Posted on 06/15/2013 7:19:49 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
I had a disturbing conversation with a therapist about reporting/seizing patient’s guns. It revolved around the recent FR article reporting a 72 year old man had his musket collection seized because his therapist requested it. (A link would be appreciated.)
We’ll call the therapist Bill. Bill: “A therapist must follow the ethical guidelines of the practice plus any state laws. So, if the patient had expressed any suicidal ideation or depression, the therapist may be obligated to report this and the weapons will be seized.”
Me: “Do you think that might damage the trust relationship with the therapist?”
Bill shrugged and rolled his eyes. “Probably, but it’s a requirement. The therapist has no choice.”
Me: “It seems then that the relationship with the therapist isn’t one between medical professional and patient, but between the therapist and the government. Where does the therapist’s loyalty lie?”
Bill: (This is reduced to carry the flavor without being an exact quote.) “The therapist is a required to follow the law. The law differs from state to state.”
Me: “Do you think there may be an agenda where the therapist doesn’t like guns or gun owners?”
Bill: “It’s certainly possible. But without knowing any of the details, I can’t say.”
Me: “Do you think having the government swoop in and search your house and seize your property might have a negative psychological impact on the patient?”
Bill: (Again, a shrug.) “You do what the law and the ethical standards require.”
Me: “It seems to me that anybody who was honest with a therapist is an idiot.”
Bill: “It may lead to people not being open with their therapist, yes.”
In a side note, Bill said that the patient’s records belong to the therapist but the contents of the record belong to the patient. (Really fine delineation, but he was trying to get at patient privacy. But if he sends the sheriff to your house to search it, then what is the privacy worth?) Several years ago, I worked on a classified project. A woman employee had experienced a nervous breakdown and was “temporarily” removed from the project. She’d been with the same group for 25 years and they were family to her. She wanted back. They pulled the bureaucratic slow-roll on her, assuring her she’d be back when the paperwork cleared. But they had no intention of reinstating her clearance. One day I walked up on a conversation where the program’s security officer was reading from this lady’s medical record and they were having a good laugh. I was appalled. Nobody had any right to see that psychology report and less still to discuss it with other employees. Classified project people tend to see the world in us vs. them terms. This poor lady was no longer “us” and had become, therefore, “them.” Because this lady didn’t get her clearance reinstated they laid her off.
This experience has colored how I see doctors and the security establishment.
How does it impact your employability when you’ve officially had your weapons seized?
You’re very welcome. Let us know if he has further comments after reading the story. Thanks!
LOL! Seriously? That’s the way it’s supposed to be. Oddly the amount of hoops you would have to jump through to get your stuff back is huge. Stall and delay tactics go in to effect once they have your stuff. I know it ain’t right but unless you got money like nanny bloomers, it’d be a hard row to hoe. Don’t EVER talk to a counselor, therapist, psycho-babbler or any other mental health clown. They’re usually nuttier than their patients. If your GP asks you about your guns, just tell him you are only there for your broken thumb or whatever and nuthin’ else.
There are a lot of situations that a good therapist can help with. But in the vast majority of such cases, a walk in the woods or a day at the range can do just as much good. The difference is that until ammo prices went through the roof, the non-medical options were cheaper. Also, the woods and the range won't call the Gestapo to confiscate your guns. If you have to talk to someone, talk to someone you know and trust (hint: NOT a therapist/psychologist/psychiatrist!). Unless it's a chemical imbalance in the brain that requires medication - and that will not clear up on its own - today's weak version of doctor-patient confidentiality is too big a risk.
>> There was a time when “therapists” were called something else; family, friends, wise old neighbors, ministers etc.
Totally nailed it, Dan.
A gentleman at our gun club just had his CHL revoked because he supposedly had PTSD. He was a VN vet, but come on!
Doctor/patient confidentiality is a joke and a farce.
Lesson?
Lie like a dog. Never tell the truth. Always obfuscate, talk in circles, misdirect, offer false testimony and act in a dishonest manner.
To thine own self be true, but to others be a deep well of mystery.
I have a friend who is a shrink and he says the same thing, but he also adds: "that unfortunately, we don't all have friends and family that are willing to listen or give good advise. But there is a small percentage of society that really needs a shrink- not to listen, but to get them serious help, because there is something seriously wrong, e.g. crazy."
I don’t own any guns, but if I did, why would I tell people who might be able to take them away?
The bottom line is that it is important to plan strategically.
For example, if there is a need to give a relative your power of attorney, you had better trust them a lot, or you are asking for trouble. Or if you don’t trust them a lot, then you should consider transferring things they might covet to someone you trust *before* giving this relative power of attorney.
In this case, if you have a gun collection and fear confiscation on some excuse, it would not be unreasonable to place the collection in a trust, that if you ceded control would go to a trusted person who lives elsewhere, so they could not do a “same house” confiscation. As soon as the other trustee physically took charge of the collection, out of your residence, it could not be confiscated to keep it away from you.
Since all medical records are now government accessible (thanks to HIPAA), the assumption has to be that either state or federal law could be used to confiscate, based on *any* mental health care consideration. Say if your doctor gave you a prescription for an antidepressant or a tranquilizer, or any other psychoactive drug (even a psychoactive possible side effect).
there is no reason to talk to this class of “service provider”; the “service” they provide is of questionable value. You are way better off with a lawyer or a priest.
just saw a friend’s daughter have to move out with her dog because the city of overland park kansas claimed, on no evidence, that the dog was dangerous. However the dog’s vet says the dog is a sweetheart. I met the dog, and I have really strict ideas about what is acceptable and this dog was a doll.
However, the neighbor is has it in for them.
Bet on it.
The Calvin and Hobbs cartoon depicted a late-night bedroom scene where the two were talking about possible monsters under the bed.
Calvin: “Any monsters down there?”
Monsters: “No.” (other monster whispers “Nice going, Melvin”.)
Calvin: “I’m glad I bought this monster-killing Bazooka. I’m ready to use it.” (or something like that)
Hobbes whispering: “But you don’t have a monster-killing Bazooka.”
Calvin: “They lie. I lie.”
So it is with anyone (doc or layman) who asks me if I own any guns. I could go on a 2nd Amendment rant, or say it’s none of their damn business. Instead, I just blandly look them in the eye and lie “No”. Those I feel should know, do, the rest can go blow smoke.
I haven’t run into that question, but my doc has asked if I was unhappy (you KNOW where they’re going with that.). Of course, I am always Happy, Happy.
Not something I would want to do or look forward to. The judges in this country are now just as corrupt as the Zero regime. They will do what Dear Leader tells them to do. They are not on the side of justice. They are partisan hacks just as much as anyone in the Zero regime.
bookmark
I’m a shrink [flame away, yawn], and have often worked with fairly heavy-duty illness in both voluntary, involuntary and forensic settings for a quarter century.
I’ve often been faced with actively suicidal or homicidal patients, and it varies whether there is any therapeutic alliance, ie “trust,” between me and a patient in the first place in these sorts of extreme situations.
Most, but not all, patients, even when quite ill, can be reasoned with to a certain degree, and can understand the basic concept, which I state to them directly, that “What’s important here is that nobody gets hurt.” That’s my professional, therapeutic and personal foundation, and almost everybody, no matter their mental state, gets it.
Most of the time, when a firearm at home or in the car presents even a hint of a significant situation, I discuss with the patient whether there are any friends or relatives we can contact who might be willing to keep the gun(s) in safekeeping until the person is safe to possess them again, and almost always this can be worked out so that the authorities are left out of it.
If I meet any hesitation at all, I simply reiterate - “What’s important here is that nobody gets hurt,” a bottom line we can both usually agree on. If necessary I will sometimes back that up with a matter of fact statement that I am obliged under the law to do what I can to make sure that nobody gets hurt, but that I’d prefer that he/she works with me to leave the authorities out of it.
Despite the acuity of the patients I often deal with, there are relatively few times I have had to involve the authorities. Never has a patient of mine gone on the use a firearm to kill themselves or anyone else, that I know of - knock on wood. And a handful of patients have - either then, or at a later point - thanked me for handling the matter in this way.
Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record—Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
# 39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
http://rense.com/general32/americ.htm
Especially being a veteran in the VA system, I don’t trust any doctor, period.
Interesting statement.
So it goes like this: The anti-gunners get background checks passed and the ability to deny gun ownership to anyone who is on certain medications or is diagnosed as depressed or a related malady.
They can easily check your records and find you own a gun!! They look up your doctor and tell him (under threat of license revocation) to issue you an antidepressant or send you to a therapist for counseling, who will declare you 'depressed' (again, under threat of license revocation) and voila! they take your guns away. Soon, no one will be able to own guns!
Tell me this has not been 'focus group'ed by the libs.
In a previous life I did a lot of screening of psyh people, therapist psychologists etc., for jobs. I would NEVER tell any of them anything about my life period. A bigger bunch of unintelligent beings I have never met.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.