Monthly Archives: January 2017

Alcoholics Anonymous, Destructive Cults, Fraud / Malpractice, Government / Law, Social Work Ethics

Gamblers Anonymous meetings, NYCPG Funded by the State

2 Comments

“Problem gambling education also will be provided to patients at these six ATCs [Addiction Treatment Centers]. Several ATCs also have established connections with local Gambler’s Anonymous (GA) chapters, who will provide GA meetings on site at the ATCs.”

You can now go in to ‘treatment’ for substance use disorder and come out powerless over gambling, or at least telling everybody you know that they might be.

NYS OASAS ANNOUNCES EXPANSION OF SERVICES FOR NEW YORKERS STRUGGLING WITH PROBLEM GAMBLING

Here’s why that’s probably illegal Impact of Federal Court Decision Concerning Alcoholics Anonymous On Government Funded Providers

Alcoholics Anonymous, Destructive Cults, Fraud / Malpractice, Government / Law, Social Work Ethics

HHS Office for Civil Rights Policy loses its “religion” — or — This is is not the kind of “oversight” the rehab industry needs

2 Comments

Hello,

In Surgeon General Murthy’s report on Facing Addiction, I noticed that the word “religion” was not used in OCR’s notice.

or religion

The word “sex” WAS in this notice, but not “religion”, so the decision to leave “religion” out might be slightly more certain than:

last year after having no luck in getting New York state *at any level* to acknowledge precedented Establishment Clause violations (religious coercion) in 12-step treatment, I received a similar response from Sarah Brown, Deputy Director, where the wording was changed to “under certain circumstances, sex and religion“ [are protected].

This was not the response I expected, because on the OCR website where I initially filed my complaint, it says “religion” on the complaint form.

My question is: Under what circumstances is discrimination based on religion allowable, and is “addiction treatment” one of those circumstances? It does seem to be, based on the notice in the Facing Addiction report. If so, why?

Does it have anything to do with the 12-step programs, which the same notice says are not specifically endorsed by HHS?

http://notpowerless.com/new-york-state-education-department-investigator-admits-policy-of-willful-negligence/

—-

“Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Please note that OCR has limited jurisdiction to investigate complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of religion. This jurisdiction depends on the particular program and the funding source to pay for the program.”

Me: “Thank you for your response. Are there any documents I can read regarding OCR’s jurisdiction, such as which funding sources prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion and which ‘particular programs’ might be exempt from investigation? “

“This information is not on OCR’s website and is not available to the public. It is information that is used in OCR’s investigation process.”

Me: “Is it available via a FOIL request?”

“You can request anything under FOIA, but it is likely that the request would be denied because it is part of OCR’s investigative process.”

Me: “Thank you. Perhaps you could answer about a specific situation with NYS OASAS funding Gamblers Anonymous indoctrination in the course of substance abuse treatment, or using Gamblers Anonymous meetings on site, or funding the non-profit organization called the Council for Problem Gambling which promotes GA meetings and OASAS state-run GA-based rehab.”

“I don’t investigate complaints or have access to the information to make this determination. If you have further questions regarding your complaint, it should be directed to OCR’s Central Intake Unit which investigate your complaint.”

Alcoholics Anonymous, Destructive Cults, Fraud / Malpractice, Government / Law, Hypocrisy, Social Work Ethics

Plausible deniability

Leave a comment

Alcoholics Anonymous lives in a state of ‘plausible denial’.

AA is not ‘technically’ responsible for anything, most especially the unfortunate circumstances or deaths of tradition violators.

AA isn’t a person; how can AA be responsible? No individual technically speaks for AA. AA is technically not the Big Book, technically not the meetings, not technically its members or its board, not technically the 12-steps, technically not a religion, technically not ‘treatment’, while also technically not medical fraud, and the Surgeon General technically doesn’t promote it, Twelve-Step Facilitation is technically not AA, the Oxford Houses and 90% of the rehab industry is not technically AA. The New Recovery Advocacy Movement is not technically AA either, and NYS OASAS technically is not an AA front group.

“Plausible deniability is the ability for persons (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others (usually subordinates in an organizational hierarchy) because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such acts in order to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, as they are confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible, although sometimes it merely makes it unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one’s (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.”

-wikipedia