Poll!

[danaeris]

As I understand it, the new laws indicate that law enforment agencies and the government can seize your psychologist or psychiatrist or counselor's records without even getting a warrant.

Also as I understand it, a hypnotherapist or peer counseling does not qualify as medical treatment and so is not subject to these laws.

In light of this information, a poll. Please note that this is for when you would normally have wanted professional help. So if you are the sort who is completely unwilling to seek professional help, this poll is not intended for you. I'm trying to find out how many potential patients are considering alternative methods because of the new law.
[Poll #159034]

Comments

[bluedaisy.livejournal.com]

I suppose this isn't totally relevant to me, given that I don't think I'd be comfortable seeing a psychiatrist/councellor even if they weren't taking notes (talking to a stranger about my problems seems weird, and psychiatric medicine has some very sketchy aspects)
but that law is way not good.

[auros]

Hum. I'd have to think long and hard about this in order to answer.

I have been to a psychologist before of my own volition, over the summer of '98, and that actually helped me get through a lot of issues -- breaking out of some serious social-phobia, introspecting enough to recognize the full breadth of the unconventionality of my sexuality, and so on. And the psychiatrist that my parents sent me to occasionally when I was considerably younger was also helpful in some ways, at least in terms of giving some space to vent and getting me thinking about things I needed to work on. He told me I probably could be diagnosed as bipolar, but wanted me to have the opportunity to overcome it without meds -- which is an unusual attitude for a pdoc, and I have to respect him for going against conventional wisdom in that regard, because I did, and I think that was better for me in the long run. (Insert obligatory disclaimer noting the emphasis on for me -- I don't mean to imply any kind of judgement of people who find that the meds are what's right for them, I just have a powerful need for independence and a deep distrust of mind-altering substances of any sort; heck, I don't even like taking Tylenol.)

And of course, cyan_blue is a psychologist, and involved with trying to educate that community about alt-lifestyles.

In any case, I do have respect for the profession. But I haven't needed any help in that regard in about five years, and don't see it being an issue any time in the immediate future, current drama notwithstanding. Currently, support from friends, and from my own sense of self, which has become fairly robust over the last few years, is plenty. So it's sort of hard to figure out what exactly I'd do if I did feel I wanted to talk to a pro...

I guess I still am not quite scared enough of the gov't to really worry about this sort of thing... It's getting there, but at this point, I suspect I'd just go and not worry about it. Given that I'm rather straight-edge, I actually don't have any criminal issues to worry about, just my (entirely legal) activism. I do have concerns about the misuse of already-public info to roll people into large DBs (as with the three MN Greens who ended up on the No-Fly list) but I don't think the Justice Dep't has enough resources or desire, yet, to track each individual liberal activist and subpoena protected documents. Make sense?

It's an icky law, in any case. Can you point me to some articles or other resources about it? I'd like to put together a note to one or more of my Congresscritters...

[auros]

I guess, to come back to the actual poll -- I'd almost answer the first one, except for the "no qualms" part. Of course I'd have qualms. I'd just do it anyways.

[nytemuse.livejournal.com]

I've been to several psychologists/therapists in my life and I've despised every one of them. I'm not ashamed of most of the things I've done, but some of them could get me in trouble with some parties so I have to admit that the gov't being able to seize supposedly confidential records makes me rather upset.

I generally think of peers as someone who understands and respects my lifestyle choices, so I tend towards them more often. If I happened to find a psychologist that I regarded as a peer, then I'd be more likely go to see them, but until then, I'll still with talking to friends.

[lawbard.livejournal.com]

Scary!

Privileges exist for a purpose - the public policy end of having the citizens get help. And not because of fear of criminal activity coming out...but also because people just plain don't want others to know their secrets. So, you should've left as a category 'I wouldn't seek help at all' because its a real possibility, and the reason why privileges exist.

And I'd be the first to not seek help if I felt that my records could be taken away without my knowledge and for no reason. Not because of anything I've done, but because what goes on in my head is my business alone. And I don't want someone else out there deciding for me what is permissible to think.

Anyway, thats my opinion. Do you know which law this is? State or federal?

[nathanjw]

The law in question is the infamous USA PATRIOT act, particulary section 215; see the ACLU's PATRIOT site for information.

Alternative medicine isn't exempt.

[nathanjw]

Given the broad scope of the law, and in particular the fact that the records that may be requested under it are not enumerated, but just described as "certain business records", I would not have any reason to believe that notes taken by alternative practitioners would have any more privacy than those taken by mainstream medical professionals. This same section of the law includes all kinds of other records - the example that gets talked about most often is library lending records.

At most, I might cynically believe that alternative practitioners are less likely to have well-organized and easily copied notes in the first place.

Also, this is an issue of law that is only relevant if you trust that your records were being treated legally and kept private in the first place. Given the history of law enforcement in this country, and the activities of the FBI in particular, I think that this part of the PATRIOT act merely makes legal what the FBI has been doing clandestinely for its entire existence. Therefore, I don't think it'll affect my willingness or unwillingness to spill my beans to a pro.

Re: Alternative medicine isn't exempt.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Well, the key difference is that I imagine that psychologists and whatnot have to keep some sorts of records because of insurance and accountability etc. Normal practitioners have laws they have to follow in documenting their work. I'm not sure exactly what those laws are, but they are much more likely to get in trouble for doing things like burning their notes when they become less applicable.

Alternative practitioners are also more under the radar. And obviously, co counseling is not a business so there's no concern there.

Re: Alternative medicine isn't exempt.

[auros]

In my experience, hypnotherapists record their entire sessions, for two reasons: first, liability (proof that the therapist didn't do anything bad during the session, like extract a bank password, or have sex with the patient, or whatever), and second so that the patient can be given a record of the things they talked about, so that such things can be discussed at leisure without having the person necessarily "remember" what they talked about directly, which could potentially be traumatic, and might be confusing if some of what they talked about is suspected of being a case of blurring trance-fantasy with reality.

[tikva.livejournal.com]

Obviously, I have huge problems with this law. But I'm also pretty cynical about what I tell my shrinks anyway. I've been in and out of therapy since I was eleven, and had one therapist break confidentiality to my abuser, which was a barrel of fun, lemmetellya.

Needless to say, I have a long history of psychiatric issues. My attitude has always been that my first priority is taking care of myself and getting the therapy I need. Sure, they can confiscate all of this information, but the fact is, if I were raped, God forbid, my psych file would be subpoenaed and appear on the stands anyway, just because that's how rape survivors get treated in this country. The defense attorney would also point out that I'm queer and kinky and poly, and the defendant would almost certainly walk. In other words, we didn't need this law to be fucked over. It could happen anyway.

So I figure, given that I live my life in such a way that it could stab me in the back or land me in a box at any time anyway, I may as well get effective therapy. I insist that my therapists at least be able to deal with the queer, kink, poly, and blink aspects of my life - without assigning them responsibility for all of my psychological wonkiness, incidentally - and I talk about them freely. Of course I'm uneasy. But in the meantime, this is the treatment I require in order to function, so I'm going to get it. The government can fuck itself if it wants to stand in my way - this is my country too.

(end rant :))

[lyricagent.livejournal.com]

Can you provide some links to these new laws? I wasn't able to find any references to the wording.

Thx.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

nathanw commented above:
The law in question is the infamous USA PATRIOT act, particulary section 215; see the ACLU's PATRIOT site for information.

I believe the exact URL is www.aclu.org/patriot, but if I got that wrong just refer to his comment.

[lyricagent.livejournal.com]

Ahh. Yes. The patriot Act. Misunderstood and infuriating.

I fall on the opposite side of the reactionary fence than most folks due to certain circumstances which I won't go into.

The highlights:
Patriot Act can only be invoked if the law enforcement agency can show cause to a /string/ of people (before it even gets to a judge or the attorney general who must approve it as well before an order is issued for the information) before an order is issued. I repeat that part twice cuz, well, that's the main gripe: that records are supposedly available without cause or an order being issued.

Trust me. They have to get an order from either a judge or the Attorney General and before they get to that point, they had to jump through more hoops than most people jump through in their lifetime.

So unless you're engaged in international terrorism, there's really little to worry about.

/rant off. Not directed at you, of course. Just a touchy subject for me.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

nah, didn't think it was directed at me, and twas interesting.

I've not researched the Patriot Act, I guess in part because I'm not too worried about it impacting my life right now. The hoops they have to jump through that you describe here seem contrary to my previous understanding of the situation, but you've clearly researched the matter and all I've done is read what people wrote and quoted in their livejournals, an unreliable source at best. I expect you know better what you're talking about and certainly hope that that is the case!

[auros]

I don't particularly want to get into an argument over stuff, but I would argue that, while Patriot is not the end of the world, it is a bad law; it promotes the use of secret evidence and secret courts, and it blurs the lines about when the government is allowed to just hold people indefinitely, and what the responsibilities of gov't agencies are to those whose lives they interfere with. (e.g. The Green activists I mentioned earlier, who are on the No-Fly list, and hence can't fly, ever, period, and have been given no explanation of why, and no recourse -- nobody in particular has explicitly been made responsbile for reviewing their case and correcting the error, so nobody's willing to do so. As for them being on the list in the first place; maybe they ended up on it purely through a convergence of DB quirks, or maybe because the Justice Dep't is discriminating against liberal activists on purpose. I'm not sure which is the scarier prospect, and either way, the system is broken.)

The proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act is much scarier, as it grants the Justice Dep't the right to use secret evidence to obtain a warrant from a poorly overseen semi-military intelligence court, on the basis of which a citizen can be stripped of citizenship and held with no charges, no lawyer, and no notification to anyone of what has happened. That's what I'd call "disappearing" somebody, and I used to think it only happened in countries with fascist dictators like Pinochet. But apparently, no matter how cynical I get about Shrub and Ashcroft, they manage to sink below my expectations.