Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of Parent

[Paul]

Deborah,

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?

[Paul]

Oops, I forgot to mention the topic of
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.

[Deborah]

http://www.colescountyleader.com/column ... p?c=161342

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).

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.

[Paul]

See this in content of article:

The test, which is voluntary ...

http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories ... it_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

[email protected]

(574) 235-6553

[Paul]

OK, Deborah, let's read this article for what
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?

[Paul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Institute

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)

[Paul]

http://www.rense.com/general21/boj.htm

The BoJo - Moonie -
Scientology Connection

From BoJo A-Go-Go, available online at:
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.Ý 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,Ý and the Rutherford Institute among others.Ý 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.Ý 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,Ýp.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.Ý 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.

[Paul]

http://www.anniebiotics.org/teenscreen_Indiana.htm

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  
 
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:

[email protected]

(574) 235-6557

[Paul]

http://www.eprogramsearch.com/News/012505.htm

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"

[Paul]

Deborah,

What came first, psychiatric drugs or mental illness?

What came first, TeenScreen assessment tests
or teenage suicide?

[Paul]

http://www.teenscreen.org/cms/content/view/107/139/
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/.

 

 

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.

[Paul]

Freedom Writer - June 1994

[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 / [email protected]
        Web page: http://www.crocker.com/~ifas

[Paul]

Apparently the one piece of mail that was
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:

[Paul]

... and healthy children will be labeled with a diagnosis that could haunt them for a lifetime.

---

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.

[Deborah]

OK, Deborah, let's read this article for what
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?