Social Work and the Law
NOTE: THE ARTICLE APPEARING BELOW WAS COPIED ON 22 JUNE 2009 BY http://www.cityadministrator.org/?p=397 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CITING THIS AUTHOR. The blog is hosted by GoDaddy and registrant
Registrant Name:Joseph R Smith
Registrant Organization:FloridaView Media LLC
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight,
488 U.S. 1301 (1988)
A three month old infant was admitted for treatment in a hospital. It became apparent that the mother, Jackie Bouknight may have maltreated the infant. Consequently, the Department of Social Services (DSS) petitioned the Court to declare the child as a “child in need of assistance” and grant it the power to put the child under foster care (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). The Court granted relief and it was agreed upon by the parties that Bouknight shall have the custody of the child subject to the conditions of supervised parenting and an undertaking of non-infliction of bodily harm and punishment on the child. At first, Bouknight complied with the conditions but later on she became uncooperative and refused to produce her son to the DSS.
The DSS in fear for the safety and well being of the child filed a case before the Court to compel Bouknight to produce her son. She failed to appear before the Court but was later on arrested. On her refusal to disclose the whereabouts of her son, she was found guilty of contempt and was ordered to be incarcerated until compliance with the order [In re Maurice, No. 50 (Dec. 19, 1988). 314 Md. 391, 550 A.2d 1135].
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the incarceration of Bouknight was an infringement of her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. According to the Court, the production of the son is testimonial in nature because by doing so, it only proves Bouknight’s “continuing control” over her son which may be utilized in a criminal proceeding. It ruled that there are acts of production deemed to have testimonial value citing the case of U.S. vs. Doe (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court granted the stay of DSS pending the filing of the requisite petition for certiorari. The grant of stay was based on the fact that even assuming that the act of production of the child is testimonial in character, many line of decisions of the Court are clear that as between the public need vis-à-vis a single claim of an individual on constitutional privilege, the former is upheld. In this particular case, the safety and interests of the abused child must be upheld over Bouknight’s assertion considering that, in the hierarchy of values, the safety and welfare of the child takes precedence over other concerns (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988). Moreover, the information sought which is the whereabouts of the child is for the contempt charge and therefore civil in nature (Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
The Fifth Amendment: Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment originated from England and derived from the Latin maxim “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare” meaning “no man is bound to accuse himself” (Levy, 1968). It was used in both the accusatorial and inquisitorial legal systems of England (Levy, 1968).
In the U.S., after the revolution the states ratified the Constitution with the inclusion of the privilege in the bill of rights. The original version of Madison was amended by the House to include “in any criminal case” (Schwartz, 1971). Thus, as it now stands, the Fifth Amendment provides, “. . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .” (U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights). The primary purpose of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights is “to protect the innocent and to further the search for truth” [Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956)]. However, in subsequent line of decisions, the Court ruled that other privileges stated in the bill of Rights are more in the nature of adjuncts to the determination of truth such as the right to counsel or the safeguards afforded by the Fourth Amendment while the privilege against self-incrimination is primarily for “the preservation of the accusatorial system of criminal justice” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. This maintains the integrity of the judicial system and protects the privacy of the individuals from government intrusion [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460 (1966); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760–765 (1966); California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971)]. The privilege is a guarantee against compulsion for testimonial evidence which consequently will result in the imposition of criminal penalty on such person making testimony.
The Court laid down the requirements necessary before a party can successfully invoke the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination. In the cases of U.S. v. Doe, (465 U.S. 605) and Doe v. U.S. [487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988)], the Court enumerated the three (3) requisites that should be present for the Fifth Amendment to apply, namely: a) “that the statement be testimonial; b) incriminating; and, c) compelled.” According to the court, ‘testimonial’ refers to all communications whether express or implied which “relate to a factual assertion or disclose information” (Ashby, J., 2006 citing Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201). The statements or communications made whether verbally or in writing fall within the privilege (Ashby, J., 2006) and is not limited by the forum where it was elicited, i.e. before the court, administrative proceedings or before the law enforcement office [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973)]. The second requirement, ‘incriminating’ refers to statements that can be used as a basis for a finding of criminal liability under a penal law or “provides a link to the chain of evidence for prosecution under a criminal statute” [United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000)]. The third requisite is the compulsion to give a statement. The Court explained that this requisite refers to “circumstances that deny the individual a free choice to admit, to deny, or to refuse to answer” (Ashby, J., 2006). Additionally, the Court ruled in the case of Fisher v. United States that these three requisites should all concur and be present so that the privilege can be successfully invoked [425 U.S. 391(1976)].
Legal and Ethical Issues and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The main legal issue in the case of Baltimore is whether the circumstances surrounding it would fall within the ambit of the privilege against self incrimination and consequently, Bouknight may successfully invoke it and prevent her from being compelled to produce or furnish the whereabouts of her son lest be incarcerated for contempt.
The Supreme Court allowed the stay of the decision of the appellate court for overturning the ruling of the juvenile court and in finding that the compulsion for Bouknight to produce her son squarely fell within the privilege and therefore ordered her release (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). The appellate court found that the act of production is testimonial and therefore its compulsion, is a violation of the privilege. Furthermore, the interest of the government in the safety of the son cannot outweigh the observance and respect for the privilege against self incrimination as provided in the Bill of Rights (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992). In other words, the three requisites concurred, i.e. the act of production or of furnishing information as to the whereabouts of her son are incriminating and testimonial in character; and, there was also compulsion because if she failed to disclose information sought she would be incarcerated for contempt as what had happened.
The Supreme Court through Chief Justice Rehnquist predicated his discussion on three major points, namely: a) The Court of Appeals passed upon a controversy concerning the federal Constitution which logically can be properly resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (California v. Riegler, 449 U.S. 1319); b) The act of production does not fall within the ambit of the privilege citing the cases of U.S. v. Doe, Fisher v. U.S. and Schmerber v. California. In these cases, the court ruled that the act of production of the documents is not ‘testimonial’ and therefore does not infringe upon the privilege considering that their existence and location are already known to the Government. In fact, responding to a subpoena have been considered legal and acceptable even if compulsion is present [Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976)]. Moreover, when an accused is required to furnish his handwriting sample, this had been held not to violate the privilege because it is not ‘testimonial’ but merely evidentiary United States v. Flanagan, 34 F.3d 949 [10th Cir. 1994]). The third point c) is by using the balancing of interests test or balancing the public need vis-à-vis ensuring the individual’s constitutional civil liberties, public need prevailed considering that the disclosure of information was non-criminal and not directed at a particular group as was held in the case of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 (1971) where the validity of a law requiring disclosure of the name and address at the scene of a vehicular accident. Similarly in the case of New York v. Quarles where the Fifth Amendment rights have to give way to a public safety exception and therefore in the case of Bouknight, “the public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment was justified because its interest was in protecting children like Maurice, not in prosecuting” (Alderman and Kennedy, 1992).
In sum, the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right. Albeit the civil liberties accorded under the Bill of Rights safeguards undue government intervention and restraint to its power, there are instances when these rights would have to give way to compelling interests of the society that would warrant Government intervention and intrusion such in the case of protecting and ensuring the safety of infants or children from physical abuse. Once it has been established that a child is abused, it becomes the duty of the State to take over and protect.
The judicial pronouncement in the case of Bouknight has a pervading and far reaching implication on social work practice. This gives the social workers a great burden and responsibility to follow up sharply abused children in foster care or those released under an order of protective supervision. Admittedly, there is an apparent lack of strict protocols in the present system of child welfare agencies (Parks, 2005). A set of guidelines must be crafted to govern exigencies of missing children from foster care like supervised visits and court orders in cases of abduction like what have occurred in Maryland with “Ariel” who had been abducted by his mother Teresa B (Parks, 2005). Guidelines should also be drawn to address the coordinated efforts both with the law enforcement and child welfare personnel.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California,
17 Cal.3d 425
A graduate student from India, Prosenjit Poddar went to the University of California Berkeley to study naval architecture. It was there that he met Tatiana Tarasoff. A few kisses made him believe that they have a special relationship until Tarasoff bragged about her many relationships with other men. Poddar suffered depression until he sought professional help from Dr. Moore, a psychologist of the University Health Service. He confided to the doctor that he intended to secure a gun and to kill Tarasoff. On the strength of a letter request of Dr. Moore, Poddar was taken by the campus police, however upon assurance that Poddar was reasonable he was released. Upon the return of the University Health psychiatrist from his vacation, he ordered the destruction of Dr. Moore’s letter and did not recommend any further action on Poddar’s case.
When Tarasoff returned from her vacation, she was stabbed and killed by Poddar who at that time moved in with her brother already. The parents of Tarasoff sued the Regents of the University, its health personnel namely, Gold, Moore, Powelson, Yandell and the campus police namely, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel for “failing to warn their daughter of an impending danger” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425). At the lower court, the complaint was dismissed because there was no cause of action. According to the lower court, the defendants only had the duty to the patient and not to a third party.
The dismissal was appealed to the Appeals Court but which only sustained the dismissal. Thus, it was elevated to the Supreme Court of California. The appealed decision in so far as the university police officers, Atkinson, Beall, Brownrigg, Hallernan, and Teel finding them not liable to the plaintiffs was affirmed. However, in so far as the therapists and the Regents of the university, the appealed decision was overturned for reception of evidence in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
In fine, the complainants averred four (4) causes of action, namely: a) “Failure to detain a dangerous patient; b) failure to warn on a dangerous patient; c) abandonment of a dangerous patient; and, d) breach of primary duty to patient and the public” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the first and fourth causes of action, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants cannot be held liable because of a specific provision of the Government Code or Section 856 thereof which grants immunity to public employees from any resultant damage or injury from deciding whether or not to confine a person with mental ailment. This provision is also applicable to the therapists because the law also refers to those who are capable of recommending confinement. As regards the third cause of action, the government immunity includes the “award of exemplary damages resulting from a wrongful death” and therefore, defendants cannot be held liable (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Anent the second cause of action, the Supreme Court found defendants therapists and Regents of the University to have failed to comply with their duty to warn Tarasoff of the peril to her life. Albeit, the therapists had no direct relations with Tarasoff, they could have reasonably foreseen the danger and threat to her life as confided by their patient, Poddar. This is the point where the law establishes the duty of care on their part to warn Tarasoff. Their failure to warn her may reasonably concluded as a proximate cause of her death. The duty of confidentiality between patient and psychotherapist and the right to privacy of the patient cannot prevail over public interest or public safety. Moreover, there are clear provisions of laws, i.e. Section 1024 of the Evidence Code and Section 9 of the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association which allows the physician to divulge matters confided to him in confidence when it is necessary for public welfare (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
Confidentiality
The effective therapeutic relationship between physician/psychiatrist and patient rests largely on trust that matters confided by the patient during the treatment are kept in strictest confidence by the physician/psychiatrist. It is the ethical duty of the physician to observe privacy and confidentiality of his patients (Corbin, 2007). While it is also of public interest to ensure that treatment of those who are mentally ill by maintaining an atmosphere whereby they can have an open dialogue with their therapist and of safeguarding its confidential character; the same public interest calls for an imperative recognition of instances whereby disclosure of the confidential communications be revealed and be made to safeguard public safety and avert the threatened peril. In the instances, where the public safety is at risk, the therapist must disclose confidential information discreetly with due regard to protecting the privacy of his patient (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
The parameters of confidentiality are defined by law and by the ethical code of conduct for practitioners in the territorial jurisdiction. In the case of Tarasoff, the Evidence Code and the Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association provided specific and limited exceptions under which the confidentiality privilege can be breached, i.e. “if the psychotherapist has reasonable cause to believe that the patient is in such mental or emotional condition as to be dangerous to himself or to the person or property of another and that disclosure of the communication is necessary to prevent the threatened danger; unless he is required to do so by law or unless it becomes necessary in order to protect the welfare of the individual or of the community” (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425).
It would be wise for the practitioners to familiarize themselves of the limits of confidentiality as provided under the laws considering that it may differ from state to state. The Tarasoff case provided a basis to guide a practitioner in his professional dealings relative to the duty to warn others in cases of a specific threat of harm by his patient against others/another. Subsequent cases followed the consistent pattern of the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court. In the case of David v. Lhim (1983), the plaintiff-administrator of the estate sued the psychiatrist who treated the son who killed his mother after he was released from the hospital. There was failure on the part of the psychiatrist who treated the son to warn the mother of the potential danger after her son confided his intentions of killing her (Corbin, 2007). In another case, Chrite v. U.S. (2003), the Veterans Administration was held liable for having failed to warn the intended victim of a patient of a threatened harm. Subsequent rulings of the court clarified and defined what constituted ‘threat’ as “imminent threat of serious danger to a readily identifiable victim” and “specific” (Corbin, 2007).
When there are no specific provisions of the law, Dickson (1998) proposes that the therapist/practitioner may be protected against lawsuits if he would consult and keenly document the case of the patient or comply with the “mandated reporting guidelines” required by some states. Reamer (2003) on the other hand, suggests that the therapist must have evidence that the patient is a threat to the safety of another; evidence of that the threat can be foreseen; threat is imminent and that the potential victim is identifiable.
Legal and Ethical Implications and their Impact on Social Work Practice
The duty of reasonable care to assist others in danger is a legal duty as well as a moral duty. However, American negligence law only recognizes it as a moral duty except when there exists a relationship between parties. In the case of Tarasoff, no special relationship existed between the therapist and Tarasoff; however the court has made an exception to this general rule (Bickel, 2001). It declared that the therapist has the duty to care and to warn Tarasoff of the imminent harm on her life. This also includes the duty to control the conduct of his patient, Poddar. In the same breath, a doctor has the duty to warn his patient if he has a contagious disease (Saltzman and Furman, 1999).
There is an affirmative duty for the therapist to advise and warn Tarasoff of the threat to her life although this meant breach of confidentiality with his patient Poddar. This finds basis both legally and ethically considering that the law and the code of ethics for doctors have recognized and provided specifically that doctors are bound to disclose relevant facts to others even if this violates confidentiality with their patients provided they are required by law or if it is required for public safety (Saltzman and Furman, 1999). This legal duty to warn applies when the threat is specific and imminent and where the victim is “readily identifiable” (Bickel, 2001). The courts also have recognized the difficulty in assessing and predicting circumstances that may lead to harm or violence and consequently, adhered to the ‘professional judgment rule’ whereby the therapist is not held liable for errors of judgments. Liability attaches only upon showing that the conduct of the therapist was not in accordance with the “accepted professional standards” (Bickel, 2001).
There is an ambivalence that was created by the Tarasoff protective disclosure ruling with the practitioners (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). Analogous cases and protective disclosure statutes in the different states were analyzed and it was discovered that there are no clear defined parameters of these duties. The therapist is required to a certain way betray his patient by disclosing matters which are protected by confidentiality. Considering the uncertainty brought about by the legal doctrine and court decisions, the undesirable consequence of which was deterrence for therapists to accept “treatment potentially violent patients” (Merton, 1982). Moreover, therapists are more inclined to have their patients committed in an institution so that threats to the safety of potential victims can be averted.
The Tarasoff protective disclosure was even extended recently to include even “communications made from a patient’s family member” as pronounced by the Court in the case of Ewing v. Goldstein (May and Ohlschlager, 2008). The dubious jurisprudential precedents by the courts in interpreting the protective disclosure statutes or its resort to common law instead of interpreting the statute left a vacuum in the definition of the duty to protect (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004). As a result, “clinicians must continue to rely on their clinical and ethical judgment, rather than statutory guidance, when considering potential protective disclosures or future drafts of protective disclosure statutes” (Kachigian and Felthous, 2004).
References
Alderman, E. and Kennedy, C. (1992). In our defense: the bill of rights in action. First Avon
Books edition.
Ashby, J. (February 2006). Note declining to state a name in consideration of the fifth amendment’s self-incrimination clause and law enforcement databases after Hiibel. Michigan Law Review, No. 4, Vol. 104:779.
Baltimore City Department of Social Services v Bouknight, 488 U.S. 1301 (1988).
Bickel, R. Revisiting Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California: the scope of the psychotherapist’s duty to control dangerous students. Presented before the 22nd Annual Law and higher Education conference in Clearwater, Florida on 18-20 February 2001.
California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424, 448–58 (1971).
Corbin, J. (Fall 2007). Confidentiality and the duty to warn: Ethical and legal implications for the therapeutic relationship. The New Social Worker, Vol. 14, No. 4.
Dickson, D. T. (1998). Confidentiality and privacy in social work. New York: The Free Press
Doe v. U.S., 487 U.S. 201, 209 (1988).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Kachigian, C. and Felthous, A. (September 2004). Court responses to Tarasoff statutes. Journal
of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Online, Vol. 23:263-273.
Levy, L. (1968). Origins of the fifth amendment: The right against self-incrimination.
May, S. and Ohlschlager, J. (2008). California alert! Tarasoff ruling expanded for clients who ‘go off.’ ECounseling. American Association of Christian Counselors.
Merton, V. (1982). Confidentiality and the dangerous patient: Implications of Tarasoff for Psychiatrists and lawyers. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 31:265.
New York v. Quarles, 476 U.S. 649 (1984).
Parks, A. (2008). Unless the Court of Appeals decision is reversed, MD children may not be. Daily Record The Baltimore.
Reamer, F. (2003). Social work malpractice and liability. New York: Columbia University Press, 2nd ed.
Saltzman, A. and Furman, D. (1999). Law in social work practice. Brooks Cole, 2nd edition.
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
Schwartz, B (December 1971). The bill of rights: A documentary history. Chelsea House Publishers with McGraw-Hill Education.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425.
Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956).
U.S. v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
E.Writers
http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/social-work-and-the-law-756045.html
What are some detailed examples of corruption in the efforrt to pass a health care bill.?
I’ve paid close attention to this. Unfortunately i have not taken notes. I remember a lot but, i am not sure if i would call it corruption. So why not tell me what you consider corruption within this process.
$1.4 million per day from the health insurance industry’s lobbyists directly into the pockets of congressmen and senators from day one of the "debate".
I’d say that plus all of the additional millions that went from the same people to the same people before the current debate began would amount to ample evidence of corruption.
The uninsured and under insured don’t have millions to throw around.
I have to say it angers me to think that giant insurance corporations can use the money they take from us to buy politicians and get them to work against our best interests.
Corruption in Congress it’s pathetic
Exclusive: Jackie Mason on Obamacare: ‘Without bribery it wouldn’t have happened’. World Net Daily Video Commentary #46. This video first premiered on World Net Daily where Jackie does a weekly video column.
Duration : 0:6:3
Health Care Police State – Wake Up America #8
Be My Friend – http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth
Health Care Police State – Wake Up America #8
Related Videos
Wake Up America # 1, Food Supply and Health Care Conspiracy
Wake Up America #2, Science of Profit, Corporate Takeover of Science
Wake Up America # 3, GMO Foods, Genetically Modified Organisms,
Wake Up America #4, What Doctors Don’t Know
Wake Up America #5, No More Health Care Choice
Wake Up America #6, Making Nutrition Illegal!
Wake Up America # 7, Unaffordable Insurance!
Why Insurance Health Care Cost Are So High.
wwwVisit Radhia’s Website at
http://www.advancedhealthinstitute.com/
http://www.aimmd.com/
Visit Peter McCarthy’s website
http://www.lifeenergyholisticcenter.com/
Visit Texas Health Freedom Coalition
http://www.texashealthfreedom.com/
Peter McCarthy is the Chief Executive Officer and Wellness Director of Life Energy Holistic Partners, Inc. and holds the degree of Doctor of Naturopathy from Trinity College of Natural Health.
Radhia Gleis is certified in Clinical Nutrition, C.C.N. She is also a Certified BioNutritional Analyst.
Music by John Richter
http://www.injoysolutions.com
This video was produced by Psychetruth
http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth
http://www.youtube.com/psychetruth
http://psychetruth.blogspot.com/
Psychetruth is empowered by TubeMogul
http://www.tubemogul.com
© Copyright 2008 AHI Productions. All Rights Reserved.
Duration : 0:19:39
DC Protest – It’s Tyranny Not Health Care
http://patriotsnetwork.com
DC Protest Montage – It’s Tyranny Not Health Care
Duration : 0:5:8
Viaticals- a ‘dark Alternative’ to Shielding Survivors From Credit Challenges of Medical Collections & Judgments
With accelerating medical costs the tab can be run up fairly quickly. Any savings or even health insurance may not be even close enough to meet the burden. Home equities can be quickly squeezed and exhausted. The terminal patient (this could be someone severely over weight-family history of heart disease as well-etc.) never intended to leave loved ones holding the ultimate financial bag. It just happens. As thoughts of Ralph Edwards the former host of “This Is Your Life” play out in the brain the mind may race ahead to the final act leaving loved ones to deal with the financial aftermath of this “life”. The obituary might read “He was a great guy/gal, but left his family and loved ones with a ton of unpaid debts.” An alternative for a terminally ill patient (or could be medically challenged and not able to work) may be a “Viatical”. If there is a term life insurance policy or better, such as whole life, universal life, annuity etc., in place or even a paid up policy or one that has monthly payments being made this could quality for the Viatical vehicle.
This then is the ultimate and final use of a handicapper. When life policies are taken out actuaries make a bet when a person is going to die based on their medical history, age, weight, health levels, occupations, smoker, non-smoker, etc. Later on, if the need arises, another handicapper can enter the scene. It is by request only. Viaticals are based on handicapping the rest of a person’s life based on the medical and such to determine by guessing when death might arrive. An investor will bid on a discounted basis on the face amount of the policy to give the insured and beneficiaries cash right now. A terminally ill patient may want to get their financial affairs cleaned up before dying so as not to stick love ones with a financial disaster. This comes home to anyone who in addition is dealing with the terminal illness but may be facing foreclosure from their home, cars repossessed, credit that has long since gone down the drain and a whole new layer of stress in the circle of concerned and effected loved ones. What to do, ride it out and let the chips fall where they may, OR make an effort to get it handled now and bring some peace to everyone by taking care of the financial affairs before death. Yes there will be a substantial reduction in the face value of the policy by taking a cash advance now, but it may save a lot of pain for immediate survivors. This is not for everyone. Obviously, if there is no life insurance policy in place for the terminally ill patient, this will not be an option.
When Groucho Marx was host of the “You Bet Your Life” game show, it was a very funny game show. This, however, becomes the ultimate “bet” for an insured life and certainly it’s not too funny, but it represents one alternative. On the one hand the beneficiaries of the policy want the absolute most possible cash versus the face value of the policy, whereas the investor doesn’t want to pay too much if the terminally ill patient makes a miraculous recovery and the return to the investor is delayed by years. So the arm wrestling is engaged and negotiations are mounted. Medical histories and doctor input (with the patients written permission) together with the life policy product are all utilized to come up with a number. Decisions have to be made. Is the cash enough or should the premiums be maintained (if required) and let nature take its course. It’s a delicate balance between patient needs and cleaning up ones financial affairs before death. This ‘Dark Alternative’ has received massive negative press. Investigations were initiated against some of the handicapper players for taking advantage of the life policy insured, which were perceived to be the most vulnerable. However, would it be better for the family to be set out on the curb when the sheriff issues the final eviction on the foreclosure? Would it be better for the family cars to be repossessed for non-payment? Would it be good for survivors to have wages attached through garnishment? Talk about life interrupted, this is a major stress magnet for all parties involved not the least of which is the insured. So who is to question, if someone is willing to pay cash now for a future benefit. Even multi-billionaire Mr. Warren Buffet was a player in Viaticals for a time. It’s not like there is only one place to go. An insured can select the highest bidder from a whole host of interested parties. Search any online engine and there they are.
After receiving the cash for the life policy the Viatical owner/investor will make any needed payments on the policy to protect their vested position. The insured is relieved of making any additional payments for the rest of their life or when the term of the policy expires such as a stated term policy with conversion priveleges. Here is an example how this might work. These are online publicly published numbers, we can only assume they are true. Source: CIGI Direct (Not an endorsement). The discounts are deep but immediate cash is generated. Each case will totally be different. This is just cursory examples.
Female: 77 (Very Good Health) Male: 68 (Bypass History)
Policy Type: Universal Life Policy Type: Convertible Term Life
Face Amount: $750,000 Face Amount: $200,000
Cash Value: $102,287 Cash Value: $0
Life Settlement to Customer: $137,000. Life Settlement to Customer: $40,500.
Male: 56 (Prostate Cancer History) Male: 66 (Very Good Health)
Policy Type: Convertible Term Life Policy Type: Convertible Term Life
Face Amount: $1,500,000 Face Amount: $1,000,000
Cash Value: $ 0 Cash Value: $0
Life Settlement to Customer: $360,000 Life Settlement to Customer: $24,650
These are just a few examples only. Again, each individual case is different. Each investor in a Viatical will handicap (underwrite) it differently. Consumers need to be aware and shop for the best offer. A focused effort of nailing a good cash settlement through using a Viatical settlement won’t make a day or two difference so a consumer needs to get as many quotes as possible. Once one accumulates the revenant data, it can then be presented to multiple buyer participants who may have an interest. Then with a price settled, papers are signed and a cash transfer is made. Obviously, establishing the correct identification of the insured and determining a valid enforceable insurance contract will need to be verified and proved. There is always the possibility that someone in one’s family or circle of friends may beat the bid and take a position in excess of the highest bid. You never know. It would be worth while to at least inquire. This is no time for family secrets here with the grim reaper lurking about. If a family member can help out in this situation that would be great. They might as well as benefit as opposed to a stranger corporate investor. In this case there could be some mitigation and resolution after death IF the family member would choose to share. Dealing with a company or investor, there would be ZERO chance of that.
In conclusion, this is just another tool to help in credit situations where there are little choices and alternatives. It would be great to be flush with cash, full insurance, huge investment portfolios and such, but some just don’t have it. If there is life insurance place in place and there no other valid alternatives, Viaticals can be an option to consider while Bankruptcy and other options will not work. The ‘Dark Alternative’ can lead to comfort for all parties in the death process, which is all part of life. It may ensure a sense of “Death With Dignity’.
Dale Rogers
www.brokencredit.com
Dale Rogers
http://www.articlesbase.com/loans-articles/viaticals-a-dark-alternative-to-shielding-survivors-from-credit-challenges-of-medical-collections-judgments-120176.html
Complementary Treatment, Alternative Therapies and Natural Cures for Prostate Cancer
Complementary and alternative therapies for cancer of the prostate are health care practices that are not usually part of common medical treatment methods. These therapies can include natural cures for prostate cancer such as herbs, vitamins and minerals and dietary supplements. They can also be procedures such as acupuncture, massage, homeopathy and the use of magnetic fields.
Most medical societies are not advocating natural cures for prostate cancer as a lone treatment method. According to them, these alternative therapies should be used in conjunction with regular treatment options and should not be expected to cure cancer. Some scientists are against the use of these alternative methods because they allegedly create false hopes. Scientists have warned that alternative cures should be considered as methods designed to improve the quality of life of a cancer patient and not to treat cancer. They also cautioned that although some alternative therapies are harmless, they might detract, delay or interfere with regular therapy which could create negative results.
One example of these alternative therapies is homeopathy. Homeopathy is a treatment philosophy that follows the like-cures-like principle. The basic principle is that substances that cause symptoms of illness in healthy people can be used in small doses to cure similar symptoms among those who are ill. Advocates of this philosophy have recommended Chimapilla, umbellata, Clematis, Causticum, Staphysagria and Bartya carb as homeopathic remedies.
Some studies have also advocated the use of magnetic fields to cure cancer in the prostate. It has been suggested that sitting for hours in a magnetic pad can inhibit the growth of prostate tumors. This result is allegedly due to the ability of the north pole-associated field to slow down the biological growth of a tumor. In this therapy, the magnet’s north pole field is the only one used to treat prostate cancer.
Acupuncture and massage are primarily recommended as complementary therapies to relieve some of the stress and tension that can result from being diagnosed with cancer. These procedures are primarily used as complementary and not as alternative treatments. The importance of maintaining a more relaxed body and mind can help a cancer patient cope better with the disease. Most doctors do not oppose the use of massage and acupuncture as long as it does not interfere with a patient’s regular treatment regimen.
The debate on the effectiveness of complementary treatments, alternative therapies and natural cures for prostate cancer is still ongoing. For patients, the best thing to do is to discuss with their doctors the advantages and disadvantages of adding these methods to their regular treatment programs.
Trevor Mulholland
http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/complementary-treatment-alternative-therapies-and-natural-cures-for-prostate-cancer-50407.html
Looking For Some Alternative Cancer Treatment?
When you sit and ponder the hardships of our contemporary world, it’s often difficult not to be saddened. There are just so many illnesses and diseases out there now days that make our health situation even worse and more complicated. Inexplicable terrors such as cancer have plagued our world for decades now. However, we still don’t know the absolute best or ideal way to deal with them. Although most people assume chemotherapy is the only way to deal with the big bad “C,” there are alternative cancer treatments available. Now, whether or not you find an alternative cancer treatment effective is a different story. A great deal depends on the person and his/her condition.
Do you know of a successful alternative cancer treatment? I knew a guy back in Oregon, who claimed he used regular acupuncture treatments along with meditation and yoga to treat his cancer. This was something I had never heard of before. In fact, I couldn’t help but wonder how effective it would truly be. Regardless, he did appear to be doing well, and looked healthy to the naked eye. I had just always heard everyone talk about chemotherapy like it was the be-all end-all to cancer treatments. I must admit that it makes me cringe to think about the effect it has on ones body. If you didn’t already know, chemotherapy is a radiation treatment that is used to kill the cancer cells/growth in the human body. Unfortunately it has to poison your body to accomplish this task. Hence the hair falling out and the vomiting. It’s a terrible process to watch first hand. This actually may be why certain individuals search for an alternative cancer treatment.
Are you looking for some alternative cancer treatment to deal with your affliction? Hey, if to find a quality and effective alternative cancer treatment is your goal, then I would suggest research via the World-Wide-Web. I believe this will save a great deal of time and effort on your part. If your personal doctor knows of no legitimate alternative cancer treatment, then you must take matters into your own hands. Although this horrific disease continuously affects a number of human beings, sometimes leaving us hopeless, we certainly can’t give up on finding the ideal cure. That choice alternative cancer treatment is out there. It’s all about being tenacious and never quitting.
This information is not presented by a medical practitioner and is for educational and informational purposes only. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health care provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read.
Since natural and/or dietary supplements are not FDA approved they must be accompanied by a two-part disclaimer on the product label: that the statement has not been evaluated by FDA and that the product is not intended to “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”.
Hans Hasselfors
http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/looking-for-some-alternative-cancer-treatment-50777.html
A Strong Political Will, a National Level Combat Force and an Effective Judiciary – Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri
What happened on 9/11 is something that the world would never forget. Memories of the twin towers coming down are impossible to erase but more than that what made this event even more ‘memorable’ is the manner in which the US government has gone around hunting for terrorists in Afghanistan, and followed it up with an engagement in Iraq, thus changing the future course of global geo-politics. Similarly, 7/7 would also remain a memorable day as that brings forth the memory of the gruesome London blasts; and more than that the way the UK police had gone about chasing the perpetrators of the crime, making the incident even more unforgettable, almost giving a new definition to terrorism. What the US did to Afghanistan and then to Iraq would always remain a matter of contention globally, and has left a lot of room for criticism, but then the way the Indian government has been sleeping on terrorism over the past so many years, and allowing innocent citizens to be killed, is probably worse than that. This is evident from the fact that unlike 9/11 and 7/7, there would be very few people who would remember the following dates – 3/12 (1993), 2/14 (1998), 10/1 (2001), 12/13 (2001), 9/24 (2002), 5/14 (2003), 8/25 (2003), 8/15 (2004), 7/5 (2005), 10/29 (2005), 3/7 (2006), 7/11 (2006), 9/8 (2006), 5/18 (2007), 8/25 (2007)… People don’t remember these simply because the government itself has slept over the corpses of hundreds of innocents who were blown up by bombs somewhere in the country. Forget about a national consensus for combating terrorism, the government is still in a denial mode about the very fact that terrorism exists in the country. This attitude is evident from all the ghastly incidents that have occurred over the past decades and the manner in which the government has gone about handling them.
Starting from the Mumbai blasts on 3rd March, 1993, to the Hyderabad blast on 25th August, 2007, all of them have been a horrifying reiteration of the very same fact that terrorism in India exists and that the Indian government is in a state of perpetual amnesia. Oh yes, the Special Task Force of the Andhra Pradesh Police is surely investigating the twin blasts. But you can take it for granted that just like in the previous cases, the moment the media attention goes away (which it inevitably will), the issue would die its unnatural death. In fact, after a point of time, even media would lose its focus as in this country, too much talk on serious issues becomes a sore point for the public at large; and as such, such ‘socially-oriented’ programmes are bound to lose out on the TRP ratings. Politicians in general and successive governments in particular have taken advantage of this short memory of our citizens and have never bothered to devise a strong anti-terror policy. As a result of this, innocent citizens continue to bleed even after a decade.
Reports state that in 2006 alone, a total of 3,033 terror incidents happened in India. The figure for the year 2007 (till July 31st) has been 1579, and one should not be surprised if by the year end, the tally breaks the previous year’s records by a huge margin. Recent reports further state that the number of people who have died in terror related incidents from 1994 till 2005 in India is a shocking 47,371, of which Jammu & Kashmir alone accounts for 32,677 deaths. Again, these figures do not include Naxalite related deaths – for which one can safely add another 7,000-8,000 to the total count over the eleven year period. Incidentally, in 2005, Naxalite related deaths accounted for 1,594 casualties while the figure for the same period in 2006 was 1,509.
Shockingly, the attitude of the government is glaring when it comes to the state of police and special investigative agencies, our main combat force to counter terrorism! With shoestring budgets, corroded equipment and overworked manpower, what better can one expect. To get an idea of how much the police machinery is understaffed, one only needs to compare the ‘cop to population’ ratio of the western countries to that of India.
Whereas on an average there are 250 cops for every 1,000 people in western countries, the UN recommended figure of having 222 cops for every 1,000 people is a distant dream compared to the Indian statistics of 122 for every 1,000 people. In certain parts of India, it would be tough to find even 50-60 cops for every 1,000 people. To give an example of the utterly dismal situation, one look at the Special Operations Group of the West Bengal CID (which is responsible for counter terrorism) would be enough – the group has barely 13 personnel and one old Ambassador car to take care of the entire state. Similar is the condition in most of the states barring few. But in reality, political interference and bureaucracy stand as the biggest hurdles for any investigation to conclude.
Frankly, it is not difficult to combat terror – for that, we have successful home grown examples like KPS Gill, who almost single-handedly uprooted militancy from Punjab. What is needed is a strong political will coupled with a national level combat force and an effective judiciary to deliver prompt and befitting sentences to the perpetrators. More than anything else, given the lack of political will, it is the common man who can collectively force policy makers and politicians to act tough on terror, enact more stringent provisions in our laws and make sure that those who are involved with the execution of brutal terror acts are dealt equally brutally and judiciously.
Kartik
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/a-strong-political-will-a-national-level-combat-force-and-an-effective-judiciary-prof-arindam-chaudhuri-711886.html
Third Intifada: NONVIOLENT and with Words Sharper than a Two Edged Sword
On Tuesday November 7, 2006 I traveled to the village of Maghar in the Galilee, home to 18,000 inhabitants. 60% of the people are Druze. Christian and Muslim are evenly divided, although the Christian Exodus has increased since 2005 at an alarming rate.
One percent of Israeli society are Druze, which is an offshoot of Islam with secretive practices and meeting places. The Druze originated in Egypt in the 11th century and today they number about 70,000 in Israel. While the Druze had lived in peaceful community throughout the centuries with Christians in Israel, in February 2005 violence erupted.
Rumors had circulated that a Christian had posted a photograph of a Druze female on the Internet and as a result of the unverified rumors 3,000 Druze youth took to the streets and attacked, vandalized, burned and destroyed 120 houses and stores and 125 cars belonging to Christians.
Attorney Haytham Abdalla, Advocate for St. George Melkite [Greek Orthodox in communion with the Roman Catholic Church which has married priests] of Maghar stated, “No one was killed, but these youth were all armed. The Druze serve in the Israeli army in the West Bank and in Gaza. If we Christians would have resisted, they most likely would have shot us. After these youth serve in the army, they return home thinking they can do anything and they take their anger out on us Christians.
“For three days they terrorized us and the Israeli police did nothing but watch the destruction of our property. The big problem is the State of Israel does not protect the Christian, and they claim everything they do is for “Security.” One day after the attack the police did announce there never was such a photograph on the Internet. But the police never did anything to protect us or our property. They just watched it happen. We are like the first century Christians, we are attacked and have no support. That is Israeli state policy. An Israeli TV station did come here and shot video, but the police forbid them to air it for “security” reasons.
“Right after the attack the Israeli Minister of Education issued an order that Christians were not allowed to attend the public school in Maghar. The parents were too afraid to send them back there anyway, and now 90% of our children study in Canna or Nazareth. They all attend private schools which are expensive and the parents must transport their children. Only one of our youth attends the public school now because his family can not afford private school. Every day he is beaten and every time his father reports it to the Principal, he is told they will take care of the situation, but nothing ever changes. This young boy use to be very calm, but now he is angry all the time, always under pressure, always being beaten and the school system and the Israeli police do nothing.
“Fifteen years ago a policy was instituted by the Israeli government to get rid of all the Christian teachers from the public school system. There are 400 people who work with the Maghar city council, but only four are Christians. We Christians don’t belong to this village, it is like we are living in a hotel, we just sleep here.
“We Christians in the Holy Land are always on the losing side. We face discrimination from the State of Israel, from the Druze and even some Muslims. Everyone is against us! In Maghar most of the Muslims are neutral about us, and we are all afraid to join together because then the Israeli forces will shoot us all!
“We once were a vibrant Christian community, but now our church is the only church in a Druze neighborhood. Fifty years ago there were only Christians in this neighborhood, but they have left. My son is three and unless things change, when he is five we are leaving too.
“But, yet we have many volunteers who want to change the situation. We want to build a Christian school. We have room on the church property, what we lack is money and outside support. We look to you to tell our story.”
On May 14, 1948 The Declaration of the establishment of Israel affirmed:
“One the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations.”
When Israel became a State it was contingent upon upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Israel denies, ignores, defies and “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” [Preamble Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
May We the People of the world unite in International Solidarity and Rise Up/Intifada in nonviolent resistance and with words sharper than a two edged sword and demand Israel uphold the rule of law and what they agreed to.
There will never be peace nor security without JUSTICE and Human Rights for all because whenever there is “disregard and contempt for human rights [it has]resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” [Ibid]
May We the People of the world unite in International Solidarity and demand Israel uphold ALL Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, specifically citing:
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
-Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages.
-Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
I close my case with Article 19 and will NOT shut up, until the Mainstream Media-the Fourth Estate in the USA does it’s job. Until that happens civilian journalists/bloggers must Rise Up/Intifada and DO SOMETHING!
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Eileen Fleming
http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/third-intifada-nonviolent-and-with-words-sharper-than-a-two-edged-sword-72783.html