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."
Riiiiight. You won't mind "seeing the man" before you renew your driver's license, will you? Or your... *gasp* gun license, now will you?
Sounds like he wants those who are sick to get help if they need it and he isn't forcing them into it that I can see.
Sounds like you're whistling past the graveyard.
But hey, let's take that thought, and see where it goes. So where does it go? It goes here: "What better way to ensure that those who need 'help' receive 'help', than to evaluate everyone?"
Oh, BTW, that's the goal. You did read the article, didn't you? Or do you have some "special" interpretation for, "President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen"?
It isn't for real.
OK, I lied. But it was a nice thought while it lasted, wasn't it?
I sent this on to a few folks, and commented that sometimes it would be nice if it was April 1st.
Did you receive your dose of Soma between your earlier posts and this one?
No. It says it is designed to help those that need it.
It says it wants to reach "Every adult with a serious mental illness or child with a serious emotional disturbance". [emphasis mine]
Now, let's apply some simple logic. Deduce a means for locating "every" person in that category without screening every person, period.
Take your time.
BTW, you might want to check out the President's New Freedom Commission on MH Report to the President Roster of Commissioners, which is referenced in the PDF that the article mentions.
I'd suggest starting on page 19 (of 113) of the full report. It goes on (and on, and on, and on..) about the "transformed mental health system" that is being imposed on the country.
I don't see any problems with the article. I do seem to see several people here who are either whistling past the graveyard, or, placing themselves into the role of hallway monitor, directing folks "don't look there, nothign to see, move right along, and VOTE, dammit!"
This is no time for that kind of crap. Really.
Nope; I got all the drugging I needed watching CNN, thankyouverymuch.
I'm still wading through that crappile. It's not looking good. Not at all.
After only a few minutes of wading through the PDFs I referenced above (primarily the second one, which was NOT ref'd in the WND article, but IS ref'd in the PDF they DO mention), I must say that I do not think they're being sensationalist at all.
In other words their article seems to me to be right on the money.
This is unbeliveably bad stuff, for everyone but the most incurably statist idealists.
First, I've never read anything from Farah to indicate that he hates Bush. In fact, he seems to like him. That said, there is NOT a grain of truth to this. There's a TON of truth to it.
Read the second PDF that I linked a couple of posts above. But be sitting down first.
You do have to chuckle, though. They sneak this crap under the wire, without fanfare (except among the industries that benefit from it). They know better than to tout it in the press. Smart, eh?
This is the kind of thing that could drive what little conservative support Bush still had right into the third parties for years to come.
This has all the earmarks of "stealth regulation". I seriously doubt they intended to shout it from the housetops. I don't think the conservative base was supposed to be reading about it on the front page of the daily rag or hear the Fox morning crew crack jokes about it.
Aye, there's the beauty of it.
This reminds me of the Soviet Union or Communist China, where simply disagreeing with the government was enough to have you labeled "mentally ill" and shipped to a gulag.
See what I mean?
That ain't the half of it. This is intended to be ubiquitous. Do read the second PDF I linked above. This will be tied into everything, including your "primary health care."
In other words, don't be surprised if your health plan give you an ultimatum -- and then refers you for screening anyway, on the basis that you acted irrationally by turning down your coverage to try to avoid a screening.
Don't be silly. They'll be "helped", of course.
I await the test results of the 535 members of Congress, before testing any member of the public!
Where'd all that whistling go? The graveyard is suddenly gone silent...
After all, you don't want the DEA slambang-grenading into your house at 3 AM to medicate you, your dogs, your kiddies and your mother-in-law.
Yeah, some people, I swear. These dorks would probably bitch if you hung 'em with a new rope.
So f'n what if we all have to line up for mental exams. BFD. Hey, if it helps one child, it's a small price to pay. Besides, they put "freedom" in the program title, so you know it's good.
I gave you chapter and verse on "screened", go find the rest on your own.
When the have the power, they don't need the "right".
Well, it's obvious that YOU have't read it, or you'd realize that the writer wasn't expressing any fantasy.
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.