slippery slope for professionals?
Started by stirs, Dec 19 2012 07:26 AM
60 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 19 December 2012 - 07:26 AM
http://ca.news.yahoo...-192855747.html
Holding these guys responsible for their patients actions.
Will they take the easy/safe route and just have folks committed?
Always being able to blame someone might have its consequences
Holding these guys responsible for their patients actions.
Will they take the easy/safe route and just have folks committed?
Always being able to blame someone might have its consequences
#5
Posted 19 December 2012 - 07:45 AM
Not sure what HIPAA/doctor patient info states about that here
Well, as we can see, it only takes one tragedy for current laws to be changed in France.
Here? Heck, we are looking at changing the constitution due to a tragedy. Would HIPPA laws never be subject to change if we found that Lanza himself had been seen several times by a professional who did nothing to protect the public?
Just debating the point
#7
Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:10 AM
How so?
Zod? or Coy?
#9
Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:26 AM
Gun laws, more gun laws, regulations, more regulations.
Criminal bypasses all and kills legal owner for their guns. Answer? More gun laws
Criminal bypasses all and kills legal owner for their guns. Answer? More gun laws
#10
Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:30 AM
HIPPA doesn't get in the way of this. Mental Health professionals are what is referred to as "mandatory reporters" that is to say that they are required to break patient confidentiality if they believe a patent is an immediate danger to themselves or others.
#12
Posted 19 December 2012 - 08:41 AM
Would Adam have had one if law abiding mom didn't have one?
Nope
I don't agree with stirs that we're "changing the constitution because of one tragedy" but you have no way of knowing this... if mom hadn't had guns, he could have gotten them from somewhere else.
#13
Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:26 AM
Would Adam have had one if law abiding mom didn't have one?
Nope
Would he have done the same or worse either way? Most likely.
#15
Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:41 AM
Not at all.
You can't make a definitive statement on one hypothetical and then disagree with a definitive statement on another hypothetical.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users







