Not giving advice (was: Legal weirdness in NY)

[Guest guest]

From Ben, " When giving 'sponsorship advice' to others, they may not even word it

as you

did, especially if others are listening: " I can't tell anyone what to do, I can

only share

my experience, strength and hope... ...In addition to being an indirect

lecture, This

gives 'plausible denial' that anyone was told what to do "

There is a good reason for wording it this way. I'm on another list (but the

digests keep

piling up because I'm spending my computer time here) for adults with ADD

(ADD-Adults@yahoogroups). The moderator had to come down hard on a couple

people who were

getting carried away. These guys were enthusiastically telling people to take

this

medicine! try this medication! ask your doctor! this stuff really works!

The moderator pointed out that people could get in trouble for " prescribing " if

they do

this. Finally it got to where she added a disclaimer to each post " , since the

guys were

forgetting and getting carried away again:

"

[Guest guest]

At 06:55 PM 8/6/01 -0400, wrote:

>From Ben, " When giving 'sponsorship advice' to others, they may not even

word it as you

>did, especially if others are listening: " I can't tell anyone what to do,

I can only share

>my experience, strength and hope... ...In addition to being an

indirect lecture, This

>gives 'plausible denial' that anyone was told what to do "

>

>There is a good reason for wording it this way. I'm on another list (but

the digests keep

>piling up because I'm spending my computer time here) for adults with ADD

>(ADD-Adults@yahoogroups). The moderator had to come down hard on a couple

people who were

>getting carried away. These guys were enthusiastically telling people to

take this

>medicine! try this medication! ask your doctor! this stuff really works!

>

>The moderator pointed out that people could get in trouble for

" prescribing " if they do

>this.

I totally agree what you're saying about meds, but I hope you

understand, that's not the motivation in AA. This indirect way of telling

others what to do has very little or nothing to do with medication or not

playing doctor. It has to do with everyone with a year or more in AA

sharing their experience, and they all happen to have the same experience.

If one goes to a dozen AA old-timers and they all say " I'm not sober if I

take meds " , what is that saying? It's a powerful statement that if the

person asking wants to be considered sober in AA, they shouldn't take

meds.

IANAL, but since some others here are lawyers, (I forget who), maybe

they can, uh, not neccesarily 'give a legal opinion', but say something

about whether a judge or jury might accept an argument that the above

amounts to AA telling people to do or not do something [in this particular

case, it's to not take drugs]. I say, for all practical purposes, it DOES

amount to telling people what to do.

>So the sponsor is being sensible to word it that way. Of course there is

a big difference

>between a happy ADD adult chirping, " Adderall really works. Tell your

doctor you want a

>prescription! " on an e-list; and a sponsor bamboozling a vulnerable

newcomer, with the

>support of others in the program.

>

> I guess times have changed. My sponsor, back in the late '70's,

didn't hesitate

>to tell me what to do.

>He diagnosed me hypoglycemic, told me to go to the doctor he chose

>for me, told me to take the 5 hour hypoglycemia test; and when the test

came back

>negative, he told me that the test didn't mean anything and that I was

hypoglycemic even

>though the test said I wasn't. And oh boy, could he ever manipulate!

Don't get me wrong, there's also a lot of that still going on in AA,

they may say " we only share our experience, strength and hope " and then

the next moment they are telling others what to do.

You could ask " but you just told me/him/her what to do, when you were

just saying you only share YOUR experience " . And get a response much like

yours below:

" Do you want to stay sober? You may have better success if you mind

your own business. Have you taken your own inventory lately? "

Or the more indirect " I've learned that for me to stay sober I had

to stop taking others' inventories and not question others' motives. "

>So did many others. There were men who would bluster, " I ask my pigeons,

'Do you want to

>get sober?' I tell them, 'If you want to get sober you have to do

everything I tell you.

>Do you want to get sober? Are you going to do whatever I say?' I tell

'em what to do. "

I've seen this sort of thing too.

>Getting ordered around by power trippers was commonplace, whether they

were sponsors or

>not. Perhaps nowadays the climate has changed a bit

No, I don't think so, or if things have changed at all, it has nothing

to do with the reasons you give. There is very little awareness in AA

about telling others one's opinions on medication, or saying outright

whehter or not to take something, in relation to practicing medicine

without a license.

At one meeting where the topic had become changes in AA, an oldtimer

said " AA hasn't changed a bit since it started " . He got sober around 1963,

so he should know that it hasn't changed since 1935. At another meeting

this same oldtimer was bemoaning the fact that years earlier the old-timers

would tell newcomers to sit down, shut uo and listed, and that he didn't

hear it much anymore. But he hadn't attended the newcomers' meeting where

I started in AA, where that, and also " take the cotton out of your ears and

stick it in your mouth " was said a lot.

>and sponsors are more wary about

>coming on hard and ordering their " pigeons " around.

No, I really don't think that's why they do it. They " share " their

" experience, strength and hope " because it can be more effective form

of manipulation than simply and directly telling others what to do.

The indirection occurrs in various ways, such as where someone said to

Pete recently on the GSO list: " I knew someone who asked questions like

that. He's dead now. "

I was telling a sponsor what I was doing and he told me " don't do

that " . I said " that doesn't sound like your experience " . He said " That

IS my experience. My experience is you shouldn't do that. "

>We live in interesting times...

That's true.

>Cheers,

>

>nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:55 PM 8/6/01 -0400, wrote:

>From Ben, " When giving 'sponsorship advice' to others, they may not even

word it as you

>did, especially if others are listening: " I can't tell anyone what to do,

I can only share

>my experience, strength and hope... ...In addition to being an

indirect lecture, This

>gives 'plausible denial' that anyone was told what to do "

>

>There is a good reason for wording it this way. I'm on another list (but

the digests keep

>piling up because I'm spending my computer time here) for adults with ADD

>(ADD-Adults@yahoogroups). The moderator had to come down hard on a couple

people who were

>getting carried away. These guys were enthusiastically telling people to

take this

>medicine! try this medication! ask your doctor! this stuff really works!

>

>The moderator pointed out that people could get in trouble for

" prescribing " if they do

>this.

I totally agree what you're saying about meds, but I hope you

understand, that's not the motivation in AA. This indirect way of telling

others what to do has very little or nothing to do with medication or not

playing doctor. It has to do with everyone with a year or more in AA

sharing their experience, and they all happen to have the same experience.

If one goes to a dozen AA old-timers and they all say " I'm not sober if I

take meds " , what is that saying? It's a powerful statement that if the

person asking wants to be considered sober in AA, they shouldn't take

meds.

IANAL, but since some others here are lawyers, (I forget who), maybe

they can, uh, not neccesarily 'give a legal opinion', but say something

about whether a judge or jury might accept an argument that the above

amounts to AA telling people to do or not do something [in this particular

case, it's to not take drugs]. I say, for all practical purposes, it DOES

amount to telling people what to do.

>So the sponsor is being sensible to word it that way. Of course there is

a big difference

>between a happy ADD adult chirping, " Adderall really works. Tell your

doctor you want a

>prescription! " on an e-list; and a sponsor bamboozling a vulnerable

newcomer, with the

>support of others in the program.

>

> I guess times have changed. My sponsor, back in the late '70's,

didn't hesitate

>to tell me what to do.

>He diagnosed me hypoglycemic, told me to go to the doctor he chose

>for me, told me to take the 5 hour hypoglycemia test; and when the test

came back

>negative, he told me that the test didn't mean anything and that I was

hypoglycemic even

>though the test said I wasn't. And oh boy, could he ever manipulate!

Don't get me wrong, there's also a lot of that still going on in AA,

they may say " we only share our experience, strength and hope " and then

the next moment they are telling others what to do.

You could ask " but you just told me/him/her what to do, when you were

just saying you only share YOUR experience " . And get a response much like

yours below:

" Do you want to stay sober? You may have better success if you mind

your own business. Have you taken your own inventory lately? "

Or the more indirect " I've learned that for me to stay sober I had

to stop taking others' inventories and not question others' motives. "

>So did many others. There were men who would bluster, " I ask my pigeons,

'Do you want to

>get sober?' I tell them, 'If you want to get sober you have to do

everything I tell you.

>Do you want to get sober? Are you going to do whatever I say?' I tell

'em what to do. "

I've seen this sort of thing too.

>Getting ordered around by power trippers was commonplace, whether they

were sponsors or

>not. Perhaps nowadays the climate has changed a bit

No, I don't think so, or if things have changed at all, it has nothing

to do with the reasons you give. There is very little awareness in AA

about telling others one's opinions on medication, or saying outright

whehter or not to take something, in relation to practicing medicine

without a license.

At one meeting where the topic had become changes in AA, an oldtimer

said " AA hasn't changed a bit since it started " . He got sober around 1963,

so he should know that it hasn't changed since 1935. At another meeting

this same oldtimer was bemoaning the fact that years earlier the old-timers

would tell newcomers to sit down, shut uo and listed, and that he didn't

hear it much anymore. But he hadn't attended the newcomers' meeting where

I started in AA, where that, and also " take the cotton out of your ears and

stick it in your mouth " was said a lot.

>and sponsors are more wary about

>coming on hard and ordering their " pigeons " around.

No, I really don't think that's why they do it. They " share " their

" experience, strength and hope " because it can be more effective form

of manipulation than simply and directly telling others what to do.

The indirection occurrs in various ways, such as where someone said to

Pete recently on the GSO list: " I knew someone who asked questions like

that. He's dead now. "

I was telling a sponsor what I was doing and he told me " don't do

that " . I said " that doesn't sound like your experience " . He said " That

IS my experience. My experience is you shouldn't do that. "

>We live in interesting times...

That's true.

>Cheers,

>

>nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 06:55 PM 8/6/01 -0400, wrote:

>From Ben, " When giving 'sponsorship advice' to others, they may not even

word it as you

>did, especially if others are listening: " I can't tell anyone what to do,

I can only share

>my experience, strength and hope... ...In addition to being an

indirect lecture, This

>gives 'plausible denial' that anyone was told what to do "

>

>There is a good reason for wording it this way. I'm on another list (but

the digests keep

>piling up because I'm spending my computer time here) for adults with ADD

>(ADD-Adults@yahoogroups). The moderator had to come down hard on a couple

people who were

>getting carried away. These guys were enthusiastically telling people to

take this

>medicine! try this medication! ask your doctor! this stuff really works!

>

>The moderator pointed out that people could get in trouble for

" prescribing " if they do

>this.

I totally agree what you're saying about meds, but I hope you

understand, that's not the motivation in AA. This indirect way of telling

others what to do has very little or nothing to do with medication or not

playing doctor. It has to do with everyone with a year or more in AA

sharing their experience, and they all happen to have the same experience.

If one goes to a dozen AA old-timers and they all say " I'm not sober if I

take meds " , what is that saying? It's a powerful statement that if the

person asking wants to be considered sober in AA, they shouldn't take

meds.

IANAL, but since some others here are lawyers, (I forget who), maybe

they can, uh, not neccesarily 'give a legal opinion', but say something

about whether a judge or jury might accept an argument that the above

amounts to AA telling people to do or not do something [in this particular

case, it's to not take drugs]. I say, for all practical purposes, it DOES

amount to telling people what to do.

>So the sponsor is being sensible to word it that way. Of course there is

a big difference

>between a happy ADD adult chirping, " Adderall really works. Tell your

doctor you want a

>prescription! " on an e-list; and a sponsor bamboozling a vulnerable

newcomer, with the

>support of others in the program.

>

> I guess times have changed. My sponsor, back in the late '70's,

didn't hesitate

>to tell me what to do.

>He diagnosed me hypoglycemic, told me to go to the doctor he chose

>for me, told me to take the 5 hour hypoglycemia test; and when the test

came back

>negative, he told me that the test didn't mean anything and that I was

hypoglycemic even

>though the test said I wasn't. And oh boy, could he ever manipulate!

Don't get me wrong, there's also a lot of that still going on in AA,

they may say " we only share our experience, strength and hope " and then

the next moment they are telling others what to do.

You could ask " but you just told me/him/her what to do, when you were

just saying you only share YOUR experience " . And get a response much like

yours below:

" Do you want to stay sober? You may have better success if you mind

your own business. Have you taken your own inventory lately? "

Or the more indirect " I've learned that for me to stay sober I had

to stop taking others' inventories and not question others' motives. "

>So did many others. There were men who would bluster, " I ask my pigeons,

'Do you want to

>get sober?' I tell them, 'If you want to get sober you have to do

everything I tell you.

>Do you want to get sober? Are you going to do whatever I say?' I tell

'em what to do. "

I've seen this sort of thing too.

>Getting ordered around by power trippers was commonplace, whether they

were sponsors or

>not. Perhaps nowadays the climate has changed a bit

No, I don't think so, or if things have changed at all, it has nothing

to do with the reasons you give. There is very little awareness in AA

about telling others one's opinions on medication, or saying outright

whehter or not to take something, in relation to practicing medicine

without a license.

At one meeting where the topic had become changes in AA, an oldtimer

said " AA hasn't changed a bit since it started " . He got sober around 1963,

so he should know that it hasn't changed since 1935. At another meeting

this same oldtimer was bemoaning the fact that years earlier the old-timers

would tell newcomers to sit down, shut uo and listed, and that he didn't

hear it much anymore. But he hadn't attended the newcomers' meeting where

I started in AA, where that, and also " take the cotton out of your ears and

stick it in your mouth " was said a lot.

>and sponsors are more wary about

>coming on hard and ordering their " pigeons " around.

No, I really don't think that's why they do it. They " share " their

" experience, strength and hope " because it can be more effective form

of manipulation than simply and directly telling others what to do.

The indirection occurrs in various ways, such as where someone said to

Pete recently on the GSO list: " I knew someone who asked questions like

that. He's dead now. "

I was telling a sponsor what I was doing and he told me " don't do

that " . I said " that doesn't sound like your experience " . He said " That

IS my experience. My experience is you shouldn't do that. "

>We live in interesting times...

That's true.

>Cheers,

>

>nz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> The indirection occurrs in various ways, such as where someone

>said to

> Pete recently on the GSO list: " I knew someone who asked questions

>like

> that. He's dead now. "

Actually it was even more indirect than that. something like (each a

separate post):

Him: " My my. Objecting to AA. Takes me down memory lane. "

Me: " Care to explain? "

Him: " Reminds me of something a gentleman once said, now deceased. "

Me: " And the point is? "

Him - NO reply!

It makes discussing things with these ppl intensely difficult,. They

are masters of verbal terrorism. Apparently Shirk is saying he wants

to stay now becasue it's the American thing of resisting doing what

youre told, like resisting Prohibition. Logically therefore he should

support the All-American folks resisting AA coercion, shouldnt he!

(and also the end of the WoD). Fwiw, drinking did decline during

Prohibition. It occurs to me that I've been a bit Shirky in basically

being so keen he should go simply because he won't when pushed. I

don't like him here but we could have worse trolls and have done

previously. I have warned him I will complain to his ISP in the event

of trouble and I may also approach his professional bodies if he gets

out of line, for being a discredit to his profession.

The list FAQ doesnt explicitly state it is a closed list, only by a

pretty weak implication, and can only really be on a honor-bound

basis. If a guy doesnt have the honor, then there's not a lot you can

do about it.

P.

[Guest guest]

> The indirection occurrs in various ways, such as where someone

>said to

> Pete recently on the GSO list: " I knew someone who asked questions

>like

> that. He's dead now. "

Actually it was even more indirect than that. something like (each a

separate post):

Him: " My my. Objecting to AA. Takes me down memory lane. "

Me: " Care to explain? "

Him: " Reminds me of something a gentleman once said, now deceased. "

Me: " And the point is? "

Him - NO reply!

It makes discussing things with these ppl intensely difficult,. They

are masters of verbal terrorism. Apparently Shirk is saying he wants

to stay now becasue it's the American thing of resisting doing what

youre told, like resisting Prohibition. Logically therefore he should

support the All-American folks resisting AA coercion, shouldnt he!

(and also the end of the WoD). Fwiw, drinking did decline during

Prohibition. It occurs to me that I've been a bit Shirky in basically

being so keen he should go simply because he won't when pushed. I

don't like him here but we could have worse trolls and have done

previously. I have warned him I will complain to his ISP in the event

of trouble and I may also approach his professional bodies if he gets

out of line, for being a discredit to his profession.

The list FAQ doesnt explicitly state it is a closed list, only by a

pretty weak implication, and can only really be on a honor-bound

basis. If a guy doesnt have the honor, then there's not a lot you can

do about it.

P.

[Guest guest]

*Very* interesting idea. If individuals could bring such a suit,

it'd be interesting to see "pigeons" suing their sponsors for

such crummy advice.

Any thoughts, Mona?

Do we have any other lawyers on the list? I hate to keep

picking on Mona like this.

I have spent some time musing over how one could pin liability on a sponsor who gives bad advice, and although I can see arguments about breaches of fiduciary duties and the like, I can' really find an actionable legal duty that has been breached. Moreover, I'm not sure I want to. There are important First Amendment issues at sake here; if adults want to associate with one another and counsel that all medicine is from Satan, that is their every right. Contradicting conventional medical advice should be neither a tort, nor a crime, in most circumstances.

--Mona--

[Guest guest]

At 03:41 PM 8/7/01 +0000, you wrote:

>A lawsuit alleging " practice of medicine without a license " against

>such people, whether members, sponsors or counselors, would be very

>interesting, in light of the fact that a) the practices of the

>counselors are sanctioned by the M.D. directors of the programs; and

> Bill W. once wrote a pamphlet saying that AA did not have any

>business interfering in the relationship between a patient and his

>doctor.

>

>Furthermore, I don't know who would have standing to bring such a

>lawsuit. Can individuals bring it? Can only medical licensing boards

>bring it? (If that's true, we won't see it in this state very soon.)

> Does it vary from state to state?

*Very* interesting idea. If individuals could bring such a suit,

it'd be interesting to see " pigeons " suing their sponsors for

such crummy advice.

Any thoughts, Mona?

Do we have any other lawyers on the list? I hate to keep

picking on Mona like this.