- April 04, 2011 - 13:10
Pam - I was not discussing the citizen's report. My comment was in regards to the peer review which were the findings that the Minister would not commit to releasing. The citizen's report and the peer review are two very different documents. I listed two valid reasons why the government may need to keep some portions, or all, of the report private. Until you know the contents of the report or hos the findings are tied to specific case studies you cannot gaurantee that all of the findings will be able to be released. The Citizens Rep and the Privacy Commissioner routinely agree that some documents or portions thereof cannot be released.
- April 04, 2011 - 11:48
The minister cannot commit to making the report public because, depending on the report method and contents, he may legally be barred from doing so. There is legislation in NL that protects the privacy of individuals. The report is likely to include private information about Dr. Craig and the inmates that may be protected legislation. Furthermore, it is in the public's best interests to permit confidential peer reviews, doctors will be less willing to review the practices of their peers if they know that their identity and comments will become public. If you are going to criticize a decision you should ensure you have all the facts.
- Pam Frampton
- April 04, 2011 - 12:23
Jay, there's no reason why the minister could not make the report's recommendations public and still protect private information within the report. That's what the citizens' rep did, and does regularly. Same goes for the privacy commissioner. And trust me, I always check my facts.
- Pam Frampton
- April 04, 2011 - 13:16
Jay, I suggest you read my comment again. I said that there is no reason why the minister couldn't release the results/general gist/recommendations of the peer review once it has been completed, without violating anyone's privacy. Just as the citizens' rep and the privacy commissioner release reports without divulging personal information, so too could the minister when the time comes. I agree that the minister may not be able to release every shred of information in it, but surely he can commit to making its recommendations public.
- April 04, 2011 - 09:06
An excellent and thoughtful column, Pam. As for Dr. Craig (the Pen's answer to Dr. Phil?); his approach has been severely criticised by many other professionals in the mental health field. As both a mental health provider and survivor, the idea of denying someone their meds in order to “treat” them is as counter-productive as it is bizarre.
- April 03, 2011 - 16:12
I am unable to stop sobbing and crying. What a bleeding heart approach to those criminals that are just that. I agree that mental health issues should be handled when apparent but please stop telling me about little "Johnny" who steals, robs to shoot drugs up his arm because he was potty trained too early or Daddy didn't love him and made him take out the trash. Please!
- April 03, 2011 - 12:05
Pam, Your comment about the taking away of medications in a 'Willy Nilly' fashion is ridiculous and destroys any other point you are trying to make here. Dr. Craig is a licensed, skilled, respected physician and psychiatrist. He is not one to do anything 'Willy Nilly' in his professional life. That's the basic problem here. Dr. Craig is offering the second opinion you seek and because it does not involve keeping the inmate hopped up on meds, they are protesting. You are actually seeking a third opinion for inmates. Perhaps an article on the two way nature of medical treatment would be more appropriate. The responsibility in rehabilitation and personal well being lies with the patient as well as the Dr. When the patients honestly want to get better and take their treatment seriously then the Dr. will have a person they can actually work with and achieve success with. When the motivation for treatment is not the same, then we often get the unfortunate results they achieve on outside of prison; a trip inside the prison.