ksfisher Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Fine print or not, its' unethical, not to mention counter productive. I'm not sure how it's unethical if permission is given. And if the bishop is working with the individual on the same situation I'm not sure how sharing appropriate information, with permission, can be counter productive.
Gray Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, rongo said: It isn't counter-productive to those who believe that bishops' counsel is important --- perhaps more important than secular counsel. https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/confidentiality.aspx Quote Confidentiality is a respected part of psychology's code of ethics. Psychologists understand that for people to feel comfortable talking about private and revealing information, they need a safe place to talk about anything they'd like, without fear of that information leaving the room. They take your privacy very seriously.
rongo Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 Just now, Gray said: https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/confidentiality.aspx Sure. But LDS Social Services is a partnership with bishops, not a stand-alone secular counseling office. If that's what someone wants instead of the LSS/LDS partnership, then don't get your counseling done there.
Gray Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure how it's unethical if permission is given. And if the bishop is working with the individual on the same situation I'm not sure how sharing appropriate information, with permission, can be counter productive. Is it ethical for the physician to let the plumber assist on the open heart surgery, so long as there is patient consent (in the fine print)? Edited October 15, 2018 by Gray
Gray Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: Sure. But LDS Social Services is a partnership with bishops, not a stand-alone secular counseling office. If that's what someone wants instead of the LSS/LDS partnership, then don't get your counseling done there. They should start a medical office that starts treating cancer with regular injections of 7-Up soda syrup. Let the secular people handle it their way.
ALarson Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure how it's unethical if permission is given. The only problems I've seen arise are when the person doesn't realize what they are signing. I believe the Bishop should make it clear to the member that information from their sessions may be shared with them (if they opt to have the funds come from the church). I know that my Bishop makes that very clear and explains this will not happen if they pay for the counseling on their own.
rongo Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Is it ethical for the physician to let the plumber assist on the open heart surgery, so long as there is patient consent (in the fine print)? 1 minute ago, Gray said: They should start a medical office that starts treating cancer with regular injections of 7-Up soda syrup. Let the secular people handle it their way. Now you're just using argentum ad absurdium (or whatever it is in Latin). Seriously. Why such absurd examples? That undercuts any point you are trying to make.
The Nehor Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 From what I remember of bishops getting informed the reports tended to be basic stuff like if it is helping, if the patient is actually trying to progress, and other stuff related to whether the money is worth spending. In other words it was so they could make a cost/benefit analysis. This is anecdotal and I cannot say for certain that that level of information was universal.
rongo Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: From what I remember of bishops getting informed the reports tended to be basic stuff like if it is helping, if the patient is actually trying to progress, and other stuff related to whether the money is worth spending. In other words it was so they could make a cost/benefit analysis. This is anecdotal and I cannot say for certain that that level of information was universal. No, there are also detailed details, too, as needed ("Bishop, what can you tell me about this? Did you know about that?" Etc.). But it's not just a big gossip-fest. Sometimes the exchange of information is vital for both bishop and counselor to do the best they can do. And it is almost always (I'm noting the anecdotes in this thread where people were angry) with the full support of the people receiving the counseling.
ALarson Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, rongo said: No, there are also detailed details, too, as needed ("Bishop, what can you tell me about this? Did you know about that?" Etc.). But it's not just a big gossip-fest. Sometimes the exchange of information is vital for both bishop and counselor to do the best they can do. And it is almost always (I'm noting the anecdotes in this thread where people were angry) with the full support of the people receiving the counseling. I think the issue is that these details are not shared with the Bishop if the person is paying for the sessions. I think that's what confuses some and seems unethical or wrong to them. But if the Bishop has explained this to the member and they go ahead and sign the form to release details to the Bishop from their sessions, there should be no surprises regarding what is shared. The person would also know not to share anything with the counselor that they do not want passed on to the Bishop. Edited October 15, 2018 by ALarson
rongo Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I think the issue is that these details are not shared with the Bishop if the person is paying for the sessions. I think that's what confuses some and seems unethical or wrong to them. But if the Bishop has explained this to the member and they go ahead and sign the form to release information to them, there should be no surprises regarding what is shared (and the info is shared). I think even if one is paying LDS Social Services oneself, the counselor is going to ask if they are all right if they share information with the bishop. And I think almost always, the person will be fine with that. And if they aren't, and it pertains to worthiness or things like that, then that is a problem from the Church's standpoint as far as repentance, guilt, etc.
The Nehor Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I think the issue is that these details are not shared with the Bishop if the person is paying for the sessions. I think that's what confuses some and seems unethical or wrong to them. But if the Bishop has explained this to the member and they go ahead and sign the form to release information to them, there should be no surprises regarding what is shared (and the info is shared). In my ever so humble opinion if an organization is paying hundreds of dollars a month for services for you they have a right to information about how that service is going. If you want total confidentiality pay for it yourself. If you cannot afford it move to a country with better mental health care services. 1
ALarson Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, rongo said: I think even if one is paying LDS Social Services oneself, the counselor is going to ask if they are all right if they share information with the bishop. And I think almost always, the person will be fine with that. That's not been my experience at all. Many will share personal details with a counselor that they do not want passed on to the Bishop. That's where problems have arisen (and I've found this is not made clear to the person by the counselor or some Bishops prior to their sessions). I'm just giving my anecdotal experiences and what I have also read from many others who were very upset that their confidences were not kept because they believed they were protected by laws in place. I can honestly see both sides. However, they should pay for their own sessions if they want a guarantee of confidentiality, IMO.....and this should be made extremely clear by their Bishop if the person cannot afford to pay. Edited October 15, 2018 by ALarson
rockpond Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 22 hours ago, Jeanne said: I just watched a very sad show called "Family Lost" that mentioned a bishop and LDS Social Services. I was wondering if any of you have had good experiences with this...or if any member here can relate to the good of this organization and the placement of babies for adoption. Thank you in advance.. I am kind of upset..... After years of not being able to conceive, my wife and I worked with LDS Family Services back in 2001. We went through a lengthy process and were approved as adoptive parents. In other threads I've mentioned that they then had us create a scrapbook about ourselves. That scrapbook was shared with birth moms so that they could select parents for their child. We were actually selected by a birth mom on the same week that my wife learned that she was pregnant. We prayed about whether or not to still adopt the child but decided to let him/her go to another family. I felt it was a positive experience. The fee, had we actually adopted, would have been a percentage of our annual income (I think it was 10%, but I can't recall for sure). 3
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 33 minutes ago, Gray said: Is it ethical for the physician to let the plumber assist on the open heart surgery, so long as there is patient consent (in the fine print)? We're not talking about physicians or plumbers.
Jeanne Posted October 15, 2018 Author Posted October 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: After years of not being able to conceive, my wife and I worked with LDS Family Services back in 2001. We went through a lengthy process and were approved as adoptive parents. In other threads I've mentioned that they then had us create a scrapbook about ourselves. That scrapbook was shared with birth moms so that they could select parents for their child. We were actually selected by a birth mom on the same week that my wife learned that she was pregnant. We prayed about whether or not to still adopt the child but decided to let him/her go to another family. I felt it was a positive experience. The fee, had we actually adopted, would have been a percentage of our annual income (I think it was 10%, but I can't recall for sure). I love adoptive parents...no matter how this all comes about. It is a wonderful people that adopt. I wish that all adoptees would have had the experience you may had with your families. 1
rongo Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: That's not been my experience at all. Many will share personal details with a counselor that they do not want passed on to the Bishop. I can see that, but that hasn't been my experience. People have seemed really comfortable seeking all sorts of advice and counsel from me when I was their bishop. I think it's unfortunate when people are struggling with big things, want counseling, but don't want their bishop to know details about it. If someone wasn't comfortable at all talking with their bishop, I could understand that. Worst for me was wives wanting counsel about sex. The answer to that is always basically, "You guys are going to have to figure that out yourselves, together." I can't imagine discussing that with my bishop (or a counselor, for that matter), but they were earnestly wanting my counsel. One was concerned because she liked having sex with her husband, and wanted to have it a lot (worried she was sinning). I simply asked how he felt about it, and she said he felt the same way, so I told her "Sounds like you guys are more than fine! No, it's not sinful, that's how it's supposed to be in a healthy marriage!" And, I saved them and the Church from having to pay a counseling fee . . . 2
Duncan Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 9 hours ago, rchorse said: If you're paying for yourself, then it works just like any other therapy or family counseling. The bishop would not even know about it. It's only if you explicitly give (voluntary) consent or if the church is paying for the services that the bishop is consulted. Having discussed matters as a bishop with LDS Family Services quite frequently, they do not share "intimate details", but rather whether the services are helping, what the bishop/church could do to support/enhance the therapy, and if the bishop has any information that they think would be helpful for the therapist. Another common topic was what exactly the church is paying for. Many people had a habit of telling LDS Family Services that I had authorized much more than I really had. The bishop/therapist should not be sharing confidential information without the consent of the individual. That's what happened with me, I paid for it myself and as I recall he said that he would inform someone if he thought that I was a danger to myself or others, which I think is what he is legally obligated to do here in Canada, otherwise he wouldn't say anything to others
katherine the great Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: A partnership is a good way to put it. Those criticizing this are insisting, really, that the bishop's counsel is essentially worthless, and the "secular" counseling is everything. And should therefore take precedent over the bishop's counsel, and should be compartmentalized and hermetically sealed off from the bishop. I disagree. If someone considers their bishop's counsel worthless then why would they go to them in the first place? There are certain issues in marriage that many women would not feel comfortable speaking to their bishop about and they may seek help in a professional, confidential atmosphere. If a person is an active member of the church who devotes a large part of their life and finances to the church but they can't afford outside counseling, I think they should have the same level of confidentiality as more affluent members who can afford professional counseling.
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 1 minute ago, katherine the great said: I disagree. If someone considers their bishop's counsel worthless then why would they go to them in the first place? There are certain issues in marriage that many women would not feel comfortable speaking to their bishop about and they may seek help in a professional, confidential atmosphere. If a person is an active member of the church who devotes a large part of their life and finances to the church but they can't afford outside counseling, I think they should have the same level of confidentiality as more affluent members who can afford professional counseling. Then all they need to do is decline to have the information shared with the bishop.
katherine the great Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 54 minutes ago, The Nehor said: In my ever so humble opinion if an organization is paying hundreds of dollars a month for services for you they have a right to information about how that service is going. If you want total confidentiality pay for it yourself. If you cannot afford it move to a country with better mental health care services. If an organization is paying hundreds of dollars a month that you are not contributing to then I might agree with you. Where does that hundreds of dollars a month come from? From you and me and everyone else in the organization. The church IS the people in it. It isn't selling a tangible product that stands on its own and brings in money.
ALarson Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Then all they need to do is decline to have the information shared with the bishop. It's definitely not that simple. I know many Bishops who will then not give the referral or insist the member pay for the counseling. I know of several who strongly believe if the church is paying for the counseling, they should be kept abreast of the information being discussed and receive feedback from the counselor regarding the sessions. Edited October 15, 2018 by ALarson
katherine the great Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 21 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Then all they need to do is decline to have the information shared with the bishop. It doesn't sound like that is a choice if the member cannot afford the service without help from the ward.
ksfisher Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, katherine the great said: It doesn't sound like that is a choice if the member cannot afford the service without help from the ward. It is a choice. I don't think things are exactly as ALarson has described them. I think there are options. 1
The Nehor Posted October 15, 2018 Posted October 15, 2018 35 minutes ago, katherine the great said: If an organization is paying hundreds of dollars a month that you are not contributing to then I might agree with you. Where does that hundreds of dollars a month come from? From you and me and everyone else in the organization. The church IS the people in it. It isn't selling a tangible product that stands on its own and brings in money. It has been my sad experience that generally most of the people giving to the church are not the ones taking from it. Even if not it is the Bishop’s mandate to monitor what the funds go to and whether those funds are being used effectively.
Recommended Posts