Posted on 06/21/2004 10:19:15 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.
The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.
Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."
The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."
The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.
But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.
Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab."
Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.
Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."
Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.
However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.
"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."
WTF?
LOL... Pass the Prozac.
There are clearly people who have mental disorders in our country, just as there are blind, deaf and crippled individuals. I would imagine a doctor, with far more experience than you or I would make such a determination. Who would pay for it? According to the report on this thread, President Bush thinks it's up to you, me and every other taxpayer. It's not my decision - guess you'll have to take it up with him.
Take hope! The "community" still exists. Your family, church, neighbors, those you see around you daily. :-)
I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. I have a strong skepticism of the way "government" handles our tax money. I believe too much of it is wasted, lost in the "shuffle", or never really helps the people it's intended for.
Completely agree, and will do, if the need arises.
LOL. Go to bed!
If it's truly as straightforward as that, no problem. But proposals like this usually grow into monsters, by the time they wend their way through Congress. I think I'll reserve judgement, until I see what they plan to add to it.
This is just horrifying, really. Preschool children? So a precocious youngster will just need to be "calmed down" a little; with drugs that have not been tested as to their longterm effects on small children.
Any guesses as to the "screening" guys? I bet it includes "so how do Mommy and Daddy discipline you?"; "does Daddy hunt with guns?"; "do Mommy and Daddy ever yell at each other?"
Pediatricians have already tried this; and folks have changed doctors because of it. When the liberals in public schools get involved, that will be another story altogether.
I oppose the expansion of socialism within our nation, which would be exactly what a new taxpayer-funded "mental health" program would be.
Why not just not push for such a program?
Easy as pie. :-)
I think you have it pegged.
I think maybe I AM a bit cynical, but my reason is that, as for family, mine (for instance) is spread out from Ohio to TX with NONE in my own town, and I have a feeling many families are like mine. As for Church, the churches I've had experience with give all their money to missionaries or it goes into a building fund. And neighbors? Do people actually know their neighbors these days? As for how the gov't spends my hard-earned money, I share your skepticism.
And now, this message by Jack Handey: "Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess was why several of us died of tuberculosis." --Jack Handey
He probably didn't recommend this. Do you ALWAYS accept things that you read at face value?
No offense taken. As I've grown older, I've found myself growing more 'skeptical', as well. I do have faith, regardless of any cynicism, that right will prevail, eventually - I just wish it would hurry up! (I didn't say I was patient - just long suffering!) :)
******
On February 1, 2001, President Bush announced the New Freedom Initiative, part of a nationwide effort to remove barriers to community living for people with disabilities. It represents an important step to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to learn and develop skills, engage in productive work, choose where they live, and participate in community life. Goals for people with disabilities include: increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies; expanding education, transportation and home ownership opportunities; and promoting full access to community life. Please see the Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives for additional information.
In April 2002, President Bush also established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. The Commission is to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system, including both the private and public sector providers, and advise the President on methods for improving the system. To learn more about the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, please visit the web site: www.mentalhealthcommission.gov.
Farah is a hysterical nutcase in my opinion. He jumps the gun all the time and never corrects things later.
I HATE his articles with a passion. He is too emotional.
He does indeed hate George Bush and I have read plenty of his stuff that says he will not under any circumstance vote for George Bush.
If you read it all the time, you have seen it too.
Farah is always jumping the gun and you are very correct when you say he hates George Bush.
I am always shocked to see people believing things that he writes and even defending him.
I can't read his articles. He is way too emotional and even sometimes hysterical in the way that he writes.
Has anyone considered that this writer is WRONG?
He hates the President. Why in the hell is everyone trusting this emotional whack job?
I am so tired of reading his crap.
Exactly.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
This reminds me of the flap that occured when the global warming report was released. It caught the Administration temporarily off guard, but did no real damage.
The reason it did no damage is that the Adm. distanced itself from the report and I think pretty much ignored it. AFAIK, none of its recommendations were carried out.
There are parts of this report that are worrisome, such as a Federal program for mental health screening of all kids in the schools.
Will intrusive questions about the family be asked such as gun ownership, smoking, and drinking?
Will ex TSA screeners be retrained as Federal mental health screeners? (only half joking)
The point is that the President's people ought to get on top of this and ditch the idea of mass screenings loud and clear.
If they do, then I don't think there'll be much of a problem.
You assume that just because this "writer" says it that it must be true?
Read the initiative for heaven's sake. Does it say anything at all about screening and drugging the population?
No. It says it is designed to help those that need it.
Believe it or not, if the mentally ill are treated properly, your cost as a taxpayer is much less than one not treated.
Why is everyone believing this guy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.