Denial, judges (was: New here)

[Guest guest]

> > From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

> suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

> assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

> legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

> the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

> in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

> educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

> " treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

> determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

> disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

> " substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

> >

> > Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

> an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

> defendents merit.

> >

> > And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

> alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

> obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

> nor total abstinence is warranted.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

> Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

> alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

> sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

> coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

> Steve

----------------

Professional counselors are accountable to written competency and ethical

standards for their titles.

If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard for a valid

assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue for malpractice and/or

complain to the licensing board.

If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate reason to

challenge.

Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups cause

sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending such groups

(particularly for those who state an intention and preference to be sober and

responsible without them), it is not professionally competent or ethical to

" prescribe " such attendance across the board.

Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy, however -- in

which the client's own beliefs and preferences are acknowledged and honored --

is within ethical standards.

The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is not merely

" attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I know. People are

either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief educational session), " alcohol

abuse " (brief professional counseling with periodic body fluid testing) or

" alcohol dependence " (an intensive long-term professional treatment program). I

don't know the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be changed),

but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right direction.

The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical disorder, in

which case it is malpractice to make them have any " treatment " whatsoever, or

they do have a clinical disorder, for which they should be getting treatment

from someone with therapeutic training and qualifications, and who is answerable

for incompetence, abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are

merely clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to join

them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

Hope this answers your question --

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> > From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

> suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

> assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

> legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

> the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

> in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

> educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

> " treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

> determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

> disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

> " substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

> >

> > Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

> an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

> defendents merit.

> >

> > And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

> alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

> obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

> nor total abstinence is warranted.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

> Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

> alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

> sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

> coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

> Steve

----------------

Professional counselors are accountable to written competency and ethical

standards for their titles.

If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard for a valid

assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue for malpractice and/or

complain to the licensing board.

If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate reason to

challenge.

Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups cause

sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending such groups

(particularly for those who state an intention and preference to be sober and

responsible without them), it is not professionally competent or ethical to

" prescribe " such attendance across the board.

Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy, however -- in

which the client's own beliefs and preferences are acknowledged and honored --

is within ethical standards.

The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is not merely

" attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I know. People are

either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief educational session), " alcohol

abuse " (brief professional counseling with periodic body fluid testing) or

" alcohol dependence " (an intensive long-term professional treatment program). I

don't know the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be changed),

but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right direction.

The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical disorder, in

which case it is malpractice to make them have any " treatment " whatsoever, or

they do have a clinical disorder, for which they should be getting treatment

from someone with therapeutic training and qualifications, and who is answerable

for incompetence, abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are

merely clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to join

them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

Hope this answers your question --

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> > From what I have heard, in the state of Washington, all defendants

> suspected of *possibly* having a substance use disorder are PROFESSIONALLY

> assessed. Professional assessments go into a lot of detail about medical,

> legal, and personal/social/job history, and use corroborating sources. If

> the assessment shows no clinical disorder present, the judge accepts that --

> in DUI cases, the person would then be mandated to attend a brief

> educational session in addition to any fine or license suspension. But

> " treatment " of any kind is only ordered if a professional evaluation

> determines that the individual meets the criteria for a substance use

> disorder -- and even then, there are different levels of treatment for mild

> " substance abuse " than for a " substance dependency " diagnosis.

> >

> > Probably the WA system has some flaws -- but I think it's a hell of

> an improvement over letting a JUDGE decide what diagnosis and treatment DUI

> defendents merit.

> >

> > And no, it is NOT generally " obvious " that any particular person is

> alcohol dependent -- really, anyone can make an error in judgement and

> obtain a DUI. Most often, it is a one-time thing and neither " treatment "

> nor total abstinence is warranted.

> >

> > ~Rita

>

> Ok, let's cut to brass tacks again. If a professional counselor in

> Washington State said, upon evaluation after a criminal conviction for an

> alcohol-related crime, " Ms. X (or Ms. Rita), we believe you need to go to a

> sobriety support group, " what then? Do you still have a blanket objection to

> coerced non-religious sobriety groups for convicted criminals?

> Steve

----------------

Professional counselors are accountable to written competency and ethical

standards for their titles.

If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard for a valid

assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue for malpractice and/or

complain to the licensing board.

If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate reason to

challenge.

Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups cause

sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending such groups

(particularly for those who state an intention and preference to be sober and

responsible without them), it is not professionally competent or ethical to

" prescribe " such attendance across the board.

Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy, however -- in

which the client's own beliefs and preferences are acknowledged and honored --

is within ethical standards.

The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is not merely

" attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I know. People are

either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief educational session), " alcohol

abuse " (brief professional counseling with periodic body fluid testing) or

" alcohol dependence " (an intensive long-term professional treatment program). I

don't know the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be changed),

but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right direction.

The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical disorder, in

which case it is malpractice to make them have any " treatment " whatsoever, or

they do have a clinical disorder, for which they should be getting treatment

from someone with therapeutic training and qualifications, and who is answerable

for incompetence, abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are

merely clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to join

them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

Hope this answers your question --

~Rita

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

> > we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

>

> Coolguy,

>

> Perhaps what we need even more is M.A., Murderers Anonymous and

maybe have

> the court system mandate group meetings for anyone accused of

conspiracy that

> denies it, Conspirators Anonymous.

>

> Ken Ragge

F*** that........point made!!!

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

> > we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

>

> Coolguy,

>

> Perhaps what we need even more is M.A., Murderers Anonymous and

maybe have

> the court system mandate group meetings for anyone accused of

conspiracy that

> denies it, Conspirators Anonymous.

>

> Ken Ragge

F*** that........point made!!!

[Guest guest]

>

> > I think 95% of accidents involve speeding vehicles... I think what

> > we need to cure our country is speeders anonymous meetings

>

> Coolguy,

>

> Perhaps what we need even more is M.A., Murderers Anonymous and

maybe have

> the court system mandate group meetings for anyone accused of

conspiracy that

> denies it, Conspirators Anonymous.

>

> Ken Ragge

F*** that........point made!!!

[Guest guest]

> The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical disorder,

in which case it is malpractice to make them have any " treatment "

whatsoever, or they do have a clinical disorder, for which they should be

getting treatment from someone with therapeutic training and qualifications,

and who is answerable for incompetence, abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's

" recovery " groups are merely clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER

" order " someone to join them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

>

> Hope this answers your question --

>

> ~Rita

It does. I agree with a fair portion of that. At the same time, I still

think that a judge, tho not perfect, can make a pretty good decision,

especially if the case in question is not the person's first alcohol-related

criminal activity.

Second, in the Washington scenario, there's no reason it couldn't be adapted

by a judge to combine professional treatment with a recovery support group.

Third, what if a professional counselor said: " As part of your treatment

program, I think you should be going to a recovery group? " Because this is

still a criminal case we're talking about, a professional counselor's

" suggestion " could take the form of an order. And, in that case, since it's

in the criminal justice system, we're back to " square one " on " coercion. "

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

> > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > >

> > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

propaganda?

> > > Steve

> >

> > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

came

> > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

>

> Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> Stve

If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > >

> > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

propaganda?

> > > Steve

> >

> > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

came

> > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

>

> Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> Stve

If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

[Guest guest]

>

> > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > >

> > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

propaganda?

> > > Steve

> >

> > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

came

> > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

>

> Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> Stve

If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

[Guest guest]

Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

> >

> > > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > > >

> > > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

> propaganda?

> > > > Steve

> > >

> > > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

> came

> > > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

> >

> > Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> > Stve

>

> If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

> wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

> you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

Oh, slain by my own typo, too. I guess I just am not " erudite " enough.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

> >

> > > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > > >

> > > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

> propaganda?

> > > > Steve

> > >

> > > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

> came

> > > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

> >

> > Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> > Stve

>

> If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

> wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

> you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

Oh, slain by my own typo, too. I guess I just am not " erudite " enough.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Re: " Denial " , judges (was: New here)

>

> >

> > > > > What " works " in Europe is wonderful propaganda, too.

> > > >

> > > > As opposed to unconsidered, nonreflective, xenophobic

> propaganda?

> > > > Steve

> > >

> > > Thats right dickhead I have never thought about it before. It

> came

> > > from your mouth and is therefore wrong.

> >

> > Oh, I've been cut to the heart! Slain by such witty repartee.

> > Stve

>

> If my intention had been to be witty or wise or to spell my own name

> wrong I am sure I could do it, but I basically just wanted to say

> you are a dickead, for lack of a more suitable term.

Oh, slain by my own typo, too. I guess I just am not " erudite " enough.

Steve

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > things.

>

>No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

>times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

>factored out.

That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

usual inflated numbers are achieved.

>To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

>impaired ability to drive.

This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

and reading my simplified example again.

>Almost, as it were, enabling them.

I am moving into moderator mode, and so will not participate in this

discussion any more. I will be monitoring it, though.

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > things.

>

>No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

>times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

>factored out.

That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

usual inflated numbers are achieved.

>To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

>impaired ability to drive.

This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

and reading my simplified example again.

>Almost, as it were, enabling them.

I am moving into moderator mode, and so will not participate in this

discussion any more. I will be monitoring it, though.

[Guest guest]

At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > things.

>

>No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

>times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not be

>factored out.

That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

usual inflated numbers are achieved.

>To factor them out, IMO, is giving a drinking driver a " free pass " on

>impaired ability to drive.

This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

and reading my simplified example again.

>Almost, as it were, enabling them.

I am moving into moderator mode, and so will not participate in this

discussion any more. I will be monitoring it, though.

[Guest guest]

> At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > > things.

> >

> >No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

> >times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not

be

> >factored out.

>

> That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

> such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

> but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

> accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

> amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

> usual inflated numbers are achieved.

I don't know what percentage of them would have not happened if the driver

had not been drinking. Some may have happened anyway. But I'm not going to

eliminate them all " just " because of bad weather. I believe that would be

intellectually dishonest.

Here's part of why. Until recently, most states had a BAC of .10 not .08.

Yet, law enforcement and state highway departments and traffic engineers

knew that in many of these cases, the driver was below. 10 yet had a BAC

high enough to likely be impaired in some way.

In your world, those people might have had a " sometimes-small " amount of

alcohol. However, that legal amount may well have been enough to contribute

to an accident, especially if a driver were driving in less than ideal

conditions.

>

> This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

> conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

> results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

> of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

> and reading my simplified example again.

Since you didn't explicitly say that " correcting for adverse conditions (and

so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such results " until this last post

of your, if you're going to be defensive, it's your own problem.

You yourself used the phrase " factoring them out " when we started discussing

weather and other variables, . I believe a typical reader would

readily have assumed such a phrase meant " throwing out all such results. "

Again, your language, not mine.

So, don't patronize me about the science issue when you make a blanket

statement and then pull back from it.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > > things.

> >

> >No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

> >times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not

be

> >factored out.

>

> That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

> such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

> but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

> accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

> amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

> usual inflated numbers are achieved.

I don't know what percentage of them would have not happened if the driver

had not been drinking. Some may have happened anyway. But I'm not going to

eliminate them all " just " because of bad weather. I believe that would be

intellectually dishonest.

Here's part of why. Until recently, most states had a BAC of .10 not .08.

Yet, law enforcement and state highway departments and traffic engineers

knew that in many of these cases, the driver was below. 10 yet had a BAC

high enough to likely be impaired in some way.

In your world, those people might have had a " sometimes-small " amount of

alcohol. However, that legal amount may well have been enough to contribute

to an accident, especially if a driver were driving in less than ideal

conditions.

>

> This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

> conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

> results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

> of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

> and reading my simplified example again.

Since you didn't explicitly say that " correcting for adverse conditions (and

so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such results " until this last post

of your, if you're going to be defensive, it's your own problem.

You yourself used the phrase " factoring them out " when we started discussing

weather and other variables, . I believe a typical reader would

readily have assumed such a phrase meant " throwing out all such results. "

Again, your language, not mine.

So, don't patronize me about the science issue when you make a blanket

statement and then pull back from it.

Steve

[Guest guest]

> At 11:52 PM 8/11/01 -0500, you wrote:

> > > You forgot to factor in weather, crummy roads, drivers who are

> > > speeding but sober, mechanical failure, and a whole lot of other

> > > things.

> >

> >No, I didn't " forget. " As an alcohol-impaired driver has lowered reaction

> >times, especially in adverse conditions, most of those items should not

be

> >factored out.

>

> That is what you say, but traffic engineers who have actually studied

> such things say otherwise. I realize that this doesn't bother you,

> but it is true nonetheless. Your assumption that " most " of such

> accidents would not have happened but for the sometimes-small

> amount of alcohol is an invalid one. That is precisely how the

> usual inflated numbers are achieved.

I don't know what percentage of them would have not happened if the driver

had not been drinking. Some may have happened anyway. But I'm not going to

eliminate them all " just " because of bad weather. I believe that would be

intellectually dishonest.

Here's part of why. Until recently, most states had a BAC of .10 not .08.

Yet, law enforcement and state highway departments and traffic engineers

knew that in many of these cases, the driver was below. 10 yet had a BAC

high enough to likely be impaired in some way.

In your world, those people might have had a " sometimes-small " amount of

alcohol. However, that legal amount may well have been enough to contribute

to an accident, especially if a driver were driving in less than ideal

conditions.

>

> This is the last time I will point out that correcting for adverse

> conditions (and so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such

> results. I wish you had a better understanding of the methodology

> of the science you say you esteem so highly. Try going back

> and reading my simplified example again.

Since you didn't explicitly say that " correcting for adverse conditions (and

so on) doesn't mean just throwing out all such results " until this last post

of your, if you're going to be defensive, it's your own problem.

You yourself used the phrase " factoring them out " when we started discussing

weather and other variables, . I believe a typical reader would

readily have assumed such a phrase meant " throwing out all such results. "

Again, your language, not mine.

So, don't patronize me about the science issue when you make a blanket

statement and then pull back from it.

Steve

[Guest guest]

Rita,

I am curious as to where your information regarding the " professional

qualifications " of those contracted to evaluate alcohol related

offenders in Washington State comes from. I live in Washington, was

evaluated by a " professional " and my experience is a great deal

different from your description. While it is comforting to believe

that a " professional " has the education, training and ethics that

state licsensing would seem to require, the fact of the matter is

that in Washington, anyone can hang our their shingle and call

themselves a " counselor " . The individual counties award the contracts

for doing the " evaluations " and there is a great deal of political

manuevering involved in obtaining the contracts. To become

a " Certified Alcohol and Addictions Counselor " in this state requires

one to attend some classes, work about 500 hours in an internship and

pay money. There are various levels of CAAC, which require more

classes and more money. There is no requirement for a college degree

of any kind. Since the CAAC classes are taught by confirmed steppers,

and one of the main criteria for passing the classes is an ability to

spout stepper doctrine and have about 6 months of " sobriety " , I find

little reason to have confidence in the ethics and comptetency of

these so called " professionals " .

Kate

>

> Professional counselors are accountable to written competency

and ethical standards for their titles.

>

> If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard

for a valid assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue

for malpractice and/or complain to the licensing board.

>

> If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate

reason to challenge.

>

> Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups

cause sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending

such groups (particularly for those who state an intention and

preference to be sober and responsible without them), it is not

professionally competent or ethical to " prescribe " such attendance

across the board.

>

> Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy,

however -- in which the client's own beliefs and preferences are

acknowledged and honored -- is within ethical standards.

>

> The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is

not merely " attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I

know. People are either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief

educational session), " alcohol abuse " (brief professional counseling

with periodic body fluid testing) or " alcohol dependence " (an

intensive long-term professional treatment program). I don't know

the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be

changed), but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right

direction.

>

> The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical

disorder, in which case it is malpractice to make them have

any " treatment " whatsoever, or they do have a clinical disorder, for

which they should be getting treatment from someone with therapeutic

training and qualifications, and who is answerable for incompetence,

abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are merely

clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to

join them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

>

> Hope this answers your question --

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

Rita,

I am curious as to where your information regarding the " professional

qualifications " of those contracted to evaluate alcohol related

offenders in Washington State comes from. I live in Washington, was

evaluated by a " professional " and my experience is a great deal

different from your description. While it is comforting to believe

that a " professional " has the education, training and ethics that

state licsensing would seem to require, the fact of the matter is

that in Washington, anyone can hang our their shingle and call

themselves a " counselor " . The individual counties award the contracts

for doing the " evaluations " and there is a great deal of political

manuevering involved in obtaining the contracts. To become

a " Certified Alcohol and Addictions Counselor " in this state requires

one to attend some classes, work about 500 hours in an internship and

pay money. There are various levels of CAAC, which require more

classes and more money. There is no requirement for a college degree

of any kind. Since the CAAC classes are taught by confirmed steppers,

and one of the main criteria for passing the classes is an ability to

spout stepper doctrine and have about 6 months of " sobriety " , I find

little reason to have confidence in the ethics and comptetency of

these so called " professionals " .

Kate

>

> Professional counselors are accountable to written competency

and ethical standards for their titles.

>

> If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard

for a valid assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue

for malpractice and/or complain to the licensing board.

>

> If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate

reason to challenge.

>

> Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups

cause sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending

such groups (particularly for those who state an intention and

preference to be sober and responsible without them), it is not

professionally competent or ethical to " prescribe " such attendance

across the board.

>

> Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy,

however -- in which the client's own beliefs and preferences are

acknowledged and honored -- is within ethical standards.

>

> The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is

not merely " attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I

know. People are either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief

educational session), " alcohol abuse " (brief professional counseling

with periodic body fluid testing) or " alcohol dependence " (an

intensive long-term professional treatment program). I don't know

the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be

changed), but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right

direction.

>

> The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical

disorder, in which case it is malpractice to make them have

any " treatment " whatsoever, or they do have a clinical disorder, for

which they should be getting treatment from someone with therapeutic

training and qualifications, and who is answerable for incompetence,

abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are merely

clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to

join them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

>

> Hope this answers your question --

>

> ~Rita

[Guest guest]

Rita,

I am curious as to where your information regarding the " professional

qualifications " of those contracted to evaluate alcohol related

offenders in Washington State comes from. I live in Washington, was

evaluated by a " professional " and my experience is a great deal

different from your description. While it is comforting to believe

that a " professional " has the education, training and ethics that

state licsensing would seem to require, the fact of the matter is

that in Washington, anyone can hang our their shingle and call

themselves a " counselor " . The individual counties award the contracts

for doing the " evaluations " and there is a great deal of political

manuevering involved in obtaining the contracts. To become

a " Certified Alcohol and Addictions Counselor " in this state requires

one to attend some classes, work about 500 hours in an internship and

pay money. There are various levels of CAAC, which require more

classes and more money. There is no requirement for a college degree

of any kind. Since the CAAC classes are taught by confirmed steppers,

and one of the main criteria for passing the classes is an ability to

spout stepper doctrine and have about 6 months of " sobriety " , I find

little reason to have confidence in the ethics and comptetency of

these so called " professionals " .

Kate

>

> Professional counselors are accountable to written competency

and ethical standards for their titles.

>

> If the professional's evaluation does not meet the standard

for a valid assessment/diagnosis, the " client " has the right to sue

for malpractice and/or complain to the licensing board.

>

> If the professional orders a " treatment " that is experimental,

unsubstantiated, or unnecessary, the client likewise has a legitimate

reason to challenge.

>

> Since there is not a shred of evidence that " recovery " groups

cause sobriety or result in any better outcomes than not attending

such groups (particularly for those who state an intention and

preference to be sober and responsible without them), it is not

professionally competent or ethical to " prescribe " such attendance

across the board.

>

> Mandating short-term professional counseling or therapy,

however -- in which the client's own beliefs and preferences are

acknowledged and honored -- is within ethical standards.

>

> The " treatment " prescribed by professional counselors in WA is

not merely " attend X number of recovery meetings weekly " , as far as I

know. People are either assessed as " no clinical disorder " (brief

educational session), " alcohol abuse " (brief professional counseling

with periodic body fluid testing) or " alcohol dependence " (an

intensive long-term professional treatment program). I don't know

the details of the programs so I can't comment on whether they need

improvement (if they are Step-infused then this should certainly be

changed), but as I say the IDEA is at least going in the right

direction.

>

> The way I see it, either someone does not have a clinical

disorder, in which case it is malpractice to make them have

any " treatment " whatsoever, or they do have a clinical disorder, for

which they should be getting treatment from someone with therapeutic

training and qualifications, and who is answerable for incompetence,

abusiveness or corruption. Laymen's " recovery " groups are merely

clubs -- I think it is inherently wrong to EVER " order " someone to

join them, as a " treatment " for anything whatsoever.

>

> Hope this answers your question --

>

> ~Rita