Sunday, March 6, 2011

Ohel's response to The Jewish Week regarding mandated reporting


The Jewish Week Has It Wrong, Again.

A Heinous Crime and A History of Proactive Prevention

Child sexual abuse is a heinous crime. While unashamedly denied or ignored by many in the community for too long, OHEL has for decades tirelessly treated victims and raised community-wide awareness - long before child sexual abuse became media headlines. OHEL initiated hundreds of prevention workshops, provided local and national consultations with schools and communities, distributed a multitude of videos, books and other supporting materials, while providing on-going treatment and support to victims and their families. The media has a very important role to play in boldly tackling issues such as child sexual abuse and all other social ills. However, The Jewish Week’s inflammatory coverage of OHEL, most recently in the article “Abuse Case Tests OHEL’s Adherence To Reporting Laws” once again demonstrates a complete disregard for facts driven by a very misguided agenda, and, at worst, a reckless disregard for a patients right to privacy.

Fundamental Misrepresentations in Jewish Week Article [...]


  1. Mr. Lipner has a lot of explaining to do for his breaching his patient's privacy.

  2. The Jewish Week had an excellent response to Ohel:

  3. The JW did nothing more than restate their original hit-job. They've ignored Ohel's point that even the original JW article admitted that Ohel did everything ever did everything “technically legal” (as the JW put it), in all cases other than the one specific case. And in that one (and only) case, the JW did nothing more than reiterate they only have one (apparently disgruntled) named source, namely Lipner.

  4. I don't know if MO Spokesman read the same article I did:
    While the paper stands behind the credibility of Dr. Lipner, who has long been a staunch public advocate for victims of sexual abuse, The Jewish Week relied on multiple sources for the story. Some were involved, in one way or another, in treating the woman in question; others were told about the events of the case either as they were unfolding or shortly after they happened.
    The Ohel ad says “The Jewish Week article itself … acknowledges that Ohel’s actions were ‘technically legal,’” yet continued to “insinuate Ohel still acted wrongly.”

    In the case of the mother and son, however, the article never suggested that Ohel’s actions were “technically legal.”

    The article’s reference to “technically legal” concerned Ohel’s treatment of self-confessed molesters referred to the agency by rabbis. The article called that practice into question from a practical/ethical standpoint and noted that it departs from protocol endorsed by professionals in the field, including the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

  5. Pelta: Again, who is any other *named* source other than (the disgruntled) Lipner? No one.

    And in which case (other than that single case of the mother that is sourced to Lipner) did the JW not admit everything done was “technically legal”? None.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.