If the therapist goes to the police, he can be sued for malpractice.

The reason that the privilege is so strong is because the legislature

recognizes that in order for psychotherapy to work, a patient must be

free to reveal the most intimate details of his life.

There were several hearings about the tapes and after one of the

hearings, the sheriff's department announced that they had discovered

that the links in Lyle's ankle chain had been cut. To the sheriff's

department, this indicated that Lyle was attempting to escape. At

another hearing on the tapes, 's nose appeared to be swollen and

bruised, the result of a jail beating that the sheriff's department

said they were investigating.

On August 6, 1990, Albrecht gave the prosecution a major victory. He

said that all of the tapes could be used as evidence against the

brothers. The judge said, " I have found by a preponderance of the

evidence that Dr. Oziel had reasonable cause to believe that the

brothers constituted a threat and it was necessary to disclose those

communications to prevent the threatened danger. " Abramson

promptly appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeals. On

March 2, 1991, the California Court of Appeals overturned Albrecht's

decision. The prosecutors then filed an appeal with the California

Supreme Court.

Part of the Court of Appeals' decision said that Oziel had not acted

as a psychotherapist during the last two taped sessions, but acted

out of " self-preservation and that the purported therapy was in fact,

a charade. " The decision quoted freely from the tapes and was

released to the public. For the first time, it was revealed that the

Menendez brothers had killed their parents. The effect of this

revelation on the Menendez and Andersen families ranged from shock to

disbelief. Some family members who had been very vocal in their

support of the brothers soon dropped out of sight.

> I don't know how it may be in Britain, but therapists in this

country

> are uniformly obligated to report when patients may be dangerous to

> themselves or others. (This came from the CA Tarasoff case.) This

is

> far less clearcut than a lawyer's obligation to report planning of

a

> crime.

>

> I don't think you got the Menendez brothers' situation exactly

right,

> but mostly. The hitch was that the therapist taped the

confession.

> The issue went to the CA Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken, but

not

> on the issue of whether the therapist had an obligation to report,

but

> on the issue of whether the tapes could be used as evidence against

> the younger brother, given his right not to testify against

himself.

> That's an interesting case, and I may look it up.

[Guest guest]

I was wrong then, I really thought the self-incrimination issue was

the basis for the ruling.

> > I don't know how it may be in Britain, but therapists in this

> country

> > are uniformly obligated to report when patients may be dangerous

to

> > themselves or others. (This came from the CA Tarasoff case.)

This

> is

> > far less clearcut than a lawyer's obligation to report planning of

> a

> > crime.

> >

> > I don't think you got the Menendez brothers' situation exactly

> right,

> > but mostly. The hitch was that the therapist taped the

> confession.

> > The issue went to the CA Supreme Court, if I'm not mistaken, but

> not

> > on the issue of whether the therapist had an obligation to report,

> but

> > on the issue of whether the tapes could be used as evidence

against

> > the younger brother, given his right not to testify against

> himself.

> > That's an interesting case, and I may look it up.

[Guest guest]

On reflection this is probably the UK situation too.

My account of the Menendez story was iirc how it was described on a

documentry here.

P.

> > > Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only

> planned

> > > or future crimes.

> >

> > Oddly enough, my impression is that for therps the convention may

be

> > the reverse - that statement of intent to commit crime is not

passed

> > on but confession of committted crime, at least of child sexual

> abuse,

> > is!

> >

> > Apparently, the Menendez brothers' murder of their parents was

only

> > brought to light by the following extraordinary route: One of

them

> > confessed to a therapist who did not report it. However, the

therp

> > was having an affair with his secretary, who overheard the

> confession,

> > and when the therp ended the affair she informed on the therp for

> > revenge!

> >

> > P.

[Guest guest]

On reflection this is probably the UK situation too.

My account of the Menendez story was iirc how it was described on a

documentry here.

P.

> > > Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only

> planned

> > > or future crimes.

> >

> > Oddly enough, my impression is that for therps the convention may

be

> > the reverse - that statement of intent to commit crime is not

passed

> > on but confession of committted crime, at least of child sexual

> abuse,

> > is!

> >

> > Apparently, the Menendez brothers' murder of their parents was

only

> > brought to light by the following extraordinary route: One of

them

> > confessed to a therapist who did not report it. However, the

therp

> > was having an affair with his secretary, who overheard the

> confession,

> > and when the therp ended the affair she informed on the therp for

> > revenge!

> >

> > P.

[Guest guest]

On reflection this is probably the UK situation too.

My account of the Menendez story was iirc how it was described on a

documentry here.

P.

> > > Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only

> planned

> > > or future crimes.

> >

> > Oddly enough, my impression is that for therps the convention may

be

> > the reverse - that statement of intent to commit crime is not

passed

> > on but confession of committted crime, at least of child sexual

> abuse,

> > is!

> >

> > Apparently, the Menendez brothers' murder of their parents was

only

> > brought to light by the following extraordinary route: One of

them

> > confessed to a therapist who did not report it. However, the

therp

> > was having an affair with his secretary, who overheard the

> confession,

> > and when the therp ended the affair she informed on the therp for

> > revenge!

> >

> > P.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

> Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only planned

> or future crimes. I don't know what the standard is for therapists.

> I've never read anything that addressed that issue, and to my

> knowledge, therapists are not required to report past crimes in this

> state.

California attorneys are NOT required to report a client's planned

future crime; arguably, state law may ALLOW an attorney to disclose a

client's intent to commit a crime.

California Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068 (e) says an attorney must

" maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself

to preserve the secrets, of his or her client. "

There is a clear difference between the duties of lawyers and

psychotherapists. There is no privilege if the " services of the

psychotherapist were sought or obtained to enable anyone to commit or plan

to commit a crime or a tort or to escape detection or apprehension after the

commission of a crime or a tort. " [ Cal. Evid. Code · 1018.] The Law

Revision Commission commented that the identical crime or tort exception to

the physician-patient privilege is " considerably broader in scope than

Section 956, " the crime or fraud exception to the lawyer-client privilege

( " There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer

were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit

a crime or a fraud. " )

California Welfare & Institutions Code §5328(a) permits disclosure

of otherwise confidential information when, in the opinion of the

psychotherapist, the patient presents " a serious danger of violence to a

reasonably foreseeable victim or victims. " Under those circumstances,

disclosure is limited to a release of information to " that person or persons

and to law enforcement agencies. " (Welf. & Inst. Code, §5328(s).) And

disclosure is limited to that information " needed for the protection of that

person or persons. "

When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his

professions should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of

violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to

protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty

may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending

upon the nature of the case. It may call for him to warn the intended victim

or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police,

or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the

circumstances. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17

Cal.3d 425, 431.) The possible victim need not be specifically named by the

patient to create a Tarasoff duty so long as the possible victim is " readily

identifiable. " The court explained what it meant by " readily identifiable "

in a footnote. (Id., at p. 439, fn. 11.) The Court stated that there are

cases in which a " moment's reflection " will reveal the victim's identity. In

such cases, the therapist has a duty to protect that person from the danger

presented by his patient.

> What the standard may be in California, I don't know. Knowing

> what the standard is for being an accessory after the fact would be

> helpful in answering the question.

California Penal Code § 32

" Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or

aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may

avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having

knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged

with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony. "

32 is a wobbler, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony.

But note that it wouldn't apply to an attorney, because the privilege

applies when the client seeks legal advice.

-- Bob

[Guest guest]

Okay, well it does matter what state you're in.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <kayleighs@m...>

>

> > Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only

planned

> > or future crimes. I don't know what the standard is for

therapists.

> > I've never read anything that addressed that issue, and to my

> > knowledge, therapists are not required to report past crimes in

this

> > state.

>

> California attorneys are NOT required to report a client's

planned

> future crime; arguably, state law may ALLOW an attorney to disclose

a

> client's intent to commit a crime.

> California Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068 (e) says an attorney

must

> " maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or

herself

> to preserve the secrets, of his or her client. "

> There is a clear difference between the duties of lawyers

and

> psychotherapists. There is no privilege if the " services of the

> psychotherapist were sought or obtained to enable anyone to commit

or plan

> to commit a crime or a tort or to escape detection or apprehension

after the

> commission of a crime or a tort. " [ Cal. Evid. Code · 1018.] The

Law

> Revision Commission commented that the identical crime or tort

exception to

> the physician-patient privilege is " considerably broader in scope

than

> Section 956, " the crime or fraud exception to the lawyer-client

privilege

> ( " There is no privilege under this article if the services of the

lawyer

> were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to

commit

> a crime or a fraud. " )

> California Welfare & Institutions Code §5328(a) permits

disclosure

> of otherwise confidential information when, in the opinion of the

> psychotherapist, the patient presents " a serious danger of violence

to a

> reasonably foreseeable victim or victims. " Under those

circumstances,

> disclosure is limited to a release of information to " that person or

persons

> and to law enforcement agencies. " (Welf. & Inst. Code, §5328(s).)

And

> disclosure is limited to that information " needed for the protection

of that

> person or persons. "

> When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of

his

> professions should determine, that his patient presents a serious

danger of

> violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care

to

> protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of

this duty

> may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps,

depending

> upon the nature of the case. It may call for him to warn the

intended victim

> or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the

police,

> or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the

> circumstances. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

(1976) 17

> Cal.3d 425, 431.) The possible victim need not be specifically named

by the

> patient to create a Tarasoff duty so long as the possible victim is

" readily

> identifiable. " The court explained what it meant by " readily

identifiable "

> in a footnote. (Id., at p. 439, fn. 11.) The Court stated that there

are

> cases in which a " moment's reflection " will reveal the victim's

identity. In

> such cases, the therapist has a duty to protect that person from the

danger

> presented by his patient.

>

> > What the standard may be in California, I don't know. Knowing

> > what the standard is for being an accessory after the fact would

be

> > helpful in answering the question.

>

> California Penal Code § 32

>

> " Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors,

conceals or

> aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal

may

> avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having

> knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been

charged

> with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such

felony. "

>

> 32 is a wobbler, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or

felony.

> But note that it wouldn't apply to an attorney, because the

privilege

> applies when the client seeks legal advice.

>

> -- Bob

[Guest guest]

Okay, well it does matter what state you're in.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <kayleighs@m...>

>

> > Lawyers are not obliged to report clients' past crimes, only

planned

> > or future crimes. I don't know what the standard is for

therapists.

> > I've never read anything that addressed that issue, and to my

> > knowledge, therapists are not required to report past crimes in

this

> > state.

>

> California attorneys are NOT required to report a client's

planned

> future crime; arguably, state law may ALLOW an attorney to disclose

a

> client's intent to commit a crime.

> California Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068 (e) says an attorney

must

> " maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or

herself

> to preserve the secrets, of his or her client. "

> There is a clear difference between the duties of lawyers

and

> psychotherapists. There is no privilege if the " services of the

> psychotherapist were sought or obtained to enable anyone to commit

or plan

> to commit a crime or a tort or to escape detection or apprehension

after the

> commission of a crime or a tort. " [ Cal. Evid. Code · 1018.] The

Law

> Revision Commission commented that the identical crime or tort

exception to

> the physician-patient privilege is " considerably broader in scope

than

> Section 956, " the crime or fraud exception to the lawyer-client

privilege

> ( " There is no privilege under this article if the services of the

lawyer

> were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to

commit

> a crime or a fraud. " )

> California Welfare & Institutions Code §5328(a) permits

disclosure

> of otherwise confidential information when, in the opinion of the

> psychotherapist, the patient presents " a serious danger of violence

to a

> reasonably foreseeable victim or victims. " Under those

circumstances,

> disclosure is limited to a release of information to " that person or

persons

> and to law enforcement agencies. " (Welf. & Inst. Code, §5328(s).)

And

> disclosure is limited to that information " needed for the protection

of that

> person or persons. "

> When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of

his

> professions should determine, that his patient presents a serious

danger of

> violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care

to

> protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of

this duty

> may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps,

depending

> upon the nature of the case. It may call for him to warn the

intended victim

> or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the

police,

> or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the

> circumstances. (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

(1976) 17

> Cal.3d 425, 431.) The possible victim need not be specifically named

by the

> patient to create a Tarasoff duty so long as the possible victim is

" readily

> identifiable. " The court explained what it meant by " readily

identifiable "

> in a footnote. (Id., at p. 439, fn. 11.) The Court stated that there

are

> cases in which a " moment's reflection " will reveal the victim's

identity. In

> such cases, the therapist has a duty to protect that person from the

danger

> presented by his patient.

>

> > What the standard may be in California, I don't know. Knowing

> > what the standard is for being an accessory after the fact would

be

> > helpful in answering the question.

>

> California Penal Code § 32

>

> " Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors,

conceals or

> aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal

may

> avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having

> knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been

charged

> with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such

felony. "

>

> 32 is a wobbler, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or

felony.

> But note that it wouldn't apply to an attorney, because the

privilege

> applies when the client seeks legal advice.

>

> -- Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

Yes, there is an entire chapter of the book devoted to his attack on MM,

which, again, is bizarre in its approach. He vilifies Kishline for openly

stating that MM was probably not appropriate/recommended for the " heaviest "

drinkers, whom he says are the best " moderators " (not a term quoted from the

book, just something I made up,) which is why he said he left the MM Advisory

Board. Then as a nice addendum to his rationale for leaving (somehow I tend

to think he might have been kicked out, but I'm just speculating,) he tells

the story of the Froistad confession which seems to confirm his views that MM

is evil. I'm puzzled that, apparently, the second edition of his book went to

print at the end of 2000, but he didn't sling a little more mud as he did in

the media, recommending that Kishline be " given the opportunity to commit

suicide " after the soap opera last year. Did he forget that he was the

jettison for MM?

The only reason Schaler gets under my skin, really, is his unbelievably

egotistical attitude. I can't think of one well-known non-12 Step activist

whom Schaler hasn't cut ties with because they won't buy into his orders. He

thinks these meaningless stories belong in his book! To top it all off, he

claims to have been seriously harmed by AA on a professional level because he

openly disagrees with them. He practically thinks he was 13th-stepped. Why

did he venture into the AA inferno in the first place?? xHe assures everyone

in his book that he doesn't have any " diseases " . Could he have been looking

for an argument, perhaps?

Good to hear that Peele is willing to state that Schaler is a loony. Seems

ironic, though, since Schaler borrowed (or stole?) a lot of the concepts,

like " maturing out " , from Peele's work. He should be appreciative and try to

contain his apparent insanity. Is Peele an Orwellian double-thinker? I'm just

dying to know...

Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

Yes, there is an entire chapter of the book devoted to his attack on MM,

which, again, is bizarre in its approach. He vilifies Kishline for openly

stating that MM was probably not appropriate/recommended for the " heaviest "

drinkers, whom he says are the best " moderators " (not a term quoted from the

book, just something I made up,) which is why he said he left the MM Advisory

Board. Then as a nice addendum to his rationale for leaving (somehow I tend

to think he might have been kicked out, but I'm just speculating,) he tells

the story of the Froistad confession which seems to confirm his views that MM

is evil. I'm puzzled that, apparently, the second edition of his book went to

print at the end of 2000, but he didn't sling a little more mud as he did in

the media, recommending that Kishline be " given the opportunity to commit

suicide " after the soap opera last year. Did he forget that he was the

jettison for MM?

The only reason Schaler gets under my skin, really, is his unbelievably

egotistical attitude. I can't think of one well-known non-12 Step activist

whom Schaler hasn't cut ties with because they won't buy into his orders. He

thinks these meaningless stories belong in his book! To top it all off, he

claims to have been seriously harmed by AA on a professional level because he

openly disagrees with them. He practically thinks he was 13th-stepped. Why

did he venture into the AA inferno in the first place?? xHe assures everyone

in his book that he doesn't have any " diseases " . Could he have been looking

for an argument, perhaps?

Good to hear that Peele is willing to state that Schaler is a loony. Seems

ironic, though, since Schaler borrowed (or stole?) a lot of the concepts,

like " maturing out " , from Peele's work. He should be appreciative and try to

contain his apparent insanity. Is Peele an Orwellian double-thinker? I'm just

dying to know...

Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Pete,

Yes, there is an entire chapter of the book devoted to his attack on MM,

which, again, is bizarre in its approach. He vilifies Kishline for openly

stating that MM was probably not appropriate/recommended for the " heaviest "

drinkers, whom he says are the best " moderators " (not a term quoted from the

book, just something I made up,) which is why he said he left the MM Advisory

Board. Then as a nice addendum to his rationale for leaving (somehow I tend

to think he might have been kicked out, but I'm just speculating,) he tells

the story of the Froistad confession which seems to confirm his views that MM

is evil. I'm puzzled that, apparently, the second edition of his book went to

print at the end of 2000, but he didn't sling a little more mud as he did in

the media, recommending that Kishline be " given the opportunity to commit

suicide " after the soap opera last year. Did he forget that he was the

jettison for MM?

The only reason Schaler gets under my skin, really, is his unbelievably

egotistical attitude. I can't think of one well-known non-12 Step activist

whom Schaler hasn't cut ties with because they won't buy into his orders. He

thinks these meaningless stories belong in his book! To top it all off, he

claims to have been seriously harmed by AA on a professional level because he

openly disagrees with them. He practically thinks he was 13th-stepped. Why

did he venture into the AA inferno in the first place?? xHe assures everyone

in his book that he doesn't have any " diseases " . Could he have been looking

for an argument, perhaps?

Good to hear that Peele is willing to state that Schaler is a loony. Seems

ironic, though, since Schaler borrowed (or stole?) a lot of the concepts,

like " maturing out " , from Peele's work. He should be appreciative and try to

contain his apparent insanity. Is Peele an Orwellian double-thinker? I'm just

dying to know...

Nick

[Guest guest]

> Subj: Re: Re: " Addiction Is A Choice "

> Date: Sunday, May 6, 2001 3:40:24 PM

> From:

> To: 12-step-free@y...

>

> ,

> What is your point? You think its a ripoff? It does sound

expensive,

but from

> what I understand it was a massive effort to produce them...and its

a bargain

> compared to rehab, even the filthy ghetto-ish indoctrination

centers

would

> cost that amount per day...and if they think you are leaving too

early you

> will be stamped " AMA " , in addiction to your lifelong disease(s) and

having to

> share your quarters with very, very " bad company " .

Well, maybe there is something besides AA and something besides

Trimpey's view - heck, maybe there is something that doesn't cost one

dime out there! I don't see where even if she was criticising the

cost where that would be out of line in the least. It sure is more

money than I could cough up at the moment.

>

> As far as the circumcision, I guess you haven't been on the list

very long

> since the debate fired up again a couple weeks ago (I've only been

on a

> couple months but I guess the discussion has been on and off for a

while),

> but it was only intended in humor as I don't have any opinion. Did

you e-mail

> the other list members to take a vote before saying, " us " ? I don't

know

> anyone on this list who would be so self-serving as to tell people

to move a

> discussion elsewhere because they personally didn't want to hear it

on a

> discussion list which they paid diddly-squat to subscribe to. This

is

> cyberspace, not a recovery meeting.

Well, I have heard it and lots of times. I have asked the same

question myself. What *does* circumcision have to do with being

12-step-free other than it is Ken's pet peeve? If he weren't the

moderator I bet lots of people would tell him to take it

elsewhere. Perhaps you have an opinion on it?

One gets whatever information

one can

> find for free, without possibility of personal/professional

blackmail,

> physical harm, etc. that are inherent risks in AA. Why are you

concerned with

> the " intent " of this list? Who really cares? That is up to Ken.

This

isn't an

> online recovery group, where people are highly concerned with the

relapse

> potential of those who voluntarily subscribe, or who vote because

the society

> elects people for service and discusses fundamental issues of

" motives " as a

> spiritual-not-religious " principle " . Those kinds of things are

distinctly

> 12-step, a counterproductive lifestyle we've all escaped

(hopefully.)

Come again? For someone who is critical of another's interpretation

of the list, you sure do have your own ideas about what is acceptable

and what isn't! She gets accused of being " 12-step " because she

questions the validity of rehashing the circumcision debate on

12-step-free? And, what more *could* possibly be said about it? Why

is circumcision deemed the issue that can divide this otherwise great

list? Look back at the posts. Debating circumcision sucks.

>

> I'm sorry if this message sounds extremely hostile, but I was a

little

> troubled by the prospect that you thought I would send that note to

Rita out

> of the blue, as a sexual innuendo or attempt at grotesque humor.

That is the

> kind of grisly, porno-ish humor that I remember from the 12-step

sydnicate,

> and I hope the truth is that you sent that note as a reflex,

already

> accustomed to that kind of weirdness from " meeting makers " .

Again, innuendo relating to " meeting makers. " Yes, Nick, I think

this

is an extremely hostile post. But then, perhaps you are referring to

an offline message that the rest of us didn't see, because I sure

didn't see anything in the posts sent the the list to

warrant

this kind of harsh comparison to stepping and attempt to shut down

someone's opinion.

Hicks

[Guest guest]

> Subj: Re: Re: " Addiction Is A Choice "

> Date: Sunday, May 6, 2001 3:40:24 PM

> From:

> To: 12-step-free@y...

>

> ,

> What is your point? You think its a ripoff? It does sound

expensive,

but from

> what I understand it was a massive effort to produce them...and its

a bargain

> compared to rehab, even the filthy ghetto-ish indoctrination

centers

would

> cost that amount per day...and if they think you are leaving too

early you

> will be stamped " AMA " , in addiction to your lifelong disease(s) and

having to

> share your quarters with very, very " bad company " .

Well, maybe there is something besides AA and something besides

Trimpey's view - heck, maybe there is something that doesn't cost one

dime out there! I don't see where even if she was criticising the

cost where that would be out of line in the least. It sure is more

money than I could cough up at the moment.

>

> As far as the circumcision, I guess you haven't been on the list

very long

> since the debate fired up again a couple weeks ago (I've only been

on a

> couple months but I guess the discussion has been on and off for a

while),

> but it was only intended in humor as I don't have any opinion. Did

you e-mail

> the other list members to take a vote before saying, " us " ? I don't

know

> anyone on this list who would be so self-serving as to tell people

to move a

> discussion elsewhere because they personally didn't want to hear it

on a

> discussion list which they paid diddly-squat to subscribe to. This

is

> cyberspace, not a recovery meeting.

Well, I have heard it and lots of times. I have asked the same

question myself. What *does* circumcision have to do with being

12-step-free other than it is Ken's pet peeve? If he weren't the

moderator I bet lots of people would tell him to take it

elsewhere. Perhaps you have an opinion on it?

One gets whatever information

one can

> find for free, without possibility of personal/professional

blackmail,

> physical harm, etc. that are inherent risks in AA. Why are you

concerned with

> the " intent " of this list? Who really cares? That is up to Ken.

This

isn't an

> online recovery group, where people are highly concerned with the

relapse

> potential of those who voluntarily subscribe, or who vote because

the society

> elects people for service and discusses fundamental issues of

" motives " as a

> spiritual-not-religious " principle " . Those kinds of things are

distinctly

> 12-step, a counterproductive lifestyle we've all escaped

(hopefully.)

Come again? For someone who is critical of another's interpretation

of the list, you sure do have your own ideas about what is acceptable

and what isn't! She gets accused of being " 12-step " because she

questions the validity of rehashing the circumcision debate on

12-step-free? And, what more *could* possibly be said about it? Why

is circumcision deemed the issue that can divide this otherwise great

list? Look back at the posts. Debating circumcision sucks.

>

> I'm sorry if this message sounds extremely hostile, but I was a

little

> troubled by the prospect that you thought I would send that note to

Rita out

> of the blue, as a sexual innuendo or attempt at grotesque humor.

That is the

> kind of grisly, porno-ish humor that I remember from the 12-step

sydnicate,

> and I hope the truth is that you sent that note as a reflex,

already

> accustomed to that kind of weirdness from " meeting makers " .

Again, innuendo relating to " meeting makers. " Yes, Nick, I think

this

is an extremely hostile post. But then, perhaps you are referring to

an offline message that the rest of us didn't see, because I sure

didn't see anything in the posts sent the the list to

warrant

this kind of harsh comparison to stepping and attempt to shut down

someone's opinion.

Hicks

[Guest guest]

> Subj: Re: Re: " Addiction Is A Choice "

> Date: Sunday, May 6, 2001 3:40:24 PM

> From:

> To: 12-step-free@y...

>

> ,

> What is your point? You think its a ripoff? It does sound

expensive,

but from

> what I understand it was a massive effort to produce them...and its

a bargain

> compared to rehab, even the filthy ghetto-ish indoctrination

centers

would

> cost that amount per day...and if they think you are leaving too

early you

> will be stamped " AMA " , in addiction to your lifelong disease(s) and

having to

> share your quarters with very, very " bad company " .

Well, maybe there is something besides AA and something besides

Trimpey's view - heck, maybe there is something that doesn't cost one

dime out there! I don't see where even if she was criticising the

cost where that would be out of line in the least. It sure is more

money than I could cough up at the moment.

>

> As far as the circumcision, I guess you haven't been on the list

very long

> since the debate fired up again a couple weeks ago (I've only been

on a

> couple months but I guess the discussion has been on and off for a

while),

> but it was only intended in humor as I don't have any opinion. Did

you e-mail

> the other list members to take a vote before saying, " us " ? I don't

know

> anyone on this list who would be so self-serving as to tell people

to move a

> discussion elsewhere because they personally didn't want to hear it

on a

> discussion list which they paid diddly-squat to subscribe to. This

is

> cyberspace, not a recovery meeting.

Well, I have heard it and lots of times. I have asked the same

question myself. What *does* circumcision have to do with being

12-step-free other than it is Ken's pet peeve? If he weren't the

moderator I bet lots of people would tell him to take it

elsewhere. Perhaps you have an opinion on it?

One gets whatever information

one can

> find for free, without possibility of personal/professional

blackmail,

> physical harm, etc. that are inherent risks in AA. Why are you

concerned with

> the " intent " of this list? Who really cares? That is up to Ken.

This

isn't an

> online recovery group, where people are highly concerned with the

relapse

> potential of those who voluntarily subscribe, or who vote because

the society

> elects people for service and discusses fundamental issues of

" motives " as a

> spiritual-not-religious " principle " . Those kinds of things are

distinctly

> 12-step, a counterproductive lifestyle we've all escaped

(hopefully.)

Come again? For someone who is critical of another's interpretation

of the list, you sure do have your own ideas about what is acceptable

and what isn't! She gets accused of being " 12-step " because she

questions the validity of rehashing the circumcision debate on

12-step-free? And, what more *could* possibly be said about it? Why

is circumcision deemed the issue that can divide this otherwise great

list? Look back at the posts. Debating circumcision sucks.

>

> I'm sorry if this message sounds extremely hostile, but I was a

little

> troubled by the prospect that you thought I would send that note to

Rita out

> of the blue, as a sexual innuendo or attempt at grotesque humor.

That is the

> kind of grisly, porno-ish humor that I remember from the 12-step

sydnicate,

> and I hope the truth is that you sent that note as a reflex,

already

> accustomed to that kind of weirdness from " meeting makers " .

Again, innuendo relating to " meeting makers. " Yes, Nick, I think

this

is an extremely hostile post. But then, perhaps you are referring to

an offline message that the rest of us didn't see, because I sure

didn't see anything in the posts sent the the list to

warrant

this kind of harsh comparison to stepping and attempt to shut down

someone's opinion.

Hicks