Any questions can be directed to Alex Siegel, JD, PhD, Director of Professional Affairs of ASPPB
ASPPB Receives Grant
Friday, July 13, 2012
California places psychologist David Van Zak's license on probation
Psychiatric Crimes Database
Originally published July 5, 2012
On January 26, 2012, the California Board of Psychology placed DAVID VAN ZAK, Ph.D.’s license on probation for five years. According to the Board’s Accusation, Van Zak committed, among other things, repeated acts of negligence by accepting financial gifts from a patient, as well as the patient’s invitation to join her and her husband on a Mexican cruise.
The entire story is here.
Originally published July 5, 2012
On January 26, 2012, the California Board of Psychology placed DAVID VAN ZAK, Ph.D.’s license on probation for five years. According to the Board’s Accusation, Van Zak committed, among other things, repeated acts of negligence by accepting financial gifts from a patient, as well as the patient’s invitation to join her and her husband on a Mexican cruise.
The entire story is here.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Child Abuse Reporting: Rethinking Child Protection
By Susan C. Kim, JD, MPH; Lawrence O. Gostin, JD; & Thomas B. Cole, MD, MPH.
Journal of the American Medical Association
JAMA. 2012;308(1):37-38. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6414
Originally published July 4, 2012
The general public has been bewildered by the magnitude of sex abuse cases and the widespread failure by pillars of the community to notify appropriate authorities. The crime of sexually abusing children is punishable in all jurisdictions. However, what is the duty to report suspected cases by individuals in positions of trust over young people, such as in the church or university sports?
Since the mid-1980s, law enforcement has been investigating allegations of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests against young boys and girls. These sexual abuse scandals and lawsuits have cost the Church an estimated $2 billion in settlements. A 2004 US Conference of Catholic Bishops report found that law enforcement was contacted in only 24% of cases of suspected abuse. In other cases, the church hierarchy responded internally or not at all: priests may have been counseled, evaluated, provided treatment, suspended, or limited in their priestly duties.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this lead.
Journal of the American Medical Association
JAMA. 2012;308(1):37-38. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6414
Originally published July 4, 2012
The general public has been bewildered by the magnitude of sex abuse cases and the widespread failure by pillars of the community to notify appropriate authorities. The crime of sexually abusing children is punishable in all jurisdictions. However, what is the duty to report suspected cases by individuals in positions of trust over young people, such as in the church or university sports?
Since the mid-1980s, law enforcement has been investigating allegations of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests against young boys and girls. These sexual abuse scandals and lawsuits have cost the Church an estimated $2 billion in settlements. A 2004 US Conference of Catholic Bishops report found that law enforcement was contacted in only 24% of cases of suspected abuse. In other cases, the church hierarchy responded internally or not at all: priests may have been counseled, evaluated, provided treatment, suspended, or limited in their priestly duties.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Ken Pope for this lead.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Fraud-Detection Tool Could Shake Up Psychology
By Martin Enserink
ScienceInsider
Originally published July 3, 2012
The most startling thing about the latest scandal to hit social psychology isn’t the alleged violation of scientific ethics itself, scientists say, or the fact that it happened in the Netherlands, the home of fallen research star and serial fraudster Diederik Stapel, whose case shook the field to its core less than a year ago. Instead, what fascinates them most is how the new case, which led to the resignation of psychologist Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University Rotterdam and the requested retraction of two of his papers by his school, came to light: through an unpublished statistical method to detect data fraud.
The technique was developed by Uri Simonsohn, a social psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who tells Science that he has also notified a U.S. university of a psychology paper his method flagged.
That paper’s main author, too, has been investigated and has resigned, he says. As Science went to press, Simonsohn said he planned to reveal details about his method, and both cases, as early as this week.
ScienceInsider
Originally published July 3, 2012
The most startling thing about the latest scandal to hit social psychology isn’t the alleged violation of scientific ethics itself, scientists say, or the fact that it happened in the Netherlands, the home of fallen research star and serial fraudster Diederik Stapel, whose case shook the field to its core less than a year ago. Instead, what fascinates them most is how the new case, which led to the resignation of psychologist Dirk Smeesters of Erasmus University Rotterdam and the requested retraction of two of his papers by his school, came to light: through an unpublished statistical method to detect data fraud.
The technique was developed by Uri Simonsohn, a social psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, who tells Science that he has also notified a U.S. university of a psychology paper his method flagged.
That paper’s main author, too, has been investigated and has resigned, he says. As Science went to press, Simonsohn said he planned to reveal details about his method, and both cases, as early as this week.
If it proves valid, Simonsohn’s technique might find other possible cases of misconduct lurking in the vast body of scientific literature. “There’s a lot of interest in this,” says Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who recently launched an examination of replicability in social psychology findings.
There are other stories about Diederik Stapel on this site.
A New Record for Retractions? (Part 2)
By Dennis Normile
ScienceInsider
Originally published on July 2, 2012
An investigating committee in Japan has concluded that a Japanese anesthesiologist, Yoshitaka Fujii, fabricated a whopping 172 papers over the past 19 years. Among other problems, the panel, set up by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists, could find no records of patients and no evidence medication was ever administered.
The fabrications could produce a record number of retractions by a single author if the journals, as seems likely, decide to retract the papers. ScienceInsider was unable to reach Fujii, who had asked the society not to provide the media with his contact information.
The entire story is here.
ScienceInsider
Originally published on July 2, 2012
An investigating committee in Japan has concluded that a Japanese anesthesiologist, Yoshitaka Fujii, fabricated a whopping 172 papers over the past 19 years. Among other problems, the panel, set up by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists, could find no records of patients and no evidence medication was ever administered.
"It is as if someone sat at a desk and wrote a novel about a research idea," the committee wrote in a 29 June summary report posted in Japanese on the society's Web site.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Justice for Injured Research Subjects
By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD
The New England Journal of Medicine-Perspective
Originally published July 5, 2012
Critics have long argued that U.S. ethics guidelines protect researchers more than they protect research subjects. The U.S. system of oversight, writes Laura Stark, was developed as a “technique for promoting research and preventing lawsuits.” Consider, for example, the obligations of U.S. research sponsors when a study goes wrong. If a research subject is seriously injured, neither the researcher nor the sponsor has any legal obligation to pay for that subject's medical care. In fact, only 16% of academic medical centers in the United States make it a policy to pay for the care of injured subjects. If a subject is permanently disabled and unable to work, sponsors have no obligation to pay compensation for his or her lost income. If a subject dies, sponsors have no financial obligations to his or her family. Not a single academic medical center in the United States makes it a policy to compensate injured subjects or their families for lost wages or suffering. These policies do not change even if a subject is injured in a study that is scientifically worthless, deceptive, or exploitative.
The New England Journal of Medicine-Perspective
Originally published July 5, 2012
Critics have long argued that U.S. ethics guidelines protect researchers more than they protect research subjects. The U.S. system of oversight, writes Laura Stark, was developed as a “technique for promoting research and preventing lawsuits.” Consider, for example, the obligations of U.S. research sponsors when a study goes wrong. If a research subject is seriously injured, neither the researcher nor the sponsor has any legal obligation to pay for that subject's medical care. In fact, only 16% of academic medical centers in the United States make it a policy to pay for the care of injured subjects. If a subject is permanently disabled and unable to work, sponsors have no obligation to pay compensation for his or her lost income. If a subject dies, sponsors have no financial obligations to his or her family. Not a single academic medical center in the United States makes it a policy to compensate injured subjects or their families for lost wages or suffering. These policies do not change even if a subject is injured in a study that is scientifically worthless, deceptive, or exploitative.Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Data breach leads to $1.7M fine for Alaska DHSS
By Erin McCann
Healthcare Finance News
Originally published June 27, 2012
The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) – the state’s Medicaid agency – has agreed to pay $1.7 million to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to settle possible violations of the HIPAA Security Rule, making it the second largest settlement for HIPAA violations to date.
As part of the settlement, the state has also agreed to take corrective action to properly safeguard the electronic personal health information (PHI) of their Medicaid beneficiaries.
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began its investigation following a breach report submitted by Alaska DHSS as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The report indicated that a portable electronic storage device (USB hard drive) possibly containing PHI was stolen from the vehicle of a DHSS employee. PHI from an estimated 2,000 individuals was stored on the device.
The entire story is here.
Editorial Note: Please do not tranfer large amounts of personal data from a secure data bank to a jump drive, lap top or other portable storage device.
Healthcare Finance News
Originally published June 27, 2012
The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) – the state’s Medicaid agency – has agreed to pay $1.7 million to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to settle possible violations of the HIPAA Security Rule, making it the second largest settlement for HIPAA violations to date. As part of the settlement, the state has also agreed to take corrective action to properly safeguard the electronic personal health information (PHI) of their Medicaid beneficiaries.
The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) began its investigation following a breach report submitted by Alaska DHSS as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. The report indicated that a portable electronic storage device (USB hard drive) possibly containing PHI was stolen from the vehicle of a DHSS employee. PHI from an estimated 2,000 individuals was stored on the device.
The entire story is here.
Editorial Note: Please do not tranfer large amounts of personal data from a secure data bank to a jump drive, lap top or other portable storage device.
MD Anderson suffers data breach via stolen computer
By Beth Walsh
CMIO - Industry News
Originally published July 2, 2012
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center announced that a computer containing patient and research information was stolen from a physician’s home on April 30. The physician notified the local police department.
After learning of the theft on May 1, MD Anderson immediately began a thorough investigation, including working with outside forensics experts, to determine the information contained on the computer.
The entire story is here.
CMIO - Industry News
Originally published July 2, 2012
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center announced that a computer containing patient and research information was stolen from a physician’s home on April 30. The physician notified the local police department.
After learning of the theft on May 1, MD Anderson immediately began a thorough investigation, including working with outside forensics experts, to determine the information contained on the computer.
The entire story is here.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Coalition Responds to Invitation from APA's "PENS II" Task Force
The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology has been invited to nominate a consultant to “review materials” for the American Psychological Association’s so-called “member-initiated task force.” This task force purports to “reconcile policies related to psychologists’ involvement in national security settings.” We have declined the invitation because we reject both the aims and the legitimacy of this task force (hereafter referred to as “PENS II”) – and we discourage others from participating.
The entire response is here.
Others posts about the PENS report can be found by searching this blog via the "search" function.
Here is a portion of the response:
The entire response is here.
Others posts about the PENS report can be found by searching this blog via the "search" function.
Here is a portion of the response:
"Since the PENS Report became APA policy in 2005, subsequent APA policies related to interrogations (with the exception of the Referendum) have been framed in ways largely consistent with the PENS Report. As such, they are all “fruit of a poisoned tree.” Any constructive attempt to consolidate national security policies must therefore begin with annulment of the PENS Report in order to remove its corrosive influence on the profession of psychology and on the unexamined proliferation of operational psychology in coercive contexts.
The Coalition for an Ethical Psychology unequivocally rejects collaboration with the illegitimate PENS II “task force” and calls for its dissolution. We further encourage others to refuse to collaborate with this effort aimed at undermining true reform. PENS II is built upon faulty premises. If successful, it would enshrine one of the darkest initiatives in APA policy-making."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)