Pubdate: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 Source: Providence Journal, The (RI) Copyright: 2001 The Providence Journal Company Contact: http://www.projo.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/352 Author: Anthony Abdelahad Note: Anthony Abdelahad, of Walpole, Mass., is a political science major at Providence College, about to start his senior year . IN DEFENSE OF DRUG COURT CONFIDENTIALITY RHODE ISLAND'S newly created drug court has received considerable criticism from the Fourth Estate over its relatively short life span. In particular, many media outlets have expressed concern over the court's policy of closing the courtroom to all but drug court participants, thus conducting court proceedings in "secret." Leading this onslaught has been The Journal, which, along with other publications, has charged that closing the court off to the public threatens the very essence of a free society. In a March 26 editorial, The Journal explains that this practice could potentially lead to "political favoritism or rank injustice through abuse of power." The paper goes on to suggest that the drug court justifies its policy through an extremely limited interpretation of federal law. Clearly the Journal (which supports the drug court concept) is either unaware or unconcerned with the legal, ethical, and ideological principles that govern such a program. In particular, the paper mischaracterizes the confidential nature of the proceedings and fails to appreciate the extent to which the drug court is bound by federal law. In addition, the paper does not recognize the essential role confidentiality plays in encouraging addicts to seek help. At the heart of The Journal's argument is concern that once a case is accepted into the drug court program the file is closed to the public. What the paper fails to mention is that all drug court participants are given the option of signing a disclosure form that lets otherwise unauthorized individuals (including members of the press) view the proceedings. Federal regulation 42 C.F.R, 2.32 provides for consensual disclosure, and the Rhode Island drug court abides by this law. Critics who question Rhode Island's interpretation of federal confidentiality laws should perhaps take the time to read these statutes themselves. Among federal laws regulating the disclosure of information, the most significant for the drug court is Section 290dd-2 of title 42 of the U.S. Code. Under Section 290dd-2, all records relating to the "identity, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment or referral for treatment of any patient" in a substance-abuse program are confidential. This applies to any drug court that "holds itself out as providing, and provides, alcohol or drug abuse diagnosis, treatment or referral for treatment." "A drug court is covered by this statute if its employees conduct screening or assessments to diagnose participants as substance abusers," explains a National Drug Court Institute publication. "If employees of the court refer participants to drug treatment, then the court is a program covered by Section 290dd-2," the institute further asserts. With this in mind, it is difficult to see where critics find room for statutory interpretation. Finally, The Journal fails to recognize that confidentiality protects potentially stigmatizing information from being disclosed and, in so doing, encourages clients to accept treatment. By prohibiting counselors from revealing patient disclosures, confidentiality also encourages substance abusers to be open and cooperative during treatment. Without a doubt, it is difficult enough for a drug addict to admit to having a problem and seek help. This reluctance would increase exponentially if he or she knew their struggle could be a matter of public record. It has become increasingly apparent over the last few decades that drug addiction is not a crime. It is a disease, something to be diagnosed, treated, and cured. An increasingly innovative and progressive approach to drug-related crime in Rhode Island and across America has made the drug courts the first step on the road to recovery. If the Ocean State is truly serious about treating drug addiction as a disease then the addict must be afforded the same level of protection and confidentiality as any other patient seeking treatment for an ailment. The federal government has acknowledged this distinction and created confidentiality laws accordingly. The drug court acts in many ways as a guiding hand through drug treatment and recovery. The public in general (and the press in particular), therefore, has no greater right to witness these proceedings than they do to enter an examination room with a person going for his or her yearly check-up. In the end, however, the success of this experiment will be solely determined by the willingness of addicts to participate and the extent to which they choose to do so. Guaranteeing confidentiality is a meaningful way of assuring eager participation and, subsequently, resounding success. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake