Risk management of groups or respect for the individual? Issues for information sharing and confidentiality in drug treatment and testing orders

Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 35-43

  Barton, Adrian ^a   Quinn, Christina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036001673     PISSN: 09687637     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09687630110085709     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barton, A. (1999). Breaking the crime/drug cycle: the birth of a new approach? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(2), pp. 144-57.
2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. London: Sage.
3. Cabinet Office (1998). Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain. London: HMSO.
4. Cain, P. (1998). The limits of confidentiality. Nursing Ethics, 5(2), pp. 158-65.
5. Cain, P. (1999). Respecting and breaking confidences: conceptual, ethical and educational issues. Nurse Education Today, 19, pp. 175-81.
6. Dorn, N. (1994). Three faces of police referral: welfare, justice and business perspectives on multiagency work with drug arrestees. Policing and Society, 4, pp. 13-34.
7. Drug Misuse Mail Base (2000). http://drugscope.org.uk/news//.
8. Drugscope (2000). The Drug Situation in the UK-trends and updates. Drugscope.org.uk.
9. Edmunds, M., Hough, M., Turnbull, P.J. & May, T. (1999). Doing Justice to Treatment: referring offenders to drug services. London: DPAS.
10. Feeley, M. & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30, pp. 449-74.
11. Feeley, M. & Simon, J. (1994). Actuarial justice: the emerging new criminal law. In D. Nelken (Ed.), The Futures of Criminology (pp. 173-201). London: Sage.
12. Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state: strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), pp. 445-71.
13. Hill, M. (1997). The Policy Process in the Modern State. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
14. Home Office (1985). Tackling Drug Misuse. London: Home Office.
15. Home Office (1997). Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Background and Issues for Consultation. London: Home Office.
16. Hough, M. (1996). Drug Misuse and the Criminal Justice System: a review of the literature. Drug Initiative Paper 15. London: Home Office.
17. Kemshall, H. & Maguire, M. (2000). Partnerships and Public Protection: Issues in Multi-agency Risk Management of Dangerous Offenders. London: Home Office.
18. Major, J. (1995). Conservative Party Conference address, Bournemouth.
19. Quinn, C. & Barton, A. (2000). The implications of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. The Nursing Standard, 14(27), pp. 38-41.
20. Turnbull, P., McSweeney, T., Webster, R., Edmunds, M. & Hough, M. (2000). Drug Treatment and Testing Orders: Final Evaluation Report. Home Office Research Study 212. London: Home Office.
21. UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting (1987). Confidentiality: an elaboration of Clause 9. London: UKCC.
22. UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery & Health Visiting (1998). Code of Professional Conduct for the Nurse, Midwife and Health Visitor. London: UKCC.
23. Wallace, G. & Eastham, D. (1994). A Survey of Drug Use and Offending in Plymouth. Plymouth: Harbour Centre.
24. Weiss, J. (1981). Substance vs. symbol in administrative reform: the case of human services coordination. Policy Analysis, 7(1), pp. 21-45.
25. Welsh Assembly (2000). Tackling Substance Misuse in Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly.
26. Young, J. (1991). Left realism and the politics of crime control. In K. Stenson & D. Cowell (Eds), The Politics of Crime Control (pp. 146-160). London: Sage.