Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 03:08:00 PM
The fact is that our president has mandated that every American child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered to be evaluated for mental health issues and to receive ?enforced? treatment. Welcome to President Bush?s New Freedom Initiative and New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug addictions, New Freedom-style.
52 million students and six million adults working in schools, according to this commission, will be tested and should flush out at least 6 million people, or shall we say new customers, who will then be mandated to receive ?treatment.? What treatment does our president?s commission have in mind? The newest drugs in the pharmaceutical pipelines, of course. The commission recommends ?specific medications for specific conditions.?
One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive, is an implanted capsule ? yes, that?s right, implanted. The capsule delivers medication into a child?s body without the child having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.
The New Freedom Commission named the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) a model treatment plan. Medical algorithms are a flowchart-style treatment indicator. If you have A symptom and B symptom, take C medication. TMAP began with the University of Texas, big pharma, and the mental health and corrections system in Texas. The American Psychiatric Association concurs that TMAP is brilliant.
However, the New Freedom Initiative and Commission is a political-big pharma marriage. Many companies who supported TMAP were also major contributors to Bush?s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine - one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan, and furthermore, George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly?s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly?s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly?s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party. Do tell?
Texas Algorithm grossed over 4 billion dollars in 2003 and olanzapine is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris claims that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And lo and behold, guess who is now able to bill Medicaid for health services? Public schools, of course, as they are now under the big pharma-political profits/pay-back umbrella once they adopt screening policies. Public schools can now be paid to screen and drug your kids.
Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for our president?s campaign. Favors are now returned to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health, and their future drug addictions.
But wait, there is more. The New Freedom Commission also calls for enforced treatment. That means that parents have no rights to refuse the treatment recommenced by TMAP and other drug dispensing corporate-bureaucratic apparatuses. And as the mental health bureaucracy is also involved in this financial game of insidious cruelty, parents and families are also to be investigated via the result of their children?s screenings in schools. In other words, schools are now the across-the board, or shall I say nation, diagnostic tool for big pharma and child control.
And there?s more. The U.N. Agenda 21 has also called for total intrusion into schools and children lives. No more religion, no more individuality, no more real education, no more real grades, no more real teaching, no more teacher respect for parents, and no more truth from teachers or principals. This sounds very familiar and very political to me. And I?ve said it before, and I will say it again: if you are of a religious ilk and you refuse to allow your children to be abused by our ?educational? system, the stage is being set for you to lose physical custody of your children. I suggest that you read this: Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century by Richard McKenzie, ed
Still got your kids in public schools? Shame on you, and may God bless your poor children and forgive you.
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 08:57:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on June 05, 2005, 10:29:00 PM
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... orum=9&125 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=5804&forum=9&125)
Post by: Anonymous on June 05, 2005, 11:56:00 PM
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 07, 2005, 02:25:00 AM
I seriously cant see any part of america taking this unless theyre just that meek and obedient to the G.O.P.... I mean how can this agree with thier own (at least according to what they say, not what they DO) party wanting smaller government and personal responsibilty and being anti-drug? Oh, yeah, lets shove kids full of drugs that have more side effects and are more dangerous than the pot we dont let them smoke! WOO HOO!
Just... honestly, any sane parent would see this and be VERY pissed off. VERY VERY pissed off. My stepdad can't believe it... but then again he cant believe in the programs existance easily either.
The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective.
--Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley, 1958
Post by: Anonymous on June 07, 2005, 12:30:00 PM
The way to bitchslap this one is to take your child to a board-certified pediatric psychiatrist for an evaluation, and (if you have good enough insurance) take your child for private neuropsychological testing (the fancy name for learning disability screening).
If your child is essentially normal, as most children are, get a letter from your private expert saying so. Amend any "consent" form the school asks you to sign with "consent for this denied--screening already completed."
If they try to enforce it---or *when* some overzealous bureaucrat tries to enforce it---then you sue the crap out of them. And you win.
Bitchslapping the government when they're being excessive isn't all that hard. You just have to construct the right test case.
In *this* case, I expect *either* the ACLU or the ACLJ would be absolutely enthused about working with a set of parents to construct a good test case and carry it through the courts.
(The ACLJ is a conservative org that often opposes the ACLU but has the benefit that when a government excess isn't politically correct for the ACLU to oppose, sometimes the ACLJ will pick it up----and they'd almost certainly be appalled at the prospect of parents being forced to medicate their kids to government specifications.)
*I* believe in screening.
But only as an instrument to inform the parents if there are potential issues they may wish to follow up with their own chosen care providers.
The schools don't make you get your kid glasses or braces or a back brace (scoliosis), they shouldn't make you get your kid a pdoc or pdrugs---UNLESS the kid is totally disabled without further care.
Which is very, very rare. And even rarer that parents are willing to ignore total disability. But in the case of Christian Scientists and other extremists, it *occasionally* happens.
Sure, I support screening.
I also support bitchslapping government when it tries to take what's a good idea as a very small screening service and tries to blow it up into an Orwellian Monster.
And with any new program there's always one or two overzealous bureaucrats. It's the nature of bureaucrats. Until the courts' bitchslappings, or the voters' bitchslappings, generate precedent as to where the hard limits are.
I think any government agency that presumes to prescribe specific meds to specific people on a cookie-cutter basis is dangerously out of control and *needs* to be bitchslapped.
Sue away. :smile: :smile: :smile:
Hell, when the first lawsuits come down the pipe, if they're good test cases where the kid really isn't totally disabled with parents who are ignoring it, post the information and I'll contribute money to the legal fund. I may not be able to contribute a lot, but I *will* contribute.
Legislatures legislate, bureaucrats exaggerate, citizens litigate, and the courts eviscerate--the bureaucrats, that is.
Screening is a good idea---but only to give the parents information on potential problems they might otherwise miss from just being too close to their kid to see the signs, and then let the parents use their best judgment on what to do with the information. But we have to go through the whole process to get to that.
Bureaucrats are what they are. They're like fire. You have to have it, but you have to be very careful not to let it get out of control.
Timoclea
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 01:26:00 PM
And why should parents have to go into defense mode, spend money to ?prove? their kid is ?normal? to avoid the ramifications of this insane agenda?
Who do you think is going to pay for this clever scheme hatched by the Bushes and their cronnies in the drug cartel?
Annual Budget
The budget below is based on the conduction of four screening projects. Please note that only the Project Coordinator, DISC Supervisor, and Case Manager are salaried, and these people would be employed for nine months only.
Budget for Salaried Employees:
$33,941 Project Coordinator (based on salary and fringe benefits of $45,255)
$29,250 DISC Supervisor ($39,000)
$33,941 Case Manager ($45,255)
$21,000 Clinician (420 hrs@$50/hr)
$10,800 Helpers (2 helpers/day @ 6 hours each ? 180hrs@ $15/hr)
$6,000 Student Incentives (1200@$5 each)
$400 Supplies
$8,400 Laptop computer(6 @ $1400each)
$200 Printer
$360 Cell Phone (9 months @ $40/month)
---------
Start-up:
Maintenance: $144,292
Total $135,692
Total $180 Per student $170 Per student
Potential Additional costs:
$812 Partitions (14@ $58 each)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KJ ... creen.org/ (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:KJ8nlot5EWQJ:www.teenscreen.org/)
CTSP__Initializing/Models/Model_5/body_model_5.html+%22CTSP%22+
Columbia+screen&hl=en
There are 53 million school kids in the United States. Reports indicate that 8 million kids are already on psych drugs.
That means they've already gotten to 15% of our children! FIFTEEN PERCENT!
They're even drugging babies now: http://tinyurl.com/8r2hq (http://tinyurl.com/8r2hq)
The goal of Columbia University's TeenScreen program is to screen every kid in the U.S. which will result in even more kids being drugged.
+++++++++++++++
Listen here: http://www.eagleforum.org/radio/3min/index.html (http://www.eagleforum.org/radio/3min/index.html)
Go to the bottom, click on March 9, "TeenScreen asks nosy questions"
Commentary by columnist and author Phyllis Schlafly.
+++++++++++++++
Internal e-mail from top TeenScreen official, Laurie Flynn. She's "looking for a horse to ride" and she needs to get some "kids screened"!
Document provided courtesy of Florida public record law:
http://tinyurl.com/apead (http://tinyurl.com/apead)
+++++++++++++++
Students snagged in TeenScreen scam:
http://tinyurl.com/84bnq (http://tinyurl.com/84bnq)
+++++++++++++++
Business Card of TeenScreen's Director:
http://tinyurl.com/dtxeg (http://tinyurl.com/dtxeg)
+++++++++++++++
Screening Flow Chart:
http://tinyurl.com/btbvm (http://tinyurl.com/btbvm)
+++++++++++++++
Consent Form - Get free movie passes!
http://tinyurl.com/7u2xy (http://tinyurl.com/7u2xy)
+++++++++++++++
Student must then sign off and give okay:
http://tinyurl.com/d9sz4 (http://tinyurl.com/d9sz4)
+++++++++++++++
Then the young student is sat down and given these questions:
http://tinyurl.com/ckwcs (http://tinyurl.com/ckwcs)
+++++++++++++++
A psych then considers what label to use on the young student:
http://tinyurl.com/7pgz6 (http://tinyurl.com/7pgz6)
+++++++++++++++
Then they make a Summary Report:
http://tinyurl.com/d2zrc (http://tinyurl.com/d2zrc)
+++++++++++++++
And what do you think comes next?
http://tinyurl.com/4lxl5 (http://tinyurl.com/4lxl5) Video
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 01:40:00 PM
Independent Media TV
Under Reported
May 28, 2005
TeenScreen - Who Pays For Treatment & Drugs?
By: Evelyn Pringle
Independent Media TV
Who will pay for the Bush-recommended mass mental health screening programs like TeenScreen, and the follow-up treatment and drug therapy? In the end, American tax payers will, for the most part.
According to the May 8, 2005 issue of Lab Business Week, a new analysis by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reveals that Medicaid is now the largest single payer of mental health services, exceeding private insurance, Medicare, or other state and local spending.
The report notes that spending for patient care in psychiatric hospitals has decreased, while expenses for prescription drugs, have increased. One out of every 5 dollars spent on mental health care now goes for psychotropic drugs.
Bush established The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in 2002 by executive order. The Commission recommends that all 50 states start testing and treating mental disorders as early as possible, focusing on the nation's 52 million students, who can be easily accessed in the public school system.
The Commission's report recommends the use of a Texas-based project called the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), which is basically a list of expensive drugs.
Launched in 1995, while Bush was Governor, TMAP was developed through an "expert" consensus process that included the University of Texas, the state mental health and prison systems, and representatives with strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
The original TMAP model was funded through a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an outgrowth of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical giant, along with money from ten other drug companies.
Bogus Mental Illnesses
In order to successfully market their costly new drugs, the pharmaceutical industry needed new mental illnesses. Thanks to their friends in the psychiatric community, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), now lists over 350 mental disorders which are nothing but a list of behavioral symptoms. The DSM is known as a psychiatrist's "billing bible."
The disorders listed are not based on any scientific criteria. There are no blood tests, brain scans, or chemical imbalance tests to verify that these disorders are an actual disease.
Unlike medical diagnoses that convey a probable cause, treatment and prognosis, the disorders in the DSM are voted in by members of an American Psychiatric Association committee. Illnesses voted in include ridiculous labels like Caffeine-Related Disorder, Mathematics Disorder, Disorder of Written Expression, and the all-encompassing Phase of Life Problem.
Who Needs TeenScreen?
TeenScreen has attempted to create a suicide hysteria in the media when the truth is, suicide has been on the decline for over a decade. There is no suicide epidemic among any age group let alone children.
Between 1992 and 2001, the suicide rate for kids ages 10 to 19 fell from 6.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 1992 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2001, according to statistics from the Center for Disease Control.
While the drug company funded team steps up efforts to set up mass screening in schools across the country, critics are becoming more vocal. "The New Freedom Commission is blatantly promoting the coercive and manipulative tactics that have led to millions of children being falsely labeled with mental disorders in our public schools," according to Peter Dockx, of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, "Schools have become mental health clinics where children are diagnosed based on subjective questionnaires, instead of given proven educational solutions," he said.
"This fact was substantiated," Dockx said, "by a report from the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, which found that 2.4 million children had been diagnosed with mental 'disorders' and placed in Special Education, when in fact these children had simply not been taught to read."
Plant The Seed - Make Kids Questions Their Own Sanity
TeenScreen is planting the seed of mental illness in the minds of children by using loaded questions that make teens believe that normal everyday feelings and thoughts are somehow abnormal. Here are a few questions from the TeenScreen survey.
In the last year, has there been a time:
(1) When nothing was fun for you and you just weren't interested in anything?
How many kids could say they enjoyed themselves and found life interesting for 365 days in a row?
(2) When you couldn't think as clearly or as fast as usual?
Could any kids claim they were never confused in the past 365 days?
(3) When you had less energy than you usually do?
What does this mean? Less energy when? At school? At play? In the evenings? In the morning? When? Geeeezz.
(4) When you felt you couldn't do anything well or that you weren't as good-looking or as smart as other people?
How many adult could think back on their teen years and answer no to this trick question?
(5) Have you often felt nervous or uncomfortable when you have been with a group of children or young people - say, like in the lunchroom at school or at a party?
Oh no, Susie thinks, I feel nervous in these settings and normal kids don't.
(6) Have you often felt very nervous when you've had to do things in front of people?
Show me a kid who loves to stand up in front of people and I'll show you an ego-maniac.
(7) Have you often worried a lot before you were going to play a sport or game or do some other activity?
Does this mean its time to gather up all the little league pitchers who get nervous on the mound and shoot them up with valium?
With its yes and no answers, this survey is a no-pass test and the prize for flunkies will be a quick trip to the nearest drug store.
What normal kid has not felt all of the things above during the past year? Kids who take this survey will forever question whether they are normal or not. The seed will be planted.
Kids who answer yes to even some of these questions, will be referred to a psychiatrist, diagnosed mentally ill and prescribed drugs. The idea will then be planted in their minds that anytime they don't like the way the feel, think, or act, all they have to do is take a pill.
TeenScreen provides a springboard into drug addiction.
The pill-pushers behind this scheme want to put kids on SSRI antidepressants, even after the FDA has now determined, "A causal role for antidepressants in inducing suicidality has been established in pediatric patients."
In Pinellas County, Florida, information gathered in an ongoing investigation by professional records researcher, Ken Kramer, supports the FDA's warning. Kramer discovered that in 2002 and 2003, 81% of the teens who committed suicide were either on psychotropic drugs or had received psychiatric treatment.
Between 2000-2004, in Pasco County, the investigation disclosed that 100% of the children who committed suicide were either on psychotropic drugs or had received psychiatric treatment.
The truth is, antidepressants are ineffective and dangerous, and TeenScreen does not lesson the rate of suicide among teens. A TeenScreen program was implemented in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1997. Yet according to a 2003 Tulsa World newspaper article, Mike Brose, the executive director of the Mental Health Association in Tulsa, stated: "To the best of my knowledge, this is the highest number of youth suicides we've ever had during the school year -- a number we find very frightening."
Drug Company Ties
The number one problem with the New Freedom Commission's recommendations for mass mental health screening is the financial influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the creation and implementation of programs like TeenScreen, and the adoption of drug algorithms in each state that require the use of expensive drugs.
The fact is, the main customers for these mandated drugs are the tax payers via the state Medicaid programs.
An October 31, 2004, letter to the editor in the Washington Times titled, "Go Slow on Mental Health Screening", by pediatrician Dr. Karen Effrem, is a powerful refutation of the New Freedom Commission chairman, Michael Hogan's, defense of mass mental health screening of all school children with tax dollars. Dr. Effrem writes:
"Given the very real problems of already existing coercion, subjective criteria, dangerous and ineffective medication, and the failure of screening to prevent suicide, none of which are covered in the NFC report, Congress would be wise to withhold the $44 million requested for state grants to implement the NFC recommendations.
"Whatever good may come from the other recommendations is completely overshadowed by the loss of freedom and damage that would come from labeling and drugging potentially millions of children based on these unsupportable screening and treatment programs."
According to Effrem, "If we don't act now, every child in America will be screened for mental illness: thousands, perhaps millions will be deemed "at risk" of developing mental health problems for which they will be prescribed powerful psychotropic drugs. The screening plan has been called Orwellian and diabolical - the treatment "model" the report recommends is a drug industry-sponsored guideline-- the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP)."
Not surprisingly, every drug company involved in funding the creation the TMAP model has drugs in one or more categories on the list.
Members of the panels who participated in the survey to decide which drugs would be chosen were drawn from pools of candidates who were already on record as supporting the new drugs.
A prime example of a member of the panel with ties to the drug companies is Dr Karen Wagner. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, Wagner conducted a Pfizer-funded study and reported that Pfizer's SSRI antidepressant drug, Zoloft, was safe, effective and well tolerated in children.
Wagner made this convenient claim at a time when both the British Committee on Safety in Medicines and the FDA had announced that they were re-examining all SSRI clinical trial data.
Over the years, Wagner had received research funding from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, Pfizer, and Wyeth-Ayerst; served as a National Institute of Mental Health consultant to Abbott, Bristol-MyersSquibb, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Otsuka, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; and participated in speaker's bureaus for Abbott, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Forest Laboratories, Pfizer, and Novartis, according to the September 3, 2003 Drug News.
Drug News gave a caustic assessment of drug company influence on Wagner's bogus study: "What we have here is a case study in how pharmaceutical companies respond to warnings that their products cause harm."
"Earlier that summer British health authorities advised against treating children under 18 with SSRI antidepressants because they trigger suicidal thinking and actual suicide attempts," Drug News reported.
Budget Breaking Scheme
According to a 2003 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, prescription drug costs are the fastest-rising component of Medicaid spending and they "are rising sharply because of increases in the number of prescriptions used, increases in the prices of prescription drugs, and the tendency for prescriptions to shift from older, less-expensive drugs to newer, more-expensive ones."
National sales of antipsychotics reached $6.4 billion in 2002, making them the fourth-highest-selling class of drugs, according to the New York Times in May 2003. The Pharma tracking group, NDCHealth, reported that "more than 7.4 million prescriptions were written for Zyprexa and more than 7.6 million for Risperdal in 2002."
Risperdal is the TMAP drug of choice for the treatment of schizophrenia drug. Risperdal, costs nearly $500 a month. Multiply that by 7.6 million and see why drug company profits are soaring.
The first TMAP model was adopted in Texas in 1995. By 1998, the state was in dire financial straights. An article in the Abilene Reporter News on June 18, 1998 entitled "Medications' costs forces MHMR into rationing" described the Texas system as "choking on the costs" of "new-generation medications that treat schizophrenia, depression and bi-polar disorder."
The article described the need for emergency funding to pay for these drugs. One official noted, "I believe that our (Mental Health) centers are in crisis right now because they're trying to squeeze money out for these new medications."
By 2002-2003 budget, Texas lawmakers had to increase the amount allocated for health and human services by $1 billion with a significant portion of that funding going for prescription drugs.
Because the drugs on these lists are the most expensive, profit-enhancing drugs on the market, TMAP models are bankrupting state Medicaid programs all over the country. (To read reports from Massachusetts, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and for more information go to http://www.ahrp.org (http://www.ahrp.org))
TeenScreen's promotional material claims its survey is free and the project is not funded by the government or drug companies. However, according Ken Kramer, "nothing is free." Kramer recently learned that TeenScreen has already sold its 10 minute computer administered screening tool to a company called Multi-Health Systems, Inc. and starting in January 2006, TeenScreen sites will have to pay a fee.
In addition, government funds and drug company money have been used to set up TeenScreen programs in Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida.
Last year, TeenScreen's Executive Director, Laurie Flynn, went before Congress looking for money and asked lawmakers to divert funds from alcohol and drug abuse programs to TeenScreen. If this wasn't so serious it would be comical. This broad wants to take funding from drug abuse programs and use it to implement a pill-pushing scheme.
So what happens to students who flunk the survey and don't have health insurance or Medicaid to pay for the drugs?
Ken Kramer says, "Pull out your wallet school districts! TeenScreen recommends that you apply for grants or secure funds to cover the services needed by the teens."
By Evelyn Pringle http://www.independent-media.tv (http://www.independent-media.tv)
© Copyright 2005 Independent Media TV
Post by: Antigen on June 07, 2005, 02:31:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 17:57:00, Anonymous wrote:
"if you can show me a private school in northern new jersey that doesn't have a republican agenda, then I might listen. Not that I am anti-rebulicans across the board, I'm just not fond of the current admins."
Sudbury Valley School
20 miles West of Boston, a few miles from Nathaniel Hawthorne's famous Wayside Inn on the outskirts of Framingham.
http://www.sudval.org/ (http://www.sudval.org/)
This would be too far for a daily commute. But if you ask them, I bet they'd know if there's a similar school a little closer to you.
I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment, to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure.
--Clarence Darrow, American lawyer
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 02:57:00 PM
her Scientology reference?
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/ ... 1113829319 (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/8506.html?1113829319)
Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 9:01 am:
---------------------
Pringle is supposed to be an "investigative" reporter. Why is there no mention of the "church" of Scientology or the real agenda that Ken Kramer and the CCHR have .....to destroy psychiatry and replace it with Scientology?
Tigger
***
I have not had the time to research complaints
on San Diego and California's current early detection program. I just know that complaints have never come up at the Mental Health Board nor
the Quality Assurance reports.
So I have nothing to say on this issue.
Dan Fisher, anti-medication/anti-psychiatry psychiatrist was on the New Freedom commission, I wonder what his input was on this program?
http://teenscreen.org/ (http://teenscreen.org/)
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 03:59:00 PM
While Scientology certainly exposes the fraudulent nature of psychiatry, I've never heard of a master plan to 'replace it with scientology'. I think that's a bit of a stretch, and I think your paranoia causes a bit of exaggeration in that regard.
How might that happen, Paul? Just curious how you imagine that might happen. I feel very confident, no certain in fact, that you and all your addicted friends will always have access to drugs.
You may not appreciate the source, but the information is worth consideration. Sometimes it takes one 'dragon' to slay another, if that is the case. Fortunately SOMEONE is on top of this issue.
Post by: ` on June 07, 2005, 04:20:00 PM
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
the validity of Scientologies contribution
to caring for the mentally ill.
Yes, I believe, if someone is quoting a cult
or the AMA, or SAMSHA they should divulge that.
Wouldn't you like the same courtesy?
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:29:00 PM
Health Services
http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/consumersurvivor/ (http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/consumersurvivor/)
___________________________________________________
CMHS Consumer Affairs E-News June 7, 2005 Vol.
05-86
___________________________________________________
NIMH: Mental Illness Exacts Heavy Toll, Beginning
in Youth
Researchers supported by the National Institute
of Mental Health (NIMH) have found that half of
all lifetime cases of mental illness begin by age
14, and that despite effective treatments, there
are long delays - sometimes decades - between
first onset of symptoms and when people seek and
receive treatment. The study also reveals that an
untreated mental disorder can lead to a more severe,
more difficult to treat illness, and to the
development of co-occurring mental illnesses.
The landmark study is described in four papers
that document the prevalence and severity of
specific mental disorders. The papers provide
significant new data on the impairment - such as days lost
from work - caused by specific disorders,
including mood, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders.
These measures will allow researchers to
determine the degree of disability and the economic
burden caused by mental illness, as well as trends
over time.
The papers are reported in the June 6 issue of
the Archives of General Psychiatry by Ronald
Kessler, Ph.D., and colleagues. The study was a
collaborative project between Harvard University, the
University of Michigan, and the NIMH Intramural
Research Program.
This study, called the National Comorbidity
Survey Replication (NCS-R), is a household survey of
9,282 English-speaking respondents, age 18 and
older. It is an expanded replication of the 1990
National Comorbidity Survey, which was the first to
estimate the prevalence of mental disorders
(using modern psychiatric standards) in a nationally
representative sample. The expansion includes
detailed measures that will significantly improve
estimates of the severity and persistence of mental
disorders, and the degree to which they impair
individuals and families, and burden employers and
the U.S. economy.
"These studies confirm a growing understanding
about the nature of mental illness across the
lifespan," says Thomas Insel, M.D., Director of the
National Institute of Mental Health. "There are
many important messages from this study, but perhaps
none as important as the recognition that mental
disorders are the chronic disorders of young
people in the U.S."
Prevalence and Age-of-Onset of Mental Disorders
Unlike most disabling physical diseases, mental
illness begins very early in life. Half of all
lifetime cases begin by age 14; three quarters have
begun by age 24. Thus, mental disorders are
really the chronic diseases of the young. For example,
anxiety disorders often begin in late childhood,
mood disorders in late adolescence, and substance
abuse in the early 20's. Unlike heart disease or
most cancers, young people with mental disorders
suffer disability when they are in the prime of
life, when they would normally be the most
productive.
The risk of mental disorders is substantially
lower among people who have matured out of the
high-risk age range. Prevalence increases from the
youngest group (age 18-29) to the next-oldest age
group (age 30-44) and then declines, sometimes
substantially, in the oldest group (age 60 +).
Females have higher rates of mood and anxiety
disorders. Males have higher rates of substance use
disorders and impulse disorders.
The survey found that in the U.S., mental
disorders are quite common; 26 percent of the general
population reported that they had symptoms
sufficient for diagnosing a mental disorder during the
past 12 months. However, many of these cases are
mild or will resolve without formal interventions.
It is likely, however, that the prevalence rates
in this paper are underestimated, because the
sample was drawn from listings of households and did
not include homeless and institutionalized
(nursing homes, group homes) populations. In addition,
the study did not assess some rare and clinically
complex psychiatric disorders, such as
schizophrenia and autism, because a household survey is not
the most efficient study design to identify and
evaluate those disorders.
Failure and Delay in Initial Treatment Contact
The study documents the long delays between the
onset of a mental disorder and the first treatment
contact, as well as the accumulated burden and
hazards of untreated mental disorders.
These pervasive delays in getting treatment tend
to occur for nearly all mental disorders, though
they vary according to specific diagnostic
categories. The median delay across disorders is nearly
a decade; the longest delays are 20-23 years, for
social phobia and separation anxiety disorders.
This is possibly due to the relatively early age
of onset and fears of therapy that involve social
interactions.
Shorter delays between onset of disorder and
treatment seeking - still a protracted 6-8 years -
are seen for mood disorders, and are likely
attributable to public awareness campaigns, the
marketing of newer therapies directly to consumers, and
expanded insurance coverage.
While approximately 80 percent of all people in
the U.S. with a mental disorder eventually seek
treatment, there are public health implications
from such long delays in treatment. Untreated
psychiatric disorders can lead to more frequent and
more severe episodes, and are more likely to become
resistant to treatment. In addition, early-onset
mental disorders that are left untreated are
associated with school failure, teenage childbearing,
unstable employment, early marriage, and marital
instability and violence.
"The pattern appears to be that the earlier in
life the disorder begins, the slower an individual
is to seek therapy, and the more persistent the
illness," said Dr. Kessler, a professor of health
care policy at Harvard Medical School. "It's
unfortunate that those who most need treatment are
the least likely to get it."
Treating cases early could prevent enormous
disability, before the illness becomes more severe,
and before co-occurring mental illnesses develop,
which only become more difficult to treat as they
accumulate, according to the researchers.
Severity and Comorbidity of Mental Disorders
The second paper reports that even though mental
disorders are widespread throughout the
population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in
those with a severe disorder - about 6 percent. A
"serious" disorder involves a substantial
limitation in daily activities or work disability, or a
suicide attempt with serious lethal intent, or
psychosis. The serious group reported a mean of
88.3 days - nearly 3 months of the year - when they
were unable to carry out their normal daily
activities.
Unfortunately, say the researchers, individuals
with one mental disorder are at a high risk for
also having a second one (comorbidity). Nearly half
(45 percent) of those with one mental disorder
met criteria for two or more disorders, with
severity strongly related to comorbidity. This finding
supports the suggestion by a growing portion of
researchers that the boundaries between some
diagnostic categories may be less discrete than
previously believed.
Use of Mental Health Services
The study indicates that the U.S. mental health
care system is not keeping up with the needs of
consumers and that improvements are needed to speed
initiation of treatment as well as enhance the
quality and duration of treatment. For instance,
over a 12-month period, 60 percent of those with a
mental disorder got no treatment at all.
The good news is that the proportion of people
who reported 12-month mental health service use is
higher now - at 17 percent - than a decade ago in
the baseline NCS survey, at 13 percent. The
expansion was mainly in the general medical sector,
with more primary care physicians providing
psychiatric services.
People with mental or substance abuse disorders
were more likely to get treatment from a primary
care physician/nurse or other general medical
doctor (22.8 percent), or from a non-psychiatrist
mental health specialist (16 percent), such as a
psychologist, social worker, or counselor, than from
a psychiatrist (12 percent), though the survey
did show that the adequacy of treatment - measured
by number of visits - is best when provided by
mental health practitioners. About 9.7 percent
sought help from a counselor or spiritual advisor
outside of a mental health setting; and 6.9 percent
used a complementary-alternative source, such as
a chiropractor or self-help group. This held true
even for those with severe mood disorders.
Traditionally underserved groups, such as the elderly,
racial/ethnic minorities and those with low
income or without insurance, had the greatest unmet
need for treatment.
Future and Ongoing Efforts
The NIMH epidemiological research portfolio
contains several related projects that are focused on
mental disorders among adolescents and ethnic
subgroups. These include 1) an arm of the NCS-R that
is studying 10,000 youths; 2) the National Study
of African American Life, with 6,000
participants; and 3) the National Study of Latino and Asian
Americans, with 5,000 participants. Each of these,
like the NCS-R, will provide information on
diagnosis, medications, disability/impairment, and
service use, drawing from nationally based samples.
An international perspective on these findings is
also becoming available, as the study is part of
a global initiative on the epidemiology of mental
disorders in 28 countries, coordinated through
the World Health Organization.
For more information on the NCS-R, visit
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/ncs-r.cfm (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/ncs-r.cfm).
*************************************************
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this list, please
visit the Consumer
Survivor page of the Center for Mental Health
Services Web site at:
http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/consumersurvivor/ (http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/consumersurvivor/)
The Center for Mental Health Services is a
component of the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:35:00 PM
How might that happen, Paul? Just curious how you imagine that might happen. I feel very confident, no certain in fact, that you and all your addicted friends will always have access to drugs.
You may not appreciate the source, but the information is worth consideration. Sometimes it takes one 'dragon' to slay another, if that is the case. Fortunately SOMEONE is on top of this issue. "
[/quote]
I am not worried about Scientology's takeover of anything. They don't utilize studies to veryify their dogma.
I am worried about their hidden influence on the anti-psychiatry crowd and that they may in turn
influence a vulnurable psychiatric patient to not make an informed decision.
There are many in jail. I just spoke to some prominent prison psychiatrist and the refusal of medications is very, very low. I wonder why?
As for the source? To just put down all the research to date as fraudulent is easy, to utilize the data would take brains. That is why a cult like Scientology only influences the ignorant and gullible.
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:36:00 PM
http://teenscreen.org/ (http://teenscreen.org/)"
What was Dan Fisher's vote record on the New Freedom Commission?
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:37:00 PM
Post by: Paul on June 07, 2005, 04:40:00 PM
don't you?
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 07:06:00 PM
?Nuf said.
There is no epidemic of mental illness Paul. Only in the minds of the mentally deranged and morally corrupt.
Dear lord?. we?ll have to ?disagree on the validity of Scientologies contribution
to caring for the mentally ill??
Are you just plain ignorant or attempting to derail this discussion, or better yet, slandering me by suggesting that I said or implied that scientology?s contribution to ?mental illness? is valid? Put up or shut up- post where I even implied that, you paranoid freak?
You are brainwashed by the APA cult. As I?ve said before, there are MANY people opposed to this screening initiative, and psychiatry in general. They?re not all scientologists. That?s APA propaganda.
In terms of ?quoting a cult?? did you miss the references to Ken Kramer and CCHR?
What?s the point?
If I had the time and inclination I could give you more examples than you?d care to read (or acknowledge) of politicians, doctors, the FDA, journalists, and researchers who have not divulged their relationship to the drug cartel. Yeh, full disclosure would be a wonderful thing, wouldn?t it. Don?t hold your breath, not good for business.
You?re exaggerating the ?attack?. This issue (public screening) literally affects every child, and every tax payer in this country, and has far greater implications than we can even imagine at this point. If you can?t see that, you are blinded by your own brand of cultish brainwashing. Will you drug pushers not be happy until every American is taking some form of mind altering drug?
EQUILIBRIUM- an excellent movie depicting where this could go. And if you?re interested in reality, you could research how children of color and poor kids on Medicaid have been doing on psych drugs, since they were the first to be targeted with TMAP.
***I am not worried about Scientology's takeover of anything.
Damn, then what was the point of posting, ?the real agenda that Ken Kramer and the CCHR have .....to destroy psychiatry and replace it with Scientology?. Just pointing out someone?s paranoid delusion, fear run amok?
***They don't utilize studies to veryify their dogma.
I don?t know what you?re referring to with that comment. But, while we?re on the topic, you think the APA etal does? They?ve got the majority of the population believing that ?mental illness? is genetic, and that a pill will cure it. Where are the studies to support that fabrication? I?ve only found opinions that state that research ?seems to indicate? or it ?may be?. Then in the next article some shrinky dink is putting it out there that indeed there is a genetic link. Yeh, let?s have some real disclosure and honesty. They shouldn?t be stating things as fact that haven?t been proven.
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 07:50:00 PM
You said:
I am worried about their hidden influence on the anti-psychiatry crowd....
Are you saying you're worried about ME, Paul? How thougtful. Isn't it considered a mental disorder to worry about someone when it's not warranted, or welcomed?
Would you elaborate on "their hidden influence". I'm trying to grok what you mean by hidden. It appears to me that they are way out in the open with their opinions. And there is no shortage of information on the drug option. The cartel will see to that.
...and that they may in turn influence a vulnurable psychiatric patient to not make an informed decision.
I say, let's put the accurate information side-by-side and allow people to make genuinely 'informed decisions'. That seems reasonable to me.
I'm sure there are MANY in jail who choose to be "Comfortably Numb". I might take that option too if faced with that very unpleasant reality.
Speaking of Comfortably Numb, excellent short documentary here:
http://www.besthorizons.com/ (http://www.besthorizons.com/)
So much for 'putting down all the research to date as fraudulent'.What research are you refering to Paul?
The least you, and others, could do is to be honest with people. Inform them that they are, for all intents and purposes being guinea pigs, and that they could possibly do worse harm by taking psychiatric drugs. Now that's the truth. Informed consent requires that the ignorant and gullible patient know the truth.
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 08:33:00 PM
If the god damn drugs are so effective, then offer an explanation for this:
In October 2004 the Texas inspector general for the Health and Human Services Commission said his office interviewed staff at three state licensed wilderness camps, which provide care for some foster children, and found that the average child arrives on four or five psychotropic drugs.
***
Not only are Tx taxpayers footing the bill for these kids excessive and expensive drugs, we're also paying to have them 'treated' at wilderness programs when the f-in drugs fail to 'fix' them.
Four or Five, Paul. Justify that.
There's just one way. Some capitalists are getting rich off the ignorant and gullible.
It sickens me to think of how all that money could be put toward meeting those kids REAL needs, which could go a long way in healing their 'behavioral problems'.
Post by: Anonymous on June 07, 2005, 10:20:00 PM
This is about complete control! Take action!
Post by: Deborah on June 07, 2005, 11:04:00 PM
Success in Tx regarding Amendment 1 of HB2572
We won a significant battle against the forces that currently control the economics on planet earth...in this case, the pharmaceutical corporations that control the president and his so-called New Freedom Commission. The president then directs the governor who then directs the state senator and etcetera. Texas tried many ways to codify the new intrusion language to set up a structure for universal mental health screening. We managed, with countless allies, to block it in the final hour. There will be more information to come, but for now we are grateful for all your ongoing work on this that made it even possible to win this one against great odds.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/new ... pposed.htm (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/new_freedom_mental_health_screening_amendment_opposed.htm)
And from another ally in NYC:
$6,000,000 has just been allocated to the Mental Health system for SCREENING SENIOR CITIZENS IN THEIR SENIOR LIVING ENVIRONMENTS FOR
DEPRESSION!
This Christian org considers the screening initiative to be ?Socialist?.
http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/16/24_ ... _80257.htm (http://www.sierratimes.com/05/05/16/24_209_102_203_80257.htm)
Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for our president's campaign. Favors are now returned to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health, and their future drug addictions.
Gun Owner?s of America is against it:
http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/gro ... /index.jsp (http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/group/region/earth/united_states/texas/index.jsp)
In Illinois, pro-family groups like Eagle Forum, IFI, CWA, and Family Taxpayers Network oppose it. Their requests for written parental consent to be written into the law but has met a stonewall within the Governor's office.
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/cont ... sp?c=25661 (http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=25661)
The Liberty Committee opposes it:
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update11.08.04.htm (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update11.08.04.htm)
Sen Ron Paul opposes it.
Ga Senator Nancy Schaefer opposes screening.
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... /sr128.htm (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sr128.htm)
All closet scientologists Paul?
This would be laughable if not so damn scarey:
I am a practicing child and adolescent psychiatrist in (your county) and I am calling to ask Rep._____ to oppose or (if your rep. is cosponsor of the bill) withdraw his/her support for H.R. 181, the Parental Consent Act, because the bill is unnecessary and DISCRIMINATORY TOWARDS MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE FIELD OF PSYCHIATRY ::boohoo:: (refer to the underlined quote from the first paragraph of this alert).
http://www.aacap.org/legislation/109/109-02.htm (http://www.aacap.org/legislation/109/109-02.htm)
Post by: Paul on June 08, 2005, 01:47:00 PM
What is your experience with the mentally ill?
Paul
Post by: Paul on June 08, 2005, 01:55:00 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00043.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/06/07/GR2005060700043.html)
---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01651.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601651.html)
Study: U.S. Leads In Mental Illness, Lags in Treatment
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; Page A03
One-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a "serious" disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to function day to day, according to the largest and most detailed survey of the nation's mental health, published yesterday.
Although parallel studies in 27 other countries are not yet complete, the new numbers suggest that the United States is poised to rank No. 1 globally for mental illness, researchers said.
"We lead the world in a lot of good things, but we're also leaders in this one particular domain that we'd rather not be," said Ronald Kessler, the Harvard professor of health care policy who led the effort, called the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
The exhaustive government-sponsored effort, based on in-depth interviews with more than 9,000 randomly selected Americans, finds that the prevalence of U.S. mental illness has remained roughly flat in the past decade -- a possible glimmer of hope given that previous decades had suggested the rates were gradually rising.
But the rest of the news from the survey -- which did not include some of the most serious disorders, such as schizophrenia, for which patients are often institutionalized -- is mostly discouraging.
Less than half of those in need get treated. Those who seek treatment typically do so after a decade or more of delays, during which time they are likely to develop additional problems. And the treatment they receive is usually inadequate.
Younger sufferers are especially overlooked, the survey found, even though mental illness is very much a disease of youth. Half of those who will ever be diagnosed with a mental disorder show signs of the disease by age 14, and three-quarters by age 24. But few get help.
Many factors contribute to these failings, the reports conclude, including inattention to early warning signs, inadequate health insurance and the lingering stigma that surrounds mental illness.
"The system has to get its act together to get its quality of care up," Kessler said.
Thomas Insel -- chief of the National Institute of Mental Health, which funded the $20 million study -- said the nation needs to recognize that mental illness is a chronic condition that requires expert medical attention just as heart disease, Alzheimer's and diabetes do.
He said he was disappointed to learn from the survey that despite the availability of effective treatments for many mental illnesses, including depression and anxiety, about a third of people in need rely solely on nonprofessional sources such as Internet support groups and spiritual advisers.
"You wouldn't rely on your priest for treatment if you had breast cancer," Insel said. "Why would you go to your priest for a major depressive disorder? These are real medical and brain disorders, and they need to be treated that way."
Mental health surveys have been conducted nationwide since the 1940s, but they offered only crude measures until 10 years ago, when the first National Comorbidity Study was performed. That highly structured survey asked questions specific enough to provide an accurate diagnosis for a wide range of mental disorders.
The study's 10-year follow-up, described in four reports in the June issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry, goes further by measuring, for the first time, the severity and persistence of people's mental illness and the quality of their treatment.
The survey, conducted by the University of Michigan, included 9,282 households selected at random in 34 states. Nearly 300 trained interviewers traveled about 8 million miles over a year and a half. They knocked on doors at all hours of the day and night to ensure they would not systematically miss alcohol abusers who spend their days at bars, people with depression who can go weeks hardly able to pull themselves out of bed and people with social phobia who only rarely answer the doorbell.
The interview notes were uploaded to a central repository for analysis by psychiatrists and other health professionals at Harvard Medical School.
The survey focused on four major categories of mental illness: anxiety disorders (such as panic and post-traumatic stress disorders); mood disorders (such as major depression and bipolar disease); impulse control disorders (such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder); and substance abuse.
Almost half of Americans meet the criteria for such an illness at some point in their lives, the survey found. Most cases are mild and probably do not require treatment. But every year about 6 percent of adults are so seriously affected that they cannot perform even routine activities for periods averaging three months. Because schizophrenia, autism, and some other severe and relatively common disorders were not included, actual prevalence rates are somewhat higher, Kessler said.
Comorbidity -- the simultaneous occurrence of two or more illnesses -- is common, the survey found. Nearly half of people with one mental disorder met the criteria for two or more. That's a problem because mental health services are usually geared toward one illness or another.
"Our findings highlight the importance of integrating treatments, of treating the people instead of the disorder," said NIMH investigator Kathleen Ries Merikangas.
The fraction of the population treated for mental illness over a 12-month period has grown to 17 percent from 13 percent a decade ago -- a sign, perhaps, that advertisements for antidepressants and other drugs are working, and the stigma of being treated is decreasing.
But most of those affected receive either no help or are being treated by nonmedical providers or nonspecialists, whose care typically fails to meet minimal standards of adequacy, Kessler said.
It is not clear why Americans have such high rates of mental illness, but cultural factors clearly play a role. Immigrants quickly increase their risk of mental health problems, especially if they do not live in native ethnic communities. Minorities also tend to have lower levels of mental health problems despite lower economic status, suggesting that the social support they provide each other is protective.
Post by: Paul on June 08, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
Mental Illness Can Start in Childhood
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer
Tue Jun 7,10:28 AM ET
Most mental illness hits early in life, with half of all cases starting by age 14, a survey of nearly 10,000 U.S. adults found.
Many cases begin with mild, easy-to-dismiss symptoms such as low-level anxiousness or persistent shyness, but left untreated, they can quickly escalate into severe depression, disabling phobias or clinical anxiety, said Ronald Kessler, a Harvard Medical School researcher involved in the study.
That so many cases begin in people so young ? three-fourths start by age 24 ? "is just staggering" and underscores the need for better efforts at early detection and treatment, Kessler said.
"These disorders have really become the chronic disorders of young people in America," said Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, which helped fund the research.
The findings, published in the June issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, were based on face-to-face interviews conducted with people ages 18 and older in 2001 through 2003.
The new figures also show that the prevalence of mental illness nationwide has stabilized for the first time since the end of World War II, Kessler said.
About 46 percent of people surveyed said they had experienced a mental illness at some point in their lives, and about 26 percent said they had within the previous year ? rates similar to those reported in a 1994 version of the survey. Before the earlier survey, rates had steadily increased since the mid-1940s, Kessler said.
The previous increase was probably at least partly due to better detection and awareness, Kessler said.
The overall prevalence rate is probably an underestimate because the study included only English-speaking adults and excluded rarer illnesses such as schizophrenia and autism.
Most ailments were mild. Only about one-fifth of those who reported any mental disorder within the past year had a serious illness, meaning their daily activities were severely affected.
___
On the Net:
Archives: http://www.archgenpsychiatry.com (http://www.archgenpsychiatry.com)
NIMH: http://www.nimh.nih.gov (http://www.nimh.nih.gov)
Post by: Anonymous on June 08, 2005, 09:54:00 PM
Paxil, Welbutrin, and Lamictal.
Paxil is an SSRI and adjusts my serotonin levels.
Welbutrin adjusts my dopamine levels.
Lamictal is a mood stabilizer that has enabled me to reduce my dose of Paxil, not have volatile "mixed" states, and has remedied some serious executive function problems I was having.
If I were also ADHD, which is frequently comorbid with bipolar disorder, I might need a non-stimulant medicine like Stratera to help my frontal lobe function properly when I tried to concentrate on things.
There are all sorts of illnesses that can be comorbid with a major mental illness like bipolar disorder.
The new drugs are *very* tightly targetted to only affecting one particular thing in one particular way. Since every responsible expert's theory on these diseases is that there is more than one gene involved in susceptibility and you have to get several to get ill, and our experiences--even our hobbies--also affect our brain development, each individual patient usually has more than one specific problem in his or her brain.
With the medicines so narrowly targetted, it means fewer side effects, and more tolerable side effects, but it also means that each patient frequently needs multiple drugs to address each different problem.
Which you would already understand if you didn't have a very extreme position on medication.
Anyone who doubts it is welcome to see the thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... =9&start=0 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=&mode=viewtopic&topic=9138&forum=9&start=0)
We already hashed it out there, and I'm not taking the time to rehash here.
Except to say that if one has four or five specific things wrong with one's brain, the psychiatric drugs have become narrowly targetted enough that one may indeed need four or five different drugs, at individualized dosages, to relieve the symptoms that one finds unpleasant and life-damaging.
What it means is that instead of very broad-spectrum one-size-fits-all drugs, which had a lot of nasty side effects because the drug was medicating things that *weren't* wrong with the particular patient along with the things that were, each drug is causing far fewer side effects because it is *only* fixing one particular thing that is wrong with that particular patient.
The doctors are going on an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and "less is more," treatment model.
From the homeschooling mailing list for parents of pediatric bipolars, where it's customary to list your kids, their names and ages, their diagnoses, and the meds they're on, what I see is that the kids who are on several drugs usually have not one single illnesses, but pediatric bipolar disorder with several other comorbid disorders.
From what I've seen, if someone is taking four or five drugs, it is very likely because there are four or five different things wrong with his or her brain.
Timoclea
Post by: ` on June 09, 2005, 04:05:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 09, 2005, 11:41:00 AM
But on the four or five medications---maybe there's a problem in the kid's medical care, maybe there's not.
I don't have enough information to be able to tell.
It depends on what kid's diagnosis is (or diagnoses are), and what the kid's medication history is---what's been tried and discontinued, and why.
It depends on the medications.
If each of those five does something different and the kid really needs each something done, it could be legitimate. In any large population of people, if you're *looking* for examples of excesses in medicating people, you can find somebody with a lot of things wrong who needs so many medications it looks like there *has* to be some mistake.
Maybe there is. Or maybe this is another case of the particular axe to grind that Deborah and her people have.
Without a lot more information, I don't know which.
I take ten pills a day, all of them legit:
I take my three psychiatric medications, which I've already detailed the three different things they do.
I take my blood pressure med.
I take Claritin so I can keep my dog.
I take a multivitamin because I don't always remember to eat my veggies.
I take glucosamine/chondroitin because I'm a middle-aged martial artist and my joints take a lot of wear and tear.
I take calcium because I don't want osteoporosis.
I take fish oil because it reduces manic episodes and seems to help prevent or reduce mental illness--but nobody knows exactly how.
I take Ginko Biloba because the bipolar disorder causes memory problems and GB is one of the few things that has been clinically proven to help memory in patients with things like Alzheimers.
The older you get, the more stuff goes wrong with you, the more pills and supplements you have to take each day to hold it all together.
Twenty-year-olds have the luxury of not swallowing pills. Normal middle-aged and old people don't have that luxury---all but a very few of us find our lives prolonged and our quality of life enhanced by using drugs or supplements to treat the things that go wrong as our bodies age.
Timoclea
Post by: Deborah on June 11, 2005, 10:13:00 AM
Osceola family suing over teen screen survey
In the lawsuit, Teresa and Michael Rhoades, parents of a Penn student, claim the survey was erroneous, improper, and done with reckless disregard for their daughter's welfare.
The lawsuit also claims the Rhoades? did not give the school permission to give the test.
http://www.wndu.com/news/022005/news_40591.php (http://www.wndu.com/news/022005/news_40591.php)
Parents seek to eliminate suicide survey
Sophomores at Penn High School and South Bend High Schools, along with freshmen at Mishawaka High School, take the teen screen survey
Posted: 02/25/2005 04:26 pm
Last Updated: 02/25/2005 04:59 pm
Story filed by NewsCenter16 Reporter
Stephanie Stang
Indiana - A suicide survey that area high schools have been giving out may be done away with. On Thursday, a group of parents placed an ad in the paper asking parents to show up at the next Penn-Harris-Madison school meeting to stop the survey.
Incorrect results?
Teresa Rhoades always thought of her daughter, Chelsea, as a happy and active student.
?She gets good grades and helps mentor a girl at school,? said Rhoades.
Last December, Chelsea came home from Penn High School diagnosed with an obsessive compulsive and social anxiety disorder after taking the teen screen survey.
?I was absolutely outraged that my daughter was told she had these two conditions based off a computer test,? said Rhoades.
The survey, administered by Madison Center, is aimed at preventing teen suicide. Robert Howard is the superintendent of PHM schools. He says the teen screen is exactly that: a preventative tool.
?Teen screening is probably one of five highly used screening mechanisms that are used as a preventive measure, and that are used as a comprehensive suicide prevention program,? said Howard.
Sophomores at Penn High School and South Bend High Schools, along with freshmen at Mishawaka High School take the teen screen survey.
The survey asks questions such as, ?Has there been a time when you had less energy than you usually do??
Rhoades feels that the questions are too broad. ?That?s what they are selling it as, but a lot of questions on there don?t tie to any suicide prevention,? said Rhoades.
The Madison Center says the survey does have specific questions about suicide. Regardless, Rhoades says she wishes she knew about the survey before her daughter took it.
The school tells NewsCenter 16 they sent out a notice and it's up to the family to decide what to do with the results.
?It?s a preventive strategy and an initiative,? said Howard. ?As you look at the program, you look at fairness and providing tools with the emotions that adolescents may confront in their day to day lives.?
Post by: Paul on June 11, 2005, 10:29:00 AM
This is the second to the last line from
the WNDU story posted:
"The school tells NewsCenter 16 they sent out a notice and it's up to the family to decide what to do with the results."
On any scale is that coercive, is this a mandatory
order, is this a gateway for involuntary treatment.
Perhaps you ought to look up "hysteria" and apply it to your impulse to post these type of articles.
You do follow the topics that you post, don't you?
You will be letting the Fornit's readers know the results of the parents meeting about the survey, correct. If the parent learn more about the test and determine that it is valuable, and that sometimes the results are not right, but overall valuable - that you will post that, right?
It would be interesting to follow the cases like this one Chelsea's. When suicide ideation is happening and this survey helps the teen realize they can get help, privately, and do, and the suicide is prevented. Wouldn't it?
Post by: Paul on June 11, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
this thread in my previous post about
the WNDU story posted by Deborah.
Does this statement:
"The school tells NewsCenter 16 they sent out a notice and it's up to the family to decide what to do with the results."
Indicate the end of parental rights to you?
If so, look up hysteria, please.
Post by: Deborah on June 13, 2005, 05:52:00 PM
Coles County (Illinois) Leader
TeenScreen goes too far in avoiding parental rights
Monday, June 13, 2005
By Rhonda Robinson
Most kids come home from school with grades; Chelsea Rhoades came home with a diagnosis.
One evening early last December, Michael and Teresa Rhoades' 15-year-old daughter asked them explain the meaning of obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD) and social anxiety disorder...then proceeded to inform her parents that this was the diagnosis she had been given at school after she took a survey known as TeenScreen in her homeroom class.
Needless to say, the Rhoadeses were outraged and demanded to see the survey their daughter had taken.
TeenScreen is a controversial mental health and suicide-screening program recommended by President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFC) and was specifically promoted in an Illinois house resolution last year.
At issue is that the school did not obtain the Rhoades' permission. Instead the school had the minor child sign, giving her permission to be screened using an "assent" form.
Across the nation people on both sides of the political spectrum are watching closely for news of states (like ours) that are attempting to implement the NFC recommendations, as it is becoming a dangerous intrusion of government into the privacy of family, and a direct assault on parental rights.
One such researcher read of the Rhoades' plight and contacted them. Realizing that Mike and Teresa Rhoades' concerns were not being heard he introduced them via email to Annie Armen, a live talk radio host based in Phoenix, Arizona and heard on World Talk Radio (www.anniearmenlive.org (http://www.anniearmenlive.org)).
Annie's mission in life is to empower children and families by giving them a voice. Not only did Annie give the Rhoades family a voice on her radio station, she became their champion, and personally took their story to The Rutherford Institute.
The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people when their human or constitutional rights are being threatened.
John Whitehead, a high profile constitutional lawyer, and founder of the institute said last week in a personal interview, he had been monitoring what was happening in Illinois, which lead him to take on the Indiana case.
Whitehead believes that there are clear constitutional and privacy violations involved.
While he states there is a lot of good case law to fight mental health screening, he considers the opposition to be formidable foes, because of the financial backing of pharmaceutical companies and the Bush administration's support through the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.
Mr. Whitehead went on to explain the complexity of the situation as many of the TeenScreen people are attempting to STEP AROUND FEDERAL LAWS PROTECTING PARENTAL RIGHTS by utilizing SCREENING WITHIN THE CURRICULUM, where parental consent is not required.
While several more screening sites are in the works, TeenScreen made its debut last fall in Illinois, at the Peoria area Brimfield High School.
TeenScreen is being promoted by some, including the Illinois House of Representatives in a house resolution as "proven" effective, when it is CLEARLY NOT.
According to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report there is "no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality."
Nonetheless, based on TeenScreen's statistics in 2004, 5,862 children across the country have been screened WITHOUT WRITTEN PARENTAL CONSENT.
As the June 30 deadline for CMH Plan calling for screening of all Illinois children, and pregnant mothers draws near; the issue of parental consent must be defined to the public and spelled out clearly within state law.
Few parents understand that there is a difference between PASSIVE CONSENT and CONSENT.
However, the schools and the ICMHP are well aware of it, and have FOUGHT TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE LANGUAGE OF ILLINOIS LAW, and the CMH Plan.
The CMH Plan clearly states that all of the recommendations put forth are in compliance with state laws; this is true. Passive consent is legal.
The Partnership claims the proposed screening is not mandatory.
Yet the Illinois Learning Standards now REQUIRE DEVELOPMENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH, and the plan calls for screening as a PART OF REGULAR EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED FOR SCHOOL ENTRY, as a stated goal.
Like a thief in the night; this "strategic plan" will not only threaten parent's parental rights with unprecedented state intrusion, but it will rob the truly mentally ill of scarce state resources and healthy children will be labeled with a diagnosis that could haunt them for a lifetime.
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 09:50:00 PM
The test, which is voluntary ...
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories ... it_loo.sto (http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/06/09/local.20050609-sbt-MARS-B1-Possible_lawsuit_loo.sto)
Possible lawsuit looms in TeenScreen school case
Osceola family serves notice of tort claim to P-H-M, Madison Center.
By ADAM JACKSON
Tribune Staff Writer
MISHAWAKA -- Michael and Teresa Rhoades were outraged when they learned their juvenile daughter had been given a psychological test -- they say without their consent.
Outraged enough to make their displeasure with the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp., where the TeenScreen depression screening test was administered, a matter of public record at school board meetings and in the media.
Now, it appears the Osceola family may take their concerns somewhere else public -- a courthouse.
Indianapolis attorney John Price, who is representing the Rhoadeses, confirmed Wednesday that he had sent a notice of tort claim to both
P-H-M and Madison Center, which worked in conjunction with the school system to administer the tests.
The action means, in effect, that the Rhoadeses are declaring their intent to file a lawsuit against both organizations. Price said state law requires a notice of tort claim to be sent to any governmental agencies, including schools, before a lawsuit can be filed against them.
Upon receiving the notice, the organization has a limited amount of time to file a response, usually 90 days. If an agreement cannot be reached, a lawsuit may then be filed.
Teresa Carroll, a spokeswoman for P-H-M, confirmed the school system had received the notice, and said that the issue would be reviewed.
"We will be consulting with our attorneys before we can respond," she said.
The Rhoadeses, who could not be reached at their home Wednesday afternoon, have been vocal opponents of the TeenScreen test, a mental-health screening administered by Madison Center, used to identify teenagers who may be at risk for suicide or mental illness.
The test, which is voluntary, was administered to their daughter, Chelsea, at school in December 2004. Although school administrators reportedly sent letters home to parents of students invited to take the test, Michael and Teresa Rhoades say they never received the letter.
In the tort claim, the family also claims that when Chelsea took the test, she was improperly diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. That diagnosis, they claim, caused both the teen and her parents emotional distress, and the family intends to seek the "maximum amount of damages."
School officials have defended their use of the test as a way to identify at-risk students. However, at a meeting in March, P-H-M Superintendent Robert Howard indicated that a permission slip procedure likely would be used in future testing.
Staff writer Adam Jackson
ajackson@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6553
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:04:00 PM
it says ...
1) The test was voluntary.
2) Since it was voluntary, perhaps, parental permission was not necessary. Nevertheless, school officials are probably going to start utilizing permission slips.
3) You all know this better than I, when is
a parental permission slip required in schools
for children under 18?
For all tests?
For all assessments, such as SAT's?
I don't know the answer.
4) I am going to make an assumption here. I doubt that the school published the results of the screening. Chelsea's parent have made her a public figure.
The results where told to Chelsea, who talked to her parents about it. There was nothing forces here. The parents could ignore the tests, or ask some questions. What they chose was to ask some questions and then go public with the answers.
Is this the healthiest thing the parents could have done?
Nothing was forced, from the screening itself to what the child and parents wanted to do with the information.
5) Medications? Not an issue here. Not mentioned.
Not perscribed. Not included in the lawsuit.
Deborah, you will be following this story and keeping us up to date, no matter the outcome, correct?
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:07:00 PM
Rutherford Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Rutherford Institute is a public interest law firm and resource center based in Charlottesville, Virginia. It was founded in 1982 by attorney John W. Whitehead to provide legal assistance for various conservative Christian causes. In recent years, however, it has broadened its scope of operations beyond purely religious and conservative issues, going so far as to file amicus briefs alongside the ACLU in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Nevertheless, its primary focus remains First Amendment issues, especially those involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Institute offers a free pocket-sized copy of the United States Constitution complete with the organization's commentary.
[edit]
History
In the wake of his 1981 book The Second American Revolution, which argued for political and judicial activism on the part of conservative Christians, John W. Whitehead founded The Rutherford Institute in the basement of his home. He named the institute after Samuel Rutherford, a 17th century Scottish theologian who argued, in a 1644 pamphlet cleverly titled Lex, Rex, that kings must be subordinate to the law, because the rule of kings is derived from men, whereas the rule of law is derived from God. Rutherford's arguments about the authority of kings were quite influential in the development of the concept of the "social contract" by later philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau.
Early members of the Rutherford Institute's board of directors included California millionaire Howard Ahmanson, Jr,, as well as prominent fundamentalist activists such as Francis Schaeffer and R.J. Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation, a West Coast Christian think tank in which the Christian Reconstructionist Movement was born in the 1960s. The early activities of the Rutherford Institute reflected this, and tended to focus on cases involving public primary and secondary education. It was especially active and often successful in trying to stop condom distribution in public schools, as well as sex education, AIDS prevention programs, and programs that taught certain types of tolerance.
Within a few years, though, Whitehead had begun to move away from the Christian Reconstructionist Movement, disassociating himself from some organizations, such as the Coalition on Revival, and broadening the scope of the Rutherford Institute's interests.
The Rutherford Institute first became widely known to the public at large with the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton, which the Institute backed, with Whitehead acting as co-counsel. In recent years, however, the Rutherford Institute has continued to move towards being a mainstream constitutional legal advocacy organization, often seeming to disagree with the likes of the ACLU on little more than the precise boundaries of the Establishment Clause. In addition to the aforementioned brief in the José Padilla case, the Institute has taken a strong stand in opposition to the Patriot Act, argued that Yaser Hamdi deserved due process, opposed student drug testing, and represented Lt. Col Martha McSally in her suit challenging the military policy that required servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the body-covering abaya when traveling in the country. Perhaps most surprisingly, to those who are primarily familiar with the early years of the Institute, editorials on its web site were generally in favor of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas.
External link
The Rutherford Institute (http://www.rutherford.org (http://www.rutherford.org))
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:13:00 PM
The BoJo - Moonie -
Scientology Connection
From BoJo A-Go-Go, available online at:
http://www.nobojo.com/cnp.html (http://www.nobojo.com/cnp.html)
3-14-2
In 1995 Parents Involved in Education held a news conference in Washington, D.C. on the issue of children, schools, and psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin.Ã This media event was organized by Carolyn Steinke, who sits on the board of the Citizens Council for Human Rights, an admittedly Scientology-affiliated group. That same year, Steinke received a CCHR award.
Participants in Steinke's news conference included Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, Phyllis Scafly's the Eagle Forum, Gary Bauer's Family Research Council,Ã and the Rutherford Institute among others.Ã These groups are all affiliated with CNP and their leaders also hold CNP membership. As does Bob Jones III.
Has Jones disavowed these Scientology-mongers and withdrawn from CNP? No. Has Jones repudiated Beverly LaHaye as he has, for example, repudiated gay alumni? No. Has Jones threatened to have LaHaye arrested if she returns to the BoJo campus in spite of the school's warnings that alumni who make common cause with cults are unwelcome? There is no indication that he has.
Turning now to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, the Columbia Journalism Review reports that Dr. Robert Grant has accepted Moonie money for his American Freedom Coalition.Ã In fact, it is reported that the AFC is a joint venture between Grant and the Unification Church. Moon is also believed to have bailed out Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in the early 90's when the school was millions in debt. Even BoJo's most prominent alumni, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, have taken Moonie money and served as Moon functionaries according to this Christian website. Grant, Falwell, and the LaHayes are CNP members. And so is Bob III.
Bob Jones, Jr. labeled Falwell "the most dangerous man in America" and claimed that his Moral Majority, by including Catholics, Mormons and Jews, would lead to the "one world church of Antichrist." (An Island in the Lake of Fire,Ãp.108). But Bob III has not let this dissuade him from joining Falwell in the CNP -- an organization composed of Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and supporters of Scientology and the Moonies.
The justification given for BoJo's interracial dating ban, before it was eliminated, was that racial mixing could lead eventually to a one-world government of the antichrist.Ã Yet Jones doesn't seem to realize that the CNP's agenda and its wacko clique of Christian theocrats, Republican plutocrats, military elite, and ultra-conservative billionaires is much more likely to bring that about than is interracial marriage. Nor is he apparently concerned that his association with the CNP and with Scientology and Moonie sympathizers might appear hypocritical to those who have heard him castigate others because of their religious associations, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or other peccadilloes.
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:17:00 PM
South Bend Tribune - Screenings on Board's Agenda
P-H-M school chief: Further use of TeenScreen will be postponed for review.
By Sue Lowe
Tribune Staff Writer
Published: Feb. 26, 2005
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories ... board_.sto (http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/02/26/local.20050226-sbt-FULL-B1-Screenings_on_board_.sto)
MISHAWAKA -- It looks as if parents will have to give their permission before Penn High School students are given any sort of mental health screening in the future.
And whether that screening would be TeenScreen, a somewhat controversial test that was given to sophomores this year, or something else is up in the air.
Penn-Harris-Madison Superintendent Robert Howard will report to school board members during their meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at Schmucker Middle School.
Schmucker is on Bittersweet Road across from Penn High School.
Howard started investigating the use of TeenScreen after Teresa Rhoades, an Osceola parent,
went to administrators and the board.
She is upset because her daughter was given the screening without her realizing it would be given.
Howard said earlier that information on the test was sent with other material and parents were asked to return a form only if they did not want their children to take the test.
Rhoades said she didn't get the information and didn't want her child to take the test.
A large advertisement in Thursday's Tribune lists reasons for opposing use of TeenScreen as possible referral for treatment, including drugs.
The ad says diagnosis of psychological problems is entirely subjective and there is no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts.
Rhoades and Ben Choiniere, a chiropractor, are listed as contacts for people who oppose the test.
Rhoades' husband, Michael Rhoades, said Friday the family has gotten "quite a few phone calls
and some e-mail hits" but not as many as he expected.
Howard said Friday that further use of TeenScreen will be postponed until the administration has reviewed the district's suicide prevention program.
"I am not opposed to the continued use of a screening tool such as TeenScreen as part of a comprehensive youth suicide prevention school-based program," he said. "However, whatever screening tool is selected, it must include the requirement of parent approval prior to completion of the screening, and guidelines must be in place to maintain all privacy rights of parents and students."
TeenScreen is administered by Madison Center, the local community mental health agency.
Howard said earlier that some children who took the test were referred to Madison Center and some of their parents have thanked the school for administering the test.
Staff writer Sue Lowe:
slowe@sbtinfo.com
(574) 235-6557
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:19:00 PM
Tests Can Help Curb Suicide In Teens
By ADAM EMERSON
Tampa Tribune
Schools check for blurry vision and bad hearing. Why not screen for suicidal thoughts?
Place a student in front of a computer to answer a series of 30 personal questions. Cull through the answers for signs of depression or a tendency toward drug and alcohol abuse. Send for help if the hopelessness shows signs of becoming deadly.
This is what David Shern has envisioned for Hillsborough and Pinellas county students. Most suicides are preventable, Shern says, but TROUBLED TEENS do not always cry out for help.
``The vast majority of students who commit suicide have a diagnosable mental illness,'' said Shern, dean of the Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute at the University of South Florida.
School leaders agree, and some parents like the idea. But many are wary of Shern's tools.
Are the questions too intrusive? How will students respond to the news they may hear? Who will provide the help they need?
Hillsborough County school administrators say they are unsatisfied with the answers to those questions and have rejected Shern's push to adopt TeenScreen, the PROGRAM developed by New York's Columbia University that tests young people and, if appropriate, refers them for TREATMENT.
The Pinellas County School Board today will talk about changing its policy, which prohibits administering a survey such as TeenScreen. Some board members have concerns about doing that and are uneasy about screening students for emotional problems.
The Pinellas board has received more than 700 e-mail messages, most of them from members of the Church of Scientology, expressing bitter opposition to TeenScreen. Church members loathe psychiatry and psychology and maintain that all parents should worry about exposing students to such testing.
Critics are confused about the PROGRAM, Shern said. The test requires parental and student consent. Columbia University pays for the pilot program, and local health centers would treat the uninsured.
That, however, may not be enough, he said. Schools must overcome the stigma of talking about suicide.
``If we were screening for diabetes, I don't think there would be this level of resistance,'' he said.
A Proposal
Shern approached local school leaders about a year ago to propose pilot TeenScreen programs in one Tampa high school and one St. Petersburg high school.
Although the PROGRAM assesses a TEEN's general mental health, Shern underscored the risk of suicide, the third leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-olds in Hillsborough County in 2002, and the second leading cause of death among Pinellas teens.
Shern met with Hillsborough school administrators for months, touting the PROGRAM.
The pilot PROGRAM, created by one of the nation's elite universities and used in 41 states, would cost the district nothing. It carries the endorsement of President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and Gov. Jeb Bush's Suicide Prevention Initiative. Tampa's Northside Mental Health Center agreed to help the young people found to be most at risk, even the uninsured.
No deal.
District leaders like the PROGRAM but question how it would work, said Gwen Luney, assistant superintendent of student services and federal PROGRAMS.
They wanted to know how long Northside Mental Health Center would treat uninsured students. Students feel up one day, down the next. Would they falsely be labeled suicidal?
Pinellas Schools Superintendent Clayton Wilcox said he will not seek answers to such questions until his board decides whether to alter its policy prohibiting surveys that identify students. The information still would be confidential.
Board members will discuss only the policy change today, but many have offered their opinion of TeenScreen.
``I'm still asking questions every time we talk about it,'' board member Jane Gallucci said. ``But it has a lot of positive features to it.''
Board Chairwoman Nancy Bostock called the PROGRAM ``an intrusion for our students.'' False labels could embarrass students and cause turmoil at home. ``We could seriously do more harm than good,'' she said.
Shern points to districts that use TeenScreen and reported success in identifying students who need help. The City of Erie School District in Pennsylvania last year expanded the PROGRAM from one high school to all high schools. Of 803 students who took the test, 65 said they thought about suicide, and nearly 30 admitted they had tried killing themselves in the last year, said Christine Chrostowski, an Erie mental-health specialist.
Mixed Perceptions
Some parents want more information but say the PROGRAM may help TEENS who fail to seek help themselves.
``There's so many pressures out there that, sometimes, we don't see what's right in front of us,'' said Cheryl Good, whose daughter attends Clearwater High School. ``This might be a helpful tool.''
Labels, though, have jolted students in other states. When Cheslea Rhoades took the test at her Osceola, Ind., high school last month, a clinician told her she demonstrated social anxiety and obsessive- compulsive tendencies.
She was stunned. So was her mom.
``My daughter is an honor- roll student. She's in five clubs. There's nothing wrong with this kid,'' said Teresa Rhoades, Chelsea's mother.
Representatives of the Church of Scientology met with Wilcox in December to discuss their concerns, followed by the e-mail barrage.
Ben Shaw, a church spokesman, said there is no organized campaign to dissuade the school board. There are 12,000 church members in the Tampa Bay area, he said, and many of them have children in public schools.
The church teaches that psychiatry and psychology are abominations. Members accuse TeenScreen founder David Shaffer of Columbia University of pushing children toward the drugs made by companies he advises.
TeenScreen endorses no TREATMENT plan, Shern said. If TEENS show problems, a therapist or psychologist interviews them further. If the problem is serious, parents are given options for HELP. If students show no problems, their answers are destroyed.
Columbia University can pay for pilot PROGRAMS through financial donations, Shern said. No drug companies pay Columbia any money, according to TeenScreen's Web site. The university will not disclose donors' names.
Highlighted and bolded phrases in article have been edited slightly for "Motori de Cautare"
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:20:00 PM
What came first, psychiatric drugs or mental illness?
What came first, TeenScreen assessment tests
or teenage suicide?
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:22:00 PM
Setting The Record Straight About TeenScreen
The rapid adoption and expansion of mental health screening across the United States has led to some confusion on a couple of key points. Following are some answers to the questions that seem to rise out of these misunderstandings.
1. How prevalent is mental illness and suicide in teens?
According to the Surgeon General?s 2001 National Action Agenda for Children?s Mental Health, the United States is experiencing a crisis in child and adolescent mental health. Although mental illnesses can be diagnosed accurately and treated effectively, they usually are not. One in ten American children and adolescents suffer from mental illness and experience impairment, but only one in five receive treatment. We are also experiencing a public health crisis in teen suicide. Suicide is currently the third leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-olds, after accidents and homicide. Many more American teens think about suicide and make suicide attempts. Among American high school students, 17% (3.4 million) report having thought seriously about killing themselves in the past year and 9% (1.8 million) report having made a prior suicide attempt. Only 36% of teens at risk for suicide receive help for their problems.
2. Does the Columbia University TeenScreen Program endorse mandated mental health screening for all teens?
No. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program does not endorse or support government mandated screening. The TeenScreen program is offered only to communities that want to sponsor suicide prevention and mental health check-up programs. Participation in these programs by parents and teens is also always voluntary. All local TeenScreen programs require parental or guardian consent and teen assent.
3. What about President Bush?s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health? Didn?t they endorse mandatory screening and TeenScreen?
The Commission did cite screening and TeenScreen as an effective approach to improving teen mental health, but did not endorse mandatory screening. According to its Chairman Michael Hogan, ?The commission did NOT call for mandatory universal mental health screening for all children. I am at a loss to explain why this misrepresentation persists, since it is at odds with the plain language of our report to the President.? The entire report can be found at http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/ (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/).
4. Why then are some people worried about mandatory screening?
We are unaware of any elected official, health professional, corporation, government employee or organization that believes mandatory screening of all teens is a good idea. Last year as Congress was debating new mental health legislation some people incorrectly thought that the legislation would require mandatory screening. An article in the January 20, 2005 Christian Science Monitor explains what happened:
?Throughout last summer and into the fall the news crept across websites and spilled onto talk radio: The Bush administration was planning to screen every American child for mental-health problems and put those deemed in need of help on powerful psychotropic drugs. Parental rights would be taken away, and the stigma of mental illness would stain the school records of innocent children. Libertarians and conservatives, home-schoolers and psychiatric rights groups, expressed their concerns. Yet so far, the fears seem overblown... By the time Congress passed its enormous spending bill late last fall, only $20 million of new money was appointed as a grant to states to explore new ways of coordinating their "fragmented" mental-health services. The provision contained no mandate that the money be spent to screen children.?
5. But aren?t the commission and TeenScreen in favor of universal screening? Aren?t mandatory and universal the same thing?
Universal screening and mandatory screening are different ideas. The goal of screening is to find teens who may be silently suffering from depression and other mental disorders that put them at risk of injury, suicide, substance abuse and poor academic achievement. Universal screening means to offer voluntary screening to as many teens as possible because many mental disorders, especially depression, are often impossible to detect by just looking at a teen. The opposite of universal screening is selective screening, where screening is offered only to teens that are showing clear signs of a problem. Selective screening unfortunately misses many teens that would otherwise go unnoticed.
6. I have heard about active vs. passive consent. What does this mean?
Active consent requires parents to sign and return a consent form if they want their child to participate in screening. Passive consent, which is also referred to as waiver-of-consent or opt-out consent, requires parents to return a provided form only if they do not want their child to participate in the screening. Local TeenScreen programs often adopt the consent procedures used by their local sponsors or school districts for similar activities. Parental consent must be obtained in order for youth to participate in the TeenScreen Program. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program recommends active consent as a best practice. Currently 85% of TeenScreen programs use active parental consent.
In addition to obtaining parental consent, youth must also provide written assent for participation in the TeenScreen Program. They can also refuse to answer any question they don't want to answer.
7. Does TeenScreen recommend anti-depressants for teens found to be suffering from depression?
The TeenScreen Program makes no treatment recommendations. Our goal is to provide parents and guardians with information about a possible problem and to link youth in need to qualified professionals who can perform a complete diagnostic assessment and, if necessary, provide parents with information on treatment options. We provided our local sites with the latest information from the FDA regarding anti-depressant safety and suicide risk to make sure they are knowledgeable about this issue.
8. Even though you don?t recommend medication, isn?t that the primary result of the program?
No. According to a recent survey of parents in the Midwest whose teenagers participated in the TeenScreen Program between 2002 and 2004, only a small number of those who were referred for a post-screening mental health evaluation ended up being perscribed medication. The majority of parents that chose to contact a mental health professional reported that the possible mental health problem resulted in their teen receiving individual, group or family therapy. Less than ten percent reported that their child was prescribed some type of medication.
9. Is the pharmaceutical industry behind TeenScreen?
The Columbia University TeenScreen Program has not received funding, and does not accept funding, from any pharmaceutical companies. This national program is supported primarily by private family foundations and individuals.
10. Do any of local TeenScreen programs accept money from pharmaceutical companies?
Local TeenScreen programs operate independently of Columbia University. Local programs receive free materials and training from our program and often seek local funding from a wide-range of supporters including school districts and community foundations. We recently learned that one local TeenScreen program did receive a contribution from a pharmaceutical company.
Even though local programs make no treatment recommendations, we believe any funding received from a pharmaceutical company could create the appearance of a possible inducement to recommend treatment. We strongly recommend that local TeenScreen programs do not receive funding from companies that market medicines for adolescent depression or other mental health problems identified by the screening program.
11. Does talking about suicide encourage teens to attempt suicide?
The Journal of the American Medical Association (April 6, 2005, Madelyn S. Gould) reports that screening and directly asking youth if they are thinking about suicide or have made a prior suicide attempt does not cause them to become suicidal. In fact, depressed teens and previous suicide attempters who are screened are less distressed and suicidal than depressed teens and previous suicide attempters who are not screened.
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:26:00 PM
[ref001]
Profile:The Rutherford Institute
The Institute for First Amendment Studies receives many calls concerning
a number of Religious Right organizations. Near the top of the list
is the Rutherford Institute, a Virginia-based Christian legal organization
that promotes the Christian Right agenda through the courts. The following
report offers some pertinent and basic information about this influential
organization.
Samuel Rutherford, a 17th-century Scottish minister, is best known
for his defiance of the King. Rutherford proclaimed that, as kings
were not divine, kings' laws were not above God's laws. He urged his
followers to disobey any royal decrees that failed to follow God's
laws.
In 1982, attorney John W. Whitehead, writer/filmmaker Franky Schaeffer,
and other "concerned Christians" formed a new organization to act
as "the legal arm of Christian civil liberties in this country." They
named it the Rutherford Institute after Samuel Rutherford.
Schaeffer contended that "modern-day courts issue laws which are contrary
to God's law." And Whitehead believes, according to an article by
Martin Mawyer published in the May 1983 issue of the _Moral_Majority_
Report_, "that courts must place themselves under the authority of
God's law."
Mawyer's article explains, "The Institute states that 'all of civil
affairs and government, including law, should be based upon principles
found in the Bible.'" That statement is a simplified definition of
Christian Reconstruction, an important movement within evangelical
Christianity.
From the beginning, the Rutherford Institute has taken a militant
position. "We need to be very aggressive, not passive," Whitehead
said in a 1983 interview. "Take the initiative. Sue rather than waiting
to be sued. That's where we've been weak. We've always been on the
defensive. We need to frame the issue and pick the court. The institute,
if necessary, will charge that government is violating religious freedoms
rather than the church waiting for the government to charge it with
violating the law.
Franky Schaeffer, son of the late theologian Francis Schaeffer, wrote
_Bad_News_for_Modern_Man:_An_Agenda_for_Christian_Activism_, a guide
for radical Christians. As a writer and filmmaker, Franky Schaeffer
(he now prefers Frank) played an important role in the development
of the Religious Right.
A vocal opponent of abortion, he wrote: "Every church should be involved
in the prolife movement. Abortion clinics must be picketed nonstop.
Doctors who wish to murder the innocent must be harassed and driven
from our communities." In 1990, in a move toward religious purity,
Schaeffer joined the Greek Orthodox Church. Today, his role as a Christian
Right activist has diminished.
On the other hand, John Whitehead's 1982 book, _The_Second_American_
Revolution_, which sold well over 100,000 copies, helped establish
the Rutherford Institute as a leading far-right organization.
The Second American Revolution contains numerous references to a former
Presbyterian minister named Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony. A prolific
writer, Rushdoony is known as "the father of Christian Reconstruction."
He heads an organization called Chalcedon.
According to Rushdoony's brochure, "The Ministry of Chalcedon," "Chalcedon
was instrumental in establishing the Rutherford Institute, the purpose
of which is to aid lawyers in the defense of religious liberties."
In fact, Rushdoony served as a board member of the Rutherford Institute,
and is listed as a speaker at Rutherford conferences.
In a discussion on Christian Reconstructionism, Dr. Jay Grimstead,
president of the Coalition on Revival (COR) said, "We believe that
God has given the Bible as a rule book for all society, Christian
and non-Christian alike. I concur with most of the Reconstructionist
matters; and I am trying to help rebuild society on the Word of God,
and loosely, that would be a Reconstructionist orientation in anybody's
book."
In the views of Christian Reconstructionists, every aspect of society,
including law, medicine, education, the media, and the arts and entertainment,
should be based upon the Reconstructionists' interpretation of the
Bible. Strict interpretation includes swift justice for sinners, including
the death penalty for abortionists, "unrepentant" homosexuals, and,
according to Rushdoony, even "incorrigible sons."
Alexis I. Crow, an attorney with the Rutherford Institute, told us
"John Whitehead is not a Reconstructionist and he never has been."
While Whitehead may not be a Reconstructionist, he is apparently Reconstructionist-influenced,
or Reconstructionist-oriented. Besides his affiliation with Rushdoony
and references to Rushdoony's writings in _The_Second_American_Revolution_,
in the same book Whitehead declares his own Reconstructionist-like
beliefs.
Like Reconstructionists, Whitehead sees the mission of the Christian
church as one of domination. "The church," Whitehead writes, "has
a mandate from the Creator to be a dominant influence on the whole
culture."
Currently, the Republican Party is fighting for its soul; it is trying
to ward off domination by religious extremists. Back in 1982 Whitehead
addressed this very issue. "Getting involved in local politics will
eventually mean Christians running for office. This will include attending
and eventually TAKING CONTROL [emphasis added] of party conventions
where grass-roots decisions are made."
Christian Reconstructionists want to take control of America's legal
and educational system. Whitehead concurs. "The challenge of the Christian
attorney," he writes, "is to be a vocal, dynamic spokesman for the
true legal profession -- the one with Christ at its center -- and
to stop at nothing less than reclaiming the whole system."
On education, Whitehead says, "[T]he public education system, which
includes the entire educational structure up through the university
level, must be reinstilled with Christian theism." He adds, "If there
is little hope of revamping public education -- and this is more than
a probability -- then Christians must remove their financial support
from the system."
Rushdoony's influence is apparent in Whitehead's book. When asked
if there has been a parting of the ways between Whitehead and Rushdoony,
Crow failed to respond.
There is some confusion about the history of John Whitehead's relationship
with COR. A 1986 brochure on COR's "Continental Congress on the Christian
World View III," a Fourth of July weekend conference held in Washington,
lists Whitehead as a speaker and Steering Committee member. The topic
of his talk at the conference was called "Priorities for the Eighties."
His photo is included in the brochure.
Nevertheless, Alexis Crow of Rutherford claims that Whitehead is not,
nor ever has been a member of COR, or of COR's Steering Committee.
To clear up the matter we called Jay Grimstead, COR's president. "As
far as I know," he said, "John was a member in the early years; maybe
for a couple of years. At one time, several dispensationalists withdrew.
About that time, John's office called and asked that he be taken off."
Grimstead added, "I thought he was on then [1986], when we made the
brochure."
"The Rutherford Institute is an organization that defends the rights
of ALL religious persons," according to Crow, "regardless of denomination
or creed and, as such, has defended, among others, Christians, Jews,
atheists, Santerians, Native Americans, and Hare Krishna."
Her statement is a bewildering one. Many people, such as Unitarian
Universalists and people of other liberal religions, feel that there
are circumstances where it is their religious duty to have an abortion.
How many times has the Rutherford Institute defended religious people
who opt for their legal right to have an abortion?
Other religious people, such as many members of the Metropolitan Community
Church, are gay Christians. They believe God has made them homosexual,
and accept that as a gift from God, just as others celebrate their
heterosexuality. How many times has the Rutherford Institute defended
the rights of gays and lesbians?
Does the Rutherford Institute really defend the rights of all religious
people, or do they seek special privileges for Christians -- such
as helping Christians discriminate against gays in housing or employment?
Operating on an annual budget of $8 million, the Rutherford Institute
and its team of aggressive lawyers may soon show up in your neighborhood.
With about 230 active cases, the institute can be commended for taking
on some cases involving true religious liberty. However, it is clear
that the organization pursues the agenda originally outlined by John
Whitehead and Franky Schaeffer. "We must influence all areas of life
including law and politics," Whitehead stated. "We can leave nothing
untouched by the Bible."
Suggested Reading
_
Schaeffer, Franky. _Bad_News_for_Modern_Man:_An_Agenda_for_Christian_
Activism_. Crossway Books, 1984.
Whitehead, John. _The_Second_American_Revolution_. Crossway Books,
1982.
_
[ref002][ref003] Return to table of contents
Copyright 1995 IFAS
The Freedom Writer / ifas@crocker.com (http://mailto:ifas@crocker.com)
Web page: http://www.crocker.com/~ifas (http://www.crocker.com/~ifas)
Post by: Paul on June 13, 2005, 10:34:00 PM
either not delivered, not received or
was claimed to be denied by the potential
recipients is all the case is going to be
based on ...
"The test, which is voluntary, was administered to their daughter, Chelsea, at school in December 2004. Although school administrators reportedly sent letters home to parents of students invited to take the test, Michael and Teresa Rhoades say they never received the letter."
Wow, Deborah, are you happy that these parents
of Chelsea decided that even thought they are
the only one's not to receive the letter, that
something was amiss and it was worth sacrificing their daughter's anonymity to bring this important case to the public?
Or, where the opponents of TeenScreen shopping
for a "test case" and the closest they could
come was this?
Like I said, I am on the Mental Health Board in San Diego County and complaints about early screening just don't appear ...
That is the same, apparently, as Chelsea's dad's complaint line that is receiving very few calls ...
A non-existant problem may be the problem!
Except for those pesky Scientologist that you say that anyone mentions is paranoid. Hmmm, they seem to have made it in a few articles about TeenScreen.
But, Deborah, it is important to believe you. So I do. Totally :smile:
Post by: Paul on June 14, 2005, 11:58:00 AM
---
Funny how the author of this piece has such a great
fear of a potential mistaken diagnosis ruining a person's for their whole life, a haunting dilema
that would last a lifetime ... but finds nothing
wrong with Chelsea's parents going public with her assessment results.
I guess it is sacrafice one little child for the greater good, eh?
Or is it desperation. That no example could be used to bring this issue to court except in this case where her parents may be the only one's in the town to not get the mailer!
To me, it looks like a malicious prosecution and a nuisance lawsuit. If I where the judge I would fine the parties involved in bringing this case to court and send them packing with their tails between there legs.
Then hope Chelsea turns 18 quickly and is allowed to make her own decisions rather than her parents,
in private, of course.
Post by: Deborah on June 14, 2005, 11:13:00 PM
it says ...
1) The test was voluntary.
***A matter of opinion, and not the issue- parental consent.
2) Since it was voluntary, perhaps, parental permission was not necessary. Nevertheless, school officials are probably going to start utilizing permission slips.
***?Bout time. Some have said along that parental approval would be required, but as we?re seeing that is not the case.
3) You all know this better than I, when is
a parental permission slip required in schools
for children under 18?
For all tests? For all assessments, such as SAT's?
***That?s right Paul, compare academic testing with mental health ?testing??
4) I am going to make an assumption here. I doubt that the school published the results of the screening. Chelsea's parent have made her a public figure.
***It very well could be what Chelsea wants as well.
The parents could ignore the tests, or ask some questions.
***Ignore that their child was screened and told she had a mental illness without their permission. There is no justification for this.
Is this the healthiest thing the parents could have done?
***The question is?. Is this the healthiest thing the school district could have done?
Post by: Deborah on June 14, 2005, 11:21:00 PM
What?s next? Teen Screen comes in to dx and label these kids so they can get the ?appropriate? treatment for their illness?
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive ... 02005a.asp (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/afa/102005a.asp)
Mass. Parents Riled About 6th-Grade 'Sex Survey'
By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
June 10, 2005
(AgapePress) - Parents in one Massachusetts town are expressing outrage over an explicit sex survey being ADMINISTERED TO SIXTH-GRADERS WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE QUESTIONS TO MOMS AND DADS.
Parents in Shrewsbury are upset that the local school committee is refusing to reveal the content of its version of the Centers for Disease Control's "Youth Risk Behavior Study." The 22-page YRBS on the CDC website [PDF] contains 87 questions, seven of which deal with sexual behavior. The survey solicits answers to such questions as "How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?" and "The last time you had sexual intercourse, did you or your partner use a condom?"
The school committee in Shrewsbury WILL NOT ALLOW PARENTS TO VIEW COPIES OF THE SURVEY BECAUSE THEY FEEL PARENTS WILL "MISINTERPRET" THE QUESTIONS. However, parent David Fisher says unbelievably, THERE IS NO CONCERN THAT SIXTH-GRADERS WILL MISINTERPRET THE QUESTIONS -- and he contends the questions go even further.
"In the 6th grade -- these are CHILDREN 11 OR 12 YEARS OLD -- they are being asked if they have ever engaged in oral sex, when was the first time that they engaged in oral sex, with how many different people have they engaged in oral sex," Fisher says. "And they ask the same three questions about sexual intercourse, and whether or not they've used a condom, amongst other things." A word search of the online version of the CDC survey, however, turns up no mention of oral sex.
Still, Fisher -- who has an 11-year-old daughter in the school system -- says there is a great deal of anger among parents in his neighborhood and across the town.
"First, [because] of the contents of the survey -- and then secondly, [because] we have been purposely kept in the dark and [are being] made to feel as though we're backward, we're ignorant, [and] we would misinterpret these questions," the Massachusetts father remarks. "THE PROBLEM IS, WE INTERPRET THEM CORRECTLY. IT'S THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT THAT IS MISINTERPRETING THESE QUESTIONS [AND] SEEING NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM."
According to Fisher, a sex survey being administered to Shrewsbury eighth-graders asks students to identify themselves as heterosexual, "gay or lesbian," or bisexual.
Current state law in Massachusetts allows parents to opt their children out of programs that involve human sexuality, but Fisher and other parents are fighting for a bill now in the State House that would CHANGE THE OPT-OUT POLICY INTO AN OPT-IN POLICY.
© 2005 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Post by: Deborah on June 14, 2005, 11:31:00 PM
Uhhh. I don't think they, or Chelsea are concerned about making her 'assessment results' public because they think it is BS.
Paul, in the big picture... the government does not care a whit about the health and well being of children, as witnessed by the total lack of public policy. Look at the stats. As the most 'powerful' and wealthy nation on the planet, we should not rank 6th in quality of life. Back to the point... the government does not care about Chelsea's (or any other child's) mental health except to the extent that it supports a 'healthy economy'.
Any citizen of the US has the right and ability to seek psychiatric services, just as medical, or dental, etc. THAT'S voluntary. We don't need the government screening kids in school, where they are a captive audience. God only knows what else is going on in schools that parents have yet to discover.
Post by: Deborah on June 14, 2005, 11:52:00 PM
***Although the PROGRAM assesses a TEEN's general mental health, Shern underscored the risk of suicide, the third leading cause of death among 15- to 19-year-olds in Hillsborough County in 2002, and the second leading cause of death among Pinellas teens.***
TeenScreen attempts to create in the media, a suicide hysteria, when in fact suicides are on the decline. The suicide rate for ages 10 to 19 fell from 6.2 deaths per 100,000 people in 1992 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2001, according to the Center for Disease Control. In 1991, 10 of 100,000 people in Florida ages 10-24 committed suicide. By 1999, that number had dropped to six out of 100,000.
In Pinellas County, Florida, an ongoing research project has already established that a large majority of teens who committed suicide were on psychotropic drugs or had received psychiatric treatment. In the years 2002 and 2003, 81% of the suicides were either on psychotropic drugs or had received psychiatric treatment. This percentage may rise as the research continues.
***The pilot PROGRAM, created by one of the nation's elite universities and used in 41 states, would cost the district (read ?tax payer?) nothing.***
That?s a crock. The tax payer will end up paying for this, just like everything else. And the ?program? is not cheap. More subtle corporate welfare for the industry.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=9#107762 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10271&forum=9#107762)
***Columbia University can pay for pilot PROGRAMS through financial donations, Shern said. No drug companies pay Columbia any money, according to TeenScreen's Web site. The university will not disclose donors' names.***
"For some odd reason, Columbia and TeenScreen want to keep their funding sources secret," Kramer says. "To stop people from finding out how much drug company money is being funneled to TeenScreen, the University recently revised a press release on its website and removed a statement regarding its donation of $19 million to TeenScreen," he reports.
Post by: Deborah on June 15, 2005, 12:04:00 AM
Snake Phobias, Moodiness and a Battle in Psychiatry
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: June 14, 2005
Excerpts:
In a report released last week, RESEARCHERS ESTIMATED THAT MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICANS WOULD DEVELOP MENTAL DISORDERS IN THEIR LIVES, raising questions about where mental health ends and illness begins.
In fact, psychiatrists have no good answer, and the boundary between mental illness and normal mental struggle has become a battle line dividing the profession into two viscerally opposed camps.
ON ONE SIDE ARE DOCTORS WHO SAY THAT THE DEFINITION OF MENTAL ILLNESS SHOULD BE BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE MILD CONDITIONS, WHICH CAN MAKE PEOPLE MISERABLE AND OFTEN LEAD TO MORE SEVERE PROBLEMS LATER.
ON THE OTHER ARE EXPERTS WHO SAY THAT THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS SHOULD BE TIGHTENED TO ENSURE THAT LIMITED RESOURCES GO TO THOSE WHO NEED THEM THE MOST AND TO PRESERVE THE PROFESSION'S CREDIBILITY WITH A PUBLIC THAT OFTEN SCOFFS AT CLAIMS THAT LARGE NUMBERS OF AMERICANS HAVE MENTAL DISORDERS.
The question is not just philosophical: where psychiatrists draw the line may determine not only the willingness of INSURERS TO PAY FOR SERVICES, but the future of research on moderate and mild mental disorders. Directly and indirectly, it will also shape the decisions of millions of people who agonize over whether they or their loved ones are in need of help, merely eccentric or dealing with ordinary life struggles.
"This argument is heating up right now," said Dr. Darrel Regier, director of research at the American Psychiatric Association, "because we're in the process of revising the diagnostic manual," the catalog of mental disorders on which research, treatment and the profession itself are based.
The next edition of the manual is expected to appear in 2010 or 2011, "and there's going continued debate in the scientific community about what the cut-points of clinical disease are," Dr. Regier said.
PSYCHIATRISTS HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY FOR SOME BIOLOGICAL MARKER FOR MENTAL DISEASE, TO LITTLE AVAIL. ALTHOUGH THERE IS PROMISING WORK IN GENETICS AND BRAIN IMAGING, RESEARCHERS ARE NOT LIKELY TO HAVE ANYTHING RESEMBLING A BLOOD TEST FOR A MENTAL ILLNESS SOON, LEAVING THEM WITH WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD: OBSERVATIONS OF BEHAVIOR, AND PATIENTS' ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL AND HOW SEVERE THEIR CONDITION IS.
Dr. Stuart Kirk, a professor of social welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has been critical of the manual, gives EXAMPLES OF WHAT COULD, UNDER THE CURRENT DIAGNOSTIC GUIDELINES, QUALIFY AS A SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER: A COLLEGE STUDENT WHO EVERY MONTH OR SO DRINKS TOO MUCH BEER ON SUNDAY NIGHT AND MISSES HIS CHEMISTRY CLASS AT 8 A.M. MONDAY, LOWERING HIS GRADE; OR A MIDDLE-AGED PROFESSIONAL WHO SMOKES A JOINT NOW AND THEN DRIVES TO A RESTAURANT, RISKING ARREST.
"Although perhaps representing bad judgment," Dr. Kirk wrote in an e-mail message, these cases "would not be seen by most people as valid examples of mental illness, AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT NO UNDERLYING, INTERNAL, PATHOLOGICAL MENTAL STATE."
He added, "LET US NOT REVISE DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA THAT HELP US MAKE CLINICALLY VALID STANDARD DIAGNOSES IN ORDER TO MAKE COMMUNITY PREVALENCE DATA EASIER TO JUSTIFY TO A SKEPTICAL PUBLIC."
After a prolonged controversy last year over the use of antidepressants in children, most experts say the last thing psychiatry needs now is for this process to turn into a public fight over who is sick and who is not.
But this fight may be hard to avoid. The two sides are far apart, debates over the diagnostic manual are traditionally contentious and despite increasing openness about mental illness the public tends to be skeptical of any prevalence numbers over a few percent.
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 01:30:00 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/healt ... nted=print (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/health/psychology/14ment.html?8hpib=&pagewanted=print)
June 14, 2005
Snake Phobias, Moodiness and a Battle in Psychiatry
By BENEDICT CAREY
A college student becomes so compulsive about cleaning his dorm room that his grades begin to slip. An executive living in New York has a mortal fear of snakes but lives in Manhattan and rarely goes outside the city where he might encounter one. A computer technician, deeply anxious around strangers, avoids social and company gatherings and is passed over for promotion.
Are these people mentally ill?
In a report released last week, researchers estimated that more than half of Americans would develop mental disorders in their lives, raising questions about where mental health ends and illness begins.
In fact, psychiatrists have no good answer, and the boundary between mental illness and normal mental struggle has become a battle line dividing the profession into two viscerally opposed camps.
On one side are doctors who say that the definition of mental illness should be broad enough to include mild conditions, which can make people miserable and often lead to more severe problems later.
On the other are experts who say that the current definitions should be tightened to ensure that limited resources go to those who need them the most and to preserve the profession's credibility with a public that often scoffs at claims that large numbers of Americans have mental disorders.
The question is not just philosophical: where psychiatrists draw the line may determine not only the willingness of insurers to pay for services, but the future of research on moderate and mild mental disorders. Directly and indirectly, it will also shape the decisions of millions of people who agonize over whether they or their loved ones are in need of help, merely eccentric or dealing with ordinary life struggles.
"This argument is heating up right now," said Dr. Darrel Regier, director of research at the American Psychiatric Association, "because we're in the process of revising the diagnostic manual," the catalog of mental disorders on which research, treatment and the profession itself are based.
The next edition of the manual is expected to appear in 2010 or 2011, "and there's going continued debate in the scientific community about what the cut-points of clinical disease are," Dr. Regier said.
Psychiatrists have been searching for more than a century for some biological marker for mental disease, to little avail. Although there is promising work in genetics and brain imaging, researchers are not likely to have anything resembling a blood test for a mental illness soon, leaving them with what they have always had: observations of behavior, and patients' answers to questions about how they feel and how severe their condition is.
Severity is at the core of the debate. Are slumps in mood bad enough to make someone miss work? Does anxiety over social situations disrupt friendships and play havoc with romantic relationships?
Insurers have long incorporated severity measures in decisions about what to cover. Dr. Alex Rodriguez, chief medical officer for behavioral health at Magellan Health Services, the country's largest managed mental health insurer, said that Magellan used several standardized tests to rate how much a problem is interfering with someone's life. The company is developing its own scale to track how well people function. "This is a tool that would allow the therapist to monitor a patient's progress from session to session," he said.
Although the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association's catalog of mental disorders includes severity as a part of diagnosis, some experts say these measures are not tough or specific enough.
Dr. Stuart Kirk, a professor of social welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has been critical of the manual, gives examples of what could, under the current diagnostic guidelines, qualify as a substance abuse disorder: a college student who every month or so drinks too much beer on Sunday night and misses his chemistry class at 8 a.m. Monday, lowering his grade; or a middle-aged professional who smokes a joint now and then drives to a restaurant, risking arrest.
"Although perhaps representing bad judgment," Dr. Kirk wrote in an e-mail message, these cases "would not be seen by most people as valid examples of mental illness, and they shouldn't be because they represent no underlying, internal, pathological mental state."
Separating the heavies from the lightweights - by asking, say, "Did you ever go to a doctor for your problem, or talk to anyone about it?" - has a significant effect on who counts as mentally impaired.
After researchers reported in a large national survey in 1994 that 30 percent of Americans adults had a mental illness in the past year, Dr. Regier and others reanalyzed the data, taking into account whether people had reported their mental troubles to a therapist or friend, had received treatment or had taken other actions.
They found that the number of people who qualified for a diagnosis of mental illness in the previous year plunged to 20 percent over all; rates of some disorders dropped by a third to half.
But limiting the count to those who have taken action does not give an accurate picture of the extent of illness, argue other researchers, who have been sharply critical of efforts to drive down prevalence estimates.
Dr. Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and the principal architect of the third edition of the diagnostic manual, wrote in a letter to The Archives of Psychiatry, "Many physical disorders are often transient and mild and may not require treatment (e.g. acute viral infections or low back syndrome). It would be absurd to recognize such conditions only when treatment was indicated."
He added, "Let us not revise diagnostic criteria that help us make clinically valid standard diagnoses in order to make community prevalence data easier to justify to a skeptical public."
Dr. Ronald Kessler, a professor of health care policy at Harvard and the lead author of the 1994 survey and the nationwide survey released last week, said squeezing diagnoses so that many mild cases drop out could blind the profession to a group of people it should be paying more attention to, not less.
"We know that there are prodromes, states that put people at higher risk, like hypertension for heart disease, which doctors treat," he said. "You can call these milder mental conditions what you want, and you may decide to treat them or not, but if you don't identify them they fall off the radar, and you don't know much of anything about them."
In the survey released last week, Dr. Kessler and his colleagues found that half of disorders started by age 14, and three-quarters by age 24. "These are people who may show up at age 25 or later as depressed alcoholics, maybe they're in trouble with the law, they've lost relationships, and from my perspective we need to go upstream and find out what's happening before they become so desperate," Dr. Kessler said.
One condition whose estimated prevalence has bounced around like a Ping-Pong ball in this debate is social phobia, extreme anxiety over social situations. In a 1984 survey, investigators identified social phobia primarily by asking about excessive fear of speaking in public. They found a one-year prevalence rate of 1.7 percent.
But psychiatrists soon concluded that other kinds of fears, including a fear of eating in public or using public restrooms, were variations of social phobia. When, in 1994, these and others questions were included, the prevalence rate rose to 7.4 percent.
Dr. Regier re-evaluated the data using a different criterion for severity and found a much lower rate: 3.2 percent. Last week, Dr. Kessler reported a rate of 6.8 percent.
"You can see why people have a hard time believing these numbers because they change so much depending on how you look at the data," said Dr. David Mechanic, director of the Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research at Rutgers University.
Yet the cutoff points for disease severity have real effects on the lives of people like Paul Pusateri, 48, a Baltimore business analyst.
Mr. Pusateri said he was outgoing through college but then had a panic attack in his mid-20's, as he was preparing to give a speech. He managed to build a career and family despite surges of anxiety before speeches and meetings. But finally, more than two decades after the first symptoms, he reached a point where he dreaded even small or one-on-one meetings with familiar co-workers.
"It's very bizarre; the only way I can describe the feeling is, Imagine walking down the street at dusk having someone put a gun in your face and threaten to kill you - having that absolute terror before a routine work meeting," he said.
Mr. Pusateri said that, perhaps unconsciously, he applied severity criteria to his own growing mental struggles. He may have set the bar too high: only when he began badly mangling presentations at work, and then dreaded going in at all, did he tell his wife that he felt he was in trouble. His wife had watched a therapist talk about social phobia on television, and soon he was getting help.
He considers himself lucky to have found a diagnosis at all, not to mention a therapist. "I was desperate by the time I did anything about it, I saw that my livelihood was at stake," he said.
Yet by all outside appearances, and by some strict definitions, he might not have qualified as having a disorder until he took some action.
In the coming years, Dr. Regier's office will be responsible for clarifying the thresholds of disease for the next diagnostic manual, to somehow identify difficult cases like this one, while remaining credible to insurers and to the public at large.
After a prolonged controversy last year over the use of antidepressants in children, most experts say the last thing psychiatry needs now is for this process to turn into a public fight over who is sick and who is not.
But this fight may be hard to avoid. The two sides are far apart, debates over the diagnostic manual are traditionally contentious and despite increasing openness about mental illness the public tends to be skeptical of any prevalence numbers over a few percent.
"That's the problem," said Dr. Regier, "people hear these higher prevalence rates and they immediately start thinking about severe, disabling schizophrenia. But we know these surveys include a lot of mild cases, and we need to ask, How significant are these?"
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 01:32:00 AM
Mental Health and Treatment
Discuss the evaluation and treatment of depression, and other issues related to mental health.
First Post Latest Posts (10835) <
rredrosie - 10:40 AM ET June 14, 2005 (#10836 of 10842)
coverage for already diagnosed
Isn't the more important issue here getting insurance companies to fully cover medical treatments for people with disorders already classified as mental illness? I'm not so concerned about whether social phobia is a mental illness when millions of americans with long-accepted mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, schizophrenia) cannot affordably access medical services, EVEN WHEN they have health insurance. Almost all insurance companies limit the number of therapy visits automatically, no matter what illness is diagnosed simply because it is mental illness. There are no limit on visits to other types of doctors (imagine, sorry you already visited your internist 2x this yr, you'll just have to manage that strange rash by yourself). Mental health care needs to be priced and available at the same level as regular health care - thats the really serious problem here.
-h
opaguy - 1:20 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10837 of 10842)
CART BEFORE THE HORSE (or ASS, as the case may be)
In the mental health field just as in other fields the principle that must be applied is "what is the big picture?" Just as with legislation, the problem cannot be completely handled FROM WITHIN the field - it is time society realizes its' own guilt in the illnesses and tragedies of others, and makes amends all round - going through a mental illness is bad enough but it is made intolerable when people also make you feel crazy by not participating in your life in a way that acknowledges that they are a part of the mental state you are in - there is no perfect individual state: each of us has a hand in the misfortunes of other people near us, and that especially includes the therapists and analysts themselves!! - the analytical principle has depleted its promise - now it is time to pick up the greatest instrument the mental health could wield: take responsibility and show others how they are NOT taking responsibility for the misfortunes of others.
rodsesq - 1:25 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10838 of 10842)
OMYGAWD -- a DSM-5?
I have a proposal for the DSM-5. Instead of 'social phobia' as a diagnosis, how about 'fear'. The treatment for fear is much less expensive than the treatment for 'social phobia'. Instead of treating with pills, therapies, 'coping' mechanisms, and professional sympathy(ugh!), one treats fear with courage. Since what gets put into the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5)is a matter of majority vote by the psychiatrists belonging to the American Psychiatry Association, all it would take is a concerted lobbying effort by the insurers and other members of the ruling class.
By the way, you and I don't get to vote.
This article reminds me of the psychiatrist hired by the State of California to consult about my daughter's learning disability. The shrink decided to recommend 'genetic counselling' (sterilization to those of you who don't understand euphemisms), despite the documented fact of my daughter's birth trauma. She gave NO advice on educational approaches to my daughter's disability. One wonders why that psychiatrist was hired, much less paid for her opinion. One also wonders why we should let politically correct eugenicists and other Nazi Doctors vote on an issue over which we don't have the power to vote.
Perhaps countermeasures are in order.
masonpms - 2:15 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10839 of 10842)
rredrosie - 10:40 AM ET June 14, 2005 (#10836 of 10838)
Another frustrating aspect of Health Ins and Mental Health, is that the Mental Health portion of the policy is contracted to another provider such as Magellan. This adds another layer of burocreacy that the patient has to deal with in getting services. I was hospitalized last year for a week and it took exactly one year for all the bills to be settled. I spent an entire day on the phone with Horizon BC and Magellan. Bills were coded wrong, authorizations were not obtained according to Magellan, and bills for Ambulance services (700.00 to go 24 miles) were deemed out of network.
When I had my son I had every test, two hospitalizations, a C-section and I never saw bill one. I paid a 200.00 deductible and that was it.
Here in NJ with a population of 8 million, there are 4,000 beds allocated for Mental Health. Imagine someone with another life-threatening illness being told, sorry we don't have a bed for you, but mentally ill people are sent back home or the streets left to their own devices. It is a travesty.
cstprofuwlax - 4:04 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10840 of 10842)
TO: markpavlich
You wrote, "If we take a look at the physical body and how we classify characteristics, we could group abnormalities into these groups:
Deformities
Malfunctions
Infestations
Pathologies ([self] induced by alliances)"
To me, deformities, malfunctions, and infestations are all close to the same level of generality.
Deformity: the organism itself is flawed.
Malfunction: the organism is not working properly.
Infestation: the organism has been invaded and is malfunctioning as a result.
I think if you check the dictionary you will find that "pathology" has a much broader, more general meaning than these other three do. At its roots, it translates as "naming / words for [logy] sadness or sorrow [path]" and it identifies the medical field concerned with diagnosis of disease (Oxford English Dictionary).
Perhaps "injuries: the organism has been damaged by external forces or itself" would be more properly parallel?
ejdiv - 4:54 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10841 of 10842)
Mental Health & Psychology
All of the posts are superbly worded, but as a soon to be mental health professional, we as good consumers should know that their is more than one school of thought on these issues as well. A perfect example is one of context... At one point or another we have all been in a "slump" or a bad mood that doesn't mean that we have a social disorder of some kind. Psychologists and Psychiatrists are trained in a medical model which only looks at presenting symptoms, while us social workers are trained to look at the person as a system and to use the bio-psyco-social model of evaluation. So that same slump that would get you a diagnosis from a MD, you wouldn't necessarily get from an MSW. The point of my post is to try to educate you, the public about the differences between mental health providers, and how the theoretical thought processes are different. I am not bad mouthing other mental health professionals, I just wanted to point out the theoretical differences between them.
Emor J. DeCann
ejdecann@syr.edu
eligottlieb02 - 6:13 PM ET June 14, 2005 (#10842 of 10842)
Mental Health is a perspective
islander3 #10827 1:34 PM ET 6/13/2005
If you are being sarcastic, you're perfectly correct. If not, you're entitled to your incorrect opinion.
I would simply like to say that all mental health treatment should be voluntary and even discouraged. Why? Because unlike physical health, mental health has no basis in fact. For thousands of years humanity recognized physical injury and illness as health problems, but emotional fluctuations and misery have simply never been treated as matters of health until the twentieth century. Why? Because until the twentieth century you couldn't just dehumanize people like that. In the old days we told people to destroy the cause of their unhappiness, today we tell them that that cause is "just the way of things" and give them a pill or several. Never do we stop to consider that the unhappy person may be justified in their unhappiness or even actually correct in their judgments of external factors.
In physical health there is a standard of what constitutes "health". That standard is to ask "How far is this person from death?" There is no standard of "death" in mental health, "health" is taken to mean emotions and perceptions appropriate to one's life situation in the eyes of the evaluator.
When we give the power of police enforcement and mandatory hospitalization to anyone we are equating their perceptions with facts, a dangerous proposition even where people are not concerned. Psychology and neurophysiology, like all sciences, become corrupt if their users do not admit their own motivational impurity, do not admit to practicing applied science instead of pure. Thus, the existence of psychiatry, the use of mental sciences to bring about "well adjusted" mental states, as a supposed science is, itself, a travesty.
Why should any particular person by well adjusted to any particular environment? Where did G-d say "Thou shalt FUNCTION!" As others have said, quite often the environment itself is diseased. Environments become diseased precisely because we apply a false ethos that people exist for them and not the other way around. When we bend people to environments instead of environments to people, it is a societal gangrene.
Religious persecution is something we have tried to do away with, and psychiatry is very much a religion. It has tenets it takes on assumption, and derives the rest of its knowledge from them. Thus, only treat the people who agree with that faith. Psychiatric services should by all means be OPTIONAL. Mental sanctity is as much of a right as physical life. In fact, I believe the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights says it IS. When you treat someone against their will, you alter their state of mind against their will and thereby violate their right of mental sanctity.
I have been in the belly of the beast and tell you these things.
Display Thread Check for New Posts
First Post Latest Posts (10835) <
Add a message to this discussion
PreferencesForums HelpSearch Forums
Readers' Opinions > Forums > Health > Mental Health and Treatment
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 02:21:00 AM
Deborah, jeeperz, stop cherry picking.
If the basis of their lawsuit is that an initial
assessment would put a lifetime of harm on their
child, when the info was given just to her, to
share with just her parents, and they had the
choice to do something, or nothing ...
and they chose to go public, public!
If you don't see anything wrong with this picture
then, frankly, I suggest stop posting and sit in your room and listen to your internet radio and talk to yourself! Would you even listen to yourself?
Post by: Deborah on June 15, 2005, 01:23:00 PM
Although school administrators reportedly sent letters home to parents of students invited to take the test, Michael and Teresa Rhoades say they NEVER RECEIVED THE LETTER.
In the tort claim, the family also claims that when Chelsea took the test, she was IMPROPERLY DIAGNOSED with obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. That diagnosis, they claim, caused both the teen and her parents emotional distress, and the family intends to seek the "maximum amount of damages."
Mr. Whitehead went on to explain the complexity of the situation as many of the TeenScreen people are attempting to STEP AROUND FEDERAL LAWS PROTECTING PARENTAL RIGHTS by utilizing SCREENING WITHIN THE CURRICULUM, where parental consent is not required.
At issue is that the school did not obtain the Rhoades' permission. INSTEAD THE SCHOOL HAD THE MINOR CHILD SIGN, GIVING HER PERMISSION TO BE SCREENED USING AN "ASSENT" FORM.
Howard said earlier that information on the test was sent with other material and parents were asked TO RETURN A FORM ONLY IF THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO TAKE THE TEST. (Passive consent)
So, what happens to the parent who does not believe their child has a 'mental illness', therefore does not seek ?help? based on the results of the screening? Do they receive a visit from the friendly folks at CPS?
Going public is often necessary to bring about reasonable and rational change. Had the Rhoades not gone public, do you think the district would be reviewing their policy? I don't think so. Silence is perceived as agreement/consent.
Post by: Paul on June 15, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
come out in the case before rendering any
premature judgements, correct?
A verdict will come, until then it is all
hearsay and press releases.
Post by: Deborah on June 17, 2005, 09:06:00 AM
Mrs. Ayalla Kauffman, a mother of 8 came to Ablechild alleging that her two youngest children were taken by the State of Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for what she was told by the DCFS Caseworker to be A 90 DAY MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION/ SCREENING PERIOD for the girls. When the 90-Day period was up, the State of Illinois DCFS refused to release the two girls back into the care of their mother. Mrs. Kauffman has reported allegations that her two girls are being abused in State care. Mrs. Kauffman states that both her girls have been PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED numerous times to the point of obvious bruising on their bodies. In addition, Mrs. Kauffman has reported that her children are being ADMINISTERED UNAPPROVED AND DANGEROUS PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS WITHOUT HER CONSENT. Many of these drugs have been linked directly to suicide and violence, are unapproved for use in children, and have blackbox warnings on their labels. Mrs. Kauffman has reported that ANY CONTACT WITH HER CHILDREN HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY THE RESIDENTIAL CENTERS AND THE ?TREATING? PSYCHIATRISTS. This is being done EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HAS NOT TERMINATED MRS. KAUFFMAN?S VISITATION WITH HER CHILDREN.
Post by: Deborah on June 17, 2005, 09:07:00 AM
June 16, 2005
Contact: Patricia Weathers 845-677-4118
Sheila Matthews 203-966-8419
Illinois Attorney General's Office Closes Phones to the Public
The State Attorney General's office closed the phones to the public when an onslaught of phone calls flooded in on Thursday regarding the Kau***** children, ages 10 and 13, who are being held by the State of Illinois. These children are being administered psychiatric drugs, some which are not FDA approved for use in children and carry black box warnings on their labels. The State of Illinois never obtained proper and full informed consent prior to "treatment". Parental consent was not given. Mrs. Ayella Kau*****, the girl's mother, was never provided with any valid, objective medical reason why her children are being forced drugged with powerful psychiatric agents.
The State has made several accusations regarding Mrs. Kau*****'s credibility, which they have failed to substantiate. These allegations have stigmatized Mrs. Kau*****and her ability to effectively fight on behalf of her children. A clear example of this is the Chicago Police Department's failure to take Mrs. Kau*****'s many complaints seriously and investigate this urgent matter, jeopardizing her children's safety.
Compelling photographs of Ar***** and Ei**** Kau*****on Ablechild's home page (See http://www.ablechild.org/Kau*****/ameri ... linois.htm (http://www.ablechild.org/Kau*****/american_children_trapped_in%20illinois.htm)) has driven a firestorm into the State Attorney General's Office, leading to the shutdown of phone access for the public and their right to petition its own government.
"It is very sad when a parent asks the State to help improve their parenting skills and they GET THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN FROM THEM and FORCE FED MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS that are not only ineffective, but that are downright dangerous," says Patricia Weathers, President of Ablechild.org a non profit 501c(3) organization.
Post by: Paul on June 17, 2005, 09:49:00 AM
Thanks for posting this, I will follow it,
as I was not aware prior to your post.
Please don't SHOUT when posting articles.
I think everyone on Fornits knows how to
read.
We can figure out the talking points, upper
caps are so annoying it makes me want to skip
your articles, except I know they mean a lot
to you.
If you want to bullet talking points at the
end of each of your cut and pasted posts that
could be a workable alternative.
Paul
Post by: Paul on June 17, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
the hotline established by Chelsea's dad
and find out the volume of calls?
How many parents in that town have jumped
on his bandwagon of complaining about the
TeenScreen Assessment.
From what I recall the article indicated
no one had called, but it has been a week,
perhaps volume is up, or his relevancy is down?
Either way, something must be garnered from
a well intentioned hotline to expose this issue?
Correct?
Post by: Paul on June 18, 2005, 10:42:00 AM
Obviously by your post, and your upper case
selections and perhaps selective snippets
it appears the whole story is not included.
Rarely does every government official and
every residential facility blatently break
the law. Regarding everyone breaking the law
at one, that has probably never happened.
Notes need to be taken for every action and
progress report notes are written up for
any contact with the children. It will sure
be interesting to find out what is happening
in the case.
Hopefully the state does not shout, or use
uppper case so the documents will be easier
to read, allowing the reader to form their
own opinions and conclusions.
If Ayalla Kauffman is acting innapropriately
at the residential facilities they do have
the right to ban a parent. Just like in
public civil disobedience or any crime against
the safety of the public is not tolerated.
I am sure there are notes and rational to each
of the cited incidents. Until they come out,
reaching a conclusion is impossible.
Post by: Paul on June 18, 2005, 10:47:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-17 06:07:00, Deborah wrote:
UPDATE:
June 16, 2005
Contact: Patricia Weathers 845-677-4118
Sheila Matthews 203-966-8419
Illinois Attorney General's Office Closes Phones to the Public
The State Attorney General's office closed the phones to the public when an onslaught of phone calls flooded in on Thursday regarding the Kau***** children, ages 10 and 13, who are being held by the State of Illinois. These children are being administered psychiatric drugs, some which are not FDA approved for use in children and carry black box warnings on their labels. The State of Illinois never obtained proper and full informed consent prior to "treatment". Parental consent was not given. Mrs. Ayella Kau*****, the girl's mother, was never provided with any valid, objective medical reason why her children are being forced drugged with powerful psychiatric agents.
The State has made several accusations regarding Mrs. Kau*****'s credibility, which they have failed to substantiate. These allegations have stigmatized Mrs. Kau*****and her ability to effectively fight on behalf of her children. A clear example of this is the Chicago Police Department's failure to take Mrs. Kau*****'s many complaints seriously and investigate this urgent matter, jeopardizing her children's safety.
Compelling photographs of Ar***** and Ei**** Kau*****on Ablechild's home page (See http://www.ablechild.org/Kau*****/ameri ... linois.htm (http://www.ablechild.org/Kau*****/american_children_trapped_in%20illinois.htm)) has driven a firestorm into the State Attorney General's Office, leading to the shutdown of phone access for the public and their right to petition its own government.
"It is very sad when a parent asks the State to help improve their parenting skills and they GET THEIR CHILDREN TAKEN FROM THEM and FORCE FED MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS that are not only ineffective, but that are downright dangerous," says Patricia Weathers, President of Ablechild.org a non profit 501c(3) organization.
Deborah,
Where is the source of this story, or report. It is a newspaper? Is it from an organization like ablechild.org? Did they use the upper case shouting? Did you?
If it was you, in the future, could you note that these are your special affects?
Is there any newspaper articles that you could post, written by a professional reporter who is skilled in sorting out the fact prior to writing an article?
Post by: Paul on June 18, 2005, 11:05:00 AM
I guess this issue is only at the ablechild.org
level, and has not hit the newspapers.
Deborah, it would probably be fair to the Fornits
readers if you would divulge that these big stories
have not hit the mainstream news as of yet. It would
help the reader to understand the magnitude of the story, and to rely less on your upper case shouts.
Post by: Paul on June 19, 2005, 10:16:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-11 07:13:00, Deborah wrote:
"http://www.wndu.com/news/062005/news_42743.php
Osceola family suing over teen screen survey
In the lawsuit, Teresa and Michael Rhoades, parents of a Penn student, claim the survey was erroneous, improper, and done with reckless disregard for their daughter's welfare.
The lawsuit also claims the Rhoades? did not give the school permission to give the test.
Note in this article: "Steven Bright of Madison Center said no one else has complained about the consent procedure for TeenScreen, which now has been given to about 2,000 local students during the current school year."
I guess this answers how active the Rhoades "hotline" has been ...
http://www.psychsearch.net/teresarhoades.html (http://www.psychsearch.net/teresarhoades.html)
South Bend Tribune (Indiana)
January 19, 2005
Student's parents object to TeenScreen notice
By: DAVID RUMBACH
OSCEOLA -- The parents of a Penn High School sophomore are questioning the passive procedure being used to obtain parental permission for a suicide risk-mental health screening called TeenScreen.
The screening is being given to sophomores in most local high schools this school year. It was given at Penn in December.
Parents at Penn and other schools could withhold their children from the screening by returning a form mailed to their houses. Parents who did not sign the form and return it were considered to have given permission for TeenScreen.
Teresa Rhoades of Osceola says that procedure does not ensure parents are aware of the program and they really intend for their children to participate.
She claims she never received the form and she did not hear about TeenScreen until her daughter came home and told her she had taken it.
"They're assuming that parents are receiving this, reading it and deciding not to send it back,'' she said. "I'm concerned whether parents are really aware of this."
Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp. officials are reviewing the use of passive consent for TeenScreen and expect to announce some changes at a school board meeting next week, said Teresa Carroll, a spokeswoman for the corporation.
Steven Bright of Madison Center said no one else has complained about the consent procedure for TeenScreen, which now has been given to about 2,000 local students during the current school year.
Madison Center, the community mental health agency, is administering the screening on behalf of CONNECT, a pro-education consortium of local agencies.
The screening is voluntary, and students can and do refuse to take it. It consists of a questionnaire that assesses a student for suicide risk, substance abuse and symptoms of common mood disorders.
Students who test positive on the initial questionnaire are asked to meet with a Madison Center therapist for a deeper evaluation that same day. That meeting also is voluntary.
Bright said the use of a passive consent procedure enables TeenScreen to reach a high percentage of students.
It's intended to prevent teen suicides as well as to help parents find mental health professionals who can help their children recover from potentially debilitating mood disorders.
"We would probably see the level of participation drop way off (if active consent were required)," he said. "We're doing this to help kids feel better, to help them be more successful. It's for their betterment.''
Teresa Rhoades and her husband, Michael, said they're upset that their daughter took the screening without their knowledge.
They monitor her activities and personal contacts closely and don't like surprises.
"We want to be sure we know what she's being exposed to,'' Teresa Rhoades said.
"If they go on a field trip, they don't have passive permission,'' Michael Rhoades said. "Isn't this just as important?''
Post by: Paul on June 20, 2005, 02:21:00 AM
"Does Deborah's Anti-Psychiatry posts help anyone?"
This is not even funny!
---
Search: Ablechild.org Scientology
*
Welcome to our Scientology Resource Library!
... Monks to help others - Dec 22, Scientology.org. Scientology Volunteer Ministry launches New Holiday Hope ... of America. AbleChild.org - parents for label-free, drug-free education ...
http://www.liveandgrow.org/ (http://www.liveandgrow.org/)
*
Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)
... http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org). Church of Scientology International. http://www.scientology.org (http://www.scientology.org) ...
http://www.cchr.org/feature/directory (http://www.cchr.org/feature/directory)
*
ablechild/breaking news
Breaking News. Tom Cruise Slams Child Psychiatrists. CRUISE LAUNCHES WAR ON PSYCHIATRISTS ... as part of a week-long special about his scientology beliefs, the movie hunk declares, "I'm going right after psychiatry ...
http://www.ablechild.org/alert.htm (http://www.ablechild.org/alert.htm)
*
Senator John Ensign Takes the Lead in Protecting Children
... On our website alone, http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org) we have over 300 signatures of parents nationwide that have ... established by the Church of Scientology in 1969 to investigate and expose ...
http://www.fightforkids.com/press/030728.htm (http://www.fightforkids.com/press/030728.htm)
*
Parents Call on Senate to Prohibit Coerced Psychiatric Drugging in Schools
... similar abuse and coercion on her website http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org), which was written in support of the Child ... founded by the Church of Scientology in 1969 to investigate and expose ...
http://www.fightforkids.org/press/040510.htm (http://www.fightforkids.org/press/040510.htm)
*
Parenting Quotes
Share This Page. Report Abuse. Edit your Site. Browse Sites. " Previous | Top 100 | Next " Jane's Pages. Parenting Quotes
http://members.tripod.com/janeand6-ivil/id13.html (http://members.tripod.com/janeand6-ivil/id13.html)
*
Bush Signs Legislation Prohibiting Forced Medication of Children
... health watchdog established by the Church of Scientology, in applauding Congress for passing precedent-setting ... http://www.ablechild.org/ (http://www.ablechild.org/) [edit on 04/12/5 by ...
http://www.atsnn.com/story/102597.html (http://www.atsnn.com/story/102597.html)
*
Outside The Beltway : Brooke Shields and Tom Cruise in War of the Words
... However, as a dedicated follower of Scientology, Cruise is of the belief that mind-altering medications of any ... http://www.MINDFREEDOM.ORG (http://www.MINDFREEDOM.ORG). http://www.ORTHOMED.ORG (http://www.ORTHOMED.ORG). http://www.ABLECHILD.ORG (http://www.ABLECHILD.ORG) ...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10811 (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10811)
*
Memos Display Drug Firms
... was particularly unpopular among followers of the Church of Scientology. It was not until this year that ... attacks by the Church of Scientology, which was lobbying to get Prozac ...
http://www.ablechild.org/newsarchive/me ... rug_firm.. (http://www.ablechild.org/newsarchive/memos_display_drug_firm..).
*
Alex Jones Promotes Scientologist
... from ablechild.org, which is a Scientology-affiliated organization. ... 2005, Ablechild.org attended the awards ceremony of this Scientology front group ...
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/ale ... tes_scie.. (http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/alex_jones_promotes_scie..).
*
Welcome to my website
Ralph Waldo Emerson Check out these links Ablechild.org What is REALLY happening to our money...
http://www.captainjakeman.com/ (http://www.captainjakeman.com/)
*
Keyword
Sean Hannity Promotes Church of Scientology Front Group ... http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org) (845) 677-4118 Sheila Matthews National Vice President...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=adhd (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=adhd)
*
Issue: School Violence - Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)
Ablechild.org http://www.Ablechild.org (http://www.Ablechild.org) RitalinDeath.com http://www.RitalinDeath.com (http://www.RitalinDeath.com) ... Privacy Policy Established in 1969 by the Church ofScientology ...
http://www.cchr.org/issues/school/reading/ (http://www.cchr.org/issues/school/reading/)
*
Over 500 Parents Say Schools Coerced Them to Administer Psychiatric Drugs to Children
... Weathers' website, AbleChild.org lists the names of parents who report they've been coerced ... 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate and expose psychiatric violations ...
http://www.fightforkids.org/press/031113.htm (http://www.fightforkids.org/press/031113.htm)
*
Buffalo Scientology Info
And, yes the Church of Scientology likes to take the credit for people?s successes. ... http://www.ablechild.org/data/thelist.asp (http://www.ablechild.org/data/thelist.asp) ...
http://www.buffaloscientologyinfo.com/interview0.html (http://www.buffaloscientologyinfo.com/interview0.html)
*
Over 500 Parents Say Schools Coerced Them to Administer Psychiatric...
Mrs. Weathers' website, AbleChild.org lists the names of parents who report they've been ... in 1969 by the Church of Scientology to investigate...
http://www.fightforkids.com/press/031113.htm (http://www.fightforkids.com/press/031113.htm)
*
Celebrities Urge Senate to Move on Bill Against Forced Psychiatric...
...organization, Parents for a Label and Drug Free Education (AbleChild.org.) She is frequently ... established by the Church of Scientology in...
http://www.cchr.org/press/2004/040229.htm (http://www.cchr.org/press/2004/040229.htm)
*
RehabNZ/ Criminal Rehabilitation. Improving Society. Drugs. Drug Rehabilitation & Training.
Links. Scripps Alcohol Treatment Center. Scripps McDonald Center is a nationally recognized organization dedicated to alcohol treatment. The Vitamins And Nutrition Centre
http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/links.html (http://www.rehabnz.co.nz/pages/links.html)
Post by: Antigen on June 21, 2005, 05:25:00 PM
Subject: Mental screening of children
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:52:22 -0700
June 21, 2005
The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children is under attack. The pharmaceutical industry wants universal mental screening for every child in America, including preschool children. But universal screening alone is not what the pharmaceutical industry wants. The real payoff for the drug companies is the drugging of children that will result -- as we learned tragically with Ritalin -- even when parents refuse!
The drug companies want your children to be "screened." The psychiatric establishment wants to do the "screening." And even a recent presidential commission (New Freedom Commission on Mental Health) supports it all. These
powerful groups want your children "screened" -- whether or not you, as parents, give permission.
Congressman Ron Paul, an OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, is desperately
trying to keep the drug companies, politicians and federal bureaucrats from
becoming parents to your children. Dr. Paul will introduce this week an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2006 that will withhold funds from being used to implement or support any federal, mental screening program.
In a letter to his congressional colleagues, Dr. Paul states: "As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children?s typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin."
If you think this action alert is about something that "can't happen here," think again. In 1995, the state of Texas launched the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. (WorldNetDaily.com, June 21, 2004)
The state of Illinois has also approved a mental health screening program. The Illinois legislature passed the Children?s Mental Health Act of 2003 which will provide screening for "all children ages 0-18" and "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools." In addition, all pregnant women in Illinois are to be screened for depression.
Dr. Karen R. Effrem, a pediatrician and leading opponent of universal screening with EdAction states: "Universal mental health screening and the drugging of children, as recommended by the New Freedom Commission [presidential commission], needs to be stopped so that many thousands if not millions of children will be saved from receiving stigmatizing diagnoses that would follow them for the rest of their lives. America?s school children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses."
Dr. Effrem warns:
1. Parental rights are unclear or non-existent under these screening programs.
2. Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it.
3. Mental health screening does not prevent suicide.
4. Mental health diagnoses are "subjective" and "social constructions" as admitted by the authors of the diagnostic manuals themselves.
5. Most psychiatric medications do not work in children.
6. The side effects of these medications in children are severe.
7. The untoward influence by the pharmaceutical industry, or at least the impropriety, is abundantly clear in two important aspects of this issue.
8. Merging screening with the academic standards required by No Child Left Behind, as is happening in Illinois, will lead to diagnosis for political reasons. School mental health and violence prevention programs funded by NCLB and government counterterrorism operations are already using such criteria as "homophobia" and "defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN" to label school children and US citizens as mentally unstable and violent. (EdAction.org)
Urge your U.S. representative to vote "yes" on the Paul amendment to stop universal mental screening of children. If your U.S. representative does not vote "yes" on the Paul amendment, he or she supports screening your children without your permission -- just as the drug companies want.
The U.S. House will vote on the Paul amendment Thursday or Friday. Send your e-mail message today and call your U.S. representative too. Also, please spread the word.
Send an E-mail Message
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/ ... 51&type=CO (http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/alert/?alertid=7744451&type=CO)
Capitol Switchboard
202-224-3121
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org (http://www.thelibertycommittee.org)
Forgiveness is divine. Forgetfulness is just a mental dysfunction.
--Antigen
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2005, 11:24:00 AM
Treated, the risk drops to 11%.
Lithium is very effective in bipolar children, but the need to closely monitor blood levels, while the child is constantly growing and changing, makes it not necessarily the first line treatment.
Other mood stabilizers control the mood swings just as well, usually, so usually it doesn't come down to needing to go to lithium.
Mania causes brain damage. The longer a child with pediatric bipolar disorder is allowed to be unstable, the more damage their is to the child's frontal lobes, resulting in IQ loss, as well as regression in reading, mathematics, writing---not simply failure to learn, but actual loss of skills already learned. Executive function problems, psychosis, extremely violent bipolar rages that do damage to people or property--rages lasting four to five hours.
Failing to stabilize a bipolar child can mean the difference between learning in school and ultimately being a functional adult with a job, versus total lifelong social security-qualifying disability.
The drugs have risks, but for severe, serious mental illnesses, the risks of the drugs are lower than the risks of leaving the child unstable.
I wouldn't wish my childhood hell of being bipolar without diagnosis or treatment on anyone.
Much that the parents of children with pediatric bipolar disorder have noticed and know from experience is still being researched and documented by the scientific community.
The drugs work. When you can cut your child's risk of suicide in half, you take it.
There are pros and cons to various treatments of other disorders, but for pediatric bipolar disorder, medication is absolutely essential. It makes the difference between a despairing, totally disabled child and a happy, functional child.
Medication doesn't make those of us with bipolar disorder normal, but it does make us more stable and better off than we are without it.
Timoclea
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 04:11:00 PM
I guess ... note the voluntary part (?) ...
perhaps the voluntary guarantees need to
reinforced, that is all - Paul]
Background on the Paul Amendment
NAMI strongly opposes an amendment that will be
offered by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) that would prohibit the use of federal funding for mental health screening.
Mental health screening will save lives.? The
early identification of mental illnesses in youth through screening helps prevent tragedies including youth suicide, youth locked in juvenile detention centers, school dropout and failure and
immeasurable suffering.
Mental illnesses are involved in over 90% of the 30,000 suicides in this country every year.
Contrary to claims by some, no one is calling for
universal or mandatory mental health screening without parental consent. Not President Bush,
not President Bush's New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health, and certainly not mental health advocates -- no one.
Attacks on mental health screening are grounded
in stigma and prejudice. This amendment targets mental illnesses and threatens to drive up
stigma. Stigma is one of the greatest barriers
to individuals accessing treatment for mental illnesses.
President Bush and other national leaders have called for an end to stigma. This amendment must
be defeated to avoid further stigmatizing mental
illnesses.
Our nation has a public health crisis in
unidentified youth with mental illnesses. We only identify 20% of youth with mental illnesses --
thereby failing to identify and intervene with
services for 80% of youth with often tragic consequences.
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 04:27:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 13:11:00, Paul wrote:
NAMI strongly opposes an amendment that will be
offered by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) that would prohibit the use of federal funding for mental health screening.
Naturally! NAMI gets paid too.
Quote
proof?
Mental health screening will save lives.?
Quote
TheAgain, proof?
early identification of mental illnesses in youth through screening helps prevent tragedies including youth suicide, youth locked in juvenile detention centers, school dropout and failure and
immeasurable suffering.
Quote
Most of the suicides I know of occured after years of intense "therapy".
Mental illnesses are involved in over 90% of the 30,000 suicides in this country every year.
Quote
Bullshit! How many people are even vaguely aware that DARE (theoretically) requires parental consent? Schoolpeople don't obey their own laws. They just roll overy anyone who doesn't put up a fight.
Contrary to claims by some, no one is calling for
universal or mandatory mental health screening without parental consent.
Quote
Not President Bush,
not President Bush's New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health, and certainly not mental health advocates -- no one.
If politicians are the best you can do, you're really scrapping bottom here.
Quote
And prescience. Read Gulag Archipelago.
Attacks on mental health screening are grounded
in stigma and prejudice.
Quote
This amendment targets mental illnesses and threatens to drive upAnd prescience. Read Gulag Archipelago.
stigma. Stigma is one of the greatest barriers
to individuals accessing treatment for mental illnesses.
Quote
And we all know that presidential edicts are effective. What color is the sky on your planet?
President Bush and other national leaders[sic] have called for an end to stigma.
Quote
This amendment mustBut... you just said the screening would drive up this stigma?? So.... again, what color is the sky on your world? Is it nice there? Bet they don't have chocolate!
be defeated to avoid further stigmatizing mental
illnesses.
Quote
Our nation has a public health crisis in
unidentified youth with mental illnesses. We only identify 20% of youth with mental illnesses --
thereby failing to identify and intervene with
services for 80% of youth with often tragic consequences."
I think our nation has a crisis w/ altruistic tyrants who carry the delusion that everybody's crazy and in need of their "help". Delusions of grandeur, anyone?
Paul, you remind me very much of every other Program proponant I've ever met. Asking you about the psyche industry is like asking a barber if I need a haircut. Except that I never asked you, you just came along. No barber has ever done that to me before.... wait, there was this one hairdresser who was tabling at a weekend festival in Florida many years ago. Insisted on braiding my hair for free as advertisement. I TOLD him my ears stick out too much for that. Did he listen? No, he did not! I finally just let him do the deed and then took it down once I got a safe distance from him.
Zealots suck!
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense...
-- John Adams, (1788)
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2005, 04:48:00 PM
One way I can think of to do that is to offer the screening a couple of times a year on a Saturday at the school.
Want it? Show up. Don't want it? Don't.
Timoclea
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
would not interfer with regular classes,
and going in to school on a different day
would contribute to the voluntariness of it.
Ginger, speaking of voluntariness, jeeperz.
Speaking of being a zeolot. What do you want
laws when they are convenient to you, and
civil disobedience when they are not?
You quote the COS dogma in your posts such
as "powerful brain altering" medications,
yet, you want the freedom for all drugs to
be legal.
You identify troubled people in therapy
often commit suicide, duh, I wonder why
they where in therapy?
Did anyone state that therapy is 100%
Is your protocol of doing nothing a 100%
Homeschooling, is that the answer? Perhaps
for the fringe, how about for the whole
population. Yes, no? If so, how to manage
that?
Stating that all statistics are in question
is too much. So I guess you are right, there
is no problem, medication cause mental illness
and no one goes to jail ...
Welcome to GingerWorld ...
Frankly now, what is wrong with teaching people
their rights, rather than bitching about that
no one knows their rights?
I suggested people on Fornits get involved, all
I got back was criticism.
Perhaps that is why the behavioral boarding schools that you all hate so much are still
doing business as usual.
Complaining and over stating the negatives is not
going to improve any system and will not help educate the masses.
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 06:41:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 13:27:00, Antigen wrote:
"Quote
Ginger to respond to your hystria type responses is a little ridiculous, but what the heck.
On 2005-06-22 13:11:00, Paul wrote:
NAMI strongly opposes an amendment that will be
offered by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) that would prohibit the use of federal funding for mental health screening.
Naturally! NAMI gets paid too.
Most people get paid.Quote
Mental health screening will save lives.?
proof?
The data presented to the Freedom Commission.
Prove that not helping is better?Quote
The
early identification of mental illnesses in youth through screening helps prevent tragedies including youth suicide, youth locked in juvenile detention centers, school dropout and failure and
immeasurable suffering.
Again, proof?
Again, being a critic is the easiest role one can have. What is your suggestion?Quote
Mental illnesses are involved in over 90% of the 30,000 suicides in this country every year.
Most of the suicides I know of occured after years of intense "therapy".Quote
Ginger, must I tell you that sick people get therapy. People are sick then go to therapy. They
do not go to therapy healthy, then get sick.
Contrary to claims by some, no one is calling for
universal or mandatory mental health screening without parental consent.
Bullshit!
Well, damn, that is just what the law states,
voluntary ...
How many people are even vaguely aware that DARE (theoretically) requires parental consent?
What are you doing about this? Only criticism?
Schoolpeople don't obey their own laws. They just roll overy anyone who doesn't put up a fight.Quote
Again, there is the law, and there are rights and protections. What are you doing?
Not President Bush,
not President Bush's New Freedom Commission on
Mental Health, and certainly not mental health advocates -- no one.
If politicians are the best you can do, you're really scrapping bottom here.
What? Is there someone else passing laws?Quote
Attacks on mental health screening are grounded
in stigma and prejudice.
And prescience. Read Gulag Archipelago.
That would not be a very good reference. The US
in 2005 is not comparable to the USSR between 1918-1956.Quote
This amendment targets mental illnesses and threatens to drive up
stigma. Stigma is one of the greatest barriers
to individuals accessing treatment for mental illnesses.
And prescience. Read Gulag Archipelago.
Again, not relevant.Quote
President Bush and other national leaders[sic] have called for an end to stigma.
And we all know that presidential edicts are effective. What color is the sky on your planet?Quote
OK, now our leaders shouldn't even try, correct?
Instead your solution is?
This amendment must
be defeated to avoid further stigmatizing mental
illnesses.
But... you just said the screening would drive up this stigma?? So.... again, what color is the sky on your world? Is it nice there? Bet they don't have chocolate!Quote
I believe they are referring to passing the costs on to the states, counties, local school districts and perhaps parents. The controversy resulting from this bill would keep in on the front pages. I think this is what they are referring to, and hmm, my world, my sky, is mostly mental health meetings where I go to help from the inside, not criticize from the outside.
Our nation has a public health crisis in
unidentified youth with mental illnesses. We only identify 20% of youth with mental illnesses --
thereby failing to identify and intervene with
services for 80% of youth with often tragic consequences."
I think our nation has a crisis w/ altruistic tyrants who carry the delusion that everybody's crazy and in need of their "help". Delusions of grandeur, anyone?
Again, for those going to jail and/or committing suicide or those doing terrible in life due to illness, your solution ... your solution ... your contribution.
Delusions of grandeur? How about your statement:
"everybody's crazy and in need of their "help""
Do you also believe the screening has an automatic mental illness outcome. Every person?
Where did you read that? Or did you not mean to state "everybody's" ?
Paul, you remind me very much of every other Program proponant I've ever met. Asking you about the psyche industry is like asking a barber if I need a haircut. Except that I never asked you, you just came along. No barber has ever done that to me before.... wait, there was this one hairdresser who was tabling at a weekend festival in Florida many years ago. Insisted on braiding my hair for free as advertisement. I TOLD him my ears stick out too much for that. Did he listen? No, he did not! I finally just let him do the deed and then took it down once I got a safe distance from him.
Yup, your tale is relevant, thanks.
Probably every other program proponant you met mentioned voluntary choices and built in protections ... that must really piss you off!
Zealots suck!
Are you referring you you, or me?Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense...
-- John Adams, (1788)
"
By the way, quotes like this are cute, but not usually relevant. Of course, you can post whatever you want, it is all voluntary. Just as carrying arms today is voluntary ...
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 06:48:00 PM
http://www.nmha.org/newsroom/system/lal ... vw&rid=705 (http://www.nmha.org/newsroom/system/lal.vw.cfm?do=vw&rid=705)
Contact: Ralph Ibson, Government Affairs, at 202-675-8388 or http://www.congress.org (http://www.congress.org)
o Enter your ZIP code
o Select the appropriate Member of Congress
o Click on the e-mail address and a message form will appear that you can fill out (including by cutting and pasting the message above)
Post by: Anonymous on June 22, 2005, 07:17:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 07:20:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 15:41:00, Paul wrote:
And prescience. Read Gulag Archipelago.
That would not be a very good reference. The US
in 2005 is not comparable to the USSR between 1918-1956.
History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes. There are a good many legit comparisons between the US today and the early USSR. Even Orwell, who was more than a little fond of some of Uncle Joe's ideas, warned us about government shrinks.
"When did I realize it? Well, one day I was praying and suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
--God
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 07:27:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 15:08:00, Paul wrote:
Ginger, speaking of voluntariness, jeeperz.
Speaking of being a zeolot. What do you want
laws when they are convenient to you, and
civil disobedience when they are not?
Convenient? No, lots of good, sound laws are often inconvenient. But unjust laws should not be upheld.
Quote
You quote the COS dogma in your posts such
as "powerful brain altering" medications,
yet, you want the freedom for all drugs to
be legal.
First, you must be quoting someone else. I didn't say that. And second, YES!!! It should be (actually, according to our constitution, is on the federal level) perfectly legal to take or not take any particular drug or treatment. That's not just a good idea, it's the law. Any agency or contractor who tells you otherwise is misguided or dishonest (usually misguided)
"The sadist cannot stand the separation of the public and the private; nor can he grant to others the mystery of their personality, the validity of their inner self...in order for him to feel his maximum power, he wants the world to be peopled with concrete manipulatable objects... "
-- ERNEST BECKER, The Structure of Evil, 1968.
Why have you got such a problem w/ personal liberty and responsibility? Why must you invoke force of law to make sure everybody else is taking the drugs you think they should take and not taking the drugs you don't think they should take? "The New Freedom" init is just about the most Orwelian turn of a phrase I've heard lately. I want the OLD freedom back, damn it!
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 07:48:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 16:20:00, Antigen wrote:
Even Orwell, who was more than a little fond of some of Uncle Joe's ideas, warned us about government shrinks.
Ginger,
Look, no matter how many times I say voluntary,
with protections and you ignore me, is not my
choice, it is yours.
When you make this kind of reference, I guess
you are trying to tell me shrinks are bad. No
matter how many times I post that I have been
helped by shrinks and it was all voluntary.
How to make your points irrelevent? Speak in
absolute terms, tell a safisfied customer they
are wrong ...
Thanks but no thanks ...
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 07:51:00 PM
Quote
Why have you got such a problem w/ personal liberty and responsibility? Why must you invoke force of law to make sure everybody else is taking the drugs you think they should take and not taking the drugs you don't think they should take? "The New Freedom" init is just about the most Orwelian turn of a phrase I've heard lately. I want the OLD freedom back, damn it!Quote
I always state voluntary, with protections.
You ignore my statements.
How much credit would you like when you make
statements like these, hysteria, based on what
I say, when you ignore what I state.
Voluntary, with protections ...
Hello?
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 08:03:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 16:51:00, Paul wrote:
I always state voluntary, with protections.
You ignore my statements.
How much credit would you like when you make
statements like these, hysteria, based on what
I say, when you ignore what I state.
Voluntary, with protections ...
Hello?"
Well, if you make rediculous statements, you should not expect to gain credibility by it.
There is nothing voluntary about this New Stalinist mental health plan. The funding certainly isn't voluntary. Unless the Paul amendment passes, they're going to take it from us by force of law. And you can't POSSIBLY believe that anything that happens in the environment of compulsory schools is voluntary in any meaningful way.
Kids are trained right from their first day of Head Start to do as instructed by their teachers and other faculty and staff. And they generally do. So that, when my daughter was called out of class along w/ a couple of other kids to get a Hep C vaccination in 8th grade, do you think she objected? Hell no! She didn't even bother to mention it to me till some days later when the topic of vaccinations came up.
How niave are you, Paul?
Never mind.
On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 08:04:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 16:48:00, Paul wrote:
On 2005-06-22 16:20:00, Antigen wrote:
"Quote
Even Orwell, who was more than a little fond of some of Uncle Joe's ideas, warned us about government shrinks.
Ginger,
Look, no matter how many times I say voluntary,
with protections and you ignore me, is not my
choice, it is yours.
When you make this kind of reference, I guess
you are trying to tell me shrinks are bad. No
matter how many times I post that I have been
helped by shrinks and it was all voluntary.
How to make your points irrelevent? Speak in
absolute terms, tell a safisfied customer they
are wrong ...
Thanks but no thanks ..."
To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a little better; whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is the meaning of success.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 08:07:00 PM
How frigging stupid can you be? Have you never read a newspaper? Or, let me rephrase that, have you never read a newspaper twice, some months or years apart, and maybe noticed that terms like "voluntary" coming from politicians are .... well, quietly discarded like last year's campaign promises?
I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his own way.
--Robert Frost, American poet
Post by: Paul on June 22, 2005, 08:15:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 17:07:00, Antigen wrote:
How frigging stupid can you be?
Ginger,
Here is how stupid I am.
I am an upaid mental health advocate.
People call me. I give them info on information
that they want, only.
I know the people in San Diego County and at the
State level who insure that voluntary, means voluntary. You can sit on your computer and state that all voluntary is in-voluntary all you want.
Voluntary is voluntary. If it is not then the person files a complaint, grievence or a simple informal inquiry and resolves the issue, and the bottom line does not do something they don't want to do.
If they don't complain, or inquire how can they be helped. If they don't eat, that is their choice to. If a friggin letter is mailed to their house asking them to call if they want to opt out, where is the mandatory.
What examples are you talking about to speak in such absolute terms that voluntary is never voluntary?
Would you like me to tell all the other advocates, consumer and professionals that are involved in mental health that our voluntary programs are a hoax?
Please Ginger, you are getting juvenile.
If you want to expend some energy, help someone
understand the laws and how to say no. I wouldn't tell them these absolute statements and feel like your helping ...
Paul
Post by: Antigen on June 22, 2005, 09:04:00 PM
Is that too much to ask? Keep you Machiavellian mitts off my kid, mindfucker!
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
--Thomas Paine, American revolutionary
Post by: Paul on June 23, 2005, 12:15:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 18:04:00, Antigen wrote:
"Ok, if it's voluntary, then I do not volunteer to pay for it. If you're so damned interested in getting a psyche eval on every kid, pregnant woman and school faculty member in the country, then I suggest you knock off the volunteer work, get a real well paying job and foot the bill yourself.
Is that too much to ask? Keep you Machiavellian mitts off my kid, mindfucker!
Whatever. I am just glad you revealed yourself
to me, I don't notice these things on my own.
Post by: Antigen on June 23, 2005, 12:32:00 AM
Do a little experiment. Just ask around ppl you know who have had contact w/ middle schools in the last 15 years or so. Ask them if they gave consent to have their kids involved in the DARE program. Shit, just ask them what the DARE program is. Most ppl don't even know that it's a psychological program requiring parental consent. Most people think it's just another class, oddly "taught" by a cop who's usually not certified either as a teacher or as a therapist.
Go ahead and look it up. Then talk to me about voluntary psyche programs administered by the NEA.
To say the drug war is a failure is like saying the Hindenburg was short a few fire extinguishers.
Carl Hiassen
Post by: Paul on June 23, 2005, 12:46:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 21:32:00, Antigen wrote:
"It's very clear to me that there's a LOT you don't notice. NOthing mandated by law is actually voluntary.
If all you say is true, and you slice the reality from people's experience, then do something about it.
Posting and hosting Fornits is ok to rant.
What about doing something meaninful and pointing
out these flaws that are noticeable to you, and
may or may not be noticed by others?
Post by: Antigen on June 23, 2005, 12:53:00 AM
Anyway, thought you might find this interesting. Take a look at this document. http://www.asapstudy.org/teachers/EducatorsKit.pdf (http://www.asapstudy.org/teachers/EducatorsKit.pdf) Search for the term "consent". Note that it only occures once as a question. No trace of an answer. And what does the term 'usability' in this context mean anyway?
Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray
Post by: Paul on June 23, 2005, 05:51:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-22 21:53:00, Antigen wrote:
"Um, I do.
Anyway, thought you might find this interesting. Take a look at this document. http://www.asapstudy.org/teachers/EducatorsKit.pdf (http://www.asapstudy.org/teachers/EducatorsKit.pdf) Search for the term "consent". Note that it only occures once as a question. No trace of an answer. And what does the term 'usability' in this context mean anyway?Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut? --
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
--Judge James P. Gray
"
I am going out of town for a couple of days,
no time to read it now.
I am glad you do something about the educational system.
Post by: Paul on June 23, 2005, 05:52:00 AM
brought up a second program, for drug abuse.
What are your solutions?
Post by: Paul on June 23, 2005, 06:21:00 AM
When you lash out at me, it reminds me of today's quote from the Scientology post:
http://www.lermanet2.com/scientologynew ... lat-1c.htm (http://www.lermanet2.com/scientologynews/latimes/lat-1c.htm) "If you remained in awe of him ... he was great," said Sullivan, who had a falling out with the church in 1981. "If you crossed him, or appeared to cross him, he would lash out at you, scream at you, accuse you of things."
It would be nice just to stay on topic rather than be insulted, accused and deflected to analyzing other programs to prove your points.
Gotta go,
Paul
Post by: Anonymous on June 23, 2005, 10:56:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on June 23, 2005, 01:46:00 PM
The county mental health in the county I lived in helped me get my life back together and on track for where I wanted it to go.
The therapist was a bit of an idiot, but the psychiatrist was competent.
And they didn't come to me, I went to them.
I'm glad they were there.
I guess that's one of those "your mileage may vary" things.
Maybe what we need are computerized, anonymous client satisfaction surveys at county mental health facilities. If you use one computer program nationally, you can ensure computer based surveys are more anonymous and tamper-proof than any other kind of survey, because there's no handwriting or piece of paper to potentially be identifiable and able to be associated with a particular client.
[technical description]
All you really have to do is make the survey data inaccessible to the facility staff and have it extracted and tabulated centrally when they pick up the survey's detached hard drive. Keeping them out of the data is simple. Use Oracle, stick it on a detachable hard drive, password the system, use the card system they use for computerized voting, with signed stubbs, to ensure the surveys are only filled out by the clients--do random audits since the clients' signatures are on the privacy documents in their files and available for comparison--it will keep the facilities honest with the stubs. Then only provide a data input interface program to the facilities and no data reporting interface. Only a decent database programmer could figure out how to query the system and tabulate the data themselves, they *still* wouldn't get individually identifiable data unless they ran a query immediately after every single client completed the survey, and even a database programmer or DBA at the client facility (which they won't have) couldn't get on the system because they don't have the system manager password--which you can make a long string of random characters, and log intrusion attempts, because you can write down the system manager passwords at your centralized location that none of the facility staff ever have access to.
[technical description ends]
Use the customer statisfaction surveys to identify what the good facilities are doing right, and the bad ones are doing wrong, to fix the bad ones. Give states money in block grants contingent on their scores on client satisfaction.
Obviously, you'd put in safeguards to keep them from turning away the harder-to-please cases. Like tabulating satisfaction sorted by demographics like diagnosis, etc.
Rather than just complaining about county mental health, work to fix it.
I've been part of successful efforts to get legislation changed. It really *can* be done.
You *can* fight city hall. And win.
You just have to know how and be willing to put the work in.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on June 23, 2005, 02:04:00 PM
Do it on Saturday, don't use school personnel, just use the school building. Have the same personnel rotate to different schools on different Saturdays.
Forbid faculty and staff from being on campus that Saturday to safeguard the students' privacy and the truly voluntary nature of the process.
I don't think people who object to abortion should get a choice about paying for the abortions or morning after pills of impoverished rape victims.
I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. Early screening and treatment *for the families that want it* is part of keeping the streets safe--falls under roads, fire stations, and police kinds of services. So yes, I think it's okay to use your taxes for it.
On the other hand, I *don't* think it's okay to take your taxes for compulsory education without *you* getting to pick the school your tax dollars for your child goes to. And I think people without children, or whose school taxes more than pay for their own kids, should be able to stipulate what other general classes of school are acceptable to them as recipients of their tax money. So if X dollars' worth of taxpayers specify that all religious schools or particular ones are A-okay with them, use a lottery to issue vouchers to the parents of needy children who apply to go to those kinds of schools on a matching basis.
So if Warren Buffett (sp?) is okay with religious schools, then let some random poor person who wants to use them use *his* taxes to go there.
It leaves government totally neutral towards religion, protects the public interest in an educated voting base and taxpayer base, and allows the taxpayers maximum choice over *how* their money is spent on that end.
Computerization makes all sorts of tabulation of taxpayer intent easier. I have no problem with having a *general* mental health budget and letting people checkbox the programs they're okay with for that portion of their tax dollars.
Which would let you keep *your* tax dollars from going to truly voluntary screening, but would not let you keep *my* tax dollars from going towards it.
I don't have a problem at all with allowing voters to choose line-item targetting of their own tax dollars if they *choose* to fill out a long extra survey schedule in electronically filing their taxes---letting them opt into this and out of that.
Unfortunately, usually when someone says they want to keep *their* tax dollars from going towards something, it's code that means they want to keep *my* tax dollars from going towards it, too.
That's certainly the case with abortion rights for impoverished women.
In practice, it would work out like the United Way---they budget it where they want, and if you opt your contribution out of a particular charity, they redistribute the contributions of the people who are okay with any of it to make up the difference.
But if you truly just want to opt out *your* tax dollars from it, and not forbid others from opting in *theirs*---then that shouldn't be a problem for you.
Timoclea
Post by: Anonymous on June 23, 2005, 02:07:00 PM
Timoclea
Post by: Antigen on June 23, 2005, 02:56:00 PM
Look, ya'll must at least admit that the "state of the art" of mental health is not exactly up to par w/ hard fact-based science. We're only guessing, when it really comes down to it. There are so many different theories in practice, there is no proven set of best practices. No two shrinks or talk therapists can even agree w/ one another on a dx most of the time, let alone on recomendations.
Therefore, no matter what kinds of self help books you force us all to buy or what kind of dx criteria you force us to pay for (& Etc.), a signific segment of us (us who pay these bills and live w/ the results) will be supporting ideas and practices which we find repugnant, offensive and harmful. This includes YOU, as a tax payer.
Mental health is not even a definable objective. We can't even describe what we're trying to accomplish. How in the world can you even entertain the notion of imposing some vague, undefined mandate on all of us?
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
--Frederic Bastiat -- 1801-1850
Post by: Nihilanthic on June 23, 2005, 07:33:00 PM
Quote
Mental health is not even a definable objective. We can't even describe what we're trying to accomplish. How in the world can you even entertain the notion of imposing some vague, undefined mandate on all of us?
Ashcroft apparently went about to impose a vague, undefined mandate, and according to him, actually succeeded in doing so!
Tough Love: Abuse of a type particularly enjoyable to the abuser, in that it combines the pleasures of sadism with those of self-righteousness. Commonly employed and widely admired in 12-step groups.
--Chaz Bufe
Post by: Antigen on June 23, 2005, 07:41:00 PM
Message: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy81.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy81.html)
Parents Must Assert Rights Over School Authorities
by Wendy McElroy
by Wendy McElroy
"How often does your 6th-grade daughter have oral sex?"
If the question offends you, then talk to the school officials at Shrewsbury, Mass. But don't expect a sympathetic response.
When Mark Fisher protested quizzing his 12-year-old daughter about oral sex (among other topics), the school authorities asserted their right to gather such information without his consent.
The questionnaire is not limited to Massachusetts; it is nationwide. And the 'problem' is not the gathering of information but the denial of parental rights and reasonable concerns.
The Shrewsbury questionnaire is part of The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) that was established in 1990 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to monitor youth behaviors that influence health.
The CDC website offers a 22-page version of the YRBS, which consists of 87 questions. Seven questions address sexual behavior. For example, the posted questionnaire asks, "How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?" And, was a condom used?
Past this point, the facts become confused. For one thing, there is no mention of oral sex on the CDC site. Nevertheless, each school district selected to participate in the YRBS is able to add or subtract questions.
Given that Shrewsbury has refused to release its version of the questionnaire, parents quite reasonably suspect the worst. Without disclosure of the survey to parents or the public, Fisher's claim that students are asked to identify themselves as heterosexual, gay or bisexual stands.
For another thing, the national YRBS claims to report upon student in the 9th through 12th grades. Fisher's daughter is in the 6th grade, where students are typically 11 or 12 years old. However, other reports ? from Planned Parenthood, for example ? tend to confirm that 6th graders are being surveyed. In Shrewsbury students in grades 6, 8, 9 and 11 took part.
Without parental oversight and with school authorities unwilling to disclose questionnaires, no one really knows what information is being gathered.
Or rather, from the posted form, some things are clear. School authorities wish to know if parents have committed an illegal action.
Question 10: "During the past 30 days, how many times did you ride in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol?"
Authorities also wish to know if your child has committed an illegal act.
Question 45: "How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time?"
The posted form admonishes, "DO NOT write your name on this survey. The answers you give will be kept private." But government information is notoriously non-private and teachers are easily able to identify respondents.
Moreover, confidentiality tends to erode easily when issues of child endangerment and criminal conduct are raised. (Does anyone believe that a child who circles "6 or more times" for Question 14 ? "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property?" ? will not have his or her file tagged?)
Nevertheless, the crux of the matter is not whether information on 11-year-olds will be kept private. It is: Does the government have a right to side-step parental consent and collect such information about children of any age without parental permission? (By "such information" I mean highly personal data and/or data that could possibly lead to criminal prosecution.)
That is what Fisher is demanding of the Massachusetts' Department of Education: active parental involvement. At this point, state law requires parents to explicitly exempt their children from programs involving sexuality. Fisher is fighting for a bill that requires parental permission before children are included.
Explicit permission is particularly important in situations where parents seem to be ? in Fisher's words ? "kept in the dark."
School committee President Deborah Peeples reportedly explained that parents are permitted to view the survey but they are not allowed to take a copy home. Why? "It might be misinterpreted or misunderstood or they could use it to direct their children's responses," Peeples said.
In short, parents might discuss the sexual (and other) topics with their children.
Clearly, the school does not think such discussion is appropriate; conversation about the sexual survey is not appropriate between parent and children but should remain between government and child.
What can concerned parents do?
My immediate solution is to remove your child from the public school system and homeschool, if possible. (The long-term solution is to privatize education.)
If you are unable to do so, then you should aggressively demand to see every survey and government form your child is filling out. YRBSS is a nationwide survey, conducted every two years. These and other forms may follow your child for the rest of his or her life.
Do not believe that authorities, under the promise of privacy, will take no note if your child confesses to experimenting with drugs ? Questions 44 to 56. Tell your children to never incriminate themselves.
Do not willingly give your money to schools that deny parental rights. On June 9, Shrewsbury voters overwhelmingly defeated a $1.5 million tax increase that would have boosted finances to school programs. Although school funding measures are almost always defeated for financial reasons, use the occasion of a vote to voice your discontent.
What happens to your children matters. Be nosy about the forms they fill out; demand to review the information officials want; when in doubt, refuse permission; know the content of school programs.
Be a nuisance. Be bossy. Be a genuine pain in the tuckus. In short, be a parent. That's what your child needs.
June 23, 2005
Wendy McElroy [send her mail] is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002).
I tried for years to live according to everyone else's morality.
I tried to live like everyone else, to be like everyone else.
I said the right things even when I felt and thought quite differently.
And the result is a catastrophe.
---Albert Camus
Post by: Deborah on June 24, 2005, 10:22:00 PM
Character Education Partnership: NJCCE First Affiliate Site for CEP Educator Training in Character Education
6/16/2005 1:58:00 PM
To: National and State desks, Education Reporter
Contact: Evelyn Fine of Character Education Partnership, 202-296-7743 ext. 21, or Philip M. Brown of New Jersey Center for Character Education, 732-445-7504
WASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Character Education Partnership (CEP), a Washington DC-based organization dedicated to developing young people of good character who become responsible and caring citizens, and the New Jersey Center for Character Education at Rutgers University (NJCCE) signed a formal agreement establishing the NJCCE as the first affiliate site for CEP educator training in character education.
The training, based on CEP's Eleven Principles of Effective Character Education Sourcebook,(tm) has been nationally delivered exclusively by CEP and has a strong focus in providing educators with the tools for building a school culture for positive character development. The affiliation with NJCCE at Rutgers will increase significantly the opportunities for high quality professional development for character educators in the state of New Jersey. New Jersey has supported character education for more than ten years. More than 886,000 students currently are enrolled in public schools that have character education programs. NJCCE is part of the Center for Applied Psychology within the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology.
"Our affiliation with NJCCE at Rutgers marks our entry into the arena of state affiliates for the teacher training market. This offering enhances our other products and publications, in-service teacher training, the National Schools of Character award, and the educational and informational offerings at our October Forum," said Bob Sherman, President and CEO of CEP. "It's an important first step in our continuing expansion of these services."
"It is an honor for NJCCE to serve as the first affiliate for CEP. We have always looked to CEP as the standard setter for the character education field," stated Philip M. Brown, Ph.D., director of NJCCE. "We look forward to assisting CEP to broaden its reach and to this opportunity to deepen our common commitment to supporting the implementation of high quality character education programs and services that will impact the lives of educators and young people."
The program will begin in July 2005.
------
The Character Education Partnership is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, and nonsectarian coalition of companies, educators and community organizations working to make universal values an integral part of the K-16 curriculum and school culture. CEP is dedicated to developing young people of good character who become responsible and caring citizens.
http://www.usnewswire.com/ (http://www.usnewswire.com/)
Post by: Anonymous on June 24, 2005, 10:38:00 PM
Signed,
Another Billionaire for Bush
Post by: Deborah on June 24, 2005, 10:46:00 PM
Ronald Reagan, our beloved "Gipper", said it best, "The most frightening words in the English language; I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."
Those who are convinced that they were placed on Earth to properly instruct and guide the remainder of us dummies are at it again. Never mind a "label" that may cripple a youngster for the remainder of his life, the important part is that the kid was screwed up with the best of intentions. Mental Health screening might be much more usefully employed on these people who come up with these brainstorms; it is obvious that they have far too much time on their hands and too little regard for those of us who are paying the bills.
What is needed, and at the earliest opportunity, is a bill to rescind this piece of legislative claptrap. In today's Chicago Sun-Times, Mayor Richard M. Daley tried to "celebrate" the fact that 43.7% of Chicago elementary school students can read at their grade level. There is no doubt in my mind where the mental health screening is most needed and it ain't the kids.
Joseph Volpendesta
Beach Park
Post by: Deborah on June 24, 2005, 11:04:00 PM
Given the police state we find ourselves living in, parents should consider sending a copy of the forms at the link above, or something similar, to their child's school to keep in their records.
Really good information re: parental/student rights.
This one is particularly good:
To: Any agent, officer, or representative of the government
From: ( childs name )
If you have found this, or been presented with this, then you are holding me against my will. I wish to be released at once. If you believe you have legal reason for still holding me, then it must be for one of two reasons:
1. You believe I have information relevant to a case and/or investigation and need my assistance. I am happy to comply and will in no way obstruct justice. Simply type up your questions and contact my parent/s at (parents number) and upon review by them and and any attorney they so choose, I will answer any and all that they and their attorney advise me to. Please do not argue about this, or it will delay the investigation, and neither of us wants that.
2. You believe that I have committed a crime. I want to speak with my parent/s and/or the attorney they provide me, and do not wish to answer any questions or make any statement until I do. You may contact them at (parents number).
While doing those things, please see to it that I am given food, drink and bathroom breaks frequently, as I will not ask. Please do not ask that I fill out, sign, initial, check off, or in anyway mark anything for any reason. I have been forbidden to do this by my parent/s until they and/or their attorney, can review any such documents. Finally, please do not interpret my silence as rudeness, guilt, retardation or anything else but what it is - obedience to my parent/s and their attorney
Place your phone numbers and friends also lawyers number here.
Post by: Antigen on June 25, 2005, 05:59:00 PM
http://xatiguy.blogspot.com/ (http://xatiguy.blogspot.com/)
Fear believes--courage doubts. Fear falls up the earth and prays--- courage stands erect and thinks. Fear is barbarism---courage is civilization. Fear believes in witchcraft, devils and ghosts. Fear is religion, courage is science.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
Post by: Paul on June 25, 2005, 07:07:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-24 20:04:00, Deborah wrote:
"http://witchylady6.tripod.com/fightingforparentalrights/id22.html
Given the police state we find ourselves living in, parents should consider sending a copy of the forms at the link above, or something similar, to their child's school to keep in their records.
Really good information re: parental/student rights.
Thanks for posting a solution!
Post by: Antigen on June 26, 2005, 05:21:00 PM
The first time she actually ran into a situation where I would want her to whip that out, she was so intimidated and frightened that she didn't even think about it. And I discovered, over time, that she had been taking a very different meaning from our discussions on the topic of abuse of authority than what we intended.
It's a subtle and complex issue for a kid to grasp. We want them to respect legitimate authority and their elders by default. We just don't want them to blindly follow illigitimate dictates or instructions that work against their own best interest. So what to do? They are, in fact, kids; unable as yet to make those judgements on their own w/ degree of consistencey. That's why we don't let them vote, drive or enter into legally binding contracts.
I think the ultimate answer is to keep your kids w/ you as much as practical while they're young. Show them by example how to treat authority figures, how to respectfully question them when appropriate and how to stand up for themselves. Hopefully, by the time they approach adulthood and quit taking all of your advice by default, they'll have some clear idea of their own about how to handle themselves.
So, rather than print a card, I just remind my kids often that, if they're ever flumoxed, intimidated or confused, they should just say "Call my mom, here's the number."
I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.
--Isaac Asimov, Russian-born American author
Post by: Paul on June 26, 2005, 07:22:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-26 14:21:00, Antigen wrote:
It's a subtle and complex issue for a kid to grasp.
So, rather than print a card, I just remind my kids often that, if they're ever flumoxed, intimidated or confused, they should just say "Call my mom, here's the number."
Excellent perspective, and simple solution to avoid
a manipulation!
Post by: 001010 on June 27, 2005, 06:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-05 12:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"In the 2005-2006 school year, all parents will receive written notice of new policies from your children?s schools. Many schools will ask you to sign permission slips, allowing school counselors or ?advocates? to have conversations with your children. You will be told how your local schools are now involved in vision and dental screenings, learning disabilities and speech impediment screenings, and other acts of kindness, but watch for the small print or the extra little blurb, which states that your children will also be evaluated for emotional wellness. Watch for wording like ?happiness indicators? or ?family participation.?
The fact is that our president has mandated that every American child, age 3 through 18, is federally ordered to be evaluated for mental health issues and to receive ?enforced? treatment. Welcome to President Bush?s New Freedom Initiative and New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Welcome to life-long profiling and drug addictions, New Freedom-style.
52 million students and six million adults working in schools, according to this commission, will be tested and should flush out at least 6 million people, or shall we say new customers, who will then be mandated to receive ?treatment.? What treatment does our president?s commission have in mind? The newest drugs in the pharmaceutical pipelines, of course. The commission recommends ?specific medications for specific conditions.?
One of the state-of-the-art treatments, and most expensive, is an implanted capsule ? yes, that?s right, implanted. The capsule delivers medication into a child?s body without the child having to swallow a pill or the need for parental permission for dispensation.
The New Freedom Commission named the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) a model treatment plan. Medical algorithms are a flowchart-style treatment indicator. If you have A symptom and B symptom, take C medication. TMAP began with the University of Texas, big pharma, and the mental health and corrections system in Texas. The American Psychiatric Association concurs that TMAP is brilliant.
However, the New Freedom Initiative and Commission is a political-big pharma marriage. Many companies who supported TMAP were also major contributors to Bush?s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine - one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan, and furthermore, George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly?s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly?s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly?s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party. Do tell?
Texas Algorithm grossed over 4 billion dollars in 2003 and olanzapine is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris claims that 70 percent of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid. And lo and behold, guess who is now able to bill Medicaid for health services? Public schools, of course, as they are now under the big pharma-political profits/pay-back umbrella once they adopt screening policies. Public schools can now be paid to screen and drug your kids.
Now, if you ever wonder, ever again, if public-private partnerships care about people, then you need a brain transplant. Your children are now the legislated guinea pigs and lab rats for the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for our president?s campaign. Favors are now returned to those companies in the form of enforced, juvenile customers, their health, and their future drug addictions.
But wait, there is more. The New Freedom Commission also calls for enforced treatment. That means that parents have no rights to refuse the treatment recommenced by TMAP and other drug dispensing corporate-bureaucratic apparatuses. And as the mental health bureaucracy is also involved in this financial game of insidious cruelty, parents and families are also to be investigated via the result of their children?s screenings in schools. In other words, schools are now the across-the board, or shall I say nation, diagnostic tool for big pharma and child control.
And there?s more. The U.N. Agenda 21 has also called for total intrusion into schools and children lives. No more religion, no more individuality, no more real education, no more real grades, no more real teaching, no more teacher respect for parents, and no more truth from teachers or principals. This sounds very familiar and very political to me. And I?ve said it before, and I will say it again: if you are of a religious ilk and you refuse to allow your children to be abused by our ?educational? system, the stage is being set for you to lose physical custody of your children. I suggest that you read this: Rethinking Orphanages for the 21st Century by Richard McKenzie, ed
Still got your kids in public schools? Shame on you, and may God bless your poor children and forgive you. "
Link?
Source?
Moralizing, with the force of law or coercion, is a
far greater crime against the constitutional principles of our nation than unauthorized euphoria, regardless of the substance involved, be it chocolate or heroin.
--James
Post by: Paul on June 27, 2005, 06:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-14 20:31:00, Deborah wrote:
"***Funny how the author of this piece has such a great fear of a potential mistaken diagnosis ruining a person's for their whole life, a haunting dilema that would last a lifetime ... but finds nothing wrong with Chelsea's parents going public with her assessment results.
Uhhh. I don't think they, or Chelsea are concerned about making her 'assessment results' public because they think it is BS.
Hey now that this thread has re-appeared I would like to mention that I never heard back from the reporter who wrote the story. Nor have I seen any articles written about this story.
Here is my hunch. I think Chelsea's parents put her up to answering the questions that they could easily have found out about, via the mailing, but more likely through the Rutherford Institute itself. As I said before it sounded like a fishy fabricated test case.
That is why they where the only one's not to get the notice in the mail, and that is why no one called the hot lined dutifuly manned by her dad.
I would rather see the Runtherford Institute try the case on its merits alone, and not fabricate the agnst of this family and the public exposure of her test results.
Like I said before, if it was real, it could have been ignored, or she could have proceeded to find out if it was a false positive.
It is only an assessment anyway.
Finally, is a correct, or incorrect diagnosis really a life sentence? Would that be a good life or bad life?
I don't regret my mentally ill life, nor should I!!!
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 08:19:00 AM
By a wide bipartisan margin of 97-304, the House rejected a proposal to bar federal funding for screening and early intervention programs aimed at children and adolescents with mental illness. The sponsor of this amendment -- Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) ? had argued that the White House Mental Health Commission report noted above had proposed to foster mandatory screening of children without parental consent. In fact, the White House Commission report contains no such recommendation and HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt has made clear in testimony to Congress that no such proposal exists. Instead, the report recommends investment in research to develop more effective screening and early intervention models that can be replicated in schools and juvenile justice programs.
Post by: 001010 on June 28, 2005, 09:54:00 AM
please. :smile:
In order to live free and happily you must sacrifice boredom. It is not always an easy sacrifice.
-- Richard Bach
Post by: Paul on June 28, 2005, 11:35:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-06-28 06:54:00, 001010 wrote:
"link?
"
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Sectio ... &lstid=518 (http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Policy_News_and_Alerts&lstid=518)
Post by: Deborah on June 29, 2005, 01:41:00 PM
A couple of the comments concern the TeenScreen lawsuit in Indiana.
But in fact according to research Wisconsin has their own share of TeenScreen sites:
WISCONSIN -
Fond du Lac High School
Waunakee School District
Milwaukee County
Kenosha Unified School District
You can post your comments about TeenScreen here:
http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archive ... screen.php (http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2005/06/teen_screen.php)
Post by: Paul on June 30, 2005, 12:54:00 AM
in two years?
Post by: Paul on June 30, 2005, 01:41:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on June 30, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
One Nation Under Therapy addresses the issue of pathologizing childhood, and among other things describes how middle-class, suburban parents are trying to INSULATE CHILDREN AGAINST FAILURE and against the NORMAL PROCESSES, e.g., grieving, sadness, etc., of life. The book addresses adhd and the push in some therapeutic circles to keep boys from behaving as boys do. Pathologizing childhood means to keep the child from expressing his/her natural curiosity, to discourage play and expect the child to focus inward upon their feelings, working from the assumption that all children suffer from a pathology or mental illness or bad parenting practices until they can run the gauntlet and prove otherwise.
Well, you got me going with that one ...
Post by: Paul on June 30, 2005, 02:22:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-06-30 11:03:00, Deborah wrote:
Well, you got me going with that one ...
"
Ok, let's read what the American Psychiatric Association has to say:
http://www.psychfoundation.org/programs/tmh.cfm (http://www.psychfoundation.org/programs/tmh.cfm)
TYPICAL OR TROUBLED?
KNOWING MORE ABOUT TEEN MENTAL HEALTH
Teens will be teens. But have you ever wondered whether one of your students is going through typical growing pains or a real mental health problem? By following the three steps below and taking action, you can keep your classes running smoothly and change a student's life. Connecting a student to help is that important.
The American Psychiatric Foundation, recognizing the important role adults can have in a teen's life, has begun an initiative to encourage and equip adults (such as parents and teachers) who closely interact with teens to notice the warning signs of mental health problems and refer teens to help in addressing these issues.
HELP YOUR STUDENTS - AND YOUR SCHOOL - THRIVE
You make a difference in your students' lives every day. Parents have the primary role in caring for their teens' mental health, but the school setting is often a place where mental health problems can surface and affect students' academic and personal lives.
If you notice any students showing signs of a mental health problem, take action. Talk with them and assist them in getting the help they may need through your school's mental health staff.
Connecting them to help can be the single most effective thing you can do. Research shows that getting help for teens showing warning signs of mental health problems can change their lives - improving school performance, relationships with others and their futures.
Post by: Paul on June 30, 2005, 02:23:00 PM
TAKE THESE STEPS
You can help teens get the help they may need by taking these steps:
1. NOTICE
Notice the warning signs (see below) of mental health problems. The signs usually aren't one-time occurrences; they persist over several weeks.
2. TALK
If you see any of the warning signs, you can talk to the teen. Ask how he or she is doing, and be compassionate as you listen and respond. Even a brief conversation will help the student know someone cares, and may make him or her more open to getting help.
3. TAKE ACTION
Make sure to connect the student to someone who can provide help. Every school has its own process for helping students. Talk to your school?s mental health professional. You may not know exactly what the problem is, but getting students the help they need can end a cycle of suffering.
Know when to seek mental health help for your Teen. Understand the difference between a "Typical" or "Troubled" Teen.
NOTICE THE WARNING SIGNS
Teachers often notice troubling signs in a student but may not be sure whether they indicate a real problem. Some of the warning sings commonly seen by teachers include:
* Angry or aggressive behaviors
* Poor concentration, can't focus
* Increased tardiness or absences
* Withdrawn, lack of friends
* Anxious, worried
Other warning signs of mental health problems in teens include:
* Marked change in school performance, sleeping and/or eating habits.
* Inability to cope with problems and daily activities.
* Many physical complaints.
* Sexual acting out.
* Depression shown by sustained, prolonged negative mood and attitude, often accompanied by poor appetite, difficulty sleeping or thoughts of death.
* Abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.
* Intense fear of becoming obese with no relationship to actual body weight, purging food or restricting eating.
* Persistent nightmares.
* Threats of self-harm or harm to others.
* Self-injury or self-destructive behavior.
* Frequent outbursts of anger or aggression.
* Threats to run away.
* Aggressive or non-aggressive consistent violation of rights of others; opposition to authority, truancy, thefts, or vandalism.
* Strange thoughts and feelings, and unusual behaviors.
(Excerpt from "Fact for Families," American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP))
If problems persist over an extended period of time and especially if others involved in the child's life are concerned, consultation with a mental health professional, child and adolescent psychiatrist or other clinician specifically trained to work with teens may be helpful.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY (AACAP)
http://www.aacap.org (http://www.aacap.org)
The AACAP has developed a whole series of informational fact sheets called, "Facts for Families" to provide concise and up-to-date information on mental health issues that affect children, teenagers, and their families. The AACAP provides this important information as a public service.
Post by: Paul on June 30, 2005, 02:27:00 PM
DID YOU KNOW?
KEY FACTS ABOUT TEEN MENTAL HEALTH
The Problem?
* In fact, 90% of people who develop a mental disorder showing warning signs during their teen years.1
* About 11% of youth between 9 to 17 years old, approximately 4 million people, have a major mental health disorder that results in significant impairments at home, school or with peers. Additionally, about the same number have less serious mental health problems. The sooner these disorders are recognized, the greater the likelihood that treatment will be effective.2
* Suicide is the third leading cause of death among teens and young adults 15-24 years old.3 A typical high school classroom includes one boy and two girls who attempted suicide in the past year.4
* Over 60% of all young people with mental health disorders are not getting the treatment they need.5
Intervention and treatment makes a difference ?
* Recognition and appropriate help for teens with mental health problems has been shown to increase test scores. Research shows that effective mental health interventions and a positive school climate contribute to improved student achievement.6
* Recognition and intervention can delay the onset of substance abuse. Research shows that if mental health intervention occurs before the ages when kids are most likely to begin experimenting with or using drugs and alcohol, it can often deter substance abuse.7
Teachers and other adults close to teens can help ?
* Secondary school teachers are in a good position to detect teens at risk, because they have the greatest access to the adolescent population over the longest period of time, and therefore can observe changes and may be able to detect students at risk and take appropriate action.9 Teachers have been shown to be effective in detecting student mental health issues.10
* The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health cited schools as one of the best places to coordinate efforts of educators, families and mental health professionals to ensure that every child learns in a safe, healthy and supportive environment.8
REFERENCES
1Hoagwood K, The policy context for child and adolescent mental health services: implications for systems reform and basic science development, Ann NY Acad Sci 1008:, 140-8, Dec, 2003.
2 Report of the Surgeon General's Conference on Children's Mental Health, 2000.
3 National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.
4 King, K.A.; Price, J.H.; Telljohannm S.K.; and Wahl, J. 1999. "High school health teachers' perceived self-efficacy in identifying students at risk for suicide" Journal of School Health Volume 69: 202-207.
5 American Association for World Health, 2001.
6 Colorado Department of Education, July 2002.
7 New York Office of Mental Health - "Mental Health Services for Children and Adolescents"
8 President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003.
9 Range, L.M. 1993. "Suicide prevention: guidelines for schools" Educational Psychology Review Volume 5: 135-154.
10 Roeser, R.W. and Midglet, C. 1997. "Teachers' views of issues involving students' mental health" Elementary School Journal Volume 98 Number 2 (November): 115-133.
11 Mental Health Association of Colorado, Families for Children's Mental Health Colorado Chapter, 1999.
12 Mental Health Funders Collaborative, 2003.
Post by: Deborah on July 01, 2005, 08:46:00 PM
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=9#114154 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=10711&forum=9#114154)
Post by: Deborah on July 02, 2005, 02:15:00 PM
http://tinyurl.com/b5v5o (http://tinyurl.com/b5v5o)
Post by: Deborah on July 12, 2005, 07:11:00 PM
Privacy - Mental Health Screening and Records - Congressional Briefing by AAPS DC Representative, Michael Ostrolenk - 2/8/2005
Excerpts:
I have looked at the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8 which clearly defines the authority given to the Congress by our Constitution. I do not see any powers in that section which allows for the federal government to be involved in any way in the mental health of its citizens.
The issue of mental health and government schools goes back at least to the 1950?s. Let me quote directly from National Institute for Mental Health which conducted a five year study on the mental health of the nation in the 1950?s. The final document was entitled ?Action for Mental Health.?
?Proposed that school curriculum be designed to bend the student to the realities of society.?
Let me conclude my inquiry into intentions by quoting from a 1973 Childhood International Education Seminar in Colorado, where Dr. Chester (Psychiatrist) M. Pierce said the following:
?Every child in America is entering school at the age of 5 is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It is up to you as teachers to make all of these sick children well-by creating the international child of the future.?
It is good to remember that simply because one believes that a service he or she offers will be beneficial gives you no right to impose it on someone who does not want it. If we involuntarily screen school children for mental health disorders, why not screen members of Congress or the Administration. They are a much greater threat to our lives and liberty than children.
Post by: Anonymous on July 12, 2005, 10:07:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on July 17, 2005, 06:24:00 PM
http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story144.htm (http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/lead-story144.htm)
Excerpts:
In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Jim Windolf, editor of the New York Observer, tallied the number of Americans allegedly suffering from some kind of emotional disorder. He sent away for the literature of dozens of advocacy agencies and mental health organisations. Then he did the math. Windolf reported, 'If you believe the statistics, 77 per cent of America's adult population is a mess.... And we haven't even thrown in alien abductees, road-ragers, and internet addicts.' If we factor in the drowning girls, diminished boys, despondent women, agonised men, and the all-around emotionally challenged, the country is, in Windolf's words, 'officially nuts'.
Our new book One Nation Under Therapy offers a more sanguine view of American society. It points out that there is no evidence that large segments of the population are in psychological freefall. On the contrary, researchers who abide by the protocols of genuine social science find most Americans - young and old - faring quite well.
'Therapism' in practice
These would-be healers of our purported woes dogmatically believe and promote the doctrine we call 'therapism'. Therapism extols openness, emotional self-absorption, and the sharing of feelings. It encompasses the assumption that vulnerability rather than strength characterises the American psyche and that suffering is a pathology in need of a cure. Therapism assumes that a diffident, anguished, and emotionally apprehensive public requires a vast array of therapists, self-esteem educators, grief counsellors, work-shoppers, healers, and traumatologists to lead it though the trials of everyday life. Children, more than any group, are targeted for therapeutic improvement. We roundly reject these assumptions.
Because they tend to regard normal children as psychologically at risk, many educators are taking extreme and unprecedented measures to protect them from stress. Schoolyard games that encourage competition are under assault. In some districts, dodgeball has been placed in a 'Hall of Shame' because, as one leading educator says, 'It's like Lord of the Flies, with adults encouraging it'. Tag is also under a cloud. The National Education Association distributes a teacher's guide that suggests an anxiety-reducing version of tag, 'where nobody is ever "out"'.
It is now common practice for 'sensitivity and bias committees' inside publishing houses to expunge from standardised tests all mention of potentially distressing topics. Two major companies specifically interdict references to rats, mice, roaches, snakes, lice, typhoons, blizzards and birthday parties. (The latter could create bad feelings in children whose families do not celebrate them.) The committees, says Diane Ravitch in her recent book The Language Police, believe such references could 'be so upsetting to some children that they will not be able to do their best on a test'.
Harmful effects on children
Young people are not helped by being wrapped in cotton wool and deprived of the vigorous pastimes and intellectual challenges they need for healthy development. Nor are they improved when educators, obsessed with the mission of boosting children's self-esteem, tell them how 'wonderful' they are. A growing body of research suggests there is, in fact, no connection between high self-esteem and achievement, kindness, or good personal relationships. On the other hand, unmerited self-esteem is known to be associated with antisocial behaviour - even criminality.
Therapism tends to regard people as essentially weak, dependent, and never altogether responsible for what they do. Alan Wolfe, a Boston College sociologist and expert on national mores and attitudes, reports that for many Americans non-judgmentalism has become a cardinal virtue. Concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, are often regarded as anachronistic and intolerant. 'Thou shalt be nice' is the new categorical imperative.
Summarising his findings, Wolfe says: 'What the Victorians considered self-destructive behaviour requiring punishment we consider self-destructive behaviour requiring treatment.... America has most definitely entered a new era in which virtue and vice are redefined in terms of public health and addiction.'
The trauma industry routinely flouts Morrow's wise injunction, and applies with abandon the diagnosis of 'post-traumatic stress disorder'. PTSD is a legitimate clinical condition marked by intense re-experiencing of a horrific, often life-threatening event in the form of relentless nightmares or unbidden waking images. PTSD is not to be applied to people who are acutely distraught - a perfectly normal reaction - after a terrifying ordeal, but to the minority who go on to develop disabling, pathological anxiety because of it. Worse, clinicians often diagnose PTSD in individuals who have not even been exposed to horrific events but are simply upset by troubling incidents. For example, professional journals are rife with examples of 'PTSD' patients who have been sexually harassed on the job, moviegoers upset by seeing The Exorcist, and motorists involved in minor accidents - treated as if they were survivors of the Bataan Death March.
The rise of therapism
Where did it come from, this current preoccupation with feelings? It has many roots. One is the eighteenth-century Romantic philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. For Rousseau, the expression of emotion is crucial to any moral and spiritual development. It can also be traced to nineteenth-century evangelical movements that offered nostrums for liberating their followers from negative emotions. Its more immediate and familiar progenitors are the new psychologies that flourished and were popularised in the USA after the Second World War - notably, Freudian psychoanalysis and a successor that came to be known as the 'human potential movement'.
Our book, One Nation Under Therapy, describes the incursion of therapism and the growing role of helping professionals in our daily lives. It rejects the presumption of fragility and challenges the dogma of self-revelation; it exposes the folly of replacing ethical judgment with psychological and medical diagnosis, save for instances where individuals are severely mentally ill. The book contends, in other words, that human beings, including children, are best regarded as self-reliant, resilient, psychically sound moral agents responsible for their behaviour. For, with few exceptions, that is what we are.
Post by: Deborah on July 21, 2005, 11:19:00 PM
Article on Laurie Flynn- Teen Screen's Top Promoter
Excerpts:
Most screening programs take place in schools, Flynn said, but the program can also be implemented in residential treatment facilities, foster care settings, clinics, shelters, drop-in centers and other settings that serve youth.
Post by: Deborah on July 25, 2005, 01:09:00 PM
GUEST OPINION: Universal mental health screenings: a call to rally
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
- Penny Pullen, former state rep and President of Eagle Forum of IL
As planned for all children in Illinois, during the state's required physical exams an evaluation of a child's mental health will soon be included.
OPINION -- A recent letter-to-the-editor writer first asked how such an invasive law as Illinois' new universal mental health screening atrocity could be passed, and then answered, essentially, that anything can pass any time if it's characterized as being "for children."
This may be true today, sad to say, but once upon a time, it was not. And so, I'm not so sure it is true.
Time and again, during the 16 years I was a state representative, sheeply-dressed wolfish legislation was defeated.
(Mandatory "parenting education" comes to mind, for example ... defeated over and over until its sponsor finally left office.)
Indeed, when I first learned of this legislation last week -- to my horror -- my first reaction was to wonder where all the "good guys" must have been when this was going on. It should not take 50,000 phone calls from "back home" to block such an obvious invasion of family life ... even in a legislature which is dominated by the more liberal of the two parties. A vigilant and active citizenry is helpful and even necessary, no doubt about it. But where are the pro-family spokesmen
within the legislature? How could the Senate, where noted, veteran conservatives serve, have let this go through without a single opposing
vote? Were the new conservatives in the House whom I've heard such good things about sleeping when this abomination attracted only five
negative votes there?
Now that our leaders have let us down, the families of Illinois must speak out about this thing and demand that it be repealed before it can
actually damage anything more than the reputations of our "good guys" in Springfield.
Citizens who live in districts whose representatives and senators prize their pro-family reputations should be contacting them right now to respectfully request that they undo what their apparent inattention has wrought.
It is possible; I recall a time when a bill sneaked through to legalize the possession of machine guns (in limited, controlled circumstances) in Illinois. When it was discovered by the media, legislators in
Springfield rushed to repeal it at the first opportunity. Though conventional media no doubt will yawn over the issues inherent in the
mental health screening law (will parents who refuse to let their children be put on Ritalin, for example, be declared neglectful and forced to comply?), citizens can raise their voices to their own legislators, and unconventional media (like IllinoisLeader.com) can raise quite a ruckus (thank you!).
So I urge your readers to take this on as a crusade. Do not be disheartened by the lack of stewardship this law's passage has exposed.
Instead, look on this episode as a rallying cause for taking back government. The critical thing is to rise up now, when the enormity of this has first come to light and before the psych teams, social workers and bureaucrats have been hired.
[Penny Pullen is the state president of Eagle Forum of Illinois and a former Illinois state representative]
Post by: Deborah on August 11, 2005, 07:38:00 PM
http://tinyurl.com/dauys (http://tinyurl.com/dauys)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Vaccines and Autism: Looking for the Truth? Study the Amish
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Tue Aug 9, 3:09 AM ET
On Sunday morning's Meet the Press, Dr. Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine, debated New York Times reporter and author David
Kirby about the strength of the science linking the current epidemic of neurological disorders among American children to the mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal. The Institute of Medicine as well as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration base their defense of Thimerosal on four flimsy studies ginned up by the pharmaceutical industry and federal regulators who green-lighted the use of Thimerosal in the first place. Those fraudulent studies deliberately targeted European
populations which were exposed to a fraction of the Thimerosal given to American children.
If Dr. Fineberg genuinely wants to test his assertions about Thimerosal safety with epidemiological data, he should commission a study comparing American children who were exposed to vaccines to the Amish, Jehovah's
Witnesses, Christian Scientists or others, who, for religious reasons, did not receive Thimerosal-laced vaccines.
A recent survey by United Press found that autism is virtually unknown among Pennsylvania's large Amish populations -- a strong indication that vaccines are indeed a principal culprit of the epidemic. Despite the repeated urgings of independent scientists and the families of autistic children, the federal agencies involved have refused to commission such a study and have closed federal vaccine files in order to derail the creation of those studies by outside scientists.
Copyright © 2005 HuffingtonPost.com. All rights reserved. The information contained in Huffington Post commentary may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed without prior written authority of huffingtonpost.com.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Post by: tommyfromhyde1 on August 12, 2005, 12:32:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-07-21 20:19:00, Deborah wrote:
"http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1100
Article on Laurie Flynn- Teen Screen's Top Promoter
Excerpts:
Most screening programs take place in schools, Flynn said, but the program can also be implemented in residential treatment facilities, foster care settings, clinics, shelters, drop-in centers and other settings that serve youth.
"
This is a little off the topic of TeenScreen but
a couple of weeks ago a woman co-worker of mine
(low income) took her 13 year old son to an
outfit called Region Ten for a medical checkup.
I infered from the son's story that Region Ten
was offering checkups for free or a nominal cost.
(btw this is all in Charlottesville, VA). Before
or after the usual checkup they hand the kid a
questionaire asking about drug/alcohol use. The
kid did not admit any drug/alcohol use at all.
They come back to his mother with a dx that the
kid is a drug addict. They now have the kid in
outpatient treatment - NOT free. Mom and mom's
boyfriend also have to attend "drug education"
classes and cough up more money for that.
If anyone misses a class or she misses a payment
they'll call Social Services and get her kids
taken away for neglect! How's that for a scam?!
A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.
Arthur C. Clark
Post by: Antigen on August 12, 2005, 01:40:00 PM
Here's a good read on that:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/realschool.shtml (http://www.thomhartmann.com/realschool.shtml)
The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; it is at the same time subjection, a self-derision, and self-mutilation.
--Freidrich Nietzsche, German philosopher
Post by: Deborah on August 12, 2005, 02:12:00 PM
This could be part of the 'war on drugs' initiative. And, they could possibly interface. Warn the mom that a psych dx/rx could be next.
If that were to ocur and she didn't have the resource to fight it, I'd say she should take the 'free' drugs (if she is on Medicaid) and flush them down the toilet to avoid CPS taking the child for alleged medical neglect.
Here's a list of TV news clips that reveal how TMAP (Bush/Pharmaco's baby) was hatched in Texas. How much $$$ the drug companies gave the MH Dept in Tx to create TMAP, which would list their expensive drugs. (Like $8/pill vs .08/pill) A state employee's expenses were paid by one of the drug companies to travel around and pitch TMAP to other states.
Kids in foster care (mostly low income kids of color) were the guinea pigs for TMAP. Some of their painful stories are included in the links. Texas taxpayers paid out $245 Million in 2004 for psych drugs for this group. Some kids on as many as 14- some that were not approved for use in children, some rx'd off-label.
Best to watch the investigative reports in the proper order.
http://keyetv.com/investigativevideo/ (http://keyetv.com/investigativevideo/)
5/5/04- Failing Texas Foster Children
7/23/04- Psychiatric Drugs
9/30/04- Drugs and Your Tax Dollars
11/4/04- Medicaid Fraud
11/17/04- Texas, Children and Drugs
11/24/04- Children and Antidepressants
3/1/05- Money, Influence and Mental Health
The last really exposes the fraud perpetrated by state MH Dept employees and drug companies. The spokesperson for the Dept would not go on camera, but sent a letter which contained a blatant lie which the reporter uncovers.
Post by: Deborah on August 12, 2005, 02:16:00 PM
Indeed. A cleverly planned scam.
Hook up with drug companies and create TMAP. Promote it nation wide.
Initiate Teen Screen to dx thousands/millions of unsuspecting americans and their children.
Sell your drugs at 10 TIMES the cost of generic.
Post by: Deborah on August 16, 2005, 02:26:00 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... t-opinions (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kirk14aug14,0,3146053.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions)
August 14, 2005 latimes.com
Are we all going mad, or are the experts crazy?
By Stuart A. Kirk
STUART A. KIRK is a professor of social welfare at UCLA. He is the coauthor of "The Selling of DSM" and "Making Us Crazy." His most recent book is "Mental Disorders in the Social Environment: Critical
PSYCHIATRIC researchers recently estimated that half of the American population has had or will have a mental disorder at some time in their life. A generation ago, by contrast, only a small percentage of the American population was considered mentally ill. Are we all going mad?
Freud started this. He made us suspicious that any behavior was potentially rife with psychopathology. As a neurologist, he used the medical language of pathology to suggest that the demands of civilization on our fragile human
nature were such as to make all of us somewhat neurotic.
The current psychiatric bible published by the American Psychiatric Assn., "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," or the DSM, continues this tradition of making us all crazy.
Because there are no biological tests, markers or known causes for most mental illnesses, who is counted as ill depends almost entirely on
frequently changing checklists of behaviors that the DSM considers as symptoms of mental disorder. In the recent research, lay interviewers asked
a sample of people to respond to lengthy questionnaires based on the DSM lists. Computer programs then counted the responses to determine if those interviewed had ever had the required number of behaviors for any mental disorder at some time in their life.
We keep getting higher estimates of mental disorders in part because the APA keeps adding new disorders and more behaviors to the manual.
Since 1979, for example, some of the new disorders and categories that have been added include panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social phobia, borderline personality disorder, gender identity disorder, tobacco dependence disorder, eating disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, identity disorder, acute stress disorder, sleep disorders, nightmare disorder,
rumination disorder, inhibited sexual desire disorders, premature ejaculation disorder, male erectile disorder and female sexual arousal
disorder. If you don't see yourself on that list, don't fret, more are in the works for the next edition of the DSM.
Because so little is known about the causes of most mental disorders, just about any behavior can look like a symptom. Here is a selection from
hundreds of behaviors listed in the DSM, behaviors that signify one disorder or another: restlessness, irritability, sleeping too much or too little, eating too much or too little, difficulty concentrating, fear of social
situations, feeling morose, indecisiveness, impulsivity, self-dramatization, being inappropriately sexually seductive or provocative, requiring excessive admiration, having a sense of entitlement, lacking empathy, fear of being criticized in public, feeling personally inept, fear of rejection or
disapproval, difficulty expressing disagreement, being excessively devoted to work and productivity, and being preoccupied with details, rules and lists.
For children, signs of disorder occur when they are deceitful, break rules, can't sit still or wait in lines, have trouble with math, don't pay
attention to details, don't listen, don't like to do homework or lose their school assignments or pencils, or speak out of turn.
Granted, one momentary feeling or behavior will not qualify you as having a DSM mental disorder; it requires clusters of them, usually for several
weeks, accompanied by some level of discomfort. Nevertheless, as Freud suggested, the signs of potential pathology are everywhere.
The vast broadening of the definition of mental disorders has its skeptics, myself included, who are suspicious of the motivations of the APA and the drug companies that may view the expanding sweep of mental disorders like a lumber company lusting after a redwood forest. But unlike the environment, with its leagues of watchdogs, the medicalization of human foibles has few
challengers. That's too bad: The misdiagnosis of mental illness often leaves a lasting trail in medical records open to schools, employers, insurance companies and courts.
Does it advance psychiatry to view an increasing expanse of human troubles as the expression of psychopathology rather than as part of the texture and diversity of life? Psychiatry once focused on the prevention and treatment of serious behavioral problems, of which there are plenty. But based on the metastasizing DSM, the psychiatric association appears to be caught up in a contemporary narcissistic quest for individual perfection.
The grand American experiment once was an attempt to structure our social and political institutions to create a more civil and just society. Perhaps, frustrated that we still contend with gross inequality, stinging poverty and rampant political and corporate corruption, we now embrace the perfectibility of individuals, not social institutions.
The public is being asked to swallow the view that all manner of human troubles - from anxiety, interpersonal squabbles to misbehavior of many
kinds - be viewed not as inevitable parts of the human comedy, but as psychopathology to be treated, usually with drugs, as expugnable illnesses. The implicit ideal - the healthy, normal and truly happy camper - will, properly medicated, harbor no serious worries or animosities, no sadness over losses or failures, no disappointments with children or spouses, no
doubts about themselves or conflicts with others, and certainly no strange ideas or behaviors. Their moods will be perfectly controlled in all
circumstances, and bad hair days will be things of the past.
Is it inevitable that the rest of us, the recalcitrant, flawed resisters to the movement for individual perfection, will show up in future counts of the mentally disordered? Count me in.
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 12:45:00 AM
What happens if someone gets treated for a newly identified disorder and it works, improving their lives and for those around them and creating a more successful person?
What do you say then?
What would you say directly to them?
What if it was you?
Would you not seek treatment because the diagnosit classification is new.
Do you only drive old cars?
Post by: bandit1978 on August 17, 2005, 06:54:00 AM
If a hospital employee gets stuck with a dirty needle, the patient is asked to submit to an HIV test (it's fast-HIV test, results back in 24 hours.) This way, the hospital worker will know if they need a course of anti-viral drugs.
If the patient refuses, however, to submit to the test, there is nothing we can do.
In Washington dc, something like 50% of the population is HIV+
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 09:43:00 AM
Post by: Deborah on August 17, 2005, 09:48:00 AM
The increase in the number of MIs must be how the government hatched the notion that half of all Americans are suffering from at MI or will.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that it?s government role to use tax dollars to screen for MIs?
Do you believe this is a show of ?caring? for American citizens?
I say no to all.
I really do support people taking drugs if that?s what they choose to do. I also support euthanasia. I think people should be accurately informed. I don?t support the gov?t using tax dollars to screen/dx/rx the majority of the population for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of BigPharm and their shareholders. I don?t support screening or force. If you?ve read this thread then you know that Tx was the ?proving ground? for this initiative and there?s ample information posted here to give one an idea of the discrepancies in how they say it?s going to go down, and how it actually does.
If the gov?t really ?cared? about the well being of it?s citizens, and given that heart disease is the number one killer and 60% of the population is obese, wouldn?t they hatch a campaign to find all those who are at risk? Get them on some diet pills? Force them to have their kids stomachs stapled, or loose them to CPS. Require fast food venders and food manufacturers to remove trans fats. Take the junk out of schools and return to wholesome lunches.
So, you keep drivin your new car while under the influence of legal mind altering drugs, and I?ll continue to share information that some may find useful.
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 10:08:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-08-17 03:54:00, bandit1978 wrote:
"If gvt. can force a person to undergo psychiatric testing and "treatments", why can't they force hospital patients to submit to HIV tests?
I am not sure, but I think that Teen Screen, or
any pysciatric care is voluntary unless court ordered.
Someone else can probably verify this, meaning
if these assessments and treatments are voluntary
or not.
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 10:19:00 AM
of an example :smile:
I appreciate your answers. With one flaw, you said
to check out your previous posts. I did a little.
You call medication users drug addicts many times.
Is that really the same as using street drugs like crystal meth?
On that diagnois list from the new book it mentioned PTSD, for example, which is new, but really I think from watching war movies it is an up to date "shell shocked" diagnosis.
The VA is treating alot of Iraq veterans returning
with PTSD, no one disputes that, I don't think.
According to the author of the book, it would be
hooie because it came after 1979.
Should the US not treat PTSD?
There are already 300,000 homeless vets from previous wars!
I think it would be a disgrace to not help
people because a diagnosis was recently added
to the DSM.
Sometims saying "get over it" may not be the right thing to say. We might create another 300,000 homeless vets that way.
I am not sure if PTSD is treated by medications anyway. So what would be the harm in utilizing that diagnosis.
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 10:21:00 AM
your comments about obesity and not much being
done about it.
Probably obesity causes more problems than
mental illness.
Maybe those 50% of the population that are
mentally ill are also obese, and there is
some sort of correlation? Just a thought ...
Post by: Anonymous on August 17, 2005, 10:42:00 AM
By Sally Satel and Christina Sommers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; Page B07
Last month the Army surgeon general announced that 30 percent of soldiers who returned from Iraq had developed mental health problems. A few days later, the House Veterans Affairs subcommittee on health heard testimony on how Department of Veterans Affairs clinics are preparing for a wave of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.
How many mentally ill veterans will there be? No one knows, but the testimony of Col. Charles Hoge, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, was refreshingly optimistic. He acknowledged that some fraction of veterans would indeed become ill but also cautioned how important it is to "convey the message . . . that many of the reactions they experience after combat are common and expected."
Drawing the line between normal reactions to intense experience on the one hand and a pathological response on the other can be difficult for psychiatrists. The conundrum was starkly illustrated last June when the long-awaited National Comorbidity Study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health at a cost of $20 million, found that a quarter of all adults in the United States -- 26 percent -- qualified as having a mental illness within a given year. Can a rate so high be true?
A closer look at the study reveals a less startling picture. First, the survey used in the study was based on the standard psychiatric handbook -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th Edition (DSM IV) -- which has a low threshold for calling a collection of symptoms a "mental disorder." For example, a balky, stubborn, aggressive child might well be diagnosed as having "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (ODD), according to the DSM, and sent to a therapist. Yet a layman might simply regard him as spoiled and in need of a strict British nanny.
Harvard public health professor Ronald Kessler, the lead author on the study, acknowledges the problem of blurry boundaries that standard psychiatric definitions create. As he said on National Public Radio, the "vast majority" of reactions to life events are "self-limiting and mild and people get over them." He used moving from one town to another as an example. For a couple of weeks, he said, people may "get depressed because they miss all their friends and maybe can't focus on their work and so forth." According to the DSM, Kessler said, "that would meet minimally the criteria for a major depressive episode."
Technically, he is correct -- according to the DSM, individuals who report a certain set of symptoms with only mild dysfunction qualify for a diagnosis. What's missing from this practice, though, is the social context in which symptoms occur. A strong but temporary emotional reaction to moving -- a "psychiatric hangnail," in Kessler's words -- is not really psychopathology by common-sense standards. By contrast, a person who is persistently sad with no obvious cause might well qualify as having the mental disorder of depression -- perhaps, or perhaps not, requiring professional help.
The study classified disorders by severity. Six percent of the population had "serious cases" (and needed professional attention), while "moderate" and "mild" cases each affected 10 percent. Mild cases often represent garden-variety anxieties and despair associated with problems in living -- or moving. So, conservatively, 6 to 16 percent of us will suffer a mental condition this year, as defined by psychiatrists.
The other key finding of the study -- that half of all people diagnosed at some point in their lives with a disorder show signs of it by age 14 -- also warrants skepticism. True, many of the conditions examined in the study -- phobias, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, impulsivity -- are manifested in late childhood or early teens. But that does not mean that every child with these syndromes will have them as an adult.
This qualification is especially important because mental health advocates, such as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, are now citing this new study as proof that we should treat even trivial syndromes in childhood, because they could otherwise blossom into more serious forms of illness.
But while the catch-it-early approach might be the correct one for some number of youngsters who display minor distress or behavioral problems, we don't know which ones. If we treat all youths who display low-level symptoms, many risk being given medications or other treatments they don't really need. An already overburdened child mental health care system will buckle.
Furthermore, expectations are set up all around when we send the message to kids, their parents and teachers that little Johnny may not be ill now but if we don't send him to the psychiatrist for his minor problem he is destined for mental illness. If there is one thing that Freud keenly knew it was that the power of suggestion creates self-fulfilling prophecies.
Over the past 20 years or so there has been a massive and admirable effort to raise consciousness about mental health in this country. Increased awareness and improved treatments are saving millions from suffering. But we should not define mental illness down. Most of us -- and most veterans -- will never have a serious mental illness. Will we have periods of intense sadness, frustration, anxiety and insecurity? Sure. Not because we are ill, but because we are human. And being human is not a condition in need of a cure.
Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, and Christina Sommers are resident scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and co-authors of "One Nation Under Therapy."
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Post by: Deborah on August 17, 2005, 02:53:00 PM
A Pill for Every Ill
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.grab.com/fun/specials/licensetopill (http://www.grab.com/fun/specials/licensetopill)
Post by: Deborah on August 17, 2005, 03:11:00 PM
Flaw? What, You don?t think psych drugs are addictive? Ever known anyone who tried to get off? I have, and they usually decide to stay on. ?ADD/ADHD? drugs are equivalent to cocaine, with all the potential harms. Ritalin or Crystal meth? Either can kill you, the former just does it slower.
Shell shocked? People are being dx?d PTSD for very minor things, like a major move.
The ?US?, as in government, should not ?TREAT? anything. Where is that duty spelled out in the constitution? They owe the vets free care for services performed, but let?s hope they seek out a good EMDR therapist and skip the drugs.
Get over it? Who said that?
Post by: Nihilanthic on August 17, 2005, 10:05:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-16 21:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Deborah,
What happens if someone gets treated for a newly identified disorder and it works, improving their lives and for those around them and creating a more successful person?
What do you say then?
What would you say directly to them?
What if it was you?
Would you not seek treatment because the diagnosit classification is new.
Do you only drive old cars?"
Im not deborah but I'll bite for my own amusement :grin:
Id want peer review of the disorder, peer review of how to diagnose it, peer reviewed methods for treating it, and obviously not using a damned LGA seminar based coersive program to just make them act normal as opposed to actual therapy.
And yeah I'd say that to everyone.
As far as treatment because its a new classification, well, hey! People fuck up, even scientists, plus when shit is debunked such as "oppositional defiance disorder", Id be critical and wary. I mean god, female sexual arousal used to be 'hysteria' :roll:
Oh, I drive only old cars, but mostly so I can bypass all that computer bullshit, and because I found out a chassis from the 80s thats cheap, that I can put a junk yard v8 into and get viper power, 30 mpg if I drive it sanely and the handling of an Elise. Plus its cheaper to get a used car... AND you know whats gonna get fucked up. New cars are like rolling the dice... never buy the first model year of anything.
"The FARC is part of the history of Colombia and a historical phenomenon", (President Pastrana) says, "and they must be treated as Colombians". ... They come and ask for bread [aid from Washington], and you give them stones.
Robert White is a former American ambassador to Paraguay and El Salvador, and former No. 2 man with the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, is president of the Centre for International Policy in Washington D.C.
Robert White
Post by: Antigen on August 18, 2005, 10:34:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-08-17 19:05:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
New cars are like rolling the dice... never buy the first model year of anything.
Exactly!
Think for a moment about the sheer absurdity of the various shades of propaganda. In my own living memory, so far we've been through a small parade of hobgoblins. Heroine, angel dust, crack... we were assured that people using these drugs were going to turn American into one big orgy of violence and riot. It never happened, but when has reality ever put a damper on the beliefs of a true zealot?
Now comes the next hobgoblin, Methamphetamine.
There's no doubt at all on any side of the issue that some millions of kids and a growing number of adults are currently taking daily doses of potent amphetamines.
So, if you believe the hype, you'd better be building and stocking a bunker cause, any minute now, this army of tweakers is bound to bust out in rampant violence and insanity.
If, on the other hand, you're of the opinion that these psych drugs are just as harmless as cute fuzzy bunnies, just helpful friends, then you should be out campaigning to reel in those moon bats who want to go around arresting people for manufacture and distribution of mehtamphetamine.
The rest of us will just sit back and watch. :rofl:
All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer
Post by: Deborah on August 18, 2005, 01:09:00 PM
http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/groupnews/ (http://www.homeedmag.com/blogs/groupnews/)
ISSUES TO WATCH ~-Mental Health Surveys
Recently, on a large Ohio homeschool list, there was a request by a psychiatrist asking that home-educators and homeschool support groups participate in a mental health survey. He stated:
"The first phase of my project will involve getting baseline data to determine the prevalence of mental health issues in homeschooled children in relation to the general population (state-schooled children). This will eventually
be used to determine the existence (and potential reasons) of protective factors that homeschooling provides. I am asking for homeschool organization's permission and aid in distributing a short questionnaire."
As you can see, the Dr. expressed good intentions, stating that he thought his study would offer proof that home education provides protective factors for children. This is not a bad point to prove, but I do not know that a survey attempting to prove it would do home education a service. Instead, I support the method that has worked for years, which is individuals sharing why home education works for each individual with other individuals.
These types of surveys, whether well intentioned or not, may undermine home education freedoms.
Before deciding whether or not to participate, homeschoolers could consider that this type of research may undermine our freedom to home educate in the following ways:
1. This research could result in increased monitoring of homeschoolers via attempts to disprove this very study.
2. This research could also bring us under further scrutiny in light of the New Freedom Commission's National Mental Screening
Initiative (children will be screened from birth for mental illness), possibly bringing us under more narrow scrutiny from this type of initiative than already exists.
Research and surveys are often an invasion of our privacy. Instead of relying on such data that is often presented by detractors as slanted, isn't it much better that we tell others of our own experiences with homeschooling?
When we submit research via surveys the information takes on it's own story and may be used in harmony in a way that the user of the survey chooses to present the data.
If you would like to know more about the new Mental Health Initiatives visit:
Home Education in Illinois- Legislation and Learning (HILL)
If you would like to know more about federal preschool visit- Universal preschool
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2005, 01:17:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-18 07:34:00, Antigen wrote:
"
Now comes the next hobgoblin, Methamphetamine.
"
What percentage of people are testing positive for meth when initially arrested.
Obvioulsy a harmless drug, compared to prescription medication, but nonetheless, it would be interesting to know.
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2005, 01:22:00 PM
Quote
isn't it much better that we tell others of our own experiences with homeschooling?
"
Except that this non-scientifically based way of analyzing and sharing information is usually not effective.
For instance, if studies where made of the outcomes in WWASPS don't you think places like Brown School's would have been exposed and shut down long ago?
Word of mouth is the same as hearsay.
Post by: Deborah on August 18, 2005, 02:00:00 PM
There may be some exceptions, but I've never know a homeschooler who was out beating bushes to recruit other parents. 'Effectiveness' would be a non-issue.
If homeschoolers in general decided to put forth a public campaign to recruit other parents, they would be wise to select an independent researcher, preferably someone in (hello) EDUCATION, not psychiatry.
Studies of WWASP would cause the closing of Brown Schools. Huh? :???:
Post by: Antigen on August 18, 2005, 02:34:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-18 10:17:00, Anonymous wrote:
What percentage of people are testing positive for meth when initially arrested.
Obvioulsy a harmless drug, compared to prescription medication, but nonetheless, it would be interesting to know."
Meth harmless? Hardly! I expect the fad will pass about as quickly as the crack "epidemic". People aren't near as dumb as they look.
But facts is facts, man. The history is easily available for anyone who dares to look into it. Methamphetamine was a Sched III drug up until the mid `80's. That meant that it was easy to get; any doctor could write a scrip for anything from a need to stay awake to a desire to lose weight w/ little scrutiny. And it was very popular among truckers, college students and dieters. Then the side effects started to show in very scientifically sound, peer reviewed studies. And so we (congress, at the urging of DEA) moved meth to Sched II, same as cocaine, opioids and some other rather potent formulations.
The funny thing is that some of these new and improved ADHD drugs are quite as potent and dangerous as meth, except that they're readily available as pure, regent quality products of known dose and origin from a droll little person in a lab coat.
So we don't have to deal w/ the black market, the accidental overdoses and poisonings. Just the regular side effects of the drugs themselves. By comparison, those are negligable provided the patient or patient's guardian understands them and properly weighs them against the hoped for benefits!
Tip for the day: To meth heads:
How to ditch your dealer and get your fix at reduced cost and risk. Find a regular medical doctor and describe to him or her the symptoms of adult ADHD. It may even be covered by insurance. Plus, if you ever want to get good medical advice on how to quit, you won't have to confess to a felony or be asked to snitch anybody out to get it.
Locate the blind spot in the culture--the place where the culture isn't looking, because it dare not--because if it were to look there, its previous values would dissolve.
Terence McKenna
Post by: Antigen on August 18, 2005, 03:43:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-18 11:00:00, Deborah wrote:
There may be some exceptions, but I've never know a homeschooler who was out beating bushes to recruit other parents. 'Effectiveness' would be a non-issue.
Oh, they're out there, b'lieve it! I only know of one hsing group in the area that's not pretty strident. It's not a formal organization. It's just a bunch of ppl who met through the same evaluator and who like to do cook outs and swap books and info. The rest that I know of are... well, too organized and exclusive for my blood.
Quote
If homeschoolers in general decided to put forth a public campaign to recruit other parents, they would be wise to select an independent researcher, preferably someone in (hello) EDUCATION, not psychiatry.
6 of these, half dozen of the other. I think the better argument is built on personal responsibility. It's not your job to educate my kids and visa versa. If you think the public schools or a private school or some other option is the best thing for your kid, then that's what you should do.
But always remember and never forget; if the school system fails to properly educate your kids, they're not going to be the ones w/ incompetent, illiterate adults munching potato chips in their living rooms.
The legislature is to society as a physician is to the patient. If a physician ignored side effects of medications like today's legislators ignore the side effects of their legislation, the physician would be accused of malpractice. I accuse today's legislators (with rare exception) of legislative malpractice. Many of the ills that are so obvious in our society are a direct result of previous legislation. Their solution? More laws!
-- John A. Bennett, DO
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed Chicklett `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;
Post by: bandit1978 on August 18, 2005, 05:43:00 PM
But it's harder than ever to get MDs to write prescriptions- everyones worried they will be investigated if they write too many scripts for narcotics!
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2005, 05:49:00 PM
Post by: bandit1978 on August 18, 2005, 10:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-17 06:43:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Excuse me but, isn't 50 % a little over exagerated? You seriously believe that half of Washington is HIV positive? I think not. I would say it's more along the lines of 7-9 %. "
Do you live in DC? Do you work for the health department or something? Have you ever been here?
I work at a university hospital downtown DC. I'll try to find some statistics for you, but I assure you, it is estimated that 50% of the city population is HIV+.
Post by: Anonymous on August 18, 2005, 10:32:00 PM
Post by: bandit1978 on August 19, 2005, 02:56:00 AM
Geographically, DC is not a large city, and, (although housing prices are astronomical in most parts) not as physically crowded as some other cities (like Tokyo). But DC has had the highest per capita HIV rates- higher than even San Francisco. Thats because in S.F., people are very pro-active in knowing their "status", and therefor there is a lower rate of transmission.
I know this sounds bad, but at ANY hospital in DC city limits (including Vetrans Hospital, university, public, or private hospitals), when African-Americans (or certain immigrant groups), or any homosexual male, or any IV drug user, shows up in any of the hospitals, we know that probably 50% are HIV+, and many don't know it or may not admit it.
Yeah, DC is pretty ghetto. These hospitals are also the same ones that Congress and White house staff go to.
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2005, 09:52:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-08-17 12:11:00, Deborah wrote:
Flaw? What, You don?t think psych drugs are addictive? Ever known anyone who tried to get off? I have, and they usually decide to stay on. .
"
Right on! These mental illnesses are self-limiting, meaning they will just stop on their own. People say they are still sick, that is why they stay on these meds, because they are chronically ill. If they do nothing their mental illness will just go away on its own. There is nothing chronic about mental illness. Just taking the drugs is chronic. How dumb these drug takers are!
"
Quote
Shell shocked? People are being dx?d PTSD for very minor things, like a major move.
"
Absolutely! All these vets moved to Iraq, now they are all coming home with PTSD. If they just move back and start living, instead of complaining they would be happy. PTSD Hah! Scammorama!
Post by: Anonymous on August 21, 2005, 10:20:00 AM
Post by: Napolean Bonafart on August 22, 2005, 04:06:00 AM
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
Andrew Tannenbaum
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2005, 11:44:00 AM
Haven't you all read the proof?
After reading those links, you will surely realize it is all a hoax!
Time and time again on this thread it has been shown that psychiatric drug users are drug addicts. Period!
Post by: SHH Anon Classics on August 22, 2005, 11:59:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2005, 12:57:00 PM
have been something else.
Look back on this thread alone, check out Deborah, she is the most active poster on the
subject of the treatment being the cause of mental illness.
Others agree and have contributed their opinions, experiences and some resources too!
Hence, take away the treatment and you will find
no mental illness.
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2005, 09:16:00 PM
Quote
Shell shocked? People are being dx?d PTSD for very minor things, like a major move.
I agree! Damn, fighting all our wars has been such a stress on soldiers and their families.
Plus, it costs so much money to supply a war
away from the US! Then we have to leave bases in other countries.
All this leads to soldiers getting a lame PTSD diagnosis just because they have moved!
That minor thing could be corrected by simply bringing all our wars home!
Simple and cost effective!
Post by: Anonymous on August 22, 2005, 10:11:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-22 08:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"There are intense research posted on this thread that have proven over and over that there is no mental illness problems and that psychiatric drugs are worse than street drugs.
Haven't you all read the proof?
After reading those links, you will surely realize it is all a hoax!
Time and time again on this thread it has been shown that psychiatric drug users are drug addicts. Period!"
Wow, I had no idea Tom Cruise posted in these forums. Along with his "immense knowlege" on the history of psychology.
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2005, 01:00:00 PM
Tom is a genius, and his movies make $$$~
His views are well supported and proven on this thread alone!
Post by: Anonymous on August 23, 2005, 11:14:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on August 23, 2005, 11:44:00 PM
And one does not need to be a surgeon to describe a surgical procedure, provided you have read enough literature to educate yourself.
To my knowledge there are no shrinkydinks posting here, just folks who have educated themselves and are presenting both sides of the issue. Many 'experts' quoted on both sides. Take your pick.
Hell, Brooke Shields isn't a doctor either, but she's sure selling 'her' opinion on the subject. Which, I might add, is simply based on information she got from an 'expert' who supports the industry.
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 01:23:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-08-23 10:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hey, if Tom Cruise and Scientology where fake the government would not classify them as a religion."
This isn't even a sentence. What the hell is this supposed to mean? Is Tom Cruise classified as a religion now? :lol:
I bow to the church of Tom!
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 06:47:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 11:03:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 11:04:00 AM
Post by: SHH Anon Classics on August 24, 2005, 12:14:00 PM
Recent legal actions involving the Church of Scientology's relationship with its members (see Scientology controversy) have caused the church to publish extensive legal documents that cover the rights granted to its followers. It has become standard practice within the church for members to sign lengthy legal contracts and waivers before engaging in Scientology services, a practice that contrasts greatly with many mainstream religious organizations. Recently in 2003, a series of media reports examined the legal contracts required by Scientology, which state that, among other things, Scientology followers deny any and all psychiatric care that their doctors may prescribe to them:
"?I do not believe in or subscribe to psychiatric labels for individuals. It is my strongly held religious belief that all mental problems are spiritual in nature and that there is no such thing as a mentally incompetent person ? only those suffering from spiritual upset of one kind or another dramatized by an individual. I reject all psychiatric labels and intend for this Contract to clearly memorialize my desire to be helped exclusively through religious, spiritual means and not through any form of psychiatric treatment, specifically including involuntary commitment based on so-called lack of competence. Under no circumstances, at any time, do I wish to be denied my right to care from members of my religion to the exclusion of psychiatric care or psychiatric directed care, regardless of what any psychiatrist, medical person, designated member of the state or family member may assert supposedly on my behalf." ? from the official Scientology release form for the Introspection Rundown, offered by the Church of Scientology to its members, (c) 2001.
See also: Introspection Rundown
[edit]
Church or business?
From 1952 until 1966, the Scientology was administered by a secular organization called the Hubbard Association of Scientologists (HAS), established in Arizona on 10 September 1952. In 1954, the HAS became the HASI (HAS International). The first Church of Scientology was founded in December 1953 in Camden, New Jersey. This, along with two other groups chartered by Hubbard at the same time?the Church of American Science and the Church of Spiritual Engineering?were soon abandoned by Hubbard. The first incorporated Church of Scientology was founded in California on 18 February 1954, changing its name to "The Church of Scientology of California" (CSC) in 1956. In 1966, Hubbard transferred all HASI assets to CSC, thus gathering Scientology under one tax-exempt roof. In 1967, the IRS stripped all US-based Scientology entities of their tax exemption, declaring that Scientology's activities were commercial and that it was being operated for the benefit of Hubbard. The church sued and lost repeatedly for 26 years trying to regain its tax-exempt status. The war was eventually settled in 1993, after the church paid over $12 million to the IRS and the IRS agreed to make the church a tax-exempt nonprofit organization again. According to "Scientologists and IRS settled for $12.5 million" in The Wall Street Journal published on December 30, 1997, exemption was granted after Scientology paid a settlement of $12.5 million to the IRS to cover its outstanding tax liabilities. In addition, Scientology also dropped its more than fifty lawsuits against the IRS when this settlement was reached. Scientology frequently states that its tax exemption is proof that the United States government accepts it as a religion.
In other countries, though, the Church of Scientology is not recognized as a bona fide religion or charitable organization, but is regarded instead as a commercial enterprise. (Sentence of German Labor Court). In early 2003, in Germany, Scientology was granted a tax-exemption for 10% license fees that are sent to the US. This exemption, however, is related to a German-American double-taxation agreement, and has nothing to do with tax-exemption in the context of charities law. In several countries, proselytizing activities of Scientology on public ground undergo the same restrictions as commercial advertising, which is interpreted as religious persecution by the Church of Scientology.
Official reports on Scientology in countries such as Britain, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have yielded unfavorable observations and conclusions. In Britain, Scientologists were banned from entering the country between 1968 ? 1980; more recently, an application by Scientology for charitable status was rejected after the authorities decided that its activities were not of general public benefit. In Germany and Russia, official views of Scientology are particularly harsh. It is seen as a totalitarian organization, and is or has been under observation by police and national security organizations.
The Church of Scientology claims to be non-denominational and compatible with all faiths; however, a deeper study of Scientology shows that its worldview and teachings do contradict those of religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The Church of Scientology also claims that in 1994, a joint council of Shinto Buddhist (Yu-itsu Shinto) sects in Japan not only extended official recognition of Scientology, but also undertook to train a number of their monks in its beliefs and practices as an adjunct to their own meditations and worship. This continues, according to Scientology, a long tradition of Eastern faiths of assimilating or adopting elements of other faiths which they find harmonious with their own. This may be a reflection of the fact that Hubbard acknowledged a strong Eastern, and specifically Buddhist influence in forming his own personal philosophy. However, academic researchers have noted that Hubbard's grasp of eastern religions was shallow and often inaccurate (see Prof. Stephen A. Kent, Scientology's Relationship With Eastern Religious Traditions).
In Israel, the Church of Scientology does not use the term "Church" as part of its name, possibly because of the Christian connotation of the term in Jewish culture. When asked, most Israeli Scientologists deny that Scientology is a religion, and low-level adherents appear genuinely surprised when they are confronted with English-language Scientology material in which the word "Church" is used. Scientology is also somewhat restricted by Israel's anti-missionary laws. There are many active Jewish religious organizations that confront Scientology like Lev L'Achim. They provide hotlines and other services to warn citizens of the many seemingly legitimate fronts that Scientology hides behind in Israel. Something similar happens in Scotland, where Scientology operates as the "Hubbard Academy of Personal Independence"; it is believed that Scottish law does not permit Scientology to call itself a religion.
Unlike many other well-established religious organizations, the Church of Scientology maintains very strict control over its names, symbols, religious works and other published writings. The word Scientology (and many related terms, including L. Ron Hubbard) is a registered trademark. The Church takes a hard line on people and groups who attempt to use it in organizations and practices that are not affiliated with the official Church of Scientology (see Scientology and the legal system).
Post by: Deborah on August 24, 2005, 01:29:00 PM
If you think the only anti-psych voice comes out of his church, you are ill informed.
Can you offer anything other than "Cruise is saying what his church taught him"?
Sooooo what? Let's look at the issue that is pertinent to the discussion.
Say for instance, can you provide proof that anything he said is false?
Do you have any shred of evidence that MIes are legitimate medical 'diseases' and that psych drugs will 'cure' them?
Here's how that goes.
Zoloft commercial claims:
1) No one knows what causes depression. Truth
2) One THEORY is that there?s a chemical imbalance in the brain. Truth. Theory does not = proof.
3) Zoloft works to correct this imbalance. Implying a ?cure?? For a ?theory??
I think the average person does expect a cure. What they will soon learn is that they will be on Zoloft the rest of their lives and god forbid the massive emotional hurricane that will reek havoc if they somehow get separated from their drug.
Post by: Deborah on August 24, 2005, 01:50:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 02:03:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-24 10:50:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Please don't start spamming this thread with lengthy Anit-Scientology propoganda. Start your own thread and post away. It distracts from the topic of "Mental Health Screening" of children.
"
Who is spamming you about Scientology and why would they.
You are right, and have done your research. It is the psychiatrist who make up the mental illness and the drugs cause the symptoms!
Naysayers say that if one goes to a shrink because they already have a chronic illness and all chronic illness are managed by medications in current medicine. Then they say take away the meds and you will have the same illness the patient went to the shrink for in the first time.
That is stupid.
Mental Illness is not diabetes or even MS, rather it is all in one's head!
Right on Deborah, don't cower with an "implied threat" from the anti-Scientology people, you can de-bunk them quickly. You have the talent and you have done it before on fornits.
Don't give in to them ...
Post by: Dolphin on August 24, 2005, 05:14:00 PM
If a doctor doesn't know what it feels like and can only make a educated "guess" then the doctor will prescribe drugs to mask the symptoms while
the symptoms are being looked at or talked about with a friend, a psychologist, etc.
There are many other options besides drugs to mask the symptoms - like bio feedback, NLP, hypnosis../ these and more other ways can make a huge difference pretty quickly.
Unfortunately for most of America, we want a quick fix and popping a pill or two is the accepted answer - the others are a quicker fix, but last longer.
I'm happy to say that I am not an advocate of quick fixes including drugs. Sometimes the hardest thing is to do it ourselves and not depend on drugs.
Cross Creek is not an advocate of the quick fix drug answer either. They will get the kids off the ADD meds asap so they can begin to make some life long changes depending on themselves, not the drugs - just had to throw that in cuz I hear how some people think they drug the kids - so not true.
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 07:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-24 10:29:00, Deborah wrote:
I think the average person does expect a cure. What they will soon learn is that they will be on Zoloft the rest of their lives and god forbid the massive emotional hurricane that will reek havoc if they somehow get separated from their drug.
"
I think it would be great support for Deborah against the anti-Scientologists if all those that
had a psych drug withdrawal that caused the inevitable massive emotional hurricane that reeked havoc on their lives would post their stories.
It could be a short, me too, or a description. Either would show support for Deborah against the
constant naysayer nemesis!
Post by: Anonymous on August 24, 2005, 08:59:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-24 10:29:00, Deborah wrote:
"
I think the average person does expect a cure. What they will soon learn is that they will be on Zoloft the rest of their lives and god forbid the massive emotional hurricane that will reek havoc if they somehow get separated from their drug.
"
Well, you know, if a diabetic is separated from their insulin, their body pretty much wreaks havoc on them too, and they have to take insulin for the rest of their lives. Or what about someone on dialysis?
However, I agree that some of these drug companies were negligent in warning their patients that they needed to taper when weaning themselves off of the drug and they couldn't just stop outright. (ESPECIALLY with Paxil.) In addition, you CAN stop taking Zoloft, (if you taper) especially because Zoloft rarely works indefinitely. In addition, there are a lot of people who suffer from depression who didn't always have to take anti-depressants for the rest of their lives. (However, some of them do, but can cut back their dosages after a while once they stabilize.) It just depends on your individual situation.
Quote
On 2005-08-24 11:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Mental Illness is not diabetes or even MS, rather it is all in one's head!
"
Oh, buh-rilliant! And water on the knee is in one's knee! And tennis elbow is in one's elbow! Of course mental illness is in one's head for fuck's sake! That's where the fucking brain is, you moron! :flame:
There are two problems in this country, and both problems feed into each other.
The first problem is one of stigma and trivialization of mental illness, and I think we have seen plenty of it in this thread, thank you very much. It's been around forever, but fortunately, many mental conditions and illnesses are starting to gain more acceptance and credibility.
However, that is a double edged sword, which is what the topic of this thread is about. (i.e. mental illness screening in schools, which is a complete invasion of privacy.) And that leads to the second problem: Overdiagnosis, and mis-diagnosis. Now, when this happens, especially when there is a "designer condition", such as ADD, and every kid seems to be getting diagnosed with it left and right (whether they really have it or not), it feeds into the first problem, further trivialization and disbelief in mental illness, because people are being misdiagnosed, especially when there is a focus on it in the media, which I think does more harm then good most of the time, because the media is notorious for bashing a topic to death after we've already heard about it a million times over.
On top of that, you have these drug companies on TV with their commercials pushing their medicine, which is a new thing. (I remember when they weren't allowed to do that.) When I see an ad for Zoloft (with that stupid half-assed drawn oval) right after I see one for a reality show, it loses some credibility in my eyes.
I guess a good analogy to draw to this would be rape cases. Rape is real and it happens. But every time, god forbid, a woman cries rape, and it doesn't really happen, she does an injustice to all of the women who were truly raped, because that means that the defense attorneys have that much more ammunition and will be that much more grueling and brutal on the stands in the next rape case with a woman who might have been actually raped. Every time people are misdiagnosed, and teens are put on meds that give them awful side effects that make them want to kill themselves, and stupid commercials come on TV, and the media does a huge extravaganza about it for three weeks, and things are done to trivialize mental illness, it makes it all the more difficult for mental illness in this country to be taken seriously.
It's a series of many variables that contribute to a prejudice that already existed before any of this new shit even started to happen. I personally think that the prejudice is starting to go away for the most part, actually. It's more a question of what the media decides to focus on.
Post by: Antigen on August 24, 2005, 09:24:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-24 17:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
The first problem is one of stigma and trivialization of mental illness, and I think we have seen plenty of it in this thread, thank you very much. It's been around forever, but fortunately, many mental conditions and illnesses are starting to gain more acceptance and credibility.
However, that is a double edged sword, which is what the topic of this thread is about. (i.e. mental illness screening in schools, which is a complete invasion of privacy.) And that leads to the second problem: Overdiagnosis, and mis-diagnosis.
A-Men and A-Men! :nworthy:
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor
Post by: Deborah on August 24, 2005, 11:15:00 PM
Lets get right to the point. Mental health monitoring of children and adults is not a Tom Cruise, nor a celebrity, issue. It is the drugging of children and adults that demands the attention of every American.
Children in America are being medicated to death?death by mind-altering drugs. Children are coerced into mental health screening, they are forced into psychiatric treatment and they are prescribed dangerous psychotropic drugs. America's children are oftentimes denied contact with their parents, they are restrained without parental knowledge and they are given many different psychiatric medications.
Children in America are victims of fraud and death. Millions of them are diagnosed with alleged mental disorders because they are easily distracted, or they talk out of turn in class, or because they don't follow directions. Because they have discipline problems, they are subsequently drugged on substances equal to heroin and cocaine.
It is unconscionable. I am a mother of 5 children. I have four sons and one daughter. They were youngsters who, at times, were distracted, talked out of turn, or didn't always follow directions. In today's schools system and psychiatric world with forced mental health screening, my children would have been placed on deadly drugs and potent pills that are capable of completely debilitating that child?or driving them to violence or suicide.
The deadly drugging of our children should be on the front page of every paper in America. In a Family Concerns, Inc. newsletter in 2004 {a paper I produce), I wrote an article on the subject of the dangers of mental health screening of children. As a Georgia State Senator, in the 2005 General Assembly, I authored a resolution, SR128 (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005 ... /sr128.htm (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/sum/sr128.htm)) opposing the mental health screening for all children.
Since Illinois was the first state to pass the Illinois Children's Mental Health Act (ICMHA), which created a $10 million Children Mental Health Partnership, I fearfully expected other states to follow suit and pass this dreadful piece of legislation. I want to prevent this at all costs in Georgia. The Illinois legislation calls for a social and emotional exam to be administered to all children without parental consent and for women to be examined for depression during pregnancy.
It is my understanding that many Illinois legislators were shocked when they learned what they had voted on and passed. The policy included: (1) Periodic development exams for children ages 0-18 years of age, (2) Statewide data reporting tracking system on each and every person; (3) Social emotional screening with mandated school exams for K, 4th, and 9th grades; and (4) Report cards on children's emotional development
How could this happen? And, even more important, why is this happening? In April of 2002, the Bush administration established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. This Commission was to carry out a "comprehensive" study of the United States mental health service delivery system. According to Dr. Dennis L. Cuddy, in his article "Mental Health, Education and Social Control", Part 5, as of the end of 2004 there were "...27 sites around the country piloting various aspects of the New Freedom Initiative," which provided for strong antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs as treatment for the many "so called" mental health problems detected. Additionally, Dr. Cuddy revealed that the most powerful force behind this initiative is the pharmaceutical industry, including Eli Lilly & Company. Eli Lilly manufactures Prozac? and the antipsychotic drug Olanzapine?. In my research, I discovered that Eli Lilly is a financial supporter of Planned Parenthood?the largest abortion provider in the world?and is a proponent of population control.
Eli Lilly CEO, Sidney Taurel, I am advised, is on the Homeland Security Council. Several years ago, I interviewed Beverly Eakman about her book: "Cloning the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education." Now, in her more recent book "What, Are You Crazy? The Screening of America" she wrote: "In August 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation announced the results of their $1.2 million taxpayer-funded study. It stated that 'traditionalists' are 'mentally disturbed'. Scholars from the University of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives in particular, suffer from 'mental rigidity,' 'dogmatism' and 'uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators of mental illness. It is worth remembering that both the Nazis and Communists used mental health screenings to identify their adversaries. Globalists and internationalists must have complete control over the population to promote their faith of 'world patriotism' or should I say 'internationalism.'"
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2005/073005.html (http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2005/073005.html)
Post by: Anonymous on August 25, 2005, 01:49:00 PM
Yup, let's keep up those parental rights so we can get another generation into BM schools ...
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2005, 11:24:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2005, 03:59:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-08-26 08:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Does Homeschooling teach evolution or creationism?"
Neither, if they know what they are talking about, they teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://venganza.org/ (http://venganza.org/)
Post by: Antigen on August 26, 2005, 04:06:00 PM
Nothing is off limits, so we go where our interests lead us. Interests can be based on need and/or idle curiosity. I bet my 8yo knows more about a basic real estate transaction than your typical HS graduate. Why? When we sold one house and purchased another, she was only 5years old. However, whe wasn't locked away in a boring classroom "learning" sight reading. She went with us.
As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
--H.L. Mencken
Post by: Anonymous on August 26, 2005, 04:13:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on September 11, 2005, 07:27:00 PM
For Immediate Release
Sheila Matthews
National Vice President
http://www.ablechild.org (http://www.ablechild.org)
Mental Health Law, the Courts, & the Gag Order
The First Amendment under Attack
Ablechild recently decided to help a mother stop the State of Illinois from forced drugging her two daughters with psychiatric drugs while in
State care. What we learned in this case, would make one's skin crawl. As a public outreach organization, we believe this is worth sharing.
There is no local, state, or federal agencies to report, investigate, or prosecute psychiatric abuses. As a result, psychiatrists often promote
"off label" experimental drug therapies, which escape review of the FDA and are risking people's lives. Secondly, we learned that the psychiatric industry is actively submitting new proposed legislature, which will remove our constitutional rights to speak out on mental health abuses. The psychiatric industry is hiding behind patient
confidentiality laws and promotes mandatory mental health treatment that is unconstitutional, experimental, dangerous, and often results in
death. Parents cannot even speak out at times without breaking the law.
Is the psychiatric industry so desperate, afraid, and profit driven, that it must gag families from speaking out on the mental health treatment and diagnostic labels it forces on the indigent Wards of the State? One can only conclude that they are afraid of people learning what full informed consent means and how it relates to psychiatric
services. The psychiatric industry must keep the masses in the dark about the subjective nature of the diagnoses and hide the dangers of the false cures they peddle in order to obtain their clients and obtain tax dollars for research and development of psychiatric drugs.
While Ablechild regrets that it was unable to facilitate any meaningful help for the family involved, we do not regret our involvement in such a case. We are very concerned when the rules that apply to mental health laws are twisted and turned to cover-up State psychiatric abuse, forced drugging, or experimentation on Wards of the State. The system is corrupt, in such a way that an indigent person is unable to fight within the court system, meant to bring justice and legal relief. Imagine fighting for your children and being told you are not allow to speak out on the very services the State is forcing upon you and your loved ones.
Gag orders used in mental health cases of the indigent violate the most basic constitutional rights of freedom of speech and illustrates the
current corrupt policies of the very courtroom in which we all depend on to protect our constitutional rights.
Post by: Deborah on September 19, 2005, 07:19:00 PM
Read the Lawsuit here:
http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/2005.09.17.PDF (http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/2005.09.17.PDF)
Post by: Deborah on September 25, 2005, 11:36:00 PM
http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/teen-screen.htm (http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/teen-screen.htm)
Post by: Anonymous on September 29, 2005, 04:14:00 PM
http://groups.google.com/group/Parents- ... 44b5940d49 (http://groups.google.com/group/Parents-Against-TeenScreen/browse_thread/thread/0f01db44b5940d49)
One of Laurie Flynn's (Director of TeenScreen) tactics when propounding the virtues of TeenScreen, is to use the example of her daughter's own suicide attempt to forward the cause. Why do I use such a callous word as "tactics" in the same sentence as a horrible event like a child's suicide attempt? Read on and follow along....
Here's where I REALLY become incensed! In her promotion for TeenScreen, Flynn continually uses the following type of statements:
http://tinyurl.com/dw7x2 (http://tinyurl.com/dw7x2)
PENNSYLVANIA STATE HEARINGS - Dec 2003
"My own daughter's illness BEGAN with a suicide attempt, a truly terrifying event that I didn't expect. As with most parents I would have said I could tell if my child were struggling but there were NO SIGNS TO SEE. I had NO WARNING and was tremendously shocked that my daughter, valedictorian of her high school, would try to kill herself.
How I wish there had been a TeenScreen in my daughters' high school. I know this simple, confidential, self-administered mental health
check-up will truly save lives. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today."
Similar examples can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/ex43y (http://tinyurl.com/ex43y)
Witness Testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on health, Education, Labor, & Pensions - March 2004
and here:
http://tinyurl.com/ckssu (http://tinyurl.com/ckssu)
BUT THE TRUTH IS THIS - Flynn uses this situation to forward whatever notion is popular for her to push at that time......and her daughter's
suicide attempt was actually one event in a long history of psychiatric intervention. As you will see it did NOT begin with the suicide attempt....:
A statement issued while Flynn was still the head of NAMI, forwarding her cause of getting families better linked up to services and ending stigma......
http://tinyurl.com/898n6 (http://tinyurl.com/898n6)
"The biggest issue we faced during the time our daughter began to manifest problems (when she was five years old) was to convince the "professionals" that she did indeed have a disease that was biologically based and not caused by alleged child abuse, bad parenting. The paternal history of schizophrenia (father's mother, grandfather, and possibly two uncles) was never taken into consideration in determining what might have been causing the illness in the child. It was parent-bashing at its worst."
AND
http://tinyurl.com/7vz4q (http://tinyurl.com/7vz4q)
Witness testimony to the Dept.of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies Appropriations for 1999
Wednesday, February 4, 1998.
Subject: Support for a continued Federal investment in research for "brain disorders"
"NAMI believes research on these brain disorders has the greatest potential payoff for American taxpayers over the long run...... My own
daughter, Shannon, who was diagnosed with a severe mental illness, is one such example. Despite over 10 years of illness, Shannon today,
thanks to research based treatment, graduated from ..."
So which is it Ms. Flynn. Are you really a proponent for families and children everywhere?
........A friend of mine summed this up very well:
"If we could just get someone to speak up and ask her the same question each and every time she speaks anywhere, she would fold up and blow
away.
Someone should ask:
Ms. Flynn,
You testified in front of congress that your daughter's mental illness "began with a suicide attempt". You have used this to forward your goal
of screening young people for mental illness.
Yet, you also reported in testimony that your daughter's illness began at the age of 5 and you said, in 1998, in testimony, that your daughter
had been under "research-based treatment for 10 years".
Ms. Flynn, do you know the definition of truth? Truth is not "whatever you have to say in order to forward your particular line". Truth is not
variable. Truth is truth.
Your own daughter was identified, treated for years with the treatment you advocate and attempted suicide, possibly as a direct result. Now, you lie in front of congress so that you can defraud other parents into profitable and deadly treatment. You prey upon parents fear and pain of
suicide in order to deliver children to be entered into the very treatment that led your daughter into a suicide attempt.
Ms. Flynn, is it not true that nearly 100% percent of all people who attempt or complete a suicide are already identified and treated?
Ms. Flynn, what is your purpose in forwarding screening when you know that suicides will be increased, not decreased?
Ms. Flynn, everyone wants to prevent suicide. Why are you taking advantage of parents fear and pain to forward your own agenda?"
My friend also states:
"I think we should take out a full-page ad in Laurie Flynn's hometown.
I'll contribute $10."
Hear, Hear.......
Post by: Anonymous on September 30, 2005, 10:32:00 AM
Suicide Prevention and Youth: Saving Lives
Hearing Date: March 2, 2004, 10:00 am
Location: SD-430
Witness:
Laurie Flynn
The Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and
Laurie Flynn is the director of The Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and Treatment in the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the national director of Positive Action for Teen Health (PATH). Ms. Flynn has been instrumental in the improvement of services for children and adolescents with serious mental disorders. Before joining Columbia University in 2001, Ms. Flynn served as the executive director of NAMI (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill) for 16 years. NAMI is the nation?s leading grassroots advocacy organization dedicated solely to improving the quality of life for people with severe mental illnesses and their families. Ms. Flynn is a member of many national advisory boards and professional association committees concerned with the care of the severely mentally ill, the quality of mental health care and family support, as well as research and ethical aspects of the treatment of mental illness. She is also the recipient of many service awards and commendations from national foundations and associations, including three from the American Psychiatric Association. Ms. Flynn is the author of several articles, books, and book chapters on health services for the mentally ill and family support. LAURIE M. FLYNN CURRICULUM VITAE CONTACT INFORMATION Columbia University Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 1775 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, New York 10019 Tel: 646-443-8191 Fax: 646-443-8190 Email: FlynnL@childpsych.columbia.edu EMPLOYMENT Director, The Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis & Treatment, 2002 ? present National Director, Positive Action for Teen Health, 2002 ? present Senior Research & Policy Associate, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 2001 ? 2002 Executive Director, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, 1984 ? 2000 Director of Public Policy, National Adoption Center, 1983 ? 1984 Executive Director, North American Council on Adoptable Children, 1979 ? 1983 Conference Director, Delaware Valley Adoption Council, 1978 ? 1979 Consultant to child welfare organizations, federal, state and county governments and non-profit family organizations, 1978 ? 1985 BOARDS & PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Clinical Trial Advisory Group, National Institute of Mental Health, 2000 ? present Expert Panel, Forecast for Mental Health 2010, Institute for the Future, 2000 ? present Intramural Research Program, IRB, National Institute of Mental Health, 1998 ? 2000 Member, Executive Session on Medical Error and Patient Safety, Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1998 ? present National Advisory Board, Research Center on Managed Care for Psychiatric Disorders, University of California, Los Angeles, 1998 ? present Board of Directors, Health Care Quality Alliance, 1998 ? present Chair, Board of Trustees, Foundation for Accountability, 1996 ? 1999 (current member) Presidential Appointee to National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 1996 ? present Advisory Board, Center for Mental Health Services Research, University of California, Berkeley-San Francisco, 1994 ? present American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Committee on Ethical Considerations in Clinical Research, 1994 ? present American Psychiatric Association, Committee on Human Subjects in Research, 1994 ? present National Expert Advisory Panel, Schizophrenia PORT, University of Maryland, 1993 ? 1999 Executive Committee member, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland Center for Research on Services for Severe Mental Illness, 1992 ? present Appointed by Gov. William Donald Schaefer to Maryland Commission on Women's Health, Chair, Mental Health, 1992 ? 1993 Editorial Board, Association for Health Services Research, 1991 ? present National Advisory Board, Center for Research on the Organization and Financing of Care for the Severely Mentally Ill at Rutgers University, 1990 ? present Appointed by H.H.S. Secretary Louis Sullivan to the Federal Task Force on Homelessness and Severe Mental Illness, 1991 ? 1992 National Mental Health Leadership Forum, 1989 ? 1992 Child Welfare Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, 1989 ? 1993 Interdisciplinary Advisory Board for Hospital & Community Psychiatry Journal, 1988 ? present Governing Council, Section for Psychiatric Services, American Hospital Association, 1987 ? 1990 National Advisory Committee for Young Adults with Serious Mental Illnesses: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors 1987 ? present Committee on Problems of Public Concern Co-chair, American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 1986 - present SELECTED PRESENTATIONS The Columbia University TeenScreen Program - Presentation to the Idaho Psychiatric Society and First Lady of Idaho. June 2003. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program - Presentation to the State Capitol, Madison, Wisconsin. June 2003. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program - Presentation to the United States Secretary of Education. Washington, D.C. June 2003. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program ? Presentation to the Education Research and Development Institute. New York City. 2003. Health Service Needs for Persons with Severe Mental Illness. Lecture to John?s Hopkins University, Bloomberg Department of Public Health. Baltimore, Maryland. April 2003. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program - Plenary Speaker for the 16th Annual Research Conference: A System of Care for Children?s Mental Health?Expanding the Research Base, Florida Mental Health Institute. Tampa, FL. March 2003. Dealing with Fragmentation in the Service Delivery System ? Presentation to the President?s New Freedom on Mental Health. Arlington, VA. December 2002. Reaching Youth at Risk for Suicide: Prevention, Legislation, School Screening. Symposium at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Annual Conference. San Francisco, California. October 2002. Screening Adolescents for Suicide and Depression. Workshop at the Alliance for Children and Families Annual Conference. Philadelphia, PA. October 2002. The Columbia University TeenScreen Program: Making it Happen. Symposium at the Annual Convention of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, Washington, D.C., July 2001. Institute on Psychiatric Services, Philadelphia, PA. Invited Lecture, 2000. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University, Lecture, 2000. Department of Psychiatry, Maryland University Grand Rounds, 1999. Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Grand Rounds, 1999. Hospital & Community Psychiatry Institute, San Diego, CA, 1994, 1996, 1999. Eleventh Annual Pittsburgh Schizophrenia Conference, Keynote, 1994. Hillside Hospital, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Commencement Address to graduates in Psychiatry, 1993. Hospital & Community Psychiatry Institute, Baltimore, MD, 1993. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, 1993. Columbia University Psychiatric Residency Training Program, 1992. Yale University CMHC 75th Anniversary Lecture, 1991. Friends Hospital, Philadelphia, 1991. Sheppard-Pratt Hospital, Baltimore, MD, 1991. American Psychiatric Nurses Association, Keynote, Baltimore, MD, 1991. NIMH Biannual Conference on Mental Health Economics, 1990. New York Medical College Department of Psychiatry, 1990. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Dean's Lecture, 1990. PUBLICATIONS ARTICLES: "Saving Lives in New York: A Plan To Prevent Suicides - Suicide and Populations at Risk: Recipients of Mental Health Services." New York State Office Of Mental Health. (In Press). ?Mental Health Screening Can Prevent Youth Suicide.? School Board News, National School Board Association. July 2003 ?Implementing Evidence-Based Practices for Persons with Severe Mental Illness,? Psychiatric Services, co- author, January 2001 ?Blaming the wrong Villain,? Taking Issue Column, Psychiatric Services, November 2000 ?The Role of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill in Reversing the Economic burden of Mental Illness,? The Economics of Neuroscience, co-author, 2000 ?A New Image of Mental Health,? Health & Health Care 2010, Institute for the Future, 2000 "Mental Illness: A Legacy of Stigma, A Future of Hope," Journal of Practical Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, 1998 "Political Impact of the Family-Consumer Movement," National Forum, Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 1994 "Patients' Families Say No!" essay, part of "Dialogue: Can Managed Behavioral Healthcare Plans Serve the Severely Mentally Ill?," Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow, 1994 CHAPTERS: ?Role of Advocacy, Self-help and Career Groups and Voluntary Organizations? chapter in New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, 2000 ?Consumer and Family Concerns About Research Involving Human Subjects,? chapter in Ethics in Psychiatric Research by American Psychiatric Association, Pincus HA, Lieberman JA, Ferris S, 1999 "Patterns of Health and Social Service Use Among People with Severe and Persistent Mental Illness," Flynn LM, Kasper JD, Steinwachs DM.1996 "Social and Economic Costs of Schizophrenia" chapter in From Mind to Molecule: Review of Schizophrenia Research by American Psychiatric Association, 1994 "Managed Care: A Family Perspective," chapter in Allies or Adversaries: Mental Health and Managed Care, American Psychiatric Association, 1994 "Forming A National Family Organization: What NAMI Has Learned. ? Chapter in Advocacy for Emotionally Disturbed Children, Florida Research & Training Center for Children With Severe Emotional Disturbances, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1989 "The Stigma of Mental Illness" chapter in Families of the Mentally Ill: Meeting the Challenge, Agnes Hatfield, editor New Directions for Mental Health Services Series, Jossey-Bass, 1987 BOOKS: Using Client Outcomes Information to Improve Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment, co-editor, 1996 Criminalizing the Seriously Mentally Ill: The Abuse of Jails as Mental Hospitals, by NAMI and Public Citizen's Health Research Group, co-author, 1992 A Foster Parent's Guide to Mental Health Services for Children, Child Welfare Institute, 1990 Care of the Seriously Mentally Ill: A Rating of State Programs, co-author, 1988 and 1990 editions HONORS ? The CNS Award for Outstanding Service to Humanity, Comprehensive NeuroScience, Inc., 2000 ? Albert B. Sabin Hero of Science Award, Americans for Medical Progress Education Foundation, 1999 ? Decade of Brain Award, National Foundation for Brain Research, 1998 ? Public Service Award, American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 1996 ? Patient Advocacy Award, American Psychiatric Association, 1995 ? Presidential Commendation Award, American Psychiatric Association, 1994 ? Mental Health Section Award, American Public Health Association, 1993 ? Award for Distinguished Service, American Psychiatric Association, 1988 and 1991 ? Selected as a Switzer Scholar by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association for Rehabilitation, 1988 ? Certificate of Commendation, presented by Margaret Heckler, U.S. Secretary of HHS, 1983 ? Award for Meritorious Service to the Children of America, presented by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1981 EDUCATION Mary Washington College University of Virginia, BA, Philosophy
Testimony of Laurie Flynn
Director Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and Treatment Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Columbia University Hearing on ?Suicide Prevention and Youth: Saving Lives? Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Subcommittee on Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services March 2, 2004 Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee; as Director of the Carmel Hill Center for Early Diagnosis and Treatment within the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University, I am honored to participate as a witness at today?s hearing on youth suicide prevention. The Carmel Hill Center administers the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program, a mental health screening and suicide prevention initiative for youth. The issue of youth suicide prevention is personal to me; my daughter made a suicide attempt during her senior year of high school. She had deteriorated inexplicably and rapidly, moving quickly from severe stress to depression with few warning signs. At the time, there was no reliable way for youth to be screened for mental illness or suicidal tendencies and parents had no reliable way of knowing their child was in danger. Thankfully my daughter was successfully treated and went on to college and graduate school. Last year she was married. My family?s story has a happy ending, but thousands of parents and teens are not so fortunate. The Evidence Base for Mental Health Screening as a Means of Youth Suicide Prevention Since my daughter was first treated for mental illness, evidence-based youth mental health screening programs have been researched, developed, proven to work, and made available for use. These suicide prevention initiatives, which include not only the Columbia University TeenScreen Program but also other programs such as the Signs of Suicide Program developed by our colleagues at Screening for Mental Health, Inc., have undoubtedly helped improve, if not saved, the lives of thousands of teens. Had the TeenScreen Program been available in my daughter?s high school, I most likely would have had a year or more warning that she needed help. There exists a growing body of scientific research that has found screening to be an effective way to find those who are suffering from mental health problems and are at risk for suicide. Screening provides a way to find these youth before their lives have been permanently derailed by related poor academic achievement, substance use, self injury and suicide attempt. Screening is especially important because many conditions, especially adolescent depression, do not always exhibit easily identifiable symptoms. Universal screening, when linked with referral to appropriate services, can significantly reduce the devastating impact of mental health problems on young lives. The move to offer mental health screening to every teen in the United States is based on the findings of a psychological autopsy study published in 1996 by Dr. David Shaffer, Chairman of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Columbia University. The study provided information about teenagers who commit suicide and how suicides could be prevented, revealing that teen suicide is not the unpredictable event we had once thought it to be. In fact, teens that commit suicide suffer from a very specific range of mental illnesses. Dr. Shaffer found that 91 percent of the teens that committed suicide had a psychiatric disorder at the time of their deaths. This finding has now been replicated in several national and international studies. In Dr. Shaffer?s study, the majority of boys who committed suicide suffered from depression, abused alcohol or drugs, and/or had made a prior suicide attempt. Most girls who committed suicide either suffered from depression or had made a prior suicide attempt (Shaffer et al., 1996a). The original study of the TeenScreen Program on 2,004 high school students revealed the program?s unique ability to uncover youth at risk for suicide, but unknown to have problems and not receiving professional help for them (Shaffer et al, 1996b). Only 31 percent of those with major depression, 26 percent of those with recent suicide ideation, and 50 percent of those who had made a past suicide attempt were known by school personnel to have significant problems and receiving help. This indicates that the majority of students who are suffering from a mental illness and are at risk for suicide are currently not detected. Dr. Shaffer hypothesized that if youth were screened for these disorders and those found to be at risk were treated, most suicides could be prevented. As a result of Dr. Shaffer?s research, the Columbia University TeenScreen Program was developed. The Columbia University TeenScreen® Program The TeenScreen Program has a simple purpose: to screen youth for mental illness and suicide, identify those who are at risk, and link them to appropriate treatment. In 1999, we were able to take the available research and apply it in the real world with the launch of the national TeenScreen Program. As part of our initiative to ensure that every teenager receives a mental health screening before leaving high school, we have trained 108 screening sites in 34 states, Guam, Canada and Panama. We currently have over 200 sites in development. In 2003, we were able to screen approximately 14,200 teens at these sites; among those students, we were able to identify approximately 3,500 youth with mental health problems and link them with treatment. This year, we believe we will be able to identify close to 10,000 teens in need, a 300 percent increase over last year. The TeenScreen Program works by creating partnerships with communities across the nation to implement early identification programs for suicide and mental illness in youth. We work with communities to develop screening programs that are based on the TeenScreen Program, yet adaptable to accommodate the specific needs and resources of each community. Most screening programs take place in schools, but the program can also be implemented in residential treatment facilities, foster care settings, clinics, shelters, drop-in centers and other settings that serve youth. Once a screening partner has been identified, we ask that the potential screening site complete some basic requirements. The site must submit a plan for screening youth and agree to identify a site coordinator, agree to screen a minimum of 200 youth per year, commit to routinizing screening in their community, and provide biannual reporting of screening results. We do not require data collection for research purposes, and we work with potential sites through the application process to help them fulfill each requirement to the best of their ability. In fact, many of our current sites began screening as part of a one-year pilot and, once they felt comfortable with the process and obtained further community resources and support, have since advanced to screening routinization. It is important to note that we require both parental consent and participant assent before a youth can take part in the screening process, thus making screening a completely voluntary activity. In the first stage of the actual screening process, all youth who consent to screening and obtain parental consent complete the Diagnostic Predictive Scales (DPS). The DPS is a 10-minute self-administered questionnaire that screens for social phobia, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, alcohol and drug abuse, and suicidality. Youth who report no mental health problems on the DPS are dismissed from the screening, and youth who require further attention are advanced to the second stage where they are assessed by a mental health clinician to determine if further evaluation or treatment would be beneficial. If professional services are recommended, the youth and his or her family are assisted with the referral process. At a time of budget shortfalls at both the federal and state levels, I am aware that the subcommittee is particularly interested in the costs associated with our screening program. I am happy to report that as part of our new campaign to ensure that every teenager receives a mental health check-up before leaving high school, we are offering 400 communities across the nation free individually tailored screening projects, including free screening instruments, materials, and software; free pre-training consultation; free training; and free post-training technical assistance. Most sites incur a minimal cost for implementing a screening program. The primary cost associated with screening is staff; other costs include computers and supplies. Many schools and communities can implement their programs at no additional cost by utilizing resources that are already in place (e.g., the school social worker conducts the screening and uses the school?s computer lab to do so) or by securing volunteers and interns to staff the program. Schools that do not have these resources in place have been able to find grants to support the screening staff, which can be as small as one person, and supply needs. Because the program is flexible and can be implemented in a variety of ways, it is able to fit into any budget. State Efforts Through our outreach efforts and community partnerships, we have been enormously pleased to work with several states that have taken the initiative to implement statewide youth mental health screening and suicide prevention strategies. Among these states are Ohio, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico; in addition, recent activity in Pennsylvania and Iowa have put those states on the path to a statewide strategy. For example, in the Chairman?s home state of Ohio, we have been fortunate to work with Mike Hogan, PhD, Director of the Ohio Department of Mental Health, Chair of the President's New Freedom Mental Health Commission, and a member of our National Advisory Council. In February 2002, Commissioner Hogan initiated a statewide TeenScreen effort by soliciting five county mental health boards to be part of a pilot program. Over the next 10 to 18 months, the development of these screening sites was supported by staff at the TeenScreen Program as well as through a grant of $15,000 from the Department of Mental Health to each mental health board who is participating in the pilot program (Cuyahoga County, Clermont County, Butler County, Stark County, and Wayne/Holmes Counties). In Senator Ensign's home state, the Nevada Department of Education recently announced plans to create a new office within the department, the Center for Health and Learning. Our partnership with Nevada began 2 years ago in the Clark County Health District, which maintains 3 school-based health centers serving ten schools in Las Vegas and North Las Vegas. During this time, health district staff has used the TeenScreen Program in 3 of the area schools. Due to the success of the program in Clark County, and through the continuous outreach and collaborative efforts of the county's health district staff, the Nevada Department of Education has taken an interest in the TeenScreen Program, resulting in the creation of the Center for Health and Learning. The development of the Center has been led by Gary Waters, State School Board President, and strong supporter of the TeenScreen Program. The Center will, among other activities, be responsible for setting up a statewide program to oversee the TeenScreen Program in interested schools and districts. The Center's oversight will include the development, start-up, and implementation of TeenScreen sites as well as ongoing support, including planning support, coordination of provider services, and quality assurance guidance, for these new sites. In New Mexico, home to Senator Bingaman, a collaborative relationship with the New Mexico Department of Health?s Office of School Health and the University of New Mexico?s Department of Psychiatry has led to successes on many fronts. Our partnership in the state began two and a half years ago with a TeenScreen Program pilot in 5 school-based health centers (including Silver City SBHC, Ruidoso SBHC, Acoma-Laguna SBHC, and Bernalillo SBHC). This pilot has led to the stationing of a TeenScreen Program Western Regional Coordinator in Albuquerque, integration of the TeenScreen Program into several Robert Wood Johnson funded research grants, and the adoption of screening by several frontier schools, including Newcomb, Clovis, and Lovington. Youth mental health screening is also at the forefront of issues to be included in New Mexico?s behavioral health restructuring plan, and have a great deal of support across state agencies. As the Senator is aware, recent suicides in Pojoaque schools have prompted that community and others to seek out solutions that better address the unique challenges that New Mexico communities face, and the TeenScreen Program is one of the approaches being considered. In Iowa, home to a member of the full committee, Senator Harkin, a tragedy occurred just this past October. A student at Lincoln High School in Des Moines committed suicide, and subsequently parents and school officials became suspicious of a suicide pact. In response to the suicide and the suspected suicide pact, and with the help of former Governor Terry Branstad, a member of our National Advisory Council, TeenScreen Program staff offered our assistance and our program to Lincoln High School and the Des Moines school district. This incident coincided with a groundswell of interest in screening from school social workers, most of who had heard about TeenScreen at a conference, and in the State Department of Education. Ultimately, we were able to convene two important meetings; the first was with representatives of the State Department of Education and school social workers from around the state; the second was with the principal of Lincoln High School, members of the school board, and representatives of the Des Moines School District, among other attendees. As a result of these two meetings, we are on our way to implementing youth mental health check-ups not only in the Des Moines School District, but across the state as part of a statewide TeenScreen Program pilot. In Florida, our partnership is an example of the relationship between youth suicide, mental illness, and substance abuse prevention. TeenScreen Program staff has been working with Governor Jeb Bush to help achieve his goal of reducing suicides in the state. We have specifically collaborated with Jim McDonough, Director of the Office of Drug Control and the state Suicide Prevention Talk Force. In partnership with the University of South Florida we are piloting district wide mental health screening of 9th graders in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. Staff has met with mental health professionals and community leaders, elected officials, advocates, the business community, and family organizations to build a base of support for media outreach and awareness. The Case for Expanded Mental Health Screening Research has established that evidence-based screening programs are one of the most effective means of youth suicide prevention. Research has also shown that one of the best times to catch youth at risk of suicide is in high school, with suicide rates among teens rising dramatically around age 14 to 15. While we are proud to have trained 108 screening sites in the use of the TeenScreen Program, only a fraction of our nation?s secondary schools currently offer students a mental health screening. The need for increased availability of youth mental health screening is evidenced by the fact that close to 750,000 teens are depressed at any one time, and an estimated 7-12 million youth suffer from mental illness. While treatments are available for these severely disabling disorders, sadly, most children do not receive the treatment they need. Among teens that are depressed, 60-80 percent go untreated. Among all teens with mental illness, two out of three do not receive treatment. It has been established that the failure to adequately care for the mental health of our youth is connected to youth suicide. Suicide continues to be the third leading cause of death among our youth. In fact, more adolescents die by suicide as die from all natural causes combined. This does not even take into consideration the 19 percent of teens who contemplated suicide, the 9 percent who made a suicide attempt, and the 3 percent who made an attempt requiring medical attention, as identified by the CDC in 2001. The good news is that in the past year, there has been a wave of support for youth mental health screening, led by the final report of the President?s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. One of only 6 reported goals of the commission is that ?Early Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Referral to Services Are Common Practice.? The commission found that among children such screening, assessments, and referrals ?can prevent mental health problems from worsening." The commission?s final report also states that "schools are in a key position to identify mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services." I am especially pleased to report that the commission named the Columbia University TeenScreen Program a model program for early intervention. National Support for Mental Health Screening In addition to the endorsement by the President?s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, to date, 21 national mental health, education, and other organizations have endorsed the goal of offering every American teen receives a mental health check-up before high school graduation. A list of these organizations has been provided for committee members. We have also found success in Congress and among state legislators. Language in fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill calls on the federal government to report on what it is doing to encourage mental health check-ups for youth, including school based screening. We see this as a first step towards identifying one or more federal funding streams in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education to support screening. Last September, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduced the Children?s Mental Health Screening and Prevention Act, H.R. 3063, bipartisan legislation to fund a federal demonstration program encouraging diverse sites to implement and evaluate youth mental health screening. The legislation, which currently has 37 cosponsors in the House but no companion legislation in the Senate, would authorize up to $7.5 million a year to enable up to ten interested communities to participate. At the state level, the Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Illinois state legislators have introduced resolution specifically encouraging the use of mental health screening as a means of identifying youth at risk for suicide. In Pennsylvania, this resolution was followed-up by a joint hearing on youth suicide prevention at which we were honored to testify. Challenges for the Subcommittee The challenge to the subcommittee is clear. There now is a proven way to find young people before they make an attempt on their lives. Families are counting on your leadership. Fortunately, the subcommittee, the committee, the Senate, the Congress, and the entire federal government are in a position to ensure that every teen in America is offered a mental health screening as a means of suicide prevention. More leadership is needed, not necessarily more money. Our experience shows that the government can support youth mental health screening by redirecting existing resources. For example, state and local education agencies can use Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities dollars to support school-based mental health services and suicide prevention activities. Both the federal and state governments must do a better job of encouraging local school districts to include mental health check-ups in their grant applications. Looking back at the example set by Nevada, I would encourage the federal government to support the appointment of a state leader on suicide prevention. Currently, suicide prevention activities are administered by a myriad of state agencies and councils, sometimes in coordination with mental health services, sometimes in coordination with health services such as injury and violence prevention, and sometimes in coordination with education services. This leader can be a person currently working on youth suicide prevention at the state level, but who would now be responsible for coordinating and disseminating available information on youth suicide prevention and youth mental health screening. Finally, Congress will soon consider reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. I know the subcommittee joins me in thanking the agency for their leadership on the issue of youth suicide prevention. I encourage Congress to ensure that the agency has the resources it needs to continue its work and to increase its support of youth mental health screening. I am grateful for the subcommittee?s leadership on and support for youth suicide prevention and am ready to work with you to ensure that all children are on the path to lead happy and healthy lives. I would be more than happy to take any questions from the subcommittee members. Bibliography Shaffer, D., Gould, M., Fisher, P., Trautman, P., Moreau, D., Kleinman, M., & Flory, M. (1996). Psychiatric diagnosis in child and adolescent suicide. Archives of General Psychiatry; 53: 339-348. Shaffer, D., Wilcox, H., Lucas, C., Hicks, R., Busner, C., & Parides, M.S. (1996 ). The development of a screening instrument for teens at risk for suicide. Poster presented at the 1996 meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; New York, NY. Lucas, C. (2001). The Disc Predictive Scales (DPS): Efficiently Screening for Diagnosis. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; 40(4): 443-449.
Post by: Anonymous on September 30, 2005, 10:42:00 AM
Bullshit. Every parent in this country has access to therapist and shrinks- an ample number listed right in the yellow pages. They belong in private practice, not in our schools. Any of them would be happy to 'screen' your child for depression, and a host of other disorders.
Post by: Anonymous on September 30, 2005, 02:35:00 PM
By Bruce Levine
In 1980 the American Psychiatric Association (APA), in step with the election of Ronald Reagan and the U.S. right-wing shift, proclaimed a new mental illness: oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Today ODD has become an increasingly
popular diagnosis for a young person who "actively
defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules" and "argues with adults"--symptoms
according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders (DSM), the APA's official diagnostic manual. While those once
labeled juvenile delinquents are now diagnosed with conduct disorder (CD), ODD is applied to those doing nothing illegal, only bucking authority.
Two ways of subduing anti-authoritarianism are
criminalizing it and pathologizing it and U.S. history is replete with examples of both. In
the same era of John Adams's Sedition Act, which criminalized criticism of U.S. governmental
policy, Dr. Benjamin Rush, "the father of American
psychiatry" (his image adorns the APA seal), pathologized anti-authoritarianism. Rush diagnosed those rebelling against a centralized federal authority as having an "EXCESS OF THE PASSION FOR LIBERTY" that "constituted a form of
insanity." He labeled this illness ANARCHIA.
>
Historically, both direct and indirect resistance to authority have been medicalized and diseased. In an 1851 article in the New Orleans Medical and
Surgical Journal, Louisiana physician Samuel
Cartwright reported his discovery of DRAPETOMANIA, the disease that CAUSED SLAVES TO FLEE CAPTIVITY, and DYSAESTHESIA AETHIOPIS, the disease that caused slaves to PAY INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION TO THE MASTER'S NEEDS. As with anarchia, few took drapetomania and dysaesthesia
aethiopis seriously--but this was before the
diseasing of anti-authoritarianism was accompanied by Big Pharma drugs and marketing
blitzs.
While drapetomania has given way to ODD and CD,
dysaesthesia aethiopis has given way to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The vast
majority kids "with ADHD" are capable of paying attention and being cooperative in environments that they are comfortable in. Studies show that they will pay attention to activities that they have chosen, that they find stimulating, or for
which they are getting paid. They routinely pay
attention to what interests them but tend to blow off school, especially homework. In 1992 the then APA medical director proudly described the relationship between the APA and pharmaceutical corporations as a "responsible, ethical partnership," and, in 2001, the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that four to six million ADHD-labeled U.S. kids were taking Ritalin and Ritalin-like drugs.
Young people often ask me why psychiatrists and
psychologists don't understand that it is normal for kids to rebel against being controlled. The answer, I believe, is that many psychiatrists and
psychologists are not in touch with how extremely obedient they are. Acceptance into medical school and graduate school requires lots of As, and achieving a PhD or MD means jumping through many
meaningless hoops, all of which require much
behavioral and attentional compliance. When compliant MDs and PhDs begin seeing noncompliant
patients, many of these doctors get uptight and anxiety is often a prelude to diseasing that
which is quite normal. (Homosexuality was a DSM
disease until 1970s gay rights activists forced its removal). [AND STILL CONSIDERED ONE IN MANY PROGRAMS] In the institutions where I trained, there were a small minority of medical and graduate students who challenged authority, but
they were commonly labeled by higher-ups as "having issues with authority" and were pressured to seek psychotherapy for that condition.
Many substance abusers, while routinely destructive to themselves and others and not to be romanticized, are often anti-authoritarians. Researcher Craig MacAndrew developed a scale that distinguishes alcoholic and drug abuser personalities from "normal" subjects. The most
significant "addictive personality type" had discipline problems at school, were less tolerant of boredom, were less compliant with authorities and some laws, and engaged in more disapproved
sexual practices. Many indigenous cultures are
communitarian, anti-authoritarian cultures, and it is no accident that so many indigenous people have resorted to substance abuse in the face of overwhelming powerlessness thrust upon them by the dominant culture.
Among anti-authoritarians, some prize only their own liberty, but many care so strongly about social injustice that their pain over its absence can overwhelm them. They feel alienated, and their great desire is to connect with like-minded souls. But it is not the 1960s or the 1890s and there are no well-known "scenes" where they can find others in "the movement" or "the cause."
So they often get depressed and become self-destructive, and some seek treatment.
In every generation there will be:
(1)authoritarians, the passionate of whom
are fascists, (2) bourgeois/yuppies, who enjoy
anti-authoritarian books, music, and movies but don't act on them, and (3) genuine anti-authoritarians, who are so pained by exploitive hierarchies that they take action. Sometimes
anti-authoritarian action is obvious, more often it is subtle, and too often it is futile. Only rarely do anti-authoritarians take effective direct action that inspires others to revolt, but every once in a while a Tom Paine comes along.
So control-freaks take no chances, and the state-corporate partnership criminalizes anti-authoritarianism, pathologizes it, markets drugs to "cure" it, and financially intimidates those who might buck the system.
These days the managed-care police are working
feverishly to speed patients out of treatment. Along with pressuring me to refer my clientele for drugs, these cops--more benignly--often demand that I assign homework. And so for clients whom I believe would identify with Emma Goldman, I "assign" her autobiography.
In the first 50 pages of Living My Life, Goldman
tells how in the late 1880s the Haymarket martyrs gave her unhappy life a cause and how that cause
energized her to leave her boring husband and move
from Rochester, New York to New York City where she quickly hooked up with a lover, a mentor, and a community of like-minded souls.
I am happy to report that Living My Life provided instant self-help for one middle-aged, female client of mine, an anti-authoritarian previously diagnosed with substance abuse, depression, and several personality disorders. She has a passion now for reading and foregoes booze when captivated by a good book, and so the 993 pages of Goldman's epic provided a longer detox treatment than that provided by many insurance companies. Now this woman is fairly certain that she would not have become depressed or abused alcohol if she too had had a cause and community, and she has become energized in her search.
Z
Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and
author of Commonsense Rebellion: Taking Back Your Life from Drugs, Shrinks, Corporations, and a World Gone Crazy (Continuum).
>
> - end -
>
> http://www.brucelevine.net (http://www.brucelevine.net)
Post by: Anonymous on September 30, 2005, 03:40:00 PM
BELOW are 2 short news articles published
this week covering criticisms of plans by
President Bush to make "mental health
screening" common throughout the
USA for adults and children.
The 1st is a very brief news article
about a new campaign by MindFreedom
using humor to warn the USA public.
The 2nd is a serious article about
how parents of a "screened" 15-year-old
in Indiana filed a lawsuit against
mental health screening on 19 Sept. 2005.
At BOTTOM are actions you can take, and
a new public statement by MindFreedom
with 6 reasons to stop screening now.
~~~~~~~~~~
_Eugene Weekly_ Eugene, Oregon, USA
29 September 2005
Northwest of Normality
The Eugene-based nonprofit MindFreedom
International will be screening people at
the Eugene Celebration for "normality."
The street theater this weekend is
inspired by President Bush's announced
plans for nationwide mental health
screenings for all adults and children.
"More than 1,000 people were screened at
this year's Oregon Country Fair with no
normality detected," says MindFreedom
Director David Oaks. "Every rumor of
normality has thankfully always been a
false alarm."
Watch for clowns in white coats and red
noses screening the public with rubber
chicken wands to try to spot any
normality, says Oaks, "which has still
not been discovered."
Regarding the White House screening plan,
Oaks says, "Watching for troubled people
sounds good. But the public should know
these plans are heavily influenced and
promoted by the psychiatric drug
industry. We want better advocacy and
alternatives first, before mental health
corporations use schools to recruit more
customers for psychiatric drugs."
MindFreedom is a U.N.-recognized NGO
promoting human rights for mental health
consumers and psychiatric survivors. For
more information or to help, stop by
booth #55 at the Celebration, call
345-9106, visit
http://www.MindFreedom.org (http://www.MindFreedom.org) or e-mail
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/09/29/news.html#2 (http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2005/09/29/news.html#2)
~~~~~~~~~~
_British Medical Journal_ 1 October 2005
US teenager's parents sue school over
depression screening test
New York
by Jeanne Lenzer
The parents of an Indiana teenager have
filed a suit in a federal court in the
state's Northern District, charging that
school officials violated their privacy
rights and parental rights by subjecting
their daughter to a mental health
screening examination without their
permission.
The suit is seen as significant because
President Bush has promoted a
controversial plan to encourage
widespread mental health screening for
people "of all ages" in the United States
(BMJ 2004;328;1458). The screening
programme at the centre of the legal
suit, TeenScreen, was endorsed as a
"model" programme by President Bush's New
Freedom Commission on Mental Health.
The complaint, filed on 19 September,
charges that in December 2004 Chelsea
Rhoades, then a 15 year old student at
Penn High School, Mishawaka, was told she
had obsessive compulsive disorder and
social anxiety disorder after she took
the TeenScreen examination. Chelsea has
spoken out against the screening and,
with her parents, alleges in the
complaint that "a majority" of the
students "subjected to TeenScreen" with
her were also told they had "some mental
or psychological disorder."
The Rhoades family charges that
TeenScreen test results "are highly
subjective" and that "there is a lack of
evidence that the screening actually
results in a decreased risk of suicide
attempts."
On 21 September, just a few days after
the Rhoades suit was filed, Rabin
Strategic Partners, the public relations
firm for TeenScreen, issued a press
release with TeenScreen announcing that
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration had awarded
grants of more than $9.7m (£5.5m; ?8.1m)
to four states to implement "mental
health screenings, using the Columbia
University TeenScreen programme."
The programme is currently in use at 424
sites in 43 states, the press release
says. The money was made available under
the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, which
President Bush signed into law in October
2004 to promote programmes to prevent
suicide in young people.
Columbia University's TeenScreen, which
urges "universal" voluntary screening for
all teenagers, has come under fire for
offering free cinema passes and other
inducements to teenagers in the hope of
encouraging them to return parental
consent forms (BMJ 2005;331:592 (17
Sep)). The programme has also been
criticised by the Rutherford Institute, a
non-profit civil liberties organisation,
for using "passive consent," in which
only parents who do not want to have
their children screened have to sign a
form and send it in to the school. If the
school does not receive a form, it is
assumed that the parents do not object.
Laurie Flynn, national programme director
of TeenScreen, said that only 15% to 20%
of schools use passive screening and that
the choice to require the active consent
of parents was left up to local schools.
"We name active consent a preferred best
practice, we train applicants to use it
and we offer templates to assist them in
doing so. [But] in some school districts
passive consent is the norm for all
student health activities," she said.
Michael Wilkes, professor of medicine and
director of adolescent medicine at the
University of California, Davis, said he
was worried about the widespread use of
mental health screening among
adolescents. "We're way overtreating
depression with medications," he said.
"It's often very hard to distinguish [an
adolescent] who is truly depressed from a
teen who is experiencing developmentally
normal cyclic variations in mood. Affect
in teens can vary greatly from day to
day. A student who didn't get invited to
the prom or who broke up with his
girlfriend could look depressed one day
but not the next. What is needed isn't
just more money for screening but money
to help teens who want help. What's the
point of screening to find a problem if
doctors are either unavailable or unable
to help?"
President Bush's plan, Achieving the
Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care
in America, is at
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/r ... Report.htm (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport.htm)
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... /714-a/DC1 (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7519/714-a/DC1)
- end articles -
ACTIONS:
* Please respond to the above article
on the BMJ rapid response web site here:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter- ... 7519/714-a (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter-submit/331/7519/714-a)
* Please forward this alert.
~~~~~~~~~~
1 October 2005
MindFreedom International Statement
About Mental Health Screening:
President Bush proposes making "mental
health screening" a "common practice" for
adults and children.
Here is why MindFreedom International
opposes these "mental health screening"
programs.
President Bush and his New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health recommend
screening all Americans for mental health
problems starting with youth through their
schools. This screening has already
started in a number of schools.
We call for the immediate halt to these
screening programs. Instead, we call for the
implementation of far better alternatives
for mental and emotional care.
Until a broken and dangerous mental
health system is fixed, mental health
screening just adds fuel to the fire.
Screening programs threaten to place
hundreds of thousands of American youth
on a conveyor belt type approach toward
psychiatric labeling and drugging.
Current mental health screening programs
have specific steps. A screened
individual is evaluated for a diagnosis. A
diagnosed individual is frequently
prescribed psychiatric drugs. For some
the end result has even been forced
drugging over the objections of the
subject and their family (source: Mother
Jones 5/05).
The vast majority of Americans want to
ensure that troubled kids and adults
receive humane and safe help. However,
there is ample evidence that the mental
health system in the United States is now
causing a great deal of harm.
For example, the mental health system is
based on a diagnostic labeling system
that has been shown to be unscientific.
Also, the Food and Drug Administration
has recently acknowledged that
anti-depressants carry serious risks to
children, adolescents, and adults. Other
psychotropic drugs have also been shown
to carry serious risks of harm. This is
of particular concern because of the
skyrocketing rates of prescription of
psychotropic drugs of all kinds for
children and adolescents.
Some proponents of screening argue that
they are not calling for "universal" or
"manadatory" screening. But whatever
words are used to describe it, the fact
is that massive and extensive screening
programs heavily influenced by the
psychiatric drug industry are entering
many schools today.
When the President of the United States
announces he wants mental health
screening of youth to be a "common
practice" that is a lot of pressure on
schools, kids and families. This is
exactly what President Bush did when he
endorsed his New Freedom Commission's
Goal Four.
In order to provide help for people who
need and want it without causing
additional harm, the following safeguards
need to be implemented:
(1) STOP CURRENT SCREENING PROGRAMS
IMMEDIATELY.
The moment one applies mental health
screening methods such as "TeenScreen"
and "TMAP" on the basis of flawed
diagnostic systems and questionnaires,
one is making the problem worse.
Screening misses some people with serious
emotional problems on the one hand, and,
on the other hand, mistakenly classifies
other people as pathological.
Questionnaires and formal diagnostic
interviews often fail to catch kids who
are going to kill themselves, for example.
(2) PAY MORE ATTENTION TO YOUTH IN A
COMMON SENSE WAY.
A child ought to have the opportunity to
voluntarily talk with caring adults about
the things that are upsetting them in
whatever setting they are, including
schools. That non-medical, common sense
approach is better because it yields real
life qualitative information, not
simplistic quantitative data like
questionnaires.
(3) FULLY INFORM FAMILIES.
The public needs to be educated that many
current mental health programs may be
harmful to one's health. The public needs
to hear that psychiatric drug companies
helped create and promote many of these
screening programs to get more customers
for the highest priced drugs.
Fully informed consent should always be
required in any kind of mental health
care. Full informed consent means
explaining to children and their parents
or guardians about the full range of
approaches that can be helpful. Families
need to know about the hazards of
psychotropic drugs and the lack of
clinical trials for young subjects.
Today, primarily only two approaches are
recommended almost exclusively: drugs and
traditional types of psychotherapy which
which tend to be rigid and limited.
(4) END THE BIAS TOWARD PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS
IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE.
For families who do seek mental and
emotional care, there ought to be no
cookie-cutter like "algorithm" or
"protocol" that unfairly favors the use
of psychiatric drugs above all other
options. The psychiatric drug industry
has unfair influence throughout the
mental health system making it unsafe.
Physical, nutritional or environmental
pollutant problems are seldom addressed.
(5) PROVIDE HUMANE AND SAFE ALTERNATIVES.
A wide range of alternatives to drugs and
traditional psychotherapy must be available
to all who seek them. When there are only
one or two "choices" for those who are
desperate, that is one of the most insidious
and subtle kinds of coercion.
(6) ADVOCACY AT ALL LEVELS.
Effective advocacy programs, including
peer support when possible, ought to be
widely available to help people gain
access to the employment, educational and
other social services they may choose.
Advocates ought to help support the
empowerment of individuals and families
who wish to avoid unethical professionals
and mental health agencies who may exploit
and harm them. Advocates must help our
democracy get more "hands on" with the
mental health system.
Making screening "common practice"
threatens the health and human rights of
thousands of Americans. Therefore we call
for an immediate halt to these screening
programs.
MindFreedom International
http://www.MindFreedom.org (http://www.MindFreedom.org)
~~~~~~~~~~
This news alert has been
forwarded as a free public service
by MindFreedom International.
You may read more information about
President Bush's plans to make mental
health screening of adults and youth
"common" at http://www.MindFreedom.org (http://www.MindFreedom.org).
Since 1987 MindFreedom has won victories
for human rights in the mental health
system. MindFreedom unites 100 sponsor
and affiliate groups and thousands of
members.
MindFreedom is one of the few totally
independent groups in the mental health
field with no funding from governments,
drug companies, the mental health system
or religions.
The MindFreedom mission calls for a
nonviolent revolution in the mental
health system. Are you ready?
TO JOIN or RENEW your MindFreedom
membership please go here:
http://www.mindfreedom.org/join.shtml (http://www.mindfreedom.org/join.shtml)
For the all-new improved MAD MARKET of books
and products to support human rights campaigns
in mental health go here:
http://www.madmarket.org (http://www.madmarket.org)
Featured book: Peter Lehmann's newest handbook,
_Coming Off Psychiatric Drugs_ written by
28 different psychiatric survivors and allies.
MindFreedom International
454 Willamette, Suite 216 - POB 11284
Eugene, OR 97440-3484 USA
http://www.mindfreedom.org (http://www.mindfreedom.org)
email: office@mindfreedom.org fax: (541) 345-3737
office phone: (541) 345-9106
USA toll free: 1-877-MAD-PRIDE / 1-877-623-7743
MIND YOUR FREEDOM: United Action for Human
Rights.
Accredited by the United Nations as a
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with
Consultative Roster Status.
"Human salvation lies in the hands of the
creatively maladjusted." - Martin Luther King,
Jr.
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2005, 09:52:00 AM
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: They don't tolerate competing drug dealers
The Mainstream Press paid little attention, but at noontime on Aug. 29 (the first day of school), the Libertarian Party of Clark County held a protest against the federal law mandating the psychological screening and treatment (including psychoactive drugs) of all schoolchildren, in front of the Clark County School District's Greer Education Center.
"The government simply has no right to psychologically screen and treat children without obtaining parental consent," said Tom Hurst, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006. "In states that are farther along the implementation path than Nevada, parents have already been charged with child abuse for refusing to comply."
I've always said the government schools should not be allowed to say they "don't tolerate drugs." In fact, they simply don't tolerate competing drug dealers.
"In addition to the well-known physical and mental problems associated with giving psychotropic drugs to children, children labeled as 'at risk' or 'mentally disturbed' will fall prey to a lifetime of tracking by government agencies, potential employers, credit agencies and insurance companies," the local LP said in an August news release.
"Literally everyone I have talked with about this thinks it is a very, very bad thing," Mr. Hurst continued. "Yet, amazingly, all of our Nevada representatives in Washington have repeatedly voted to authorize and fund this unconstitutional program."
"Even at the state level, every one of our legislators in Carson City voted to implement this horrible law," added LP state Assembly candidate Rebecca Iocca.
Sometimes the other side has to try sarcasm before they come close to the truth.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 91883.html (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Oct-02-Sun-2005/opinion/3091883.html)
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2005, 12:51:00 PM
and here over and over again that either
the illness displayed itself earlier in
life, or, now that the illness has been
left untreated the patient is now serious
and persistant and will be on disabilty for
a long time, or for life.
The President's Commission found that
earlier intervention would save people
from this crisis approach to mental
health care.
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2005, 02:17:00 PM
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#137199 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=12001&forum=32&start=10#137199)
Would 'treatment' have prevented her from loosing her job due to 'bipolar and alcoholism'?
Why, after treatment, can't she return to her profession of nursing?
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2005, 06:36:00 PM
> it can be a lifelong condition.
> When a debilitating stroke landed her in the hospital
> part-time job as a dog groomer
-------------------------------------------------
Being young and invincible is only temporary :smokin:
Post by: Anonymous on October 03, 2005, 10:59:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 04, 2005, 12:47:00 AM
her comorbidity is seperated out and analyzed.
All the conditions together make up her condition,
and what she may or may not qualify for.
Certainly, untreated MI can lead to this:
"She became homeless after bipolar disorder and alcoholism robbed her of her job as a registered nurse, her apartment, her car and her ability to cope with day-to-day life. When a debilitating stroke landed her in the hospital, she connected with social workers who found her a bed at the Spring Street Shelter in Redwood City."
If you want to segregate her illnesses, go ahead.
I won't. I don't think the medical profession does, nor does social services.
Post by: Anonymous on October 06, 2005, 08:31:00 AM
Watch the Blood Simple Video
http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/bloodsimple.htm (http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/bloodsimple.htm)
Post by: Anonymous on October 06, 2005, 11:28:00 AM
The Washington Post
October 6, 2005
Sequoia Fund Manager, Philanthropist William J. Ruane
Joe Holley, Washington Post Staff Writer
William J. Ruane, 79, one of Wall Street's most successful investment managers and a philanthropist with an abiding interest in education and mental health, died Oct. 4 at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
He died of complications from lung cancer, according to David Poppe of Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb, of which Mr. Ruane was chairman. At the time of his death, he also was co-manager of the Sequoia Fund.
Mr. Ruane and partner Richard T. Cunniff founded their investment management firm in 1969 after raising $20 million from investors. Most of their customers came to them on the recommendation of Warren Buffett, Mr. Ruane's former classmate and close friend.
The company's Sequoia Fund, a mutual fund that has substantially outperformed the Standard & Poor 500 index since its inception in 1970, has been so successful that it has been closed to new business since 1982.
Mr. Ruane also served on numerous boards, including those of Geico, Data Documents Inc. and The Washington Post.
"What Bill Ruane did for The Washington Post was of incalculable value," said Donald E. Graham, chairman of The Post. "He helped with every acquisition we made during the time he was on the board and afterward."
Graham recalled Mr. Ruane as "outgoing and jovial" and as "a detail-minded investor."
"There was no such thing as a short conversation with Bill," he said. "Once he became interested in a problem, he wanted to know everything there was to know about it."
Mr. Ruane was born in Chicago and grew up in its Oak Park suburb. He graduated cum laude from the University of Minnesota in 1945 with a degree in electrical engineering. He enlisted in the Navy immediately after graduating and was on his way to Japan when World War II ended.
In 1947, he joined General Electric Corp., where he learned that engineering was not for him. "I'm a mechanical idiot," he told Forbes magazine.
He enrolled at Harvard Business School and found his calling when a professor urged his class to read the classic textbook "Security Analysis: Principles and Techniques" (1940). Although he knew nothing about stocks, he was impressed with the approach by authors Benjamin Graham and David Dodd to financial analysis.
Mr. Ruane recalled interviewing with a Wall Street investment firm and being told that college graduates were paid $35 a week, while Harvard Business School graduates were paid $37.50. "And there you have the value of a Harvard Business School degree in 1949," he remarked this year. "Things have changed."
After receiving his master's degree in 1949, he went to work for Kidder Peabody, where he stayed for 20 years.
In 1950, Mr. Ruane and Buffett sat in on a class Benjamin Graham taught at Columbia University, where they learned that the quality of earnings was just as important as growth in earnings. Buffett bought Berkshire Hathaway in 1965 and recommended four years later that his partners invest in Mr. Ruane's new fund. Many of them did.
In 1999, Forbes noted that if an investor had placed $10,000 with the fund at its inception and had reinvested the dividends, he or she would have had $1.1 million that year. Today, the Sequoia Fund manages more than $14 billion.
Long interested in urban education and mental health, Mr. Ruane in 1992 "adopted" a block of East 118th Street, between Fifth Avenue and Lenox Avenue in Harlem.
Called the Carmel Hill Project, it was a "comprehensive community initiative" that involved renovating buildings, bringing in health clinics and other community service programs and providing scholarships to every child on the block so all could attend a Catholic school three blocks away. He resolved to spend whatever it took to make the block a better place.
He also funded an Accelerated Reader program for 26 New York public schools and for 19 schools in Monroe, La., as well as schools on reservations. In addition, he created TeenScreen, a nationwide organization that tests teenagers for symptoms of depression and other suicide risk factors.
Survivors include his wife, Joy Ruane of New York; four children, William Ruane Jr. of Cambridge, Mass., Elizabeth Ruane of Burlington, Vt., Thomas Ruane of Washington, Conn., and Paige Ruane of New York; a sister, Patricia Lowry of Maui, Hawaii; and four granddaughters.
At the 2005 Sequoia Fund shareholders' meeting, Mr. Ruane offered two rules of investment, borrowed from his old friend Buffett: "Rule No. 1: Don't lose money. Rule No. 2: Don't forget Rule No. 1."
Post by: Anonymous on October 06, 2005, 12:04:00 PM
Post by: bandit1978 on October 09, 2005, 02:38:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 10, 2005, 04:32:00 PM
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
On Friday Congress defeated an amendment I introduced that would have prevented the federal government from moving forward with an Orwellian program to mandate mental health screening of kids in schools. This program, recommended by a presidential commission, has not yet been established at the federal level. However, your tax dollars are being given to states that apply for grants to establish their own programs - and a full-fledged program run by the Department of Health and Human Services is on the way.
Nearly 100 members of Congress supported my amendment. Many of these members represent Texas and Illinois, two states that already have mental health screening programs in place. They have heard from their constituents, who believe intimate mental health problems should be addressed by parents, kids, and their doctors - not the government. These parents do not appreciate yet another government program that
undermines their parental authority.
The psychiatric establishment and the pharmaceutical industry of course support government mental health screening programs in schools, because they both stand to benefit from millions of new customers. But we should not allow self-interested industries to use a government program to create a captive audience for their products. We should be especially careful about medicating children with psychotropic drugs when their brains are still developing. Far too many children are being stigmatized by dubious diagnoses like Attention Deficit Disorder, and placed on drugs simply because they exhibit behavior that we used to understand as restlessness or rambunctious horseplay. This is especially true of young boys, who cannot thrive in our increasingly feminized government schools. Sadly, many parents and teachers find it easier to drug energetic boys than discipline them.
Dr. Karen R. Effrem, a pediatrician and leading opponent of government mental health screening, makes the following points about such programs:
Parental rights under such programs are at best unclear, at worst nonexistent; Many parents already have been forced by schools to put their children on psychotropic drugs, and this surely will accelerate under a federal screening program; Screening programs do not prevent suicide; Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective and based on "social constructions"; Most psychiatric drugs do not work in children; We do not know the long-term consequences of using psychiatric drugs on children; and Screening programs will be influenced by politics. Children of religious parents, for example, risk being labeled "homophobic."
Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but that does not mean it is the role of government to subject every child to arbitrary screening without the consent of parents. Most Americans still understand that certain things are none of the government's business, even if Congress does not.
If you are a parent, do everything you can to protect your children by demanding to be notified of any screening program in their schools. As a voter, let your state and federal legislators know that you don't want tax dollars spent on mental health screening programs. If we act now, we still can prevent the federal government from creating a nationwide, mandatory program that will place millions of American youngsters into a stigmatized, drugged, mental health ghetto.
Post by: Anonymous on October 12, 2005, 02:52:00 PM
TEEN SCRIP DRUG ABUSE SOUNDS ALARM
Jul 12, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
by staff reports
According to a previous FMNN report ("Big Pharma Psychotropics Part of Bush School Food Pyramid?" - July 10) up to 52 million kids are now subject to mental health tests at school where they can also be prescribed powerful prescription drugs. And now, perhaps predictably, a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has announced that prescription drug abuse is a much larger problem than the use of illegal drugs such as cocaine and
heroin.
[Psychotropic Meds- 'Gateway' Drugs???]
Between 1992 and 2003, prescription drug abuse amongst all Americans almost doubled to 15.1 million. However teenagers abuse grew more
rapidly, accounting for 2.3 million prescription abuse cases. Alarmingly, the study also found that once teenagers abused prescription drugs they became two times more likely to drink alcohol, five times more likely to use marijuana, 12 times more likely to use heroin and 21 times more likely to use cocaine.
The report suggested that abuse of prescription drugs might stem from increased accessibility to the drugs. While there are a number of sources of drugs, the most prominent, astonishingly, could be the Bush Administration's TeenScreen program. When the program was initiated in 2002, large pharmaceuticals reportedly estimated an eventual $6.4 billion in profits from the taxpayer-sponsored program. Now the estimate is said to be over $8.8 billion, of which Medicaid could pay
$2.4 billion.
There was no comment from the Bush Administration on the Columbia report, nor any report that Administration was considering even a temporary pullback of its backing for the TeenScreen drug-scrip program. Drugs available via TeenScreen include Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroqual, Geodone, Depakote, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutron, Zyban, Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Buspar, Adderall and Prozac.
-Chris Mack is FMNN's technology and media correspondent
Post by: Anonymous on October 12, 2005, 03:44:00 PM
They pegged him dead to rights. He was evaluated as a frustrated genius with impulse control problems. Sean was prescribed copious amounts of powerful stimulants. Sean sat quietly and attentively for his teachers and obediently filled in the propper bubbles on the papers when instructed to do so. The professionals deemed the experiment a success.
Sean told me about it while I was reading the evaluation papers. He remembered being hustled out the door for school in the moring, stoned out of his gord. At age 19, he'd landed up on my couch after having been booted, along with all of his personal posessions and effects, from his grandparents' home for (again) stealing their prescription drugs. So that's how we came to discuss the issue.
Around 2 years later, Sean died of an overdose. The likely cause was Xanex leftover from the day before in combination with a rather large does of methadone. Those who knew and loved him still can't be sure whether he intended to do himself in or not. There were no notes left or any other of the classic signs of having planned it. However, his whole life in recent years reads like a passive suicide.
At the funeral, there was a lot of talk and speculation about why and how and what anyone could have done or should have done or wished they had not done or said. But, of course, it was too late.
A local police, who I know from Sean's own words, had won this kid's respect and affection, gave a moving eulogy. Like everyone who loved Sean, he talked about what he might have done better and promised to redouble his efforts in the drug war as that same very kind, very decent grandma who had practically raised Sean went around offering to share her prescription anti-anxiety drugs to various grieving relatives. At first I thought she was just in shock. Then I noticed that most of the family had, evidently, taken her up on the offer.
Post by: Anonymous on October 12, 2005, 05:26:00 PM
I've read too many stories about people who 'died tragically because of drugs' and the drugs get the blame. People CHOOSE to put substances in their body, and YES you can stop using drugs if you really want to.
People take medication and drugs because they want to feel better/different. This is not rocket science. If a person does not address the original reason they wanted to feel different/better, why would they ever stop using drugs? They won't. This whole scam of AA/NA crap really bugs me. It fools people to think drugs are more powerful than they actually are.
Presciption drugs are just as dangerous as 'street' drugs, although the ones making the money are considered 'legit'. Anyone notice the illegal drugs are ones you cannot patent? Hmm... interesting.
People only buy medicine if they think they are sick. This is the problem. We are not as sick as we think we are! (or are told)
Post by: Deborah on October 19, 2005, 09:33:00 PM
Dr. Carolyn Dean, MD, ND and
Elissa Meininger
October 13, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
Excerpts
Big Pharma and its modern medicine allies are not content to simply promote products and services to humans that manage to kill 784,000 of us each year, in the US alone. They now have bought their way in to the American Veterinarian Medical Association for the purpose of controlling what kinds of products and services we provide to our animals.
In 1997, amid great fanfare, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) announced that several transnational pharmaceutical companies, along with a major animal food company had formed a ?strategic partnership? for the purpose of improving the financial fortunes of the veterinary industry as a whole. This new partnership is not just the same old corporate sponsorship at trade shows and sporting competitions for advertising purposes, this is a serious donation of $1 million or more a year plus assignment of personnel to the newly-formed National Commission on Veterinary Economic Issues (NCVEI) to assist in strategic planning to renovate the veterinary business as a whole. NCVEI proudly lists its founding sponsors as Bayer, Hill?s Pet Nutrition, Merial (a joint venture of Aventis & Merck), Novartis, Pfizer, and VPI Pet Insurance. Other regular sponsors include Fort Dodge, CareCredit, and Western Veterinary Conference. A minor coincidence in this new ?strategic partnership? is that the head of AVMA, who cut the deal, now is an employee of one of the founding sponsors.
So, what do these ?strategic partners? want to do? First off, according to the 30-year-old international corporate watchdog group, ETC Group, the fastest growing sector of animal pharmaceuticals is the ?companion animals? group. According to them, most of the leading animal veterinary companies are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical or pesticide firms. The desire of these companies is to move even more deeply into the companion animal market because any drug which has already been approved for human use by the FDA, only needs cosmetic changes (i.e. new name, new color coating on the pill or a minor tweak to the formula), and voila, you have a new 20-year patent lease on life for that drug without going through the hassle of research and development, much less the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in typical costs for creating a new drug.
Thanks to this new desire for Big Pharma to serve you, you will be glad to know that your dog now has the opportunity to be diagnosed with ?separation anxiety? so he or she can obtain a prescription to a cross-over drug first developed as a human antidepressant for obsessive-compulsive behavior and now called ?ClomiCalm?. According to PetEducation.com, and the manufacturer, Novartis, even if you opt to use ClomiCalm, you still must consult your vet or an animal behaviorist to utilize behavior modification to resolve the ?separation anxiety? issue. In other words, the drug doesn?t actually cure the problem. Furthermore, you are advised to contact your vet if your dog experiences sedation, dry mouth, increased heart rate, weakness, pale gums, or collapses while taking the drug. Emergency phone numbers to Animal Poison Hotlines are provided on the PetEducation.com website.
According to Novartis Animal Health, there are about seven million dogs in the US who suffer from ?canine separation anxiety?.
Another crossover drug manufactured by Pfizer to treat symptoms of Parkinson?s disease in humans has now been re-named and is promoted for dogs that suffer from a new disease called ?cognitive dysfunction syndrome? and other geriatric behavior problems. Another Big Pharma dogdrug now in the pipeline includes a magic potion to treat ?thunder phobia?.
Big Pharma?s first contribution to this new vet industry ?strategic partnership? was to invest in several market surveys, one called, ?The Brakke Study? and another called, ?The Current and Future Market for Veterinarians and Veterinary Medical Services in the United States?. These studies were completed in 1998 and 1999, respectively. What they found:
1. Vets don?t make enough money
2. Large numbers of women in the profession don?t make as much money as their male counterparts
3. There is a demand for more vet services in nontraditional and nonprivate practice areas
4. Delivery of services are fragmented and inefficient
5. Vets don?t know how to run a profitable business
6. THERE ARE TOO MANY VETS SO THEY HAVE TO COOK UP NEW SERVICES TO DRIVE UP THEIR INCOMES.
With all this Big Pharma ammunition, the entire North American vet industry leadership jumped on board to form the National Commission on Veterinary Economic Issues. One look at NCVEI?s website revels exactly how Big Pharma has begun to reach out to control what you can do with your Fifi, Fido, and Flicka (horses are companion animals, too).
The structure of NCVEI has all the de rigueur ?working groups? to pump up the industry including a sponsoring council made up of 15 drug industry representatives who, no doubt, are well-trained in strategic planning as strategic planning is a high art for Big Pharma.
We can assume that part of Big Pharma?s interest in taking over control of the veterinary industry was prompted in order to curtail a growing interest on the part of some vets use of natural therapies and products for animals in order to meet the needs of their customers. Under the auspices of the Task Force on Alternative and Complementary Therapies established by the American Veterinary Medical Association, from 1998 to 2001, a national survey was conducted to determine how to define natural healing arts and to provide official guidelines as they related to veterinary medical practice. Current vet practices are basically the same modern medical products and services that MDs use in treating humans.
Interestingly, the results of this study include a most sophisticated understanding of the great philosophical divide between modern medicine and natural world of healing.
?These guidelines define CAVM [complementary and alternative veterinary medicine] as a heterogeneous group of hygienic, diagnostic, and therapeutic philosophies and practices whose theoretical bases and techniques diverge from modern scientific veterinary medicine. Some of these differ in preferring naturally occurring hygienic and therapeutic methods to synthetic drug treatment and surgery; some have roots in ancient or modern philosophical or religious systems; some are based on notions of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology that are not consistent with current knowledge; some are based on principles that relate to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe; and some are based on beliefs that contradict established scientific principles and have little or no scientific evidence of effectiveness and safety.? (Adapted from: Medicine, alternative. In: Stedman?s medical dictionary. 27th ed. Baltimore? Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000;1077.)
Concurrent with the Task Force guidelines project was the development of a model law that is now being used by vet licensing boards in all 50 states to pass brutal anti-customer DVM monopoly laws that has only one goal in mind, to protect and increase the incomes of veterinarians and their Sugar Daddy, Big Pharma.
One of the results of the veterinary practice surveys is to justify ways that vets could run more traffic through their clinics so that they can collect more fees for more services. In an array of vet industry magazines and various other means, DVMs are being told that if they hire a lot of secondary support staff such as ?vet techs?, they will be in a position to promote lab tests, preventative evaluations and the like.
Vets are also being told to be more aggressive in recommending more services and specifically capitalize on the emotional relationship the owner has for his or her pet in order to exploit it for financial gain. Yup. You read that right. Like we found with the Katrina hurricane disaster, some people have such a close attachment to pets, they won?t desert them even at risk to their own lives. So, vets are being encouraged to use this special bond as a tool to increase services the owner may not want or really can?t afford. In fact, according to a March 2005 article in Veterinary Economics, vet schools are now starting to train future vets in how to use this human-animal bond as they develop their own practices that are now considered ?family practices? not just animal practices.
This notion to gather all services under one roof under the control of veterinarians, is a basic monopoly move which the chiropractic profession was quick to spot thanks to their own monopoly fights with the American Medical Association that spanned nearly a century. Knowing that chiropractic was of benefit to animals as well as humans, the leadership of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) contacted the American Veterinary Medical Association in 1999 to establish a dialogue. This effort was referred to the Task Force on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The result of this effort was as follows:
?The Task Force met to consider what the ACA had offered, and submitted its report to the AVMA House of Delegates. The AVMA then adopted a policy that reiterated its position that only veterinarians can perform procedures on non-human animals-unless these are performed after a direct referral from, and conducted under the direct supervision of, a DVM. This decision applies to all CAM [Complementary And Alternative] procedures, not just chiropractic.?
To make sure you understand the implications of this policy, which is being promoted in passage of new laws across the US, is that DVMs, who have no knowledge, understanding, or training in any natural healing art, have the right to tell YOU, the animal owner, what you can and cannot do to help your animal.
PLEASE LET US REPEAT, the goal here is to CONTROL YOU and what YOU can do for YOUR animal. It is not about the health and safety of the animal. Since natural healing arts are extremely safe and the practice of DVMs, as a modern medical healing art, has the potential of being extremely risky and life threatening, vets have never publicly argued safety as their justification for passage of DVM monopoly laws. They can?t.
Go to the link for the rest of the story
and Part 2
Post by: Deborah on October 19, 2005, 10:15:00 PM
As the film unfolds, we meet a range of individuals - some shy, some outspoken. Many have experienced tragedies and their pain is undeniable, yet with strength, humor and resilience, they love, care, struggle and speak for those who are no longer with us.
Ultimately they realized that they were given false and insufficient information along with improper diagnoses that turned their worlds upside down and changed their lives forever. Only through their personal perseverance were they able to find out what really happened to their children, uncover the information that was withheld and begin rebuilding faith in their own lives.
Vividly shot with real families across the United States, it is yet a project with global implications that strikes at the very meaning of medical traditions in our modern society. The film captures a sense of the arguments in an ongoing controversy that affects millions of Americans, which ultimately asks the question if these so-called revolutionary medications can be used safely.
"There are tens of thousands of children on anti-depressants and families and people affected by these medications. The film is for them and for their families", says David Garland, co-producer of Prescription:suicide?.
Some people call them "miracle" drugs. But can they be safely administered? Can physicians - can the drug manufacturers themselves - adequately understand the risks these newly developed drugs pose to their patients? This film lets families directly impacted take the center stage. They share their stories, speaking from their hearts and it is through their experiences that an understanding is being gained that is essential, even critical, when making a decision about the use of these medications.
Prescription:suicide? was directed by Robert Manciero, a five time Emmy award winner, teamed up with Rich Samuels who specializes in youth-interest and youth-issue programs which garnered him three Emmys.
Mathy Downing, mother of Candace, along with Caroline Downing will be at the Ft. Lauderdale premiere and available for questions, comments and media interviews to support the film.
To purchase tickets for the premiere showing visit: http://www.fliff.com/2005/tickets.htm (http://www.fliff.com/2005/tickets.htm)
For more details about this film and the festival visit: http://www.fliff.com/2005/films/prescriptionsuicide.htm (http://www.fliff.com/2005/films/prescriptionsuicide.htm)
For direct contact with the filmmakers contact:
David Garland (co-producer)
Phone: (818) 681-2105
Email: http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com (http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com)
A statement for the media by the Downing family: http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com/downingmedia.html (http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com/downingmedia.html)
An interview with the filmmakers:
http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com/interviewfm.html (http://www.prescriptionsuicide.com/interviewfm.html)
###
Professional Free Press Release News Wire
http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=press&id=4852 (http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=press&id=4852)
Post by: Anonymous on October 24, 2005, 11:32:00 AM
St. Petersburg Times
Time for change at FDA
A part-time FDA commissioner can't facilitate the reforms necessary at the agency, which has become a tool of the industry it's supposed to regulate.
A Times Editorial
October 17, 2005
The disappearing act at the troubled U.S. Food and Drug Administration might be viewed as an opportunity if not for the dark comedy surrounding it. First, FDA commissioner Lester Crawford slips out the back door during Hurricane Rita, claiming he has suddenly discovered just two months after his confirmation that he is 67 years old. :lol: Then he is replaced by a family friend of President Bush, a Texas urologic surgeon who says he will be FDA commissioner and National Cancer Institute director at the same time.
Which of these two story lines is more preposterous?
Crawford's departure is certainly no loss. He has lorded over an FDA that has become a tool of the industries it is supposed to regulate. The agency seems always to be the last to know, whether it is the suicide risks associated with teens who take antidepressants, or the heart attack risks tied to painkillers such as Vioxx, or the heart devices with a propensity to short-circuit. He has so politicized the science that his own women's health director resigned in August when Crawford refused to follow an advisory panel recommendation to allow over-the-counter sale of an emergency contraceptive known as Plan B.
In Crawford's place, though, the FDA will be commanded by Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who says he can handle the job part-time. Von Eschenbach told reporters he will keep his job at the Cancer Institute and insists he can give each a "100 percent commitment." But that math doesn't add up, which is why Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley is urging Bush to reconsider.
The other problem with von Eschenbach, and the reason drug companies are giddy about his appointment, is that he is entirely too eager to speed the approval of new drugs. Von Eschenbach brings a cancer research orientation, which may be appropriate for experimental drugs meant to help terminal patients. But in 2003 he supported an FDA initiative to streamline approval for all types of drugs, not just those for cancer treatments.
"The opportunity to name a new commissioner is a chance to take the agency in a necessary new direction," says Grassley, who has conducted oversight hearings. "Now is the time to reform the FDA's culture and reassert that the agency's top priority is what's good for John Q. Public when it comes to reviewing drugs in the marketplace." :lol:
The president seems unwilling to change that culture. Two-thirds of the time he has served in the White House, the FDA has been without a permanent commissioner. Now he thinks a part-timer will do just fine.
Post by: Deborah on October 24, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
Excerpt from lawsuit:
18. In 1997, when Kari was thirteen, she was complaining of stomachaches. She was examined by Dr. Tammie Rogers (?Dr. Rogers?).
19. As a result of Dr. Rogers' examination of Kari, she prescribed Paxil, an orally administrated psychotropic drug, manufactured, produced and sold by Glaxo.
25. Almost immediately after taking the prescribed Paxil, Kari, for the first time, began showing signs of depression.
27. Over the course of the next four and a half years of Kari's adolescence, as a result of Kari's psychiatric symptoms worsening from the Paxil, Kari was put on a panoply of psychiatric drugs including but not limited to, Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor, Neurontin, Depakote, Haldol, Zyprexa, Risperdal, Thorazine and Seroquel.
28. At various times while on these drugs, Kari was diagnosed as bipolar, borderline personality disorder, mood disorder, and a half a dozen other serious psychiatric conditions.
29. Kari was never Substance Induced Mood Disorder (?SIMD?), the only diagnosis that was ever appropriate, considering that Kari never experienced any psychiatric condition when she was not taking psychiatric drugs.
30. One of Kari's treating doctors, Dr. Pedro Perez (?Dr. Perez?), even noted in Kari's medical records that her confusion, inability to function and psychosis seemed to improve when the psychotropic drugs were reduced. Yet, Dr. Perez, nor any other doctor that Kari was treated by after Dr. Perez, ever followed up on this observation to find out what Kari was like when she was not being drugged.
31. Throughout the entire four and a half years that Kari was drugged, her parents feared for their lives and the life of their daughter. Kari was constantly hostile, aggressive, and delusional and Kari's parents no longer recognized their innocent, happy and loving daughter.
32. Kari repeatedly threatened her parents' lives and warned them that if they did not do what she wanted, she would hurt them.
33. While on these drugs, Kari began to repeatedly cut and hurt herself - she sliced off pieces of the soles of her feet; she cut her lips with razors; she filed her teeth; she stuck needles in her face; she cut pieces of her checks off with nail clippers and with scissors; she cut her wrists; she cut the palm of her hands; she slashed her thighs multiple times; she plucked out her eyelashes and her eyebrows; she stuck needles in her face; she tried to hang herself with an extension cord; and she tried to get a chain saw to cut her head off. She had to be watched constantly.
34. At various times during Kari's treatment, the psychiatric professionals treating Kari informed Kari's family that Kari would probably be in a mental hospital for the rest of her life.
35. Kari did not go to school during most of this time, and she gained a tremendous amount of weight due to the fact that some of the drugs caused compulsive eating behavior.
36. Finally when Kari turned eighteen, after four and a half years, a doctor informed Kari's parents that Kari might not be bipolar, and they should attempt a trial of removing her from all the drugs.
37. As Kari was being weaned off all the drugs, her parents noticed that Kari was slowly becoming to be her old self again.
38. Today, a young girl who at one time was completely unable to read and write, who was not able to think clearly, who at times did not even know her own name, who did not know who she was or who her parents were, graduated from high school with an ?A? average in her senior year, which was the only year she was not on drugs.
39. In July 2003, Kari started a two-year college and is maintaining a 4.0 grade point average. She was recently inducted into an honor society.
40. Kari has scars on her body and scars in her mind that will be with her for the rest of her life.
Read the entire petition here:
http://sskrplaw.com/adhd/JonesvRogers.html (http://sskrplaw.com/adhd/JonesvRogers.html)
Post by: Anonymous on October 24, 2005, 01:31:00 PM
Post by: Deborah on October 24, 2005, 02:59:00 PM
Someone also named Kari Jones who works in the Office of Academic and Student Programs dept at a School of Pharmacy?
Or do you know this to be the same KJ referenced in the suit?
Either way, what's the point?
Post by: Deborah on November 10, 2005, 08:02:00 AM
More on the Sex Survey from pg 5 of this thread, and Parental Rights. The Ninth Court still fails to make a distinction between Education of Sex and a Survey (that will be used, how?).
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10133 (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10133)
Judicial Supremacists Lash Out at Parents
by Phyllis Schlafly
Nov 8, 2005
When Hillary Clinton proclaimed that it takes a village to raise a child, many people didn't realize that she was enunciating liberal dogma that the government should raise and control children. This concept fell on fertile soil when it reached activist judges eager to be anointed as elders of the child-raising village.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door," and that a public school has the right to provide its students with "whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise."
Instead of using the "village" metaphor, the judges substituted a Latin phrase that has the same effect. Parens patriae (the country as parent) was a legal concept used long ago by the English monarchy, but it never caught on in the United States and the few mentions of it in U.S. cases are not relevant to this decision.
The Ninth Circuit case, Fields v. Palmdale School District, was brought by parents who discovered that their seven- to ten-year-old children had been required to fill out a nosy questionnaire about such matters as "thinking about having sex," "thinking about touching other people's private parts," and "wanting to kill myself." The parents were shocked and looked to the court for a remedy.
No such luck. We live in times when judges (especially on the Left Coast) seize opportunities to create new law and new government powers even if they have to hide behind a Latin phrase of bygone years unknown to Americans.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled against the parents. One judge had been appointed by Jimmy Carter, one by Bill Clinton, and one by Lyndon B. Johnson.
The decision claimed that the purpose of the psychological sex survey was "to improve students' ability to learn." That doesn't pass the laugh test.
The Ninth Circuit decision stated that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children" and that "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed."
The school had sent out a parental-consent letter, but it failed to reveal the intrusive questions about sex. The letter merely mentioned concerns about violence and verbal abuse, adding that if the child felt uncomfortable, the school would provide "a therapist for further psychological help."
That should have been a warning, but many parents don't realize that the schools have an agenda unrelated to reading, writing and 'rithmetic. Anticipating the new push to subject all schoolchildren to mental health screening, the decision gratuitously stated that the school's power extends to "protecting the mental health of children."
The court didn't bother to defend the nosy questionnaire itself, and said that public school authority is not limited to curriculum. The court made no mention of the need for informed parental consent or a right to opt out of an activity the parents deem morally objectionable.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court's broad ruling that the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of one's children does not encompass the right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs."
How did the Ninth Circuit circumvent "the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children," which has been U.S. settled law for decades? The court referred to this as the Meyer-Pierce right because it was first explicitly enunciated in two famous Supreme Court cases of the 1920s, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and was reaffirmed as recently as 2000 in Troxel v. Granville.
The Ninth Circuit court said that since the government has put limits on parents' rights by requiring school attendance, therefore, the school can tell the students whatever it wants about sex, guns, the military, gay marriage, and the origins of life. The judges emphasized that once children are put in a public school, the parents' "fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished."
How did the court feel empowered to put new limits on the settled law of Meyer-Pierce and give public schools the power to override parents on teaching about sex? Simple. The three liberal judges based their decision on "our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution."
Liberal judges have no shame in proclaiming their belief that our written Constitution is "evolving." In this case, the judges bragged that the Constitution has evolved to create the right to abortion, and then ruled that the evolving Constitution takes sex education away from parents and puts it "within the state's authority as parens patriae."
Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).
Post by: Anonymous on November 10, 2005, 01:11:00 PM
that you don't blame the government!
It seems at least they are trying to figure
this shit out, rather than going by bias and idealism.
Post by: Anonymous on November 10, 2005, 01:24:00 PM
Always diverting the issue.
Parens Patriae- Latin for Country as Parent.
The Ninth Circuit Court still fails to make a distinction between Sex 'Education' and Sex 'Survey'
The former useful if taught appropriately, the latter- invasion of privacy.
When the government 'figures out' how to keep kids from getting 'molested' please post a link to the cure. While we're waiting, we sane parents will be 'educating' our kids on how to stay safe, from pedophiles and the government.
Post by: Anonymous on November 10, 2005, 03:02:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-11-10 10:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
we sane parents will be 'educating' our kids on how to stay safe, from pedophiles
"
Glad to hear it!
Post by: Anonymous on November 17, 2005, 10:22:00 AM
Copley News Service
November 15, 2005
Activist courts protect mental health screening of children in public schools
By Phyllis Schlafly
The recent 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that parents' rights over the education of their children terminate at "the threshold of the school door" has stirred up a tremendous backlash. But in asserting the public schools' right to overrule parents, the decision in Fields v. Palmdale School District is much broader than the matter of a nosy questionnaire interrogating elementary schoolchildren about their assumed sexual activities.
The decision appears to be inventing a judicial argument for the new federally proposed mental health screening of all schoolchildren. In dicta wholly unnecessary to the decision, 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt casually asserted that the school's power extends to "protecting the mental health of children."
The school had sent a letter to parents stating that if a child felt uncomfortable about answering nosy questions, the school would assist in "locating a therapist for further psychological help." First-, third- and fifth-grade children would be provided with therapists to enable them to cope with a classroom activity.
An activist court has thus brought out in the open a trend that started years ago. When the late S.I. Hayakawa, R-Calif., was a U.S. senator urging passage of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment in 1978, he predicted that the schools were succumbing to "a heresy that rejects the idea of education as the acquisition of knowledge and skills ... (and) regards the fundamental task in education as therapy."
One of George W. Bush's first initiatives upon becoming president was to create the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. The commission issued its report in 2003 and it is being implemented by the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration.
SAMHSA proudly asserts that its goal is a "fundamental transformation" of the mental health system. SAMHSA says that "the word transformation was chosen carefully" because it empowers new federal action in "policy, funding, and practice, as well as for attitudes and beliefs."
The federally funded activities announced on SAMHSA's Web site are awesomely comprehensive and expensive. SAMHSA is planning "a national effort focused on the mental health needs of children and early intervention for children identified to be at risk for mental disorders."
Ask yourself: How are these federal bureaucrats going to "identify" children at risk, and where will "early intervention" take place? The original report of the New Freedom Commission was blunt in stating that the plan is to make the public schools "partners," and conduct "routine and comprehensive" mental health examinations linked with "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications."
SAMHSA's lawyers must have sanitized its Web site to have bureaucrats deny that the plan is universal or mandatory, but it's difficult to see how else they can achieve their national goal of "transformation."
TeenScreen, a mental-health screening questionnaire that has been used in 43 states, is supposed to enable school administrators to judge mental illness on the basis of such questions as:
- "Have you ever had sex (with women, men or both)?"
- "Do you ever wonder if you are, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender?"
- "Have you ever had thoughts about killing yourself?"
In a Mishawaka, Ind., high school, student Chelsea Rhoades, 15, was given a TeenScreen exam, after which she was diagnosed as suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. This diagnosis was based on her responses that she liked to help clean the house and she didn't like to "party."
Chelsea's parents are suing the school, and we hope they don't end up in the court of a judge like Reinhardt's. According to Chelsea, a majority of the students who took the TeenScreen exam were told they suffered from some sort of mental or social disorder.
A study by Harvard University and the National Institute of Mental Health released in August claims that 46 percent of all Americans will, at some point in their lives, develop a mental disorder. Such an extraordinary statement by so-called experts indicates that mental diagnoses are unscientific, and the people pushing screening of all schoolchildren are, well, probably crazy - or are shilling for the manufacturers of the psychotropic drugs that will be prescribed for kids who flunk the TeenScreen test.
The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, which was reaffirmed in the No Child Left Behind Act, prohibits schools from interrogating students about "mental or psychological problems" without prior informed written parental consent. The Department of Education has sent a letter to every school superintendent setting forth the school's obligations.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., emphatically stated, "It is not, and should not be, the role of government to subject children to arbitrary mental health screenings without the consent of their parents." Right on, Rep. Sensenbrenner!
Congress should make compliance with the law about parents' rights a condition of federal funding to schools just like other civil rights requirements.
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of "The Supremacists."
Post by: Deborah on January 27, 2006, 11:30:00 PM
America The Insane
By Nancy Levant
January 23, 2006
It's looking more and more like the American contribution to population reduction will be in the form of diagnosing half its citizens as mental incompetents. That will naturally lead to reproductive legislation and control. And when they come up with a way to declare eldership and religiosity as mental illnesses, which is well underway, that will clear the way for incarceration and euthanasia legislation, including, but not limited to, starvation and dehydration.
The plan, according to Bush, his pharmaceutical connections, and TMAP is to test every American citizen for emotional and "social" problems. Children and pregnant women are being tested, as we speak, and senior citizens are of particular vulnerability and concern. There are a lot of seniors in the U.S. The government already spent all the Social Security savings, and once the powers-that-be crash the stock markets, seniors will be flat broke and destitute.
All one can say is. who let the freaks wag the dog?
The people who are running this country, and those they truly serve, slipped over an edge a long time ago. Now, after losing property, homes, Constitutional rights, and even toilets that hold proper amounts of water, we are to simply allow ourselves to be diagnosed by partnership-money trails and desires for pathological power and profits. Sincerely, truly, we are not going to allow this to continue.are we?
The legislation and executive orders that are oozing over this nation and its people are loathsome and insidious. As each day goes by, it seems as if we are reading a nightmarish novel, but in truth, we're reading the laws of the land of an anti-human government. What is going on in America, under the guise of professionalism, is pure evil. It is the result of political favors returned to campaign supporters and lobbyists. It is the result of out-of-control corporate powers and greed, and a totally out-of-control aristocracy.
There is a blatant political effort to reduce humanity to artificially controlled robots, for lack of a better term, or highly manageable slaves. This in the name of spreading freedom, preserving nature, eliminating poverty, and whatever else the globalists are using as their excuse to enslave cheap and compliant labor.
If these criminally insane partners are not stopped, God knows what the final results will be to American people, and all people around the world. And if you can't see the insanity that is in your midst - in your schools, in your health care system, in your houses of Congress, at the Executive level, and in your courtrooms, then you are, in fact, diagnosable.
We have to stop this. Every American citizen has to demand that there be an end to professional deviance and treachery, and we must demand their resignations and their citizenship. These people are dangerous to our nation, and they are conquering America by diminishing the citizenry, drugging the citizenry, poisoning the citizenry, and manipulating the citizenry.
We can't go another 3 years at this pace. We can't wait for another pretense of an election. American people are in danger. Wake up! Wake up, American people, and use the blessing of your eyes and what remains of your unscathed brains. READ! Understand what is actually happening inside of this nation. Every American citizen is to be tested for mental health problems, and treatment is ENFORCED. In other words, you can't deny treatment - not for yourselves or your children. Do you understand the ramifications? Do you understand that this means the end of parental rights if either you or your children are diagnosed and labeled? Do you understand the insanity of a leader of the United States enforcing this kind of legislation upon every American citizen? You better wake up, folks, because one day, you may be so drugged that you will be unable to do so.
I leave you with this horrific warning from Dennis L. Cuddy's series, Mental Health, Education, and Social Control, Part 14, which states:
".President George W. Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH) has proposed screening all of America's youth. Used to support this initiative will be the recent findings of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCSR), the results of which are published in the June edition of the ARCHIVES OF GENERAL PSYCHIATRY. It found that half of those who will ever be diagnosed with a mental disorder show signs of the disease by age 14. In Rick Weiss' "Study: U.S. Leads In Mental Illness, Lags in Treatment" (THE WASHINGTON POST, June 7, 2005), one also learns that the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funded the $20 million NCSR study, which found that one-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year. The study also found that almost half of Americans meet the criteria for such an illness at some point in their lives, and that less than half of those in need get treated. Thomas Insel, chief of the NIMH, expressed his disappointment to learn from the survey that about a third of people in need rely solely on nonprofessional sources such as internet support groups and spiritual advisers. You might ask yourself at this point what kind of broad definition they are using to determine that half of the American population will be mentally ill."
Post by: Anonymous on January 28, 2006, 12:03:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 28, 2006, 04:38:00 PM
all negative perceptions of mental illness.
Your experience as a mental health worker
is so valuable to all of us.
If it wasn't for you, we just wouldn't
know this stuff!
Post by: Antigen on January 28, 2006, 06:34:00 PM
Quote
Every American citizen is to be tested for mental health problems, and treatment is ENFORCED. In other words, you can't deny treatment - not for yourselves or your children. Do you understand the ramifications? Do you understand that this means the end of parental rights if either you or your children are diagnosed and labeled? Do you understand the insanity of a leader of the United States enforcing this kind of legislation upon every American citizen?
Ain't no gettin `round that, is there anons? Look, I don't recall anybody in this ongoing brawl ever trying to tell you what you should or should not do wrt your own drug or therapy choices. So quit taking every criticism of the pharma/industrial complex as a personal affront. You're just not that important.
Now, this also brings to mind something I've tried pretty hard to explain. Very often, people dismiss Straight, Inc. critics as just a bunch of loony, left wing conservative haters (conservatives just call us America bashers). That simply isn't so. If it were, then all the Straight critics would necessarily be just fine w/ Art Barker and the Seed, as Art was a vocal Social Democrat.
The mandatory psyche screening started out as an extreme left wing plan going as far back as the New Deal. Just browse John Taylor Gatto's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconserv ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States))
[/quote]
And this is perfectly consistent w/ the way the Büsh Dynasty and their close cronies have always behaved. Lookie here:
Quote
The Governor's Sub-rosa Plot to Subvert an Election in Ohio
View full investigative report (in .pdf format -- free Adobe Acrobat reader needed.)
Ohio Governor Bob Taft and the highest reaches of his administration have embarked on a concerted, months-long effort to subvert the state's electoral process. With overall control of budgets, jobs and sentencing policy at stake, the Taft administration has organized a sophisticated, sub-rosa campaign to defeat a drug treatment rather than incarceration amendment likely to appear on the ballot in November. Starting last spring, Gov. Taft himself, First Lady Hope Taft, his chief of staff, Brian Hicks, two of his cabinet members and numerous senior and support staff have - while on the clock, ostensibly serving the public - conceived and directed a partisan political campaign.
http://fornits.com/anonanon/Forbes/ohio/ (http://fornits.com/anonanon/Forbes/ohio/)
This has been a mind bender for drug policy reformers and Program critics alike. Why would DFAF and the Taft admin (being cozy as they are w/ Straight Spin off, Kids Helping Kids in Milford, Oh) oppose a treatment not incarceration measure? And why would drug policy reformers support it? Well, the truth is, drug policy reform financiers have poured money into this initiative, but it has never really grown legs like medical marijuana, hemp, needle exchange, methadone or other worthy causes.
The simplest explanation is that the core philosophy of the left has an awful lot in common w/ that of the neocons. They all believe fervently that we the People can't really be trusted to govern ourselves. If we should folly to think, for example, that marijuana--even for the sick and dying--is not so dangerous as to warrant the all out 30 year war we've waged on it, well then we're clearly out of control. So then they'll just have to trick us into doing what's right. It's for our own good and the good of the country.
Well, BULLSHIT on that! That's the as profoundly unamerican as you can get!
I'll cite two more examples of DFAF activity that demonstrate the same sentiment.
"In a letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine dated September 7, 2001 [Grinspoon] was told that the Board had "received a complaint regarding [his] conduct.... "
The letter was from Calvina Fay, Exec Dir of DFAF, DFAF being formerly known as Straight, Inc. Essentially, this dingbat seems to think that a well respected former Harvard professor and practicing psychiatrist ought to lose his license if he didn't tow the party line wrt marijuana prohibition. Either that or she just thought she could get away with bullying him around like this, and after all her cause is just, right kiddies? Why of course it must be because you don't see other well respected professionals breaking ranks like this guy. :roll:
Here's the whole article as it appeared in The Journal of Cognitive Liberties:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5028 (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5028)
[/quote]
Now, you might ask yourself what in the world ONDCP would have to do w/ DFAF/Straight, Inc. or their cronnies. Good question! Long answer. Here's part of it:
Quote
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005
Statement on So-Called "Harm Reduction" Policies
International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy
Contact: Calvina Fay
Phone: (1)(727) 828?0211
email: http://www.pushingback.com/archives/030105_2js.html (http://www.pushingback.com/archives/030105_2js.html)
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
_________________
fka ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Why I Live at the PO[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-01-28 15:36 ]
Post by: try another castle on January 29, 2006, 12:59:00 AM
Quote
The simplest explanation is that the core philosophy of the left has an awful lot in common w/ that of the neocons.
Soooo fucking true.
I didn't really know much about neoconservatism until the Bush Jr. administration, and I was very confused by it all. Big spenders, big government, big debt, and micromanagement to the extreme. I was like "wait a minute, I thought conservatives were against all of this stuff?" But then I was told "Haven't you heard? This is neoconservatism."
Which seems to be the exact opposite of regular conservatism.
Kind of proves my theory that the societal consequences of an extremely left government vs. an extremely right government are exactly the same.
Post by: Anonymous on January 29, 2006, 04:25:00 PM
I also think a family court is justified in ordering questioning by a qualified Child Welfare worker if the child has been convicted of an offense or been hospitalized for trying to hurt himself or someone else.
I think a lot of parents would consent to free screening if they felt they had some reason to be concerned about their child and maybe either genuinely couldn't afford it or thought they couldn't afford the time or money.
I don't think there's anything wrong with making screening free and convenient to those that want it as long as the parents have to give informed consent first.
I also think that if the kid wants screening, a kid above a certain age should be able to consent to it even if their parents object. Fourteen is usually the age at which judges let kids of divorced parents decide which parent to live with. Kids should at least start having substantial say in their medical and mental health choices by then. If they could, the programs would go out of business tomorrow.
And yeah, I'm staying anon. Sometimes it's better that way.
Providing screening isn't the problem. The problem is that the devil's in the details.
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 08:46:00 AM
from this thread. The most voluminous poster
have such a venomous bias, and their resources
are the same.
I would rather see the bills, and the protocols
rather than some angry, or paranoid, opinion.
This thread could be useful, but it is dominated
by a terrible bias that has become the norm.
Post by: Nihilanthic on January 30, 2006, 11:36:00 AM
Oh woe is you and me... Get OVER IT. The facts are clearly stated and the bills are linked to, why do you have such a problem with people expressing opinions? You shouldnt have a problem at all, much less when theyre decrying what amounts to government-backed, tax funded, loss of rights over yourself if some twit and/or a questionaire says youre insane.
Hey, while youre bitching, why not get an identity so we can tell you from the rest of the masses of bagheads?
Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers.
--Thomas Hodgskin
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 08:37:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-30 08:36:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
Hey, while youre bitching, why not get an identity so we can tell you from the rest of the masses of bagheads
Yessss, let's shoot that friggin messenger, yee ha!
Post by: Nihilanthic on January 30, 2006, 09:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-30 17:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote
On 2006-01-30 08:36:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
Hey, while youre bitching, why not get an identity so we can tell you from the rest of the masses of bagheads
Yessss, let's shoot that friggin messenger, yee ha!"
Uhhh, what does shooting the messenger have to do with the fact that youre just one part of a nebulous mass of "anonymous" unless you identify yourself? :roll:
I belive when you make up a point that I never made up and then try to attack that made up point its called a "Strawman", sir.
It's our goddamn duty to get these people back on drugs so they can think for themselves again!!!
RTP2003
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 10:21:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 30, 2006, 10:26:00 PM
Post by: Nihilanthic on January 31, 2006, 03:47:00 AM
His assumption (or fabrication) that I seek to lash out upon him is a "Strawman".
(http://http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6888/eng1018vb.th.gif) (http://http://img85.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eng1018vb.gif)
Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.
Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young, DOJ/DEA
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2006, 09:25:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-31 00:47:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"I do not seek to "lash out" - I seek to identify that particular anonymous poster from the rest.
If just the content of each post is addressed rather
than who posted it the quality of these threads will
be higher.
If the identity of the various people posting is
important to you, then whether it is fear of a
Strawman, having goal of the Republican's smashmouth
or shooting the messenger you will surely degrade the thread.
If you want only your opinions heard start another
thread and have a disclaimer stating the paramaters acceptable to you. Then if someone decides to participates, they will know the rules.
Finally, if you don't like the ability to post anon, and that is a feature you would like to have eliminated at this forum, then Ginger is who you should talk to ...
Post by: Anonymous on January 31, 2006, 10:56:00 AM
You can see the video here: http://www.psychsearch.net/Board.wmv (http://www.psychsearch.net/Board.wmv)
One of the many issues the School Board had was Laurie Flynn lying to Congress. Flynn stated that TeenScreen was being piloted in HIllsborough and Pinellas County, Florida, which was a lie.
++
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 2, 2004 Tuesday
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY-BY: LAURIE FLYNN, DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE: SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
"In partnership with the University of South Florida we are piloting district wide mental health screening of 9th graders in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties."
++
Tampa Tribune (Florida)
January 26, 2005 Wednesday
HEADLINE: Pinellas Schools Bar Suicide Test For Teenagers
Before this week, Pinellas school board member Jane Gallucci sought more information about the program.
She said Tuesday that she was angry that Laurie Flynn, of Columbia University, told a U.S. Senate committee on health and education matters 10 months ago that pilot TeenScreen programs were operating in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.
Post by: Nihilanthic on January 31, 2006, 12:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-31 06:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote
On 2006-01-31 00:47:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"I do not seek to "lash out" - I seek to identify that particular anonymous poster from the rest.
If just the content of each post is addressed rather
than who posted it the quality of these threads will
be higher.
If the identity of the various people posting is
important to you, then whether it is fear of a
Strawman, having goal of the Republican's smashmouth
or shooting the messenger you will surely degrade the thread.
If you want only your opinions heard start another
thread and have a disclaimer stating the paramaters acceptable to you. Then if someone decides to participates, they will know the rules.
Finally, if you don't like the ability to post anon, and that is a feature you would like to have eliminated at this forum, then Ginger is who you should talk to ..."
Wow, more contrived crap to obfuscicate the issue.
Again.
The point of identifying one anon from another (while they're still as anonymous as they were before *ANYWAY*) was to be able to reply to them and know whose making what post.
Im pretty anonymous... Im not Nihilianthic in real life. I dont look like Lenin with ski goggles either! But you can tell me from a baghead, can you not?
And, regardless, if gin felt like it, she could trace all the logs in the database and attach an IP/hostmask to every post and I could just figure it out myself. Or, for that matter, a HASH thats encrypted and nonreversible (but still unique) could be used for identification.
Its a logicstical issue, not some retribution based one. And, well, like I said, if retribution was the order of the day, youre kind of unable to delete posts you make anonymous anyway :roll:
Busy, curious, thirsty fly, Drink with me, and drink as I.
-- William Oldys (1696-1761): On a Fly drinking out of a Cup of Ale.
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2006, 11:26:00 AM
I have read retribution posts, and personal
information being used.
I don't want to be in that trap.
I would rather just read, respond to the content
of a post, not to the identity of the alias.
Post by: Antigen on February 01, 2006, 12:58:00 PM
I never have gotten an answer to any of my questions from anyone affiliated w/ ASTART. I think maybe they're a bit shady.
May your days be joyously challenging and your words artfully true.
--Ginger Warbis
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2006, 03:14:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-02-01 09:58:00, Eudora wrote:
"I wonder if and how closely the TeenScreen people are affiliated w/ Alison Pinto and ASTART? They do share a campus and their stated goal is to promote access to community-based 'care'.
I never have gotten an answer to any of my questions from anyone affiliated w/ ASTART. I think maybe they're a bit shady.
Wow, interesting, how odd that they don't respond to you. Hmmm.
At first glance they are in Florida and I think TeenScreen is based out of NYC, at Columbia University.
Although, geography means very little when it comes to alliances and collaboration.
Post by: Antigen on February 01, 2006, 03:45:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-02-01 12:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
Wow, interesting, how odd that they don't respond to you. Hmmm.
At first glance they are in Florida and I think TeenScreen is based out of NYC, at Columbia University.
Although, geography means very little when it comes to alliances and collaboration.
"
"Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
March 2, 2004 Tuesday
CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY-BY: LAURIE FLYNN, DIRECTOR
COMMITTEE: SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR AND PENSIONS
"In partnership with the University of South Florida we are piloting district wide mental health screening of 9th graders in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties."
Ok, so there is a partnership w/ USF and ASTART is based at USF. What I'm wondering (not that you'd know, though I suppose maybe you do) is if and how closely ASTART is involved w/ this partnership.
If it is believed that... elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund or any other general authority of the government than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience.
Thomas Jefferson
Post by: Anonymous on February 01, 2006, 05:10:00 PM
and post as soon as I find out.
Post by: Deborah on February 07, 2006, 01:03:00 PM
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2006
Press Briefing on the President's Fiscal Year '07 Budget and Low-Income Programs
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 66
PARTICIPANTS
Jim Towey, Director, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Claude Allen, Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
MR. ALLEN: Good afternoon. I'm Claude Allen, Domestic Policy Advisor to the President.
DIRECTOR TOWEY: And I'm Jim Towey, Director of the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.
[snip]
Q In terms of the mental health sector, there are a bunch of conservative groups who argue mental health guides are medicalizing character, and in such light they feel that under this administration the mental health industry has been getting money for TeenScreen and for converting character flaws or behavior decisions into medical problems. They cite the new Freedom Commission, the SAMHSA support for TeenScreen and various other things.
Is there anything in this budget that would suggest you are moving to support character and community-based efforts on character and behavior, rather than the mental health industry?
MR. ALLEN: I would say probably the one that stands out to me most directly where we're focusing on helping young people avoid risk behaviors would be the Helping America's Youth Initiative, which is targeted at at-risk youth who are at risk of getting involved with alcohol, drugs, tobacco, sex and violence, particularly with the focus on young boys and their getting involved with gang activity.
I believe it's $150 million -- $50 million over three years, $50 million -- a three-year initiative, $50 million that really is working to identify science-based, research-based, evidence-based ways of working with young men and women, boys and girls, to help them navigate life successfully by equipping them with skills to address these risk behaviors.
Q But $50 million versus tens of billions a year on mental health is not a lot of -- it's not a big comparison.
MR. ALLEN: Again, the substance is in the SAMHSA area. SAMHSA also is focused on risk avoidance programs, and not simply risk reduction programs. And the risk avoidance programs actually focus on giving kids assets that we know, based on science, work effectively -- that is connectedness to parents, connectedness to schools, and connectedness to communities. And so Helping America's Youth is actually an umbrella that brings in and helps focus what SAMHSA is spending its money on, in a way that will get results.
And so just as we're focused in every other area on outcomes and results, with young people we're also focused on those programs that work to help them be equipped so that they can actually make choices that are healthy and good choices for them.
Q Is there any time you cut money for any of the groups or activities or approaches that you feel are less effective?
MR. ALLEN: In the SAMHSA area, we would have to -- I would defer to the budget folks on it because I can't think of --
Q In the broader area. Can you cite any cuts you made because of competition, because one approach is better than another?
MR. ALLEN: Well, I can tell you that in the '07 budget we propose 141 programs that were deemed ineffective or otherwise not demonstrating results. And so that whole list you can find something in there. I don't have the list of the 141; maybe we can just get that for you.
Post by: Deborah on February 07, 2006, 01:09:00 PM
Columbus Dispatch (Ohio)
TeenScreen has made suicide problem worse
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
I respond to the Jan. 30 Dispatch article "Poll tries to gauge mental health." Marcia Angell, a medical ethics lecturer at Harvard Medical School
and author of the book The Truth About Drug Companies, says about TeenScreen: "It's just a way to put more people on prescription drugs."
I am sickened and outraged that this program is being implemented in schools in my city. Drug companies are using it to snare more clients in the name of "help." The irony is that a significant portion of those who are screened will be put on antidepressants, which in September received the Federal Drug Administration's "black box" label because they can spur suicidal thoughts and actions in minors.
OK, now we have more teens taking antidepressants because of TeenScreen, and some of those teens will commit suicide because of the antidepressants. The suicide statistics rise, and the mental-health industry then says we need TeenScreen more than ever. It becomes a vicious cycle.
The most effective way to reduce teen suicides would be to eliminate TeenScreen!
MICHAEL A. BLAKE
Columbus
Post by: Anonymous on March 25, 2006, 03:29:00 PM
groups.google.com
Post by: Antigen on March 25, 2006, 03:57:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-02-07 10:09:00, Deborah wrote:
OK, now we have more teens taking antidepressants because of TeenScreen, and some of those teens will commit suicide because of the antidepressants. The suicide statistics rise, and the mental-health industry then says we need TeenScreen more than ever. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Yeah, they do just the same song and dance when they're pedaling the war on drugs that they don't push (at least, not out in the open)
It is wrong to leave a stumbling stone in the road after it has tripped you.
Hands Out Light
Post by: Deborah on March 25, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
Description
TeenScreen Facts is a group for teens opposed to TeenScreen. Information regarding TeenScreen is sent out to the email addresses of those who join. These emails will keep you updated on the latest with TeenScreen across the U.S
By joining TeenScreenfacts at Yahoo you will be able to keep up with the latest information on TeenScreen, protect yourself and protect your friends.
What is TeenScreen? TeenScreen is a 10 minute mental health computer screening test that ends up in kids being diagnosed with a mental illness and put on psychiatric drugs.
TeenScreen is nothing more than a front group for psychiatrists and drug companies.
If you have had a bad experience with a psychiatrist, psychologist or other sort of mental health worker, if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness after taking the TeenScreen test, send us your story at teenscreenfacts@yahoo.com. We want to hear from you.
(All information will be kept confidential unless you say otherwise.)
Post by: Deborah on June 26, 2006, 02:19:00 PM
Kruszewski: Fired 'For Digging Up Dirt' Psychiatrist Sues Employers, Pharma Companies
Categories Health Pharma
According to an article published today in the Philadelphia Daily News,
Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a prominent Harrisburg psychiatrist who was hired to root out fraud, abuse and waste within the state's Department of Public Welfare, was fired for doing just that.
Kruszewski discovered that four children and one adult who had been prescribed potentially lethal combinations of medications died while under state care. He believes they died from drug toxicity, but he was not permitted to review the autopsy reports.
He also found that thousands of psychiatric patients on Medicaid and receiving inpatient treatment in hospitals across the state were being given bizarre combinations of drugs they did not need or were given the wrong drugs for their conditions.
Kruszewski, who was blasted by his superiors for "digging up dirt" and then fired, has turned whistleblower. He is suing not only his former supervisers and employer but also a number of drug companies including GlaxoSmithKline; Pfizer, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Novartis; Astrazeneca and Eli Lilly & Co. PennLive also carries the story.
His allegations are reminiscent of those made by another whistleblower who lost his job in a similar way, Allen Jones, who had investigated pharma corruption in connection with the research and establishment of so-called "treatment algorithms" for the mentally ill in Pennsylvania. The algorithms or prescription guidelines favoured expensive and often useless patented drugs from a number of companies, including Janssen Pharmaceutica, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Ortho-McNeil, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Bristol Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst and Forrest Laboratories. The Pennsylvania guidelines were taken over from the Texas TMAP program, which is where they were first developed with financing from and under the substantial control of the pharma manufacturers. Jones was fired for uncovering the corrupting influence of the drug makers and refusing to shut up about it.
The rest of the story
Looooong url[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-06-27 15:09 ]
Post by: Anonymous on June 27, 2006, 02:12:00 PM
The more effective reason is obvious and the less side effects is chosen so that more people will stay on their treatment plan, not quit because of side effects.
Schizophrenics with 85% not taking meds have voted loud and clear that bad side effects are a fatal flaw to treatment by medication.
There is no law to force people to take meds, so until the medications get to the next generation, the 15% compliance rate will remain steady.
This time period before a novel medication is developed should give the "alternative" advocates to convince their practicioners of choice to document treatments that are not medication so that the results can be measured and compared to medications results so a true choice can be offered to the patient, and treating medical doctors.
And, the TMAP choice of more expensive medications, that have less side effects than older medications will soon be moot, as the patents run out on the developing pharmacy companies and then the generic companies will come in and cut the price to pennies on the dollar.
Life will get better, it just takes awhile.
Keep those informative articles coming, and the more the better - thanks!
Post by: Deborah on July 20, 2006, 10:36:42 AM
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/03 ... rom-birth/ (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/03/24/drugged-from-birth/)
The federal government wants to perform mental health screening on infants and get them started on drugs which they will take for their entire lives, if the drugs don?t kill them first. And you?re going to pay for it, whether you want to or not.
Already, children as young as 3, who wind up in the foster care system, are receiving psychiatric drugs for such disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or depression, with over 60% of foster children in Texas, nearly two-thirds in Massachusetts, and 55% of foster children in Florida on as many as 16 different psychiatric drugs.
Where did the drive to medicate every child in the United States begin?
It began in Texas, with the Texas Medication Algorithm Project, an effort to create ?one size fits all? treatment for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons says that the ?TMAP algorithm guidelines for psychotropic drugs are not backed by scientific evidence, but rather on self-interested opinion. Indeed the scientific evidence contradicts all claims made about the superiority of the drugs recommended by TMAP as first line treatment ? these drugs have not been shown to be either more effective or safer than non-drug interventions or existing, cheaper, old drugs. TMAP guidelines were formulated by a consensus panel whose opinions were solicited by pharmaceutical companies that sponsored TMAP. The TMAP formularies recommend the drugs manufactured by those companies that are all on patent, very expensive, and have no better safety or effectiveness profiles than older, cheaper drugs that themselves are not very safe or effective.?
Yet under programs being pushed by a little-known federal government agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the discredited TMAP algorithms, originally designed for adults, would be used on children.
In SAMHSA?s Action Agenda, based on current Bush administration policy, the government wants to ?fundamentally alter the form and function of the mental health service delivery system in this country? by implementing the recommendations of the President?s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.
One of these programs, which is already in operation, is Foundations for Learning, which was added into the No Child Left Behind Act at the last minute by the conference committee. According to Dr. Karen R. Effrem, of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, it ?provides federal funds in the form of grants to states and other agencies to provide preschool screening, parent education, social services, home visits, transportation and curriculum to support ?social and emotional development?? for children from birth to age 7. A child can receive these services if the child has been removed from child care, Head Start or similar programs for behavioral problems, or is at risk of being removed from such programs, or if one of the child?s parents has depression or another mental illness.
?The criteria for diagnosing mental disorders are very vague in general, but are extremely vague and inaccurate for children,? Effrem wrote. ?These grants will further subsidize the labeling and drugging of an alarmingly large population of young children with potent medications that have not been studied in that age group.?
Oh, and there?s one other little point. ?The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in mental health and early childhood issues and the record of success of these types of programs is abysmal.?
The NFC recommendations include a wide variety of mental health programs targeted at children as young as age 3, and early intervention for some children from birth.
Michael Ostrolenk, a licensed psychotherapist and public policy consultant who founded the Medical Privacy Coalition, wrote, ?Their influence [of the mental health establishment over government] causes our children to be labeled in infancy, and it creates a never-ending market for psychiatric drugs. The long term effects of these drugs on the brains of our children are unknown. They also create a market for other drugs used to treat the chronic side effects like obesity and diabetes, and they will be needed throughout the lives of those affected, enhancing drug company profits while bankrupting taxpayer funded programs. As these programs multiply, the use of politically motivated labeling and drugging for children who do not comply with the indoctrination of the federal curriculum will increase. Brave New World will appear less and less like fiction unless these programs are stopped.?
It appears that dumbing down the schools wasn?t enough to get everyone in America to be conforming, subservient little sheep. Now they want to drug all of our children into submission. Baa.
Post by: Deborah on July 20, 2006, 11:00:20 AM
From the Dept of Education
Program Description
OSDFS will award grants under this competition to support projects to help eligible children become ready for school.
Eligibility
Who May Apply (by category): Local Education Agencies, Nonprofit Organizations, Other Organizations and/or Agencies
Who May Apply (specifically): Local councils and public and private nonprofit organizations may apply. Novice applicants will receive a competitive preference.
To be eligible for funding, a project must propose to:
*Deliver services to eligible children and their families that foster eligible children's emotional, behavioral, and social development.
*Coordinate and facilitate access by eligible children and their families to the services available through community resources. These include mental health, physical health, substance abuse, educational, domestic violence prevention, child welfare, and social services.
*Develop or enhance early childhood community partnerships and build toward a community system of care that brings together child-serving agencies or organizations to provide individualized supports for eligible children and their families.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/learningfoun ... ility.html (http://www.ed.gov/programs/learningfoundations/eligibility.html)
http://www.edwatch.org/updates06/012406-Curie.htm (http://www.edwatch.org/updates06/012406-Curie.htm)
Post by: Deborah on July 28, 2006, 02:12:56 PM
"Are Your Children Crazy?"
Health Sentinel
Dr. Jane M. Orient
July 27, 2006
Congress and President Bush apparently think that a lot of children have a "mental health" problem. Or that enough of them do to justify taking millions of dollars from taxpayers to fund a universal "mental health screening" for children, and eventually for everyone.
Personally, I think - from the perspective of a person who never had any - that almost all children act crazy. Those who don't are, by definition, abnormal, because they don't act like the others.
The main problem with about half of them is that they are boys. Such children are obviously made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails. On the farm there is a solution for that: a procedure for turning boy lambs into non-ram lambs. After a quick little operation, they act like peaceful little lambs instead of aggressive, disruptive rams.
We don't do surgery like that on little boys, of course, but we do have our methods: such as behavioral therapy and chemicals.
There are those who argue with some passion that society has to do something. Bad, disruptive, antisocial or depressed little kids make lots of trouble for parents and schoolteachers. Worse, they can grow up into dysfunctional, unhappy or troublemaking adults. That snotty little boy might become a dissenting nonconformist or even a rebellious man, who could throw a monkey wrench into our smoothly functioning society. We have to catch them early - for their own good.
Teams of experts are awaiting the infusion of cash. They'll be ensconced in your child's school before you even know it. A bonus is that your little darlings will probably give them quite a bit of information about you also, and then you too can receive therapy you didn't know you needed.
Do you sometimes raise your voice? Ever spank them? Hug them inappropriately? Have politically incorrect attitudes? Use forbidden words? Own a gun? Smoke cigarettes, especially indoors? Read extremist literature? Refuse to recycle? Prepare for a knock on the door.
There are many tools at the disposal of the mental health squad. Counseling sessions. Drugs (Ritalin, antidepressants, tranquilizers, maybe some new ones that need to be tested on some experimental subjects of your child's age). Group therapy. Removing the child from the home. (This may be a "last resort," but often the mere threat can accomplish wonders.)
If an interview with a child raises concerns, the next step might be a home visit. This could discover poor parenting skills, inadequate housekeeping, harmful literature, or a baby who is crying or has a bruise (signs of abuse?).
It is true that some interventions have potential side effects, say drug dependence or suicide, but to assure the health of the population some shared sacrifice and risk are needed. We will have excellent means of tracking outcomes to improve future therapies. The mental health workers' impressions will all be recorded in the school records. An added benefit could accrue to would-be employers or college recruiters.
Some cautions are in order. Democrats might think that potential future Republicans are crazy. Republicans might think the opposite. Should an extremist Christian be one of the screeners, he might think that nonbelievers are possessed by the devil. And an extremist secular humanist (if such exist) might think that an overly religious child is at risk for mental illness if not already impaired.
In fact, parents ought to be asking some very serious questions before the government experts interview the first child.
What are the credentials of the screeners? Most importantly, how many children have they raised to adulthood, and with what outcome?
What are the criteria for possible abnormality? What is the scientific validation? How often do different observers agree? Have any long-term studies shown a solid correlation with adult performance in life? Do today's oddball children fail, or might they turn into our greatest achievers?
Will you be allowed to get a second opinion? Can you see the record and enter corrections if indicated? Will the record at any point be destroyed, or will the stigma of a diagnosis such as "personality disorder" follow the child throughout life?
What will happen if your child fails the screen? What sort of treatment will be given? Who will supervise it? What if you don't approve of it?
What's the very worst thing that the program will have the power to do to you or your child, say if your worst enemy were to gain control of it?
Who might profit from the program (perhaps discoverable by asking who lobbied for it)? Do drug companies expect to have a large number of new consumers of their psychoactive drugs?
What are the results of studies of long-term use of drugs like Ritalin, which has effects on the brain similar to those of cocaine? Have there even been any such studies?
Can you refuse to participate in the program? If you do refuse, what are the repercussions?
What is the evidence that the program, at best, will be anything other than a waste of millions of dollars? Miraculously, throughout human history most of those crazy children have become stable, productive adults without federally mandated psychiatric treatment. Still more amazingly, their parents have managed also.
Psychiatry in the hands of government, instead of independent physicians who are working for patients, reeks of Orwell's 1984 or the Soviet era. The very need to ask the questions should tell us the right answer for this program: It's crazy.
Dr. Jane M. Orient is an internist practicing in Tucson, AZ and executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Post by: Deborah on July 31, 2006, 12:03:37 PM
WNDU 16 News Center, South Bend, Indiana
Last Updated: 07/30/2006 06:44 pm
Story filed by NewsCenter16 Reporter
Stephanie Stang
Nappanee, IN - A local state legislator is trying to stop a bill in its tracks before it even gets any support on the Senate or House floor.
Sunday, state representative Jackie Walorski hosted a rally that focused on a proposed law that revolves around mental health testing for children.
This bill isn't even a bill yet, but it could be one come this January.
Right now, it's just a plan that the Indiana Department of Education put together called the Children's Social, Emotional and Behavioral Health Plan.
Sunday, more than 300 people gathered in Nappanee to hear about this plan.
The founder of Advance America, Eric Miller, was the keynote speaker.
Miller and Walorski talked about the need to keep this plan from gaining any support in the Indiana General Assembly.
According to Walorski, the bill paves the way for every Indiana child to undergo mental health testing.
"The problem with it is it has the ability to steamroll parental rights on mental health issues. [We've] got to stop it before it gets much steam," she says.
Miller agrees. "We believe that issues involving children should be left with parents. We do not believe government should mandate mental health. We believe if [parents] know about the problem, then they will be the ones to take care of that," he says.
At the rally, people had the chance to sign a petition against the bill.
Walorski says she would like to take a petition with at least 10,000 signatures to the house speaker this January
++
6792 Total Signatures to date: http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html (http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html) (Have all your long lost high school classmates signed the petition? What about everyone else you can think of?)
Post by: Deborah on August 18, 2006, 11:24:01 AM
From the Nevada Policy Research Institute's just published August 17, 2006 E-Bulletin addressing TeenScreen.
First, do no harm
Should our public schools be giving usually-wrong
suicide surveys to Nevada students?.
By Joe Enge
A pilot program using the controversial Columbia "TeenScreen" suicide survey - under way on a limited basis in the Clark County School District for five years - will expand statewide if the state Board of Education has its way.
Proponents say that a high Nevada teen suicide rate shows the surveys are needed. Such surveys are no different than giving students eye exams, they contend, and should be part of a state-administered "health and wellness checkup."
A $1.2 million federal grant would fund the program's expansion throughout Clark County and statewide.
Unfortunately, the benign "eye exam" and "health checkup" portrayals give a false impression that the surveys are accurate and do no harm. It also jumps right over the dubious premise behind the entire program: that one even can test for suicidal predisposition.
"There is no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality," says the United States Preventive Services Task Force. The panel reviews evidence on the effectiveness of different clinical preventive services for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
"[T]here is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk," continued a May 2004 task force report, adding, "there is insufficient evidence that treatment of those at high risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality."
In June task force Chairman Ned Calonge told the Washington Post that "the panel would reach the same conclusion today.
"Whether or not we like to admit it, there are no interventions that have no harms," said Calonge. He's also chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Steven E. Hyman, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health and now provost at Harvard University, agrees. "If your instrument is poor, or you don't know how to intervene to prevent a condition like suicide, there is actually a risk of harm. Besides cost and intrusiveness, there is a risk of harm in terms of stigmatization, but also interventions that backfire."
The developer of TeenScreen, psychiatrist David Shaffer, admits his survey "identifies a whole bunch of kids who aren't really suicidal, so you get a lot of false-positives. And that means if you're running a large program at a school, you're going to cripple the program because you're going to have too many kids you have to do something about."
So how many students get misidentified? Shaffer claims his survey has a 16 percent accuracy rate. That would mean that 84 out of 100 students could be informed by test-waving "experts" that they have mental health problems. Talk about depression, self-doubt, and suicidal feelings! No wonder TeenScreen keeps its survey confidential.
Picture it: You send your daughter to school to learn English, math, history, and science, but instead get a report back that she suffers from OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and social anxiety. That's what happened to Indiana parents Michael and Teresa Rhoades. Chelsea, their daughter, was diagnosed with OCD after checking a survey box saying she likes to help clean house. Admitting she did not party much triggered the survey's "social anxiety" diagnosis. Then she was told, if her condition got any worse, her mom should bring her in to the mental health center for treatment.
The Rhoades family now has litigation pending against the school district. Constitutional attorney and Rutherford Institute president John W. Whitehead points out that testing students without parental permission violates the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment. Thus, the potential legal liability of school districts giving these surveys is enormous.
The TeenScreen surveys are touted as meeting Nevada academic health standards. Who made this determination? Two state standards relating to "substance use and abuse" briefly mention suicide, but they don't justify testing all Nevada students in their health classes - the state's expressed goal:
3.8.2 Use appropriate methods of response to negative risk-taking behaviors including suicide, alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.
3.12.2 Develop knowledge and strategies for avoiding negative social situations including suicide, alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.
Certainly state guidelines don't say, "Subject all students in Nevada public schools to a ham-fisted 'suicide prevention' program that smacks of psychological malpractice."
In piloting this program, the Clark County School District stuck its neck out. Then, the Nevada State Board of Education put the scheme on its June and August meeting agendas, only to quickly yank the item when a coalition of opponents submitted a formidable letter of objection.
Maybe the real question is: Just who's running the government asylum?
Joe Enge, a 15-year social studies and English teacher, is a policy fellow of the Nevada Policy Research Institute.
Post by: Antigen on September 07, 2006, 01:59:18 AM
Illinois DCFS:
Letter from Jean Ortega Peron
Page Two (http://dchfans.org/dchfans/CookCounty/DCFS-080906-02.jpg)
Page Four (http://dchfans.org/dchfans/CookCounty/DCFS-080906-04.jpg)
Timothy Ka*&$@#_ (http://dchfans.org/dchfans/CookCounty/DCFS-082906-01.jpg)
Please conduct yourselves accordingly.
Thanks,
The Management
Post by: Deborah on September 07, 2006, 01:10:35 PM
But...
Ms Ortega-Peron seems to take the liberty to demand that ALL information be removed. That is not my interpretation of the order.
To summarize, it appears to me that the judge demands only the following:
1) Both parents to send demand letters.
- Just a technicality, but Mother, Ayalla's wasn't included.
D) No photos of the children the internet
- None were posted on Fornits and the link to the photos is now dead.
F 1) No names, only initials, AK and EK
- I'll do this before the 18 Aug deadline.
2) no location of placement
- to my knowledge that information was not posted.
3) any medical info including: any dx, medication names and dosages, any treatment received, treatment plans/reports, any medical records/reports
- to my knowledge none of this information was posted on Fornits, only that the kids were being held and drugged against their mother's wishes.
Other than posting inititals instead of names, it appears to me that the info can stay. Do you interpret it differently?
Post by: Anonymous on November 16, 2006, 01:13:03 AM
Quote from: ""Deborah""
But in fact according to research Wisconsin has their own share of TeenScreen sites:
WISCONSIN -
Fond du Lac High School
Waunakee School District
Milwaukee County
Kenosha Unified School District
You can post your comments about TeenScreen here:
http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archive ... screen.php (http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2005/06/teen_screen.php)
TEENSCREEN is all but dumped in Kenosha. See the Kenosha Partents Union (www.kenoshaparentsunion.org (http://www.kenoshaparentsunion.org)) for details, or better yet, The Daily Keoshan (www.dailykenoshan.com (http://www.dailykenoshan.com))
John Nordquist, publisher
The DailyKenoshan
Post by: Deborah on August 29, 2007, 07:57:21 PM
Is your Congressman listed below? If not, you can locate your own
Congressman here http://www.house.gov/writerep/ (http://www.house.gov/writerep/) and request that they
co-sponsor HR 2387.
http://tinyurl.com/2kbdt3 (http://tinyurl.com/2kbdt3)
Parental consent for mental health screens
I am a co-sponsor of the "Parental Consent Act of 2007"(H.R. 2387) which
seeks to essentially prohibit any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.
I appreciate the value of having mental health problems diagnosed and
treated early but I have serious concerns about universal or mandatory
mental health screening. I am worried that federally funded universal or
mandatory mental health screening in schools without parental consent
could potentially lead to labeling more children as "ADD" or
"hyperactive" and thus force more kids into taking possibly dangerous
psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents' wishes. Many
children have already suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. These side effects can include mania, violence,
dependence, and weight gain. Furthermore, it is known that parents have
been threatened by school districts with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children.
I know that some people believe that my concerns are overblown but I
feel very strongly that parents' have a fundamental right to raise their
children as they see fit and that includes making decision about
evaluation and treatment of mental health conditions.
Indiana 5th District
Congressman Dan Burton
The Parental Consent Act of 2007 can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2387_ih.xml (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h2387_ih.xml)
Sponsor
Rep Paul, Ron, Texas
Co-Sponsors
Rep Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G., Maryland
Rep Blackburn, Marsha, Tennessee
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny, Florida
Rep Burton, Dan, Indiana
Rep Camp, Dave, Michigan
Rep Davis, Danny K., Illinois
Rep Doolittle, John T., California
Rep Everett, Terry, Alabama
Rep Hensarling, Jeb, Texas
Rep Hunter, Duncan, California
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G., Michigan
Rep Miller, Jeff, Florida
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N., Colorado
Rep Neugebauer, Randy, Texas
Rep Poe, Ted, Texas
Rep Simpson, Michael K., Idaho
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G., Colorado
Rep Walberg, Timothy, Michigan