Guest guest Posted May 2, 2001 Report Share Posted May 2, 2001 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. 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. > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. 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. > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. 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. > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 A while ago (during the Kishline manslaughter discussion) I posted here Trimpey's revelation that AA itself is a defacto program of moderation. From that perspective, lumping criticism of abstinence and AA together is based on a flawed logic motivated by a questionable desire to give abstinence a bum rap. Achieving abstinence is commonplace, unremarkable, and relatively simple, even though it may feel difficult. I don't think the simple achievement of permanent abstinence renders a person into a therapeutically adjusted version of their former self. This may put a light on one of the hidden reasons why some never dependent addictions specialists choose to put abstinence into a bad light above and beyond its perceived connection to AA. Dave Trippel "Addiction Is a Choice" 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2001 Report Share Posted May 3, 2001 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 But if anyone thought this was funny see if someone at the about.com will believe it was written sincerely, that's what I really want to know. I find the concept funny, and if you spent a bit more time on it it could be hilarious. If you want to see an example of parody that is friggin' perfect, go to landoverbaptist.com You could be in their league, I suspect. This sendoff of fundamentalist Xians is so good, that their mailbag is teeming with outraged letters from other born agains who think they are for real but so extreme that they will give everyone a "bad name." Indeed, reading the mail from those gullible idjits who simply do not get it, is hysterical. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Nick Your response to me is extremely hostile , and I think unmerited in its ferocity . The first paragraph doesnt relate to anything I have said . I have been on the list for about a year , and have participated from time to time . I got a significant victory for here in England when I managed to get a mandated attendance at AA revoked , for myself . This was not without a fight and I had to go through some stick to do it . I have proved myself a true 12Step Free person by my actions and not just words . asking about the intention of the list was simply to refresh my memory , some lists stick to their original remit , and others are free to wander off at a tangent . I hope this clarifies things and I have no intention to try to impose my thoughts on anyone else . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Nick Your response to me is extremely hostile , and I think unmerited in its ferocity . The first paragraph doesnt relate to anything I have said . I have been on the list for about a year , and have participated from time to time . I got a significant victory for here in England when I managed to get a mandated attendance at AA revoked , for myself . This was not without a fight and I had to go through some stick to do it . I have proved myself a true 12Step Free person by my actions and not just words . asking about the intention of the list was simply to refresh my memory , some lists stick to their original remit , and others are free to wander off at a tangent . I hope this clarifies things and I have no intention to try to impose my thoughts on anyone else . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Nick Your response to me is extremely hostile , and I think unmerited in its ferocity . The first paragraph doesnt relate to anything I have said . I have been on the list for about a year , and have participated from time to time . I got a significant victory for here in England when I managed to get a mandated attendance at AA revoked , for myself . This was not without a fight and I had to go through some stick to do it . I have proved myself a true 12Step Free person by my actions and not just words . asking about the intention of the list was simply to refresh my memory , some lists stick to their original remit , and others are free to wander off at a tangent . I hope this clarifies things and I have no intention to try to impose my thoughts on anyone else . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 I really admire your victory, please don't think I'm trying to start a war. People disagree all the time on here but I'm amazed at the interesting discussions and insights...I think the point is to not take it personally. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 I really admire your victory, please don't think I'm trying to start a war. People disagree all the time on here but I'm amazed at the interesting discussions and insights...I think the point is to not take it personally. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 I really admire your victory, please don't think I'm trying to start a war. People disagree all the time on here but I'm amazed at the interesting discussions and insights...I think the point is to not take it personally. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 Nick Im sorry I got my knickers in a twist ! I have to attend a doctors and dentists meeting every month. One doctor who is in early recovery said that he was drunk in the surgery , but he thought it was not a big problem because no patients had ever made a complaint ! I too have had to listen to these drunkalogues /drugalogues, and I have heard many of them and it makes me very nervous when I have to go to the doctor myself ! I think that they all know they have put patients at risk , but they are only human and denial is more comfortable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 Nick Im sorry I got my knickers in a twist ! I have to attend a doctors and dentists meeting every month. One doctor who is in early recovery said that he was drunk in the surgery , but he thought it was not a big problem because no patients had ever made a complaint ! I too have had to listen to these drunkalogues /drugalogues, and I have heard many of them and it makes me very nervous when I have to go to the doctor myself ! I think that they all know they have put patients at risk , but they are only human and denial is more comfortable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.