NCJ Number
195692
Journal
Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy Volume: 9 Issue: 1 Dated: February 2002 Pages: 35-43
Date Published
2002
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This article explores the nature and problem of information sharing and client confidentiality issues generated from the use of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) in the United Kingdom.
Abstract
The authors note that the use of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) in the United Kingdom has generated considerable debate concerning confidentiality and patient rights. DTTOs represent reforms made to the British criminal justice system in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Under these reforms, agencies are required to work together and share information. While theoretically this seems like a good idea, in practice it has generated much criticism in its handling of drug abusers. This article begins by offering an overview of the development of DTTOs. The authors then move on to discuss the legislative guidelines governing the operation of DTTOs. Finally, the article examines the major concern for health care professionals involved with DTTOs, namely, the issues of patient confidentiality. The authors explain that the development of DTTOs emerged from the desire to merge treatment with law and order. The reasoning behind this decision was that a small number of drug offenders were responsible for a majority of crime in the United Kingdom; thus, if the criminal justice system could both punitively punish these offenders while at the same time treating their addictions, crime rates would conceivably drop. In order to accomplish this mission, the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act mandated that courts could punitively prescribe drug abuse treatment to drug offenders. While the court was mandating such treatment, it was the health care system that would carry out the treatment. It was at this intersection where health care met the criminal justice system that the debate about patient confidentiality grew. The health care systems’ standard operating procedures concerning information sharing about clients conflicted with the requirements of information sharing mandated by the DTTOs. The authors suggest that while DTTOs are an innovative approach to dealing with the Nation's drug and crime problems, there needs to be more communications on how to solve the concerns set out in this paper. As such, this paper hopes to generate discussion on the topic, rather than offer solutions. Figure, references