|
I just ran a Google News Search on "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" Here are the results, as of this post:
|
||||||||||||||
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."
|
I just ran a Google News Search on "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" Here are the results, as of this post:
|
||||||||||||||
Well, if you don't like the WND headline, how about the BMR headline?
Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness, by Jeanne Lenzer
And if that doesn't satisfy, you, I suggest you dig into the actual source material that the White House is using:
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America
Thanks for the additional links, ST...
Yes! Run away! Run away! Hands over eyes! Beans in ears!
I mean NOW, pronto!
This is not a drill!
LOL!
This proposal is nothing more than a streamlined and much more cost effective and efficient way to get help to those that need it. Nothing indicates forced testing of anyone.
Right. Nothing except the actual source materials that the White House is using to put this program together.
But hey, if you run away now, you won't have to read them.
I will be a bit shocked if he does though.
Me too!
I'll also be surprised if he signs the AWB renewal.
And I'll also be surprised ifhe signs CFR into law.
And I'll also be surprised if he offers a thinly veiled amnesty to the illegal aliens.
And I'll also be surprised if he...
Oops.
too true.
Why was post 647, showing the BMJ author's anti-Bush feelings, deleted?
647 deleted, because of email addresses in the header. Feel free to repost with those removed.
Will do. My apologies.
Good point, but I think the situations are different. Campaign finance reform isn't an issue that really interests the public one way or the other, though they give lip service to it because it sounds nice. A broad change or initiative in mental health policy is another matter. Lots of opposition can be stirred up -- and much of it might come from the left.
Ah yes, Jeanne Lenzer:
From xxxxx@VERIZON.NET Mon Jun 21 08:32:30 2004
From: Jeanne Lenzer <xxxxx@VERIZON.NET>
Subject: [IRE-L] Fabio and me
To: IRE-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU (Discussion of Investigative Reporting Techniques and Training)When my dear friend Fabio pointed out the atrocities at Abu Gharib there was a period of dead silence for a while. The news had not yet hit the U.S. while it was all over the rest of the world.
When I wrote my BMJ piece, it was striking to me that news of Bush's plan to screen the whole U.S. population for mental illness was not news here in the U.S. - but has triggered quite a bit of an uproar in the rest of the world.
Let's see, if we agree with the 9/11 commission that there appears to be no credible link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda does that make us "delusional" and in need of psychotropic medicine - or is it the other way around?
Ok. Maybe I jest - but only by a little.
In the meantime, we'll ignore the U.S. violation of every international accord regarding "pre-emptive" strikes and the creeping drugging of our population under a Patriot Act that is sweeping us into a Brave New World - while arguing over Sr vs Jr used solely to clarify who was who.
Wonderful.
Jeanne
___________
Jeanne Lenzer
Freelance journalist[address and phone numbers redacted]
You might want to factor that in when reading her BMJ article.
The HIPAA travesty redefined -- and then ended -- privacy for all of us.
Sure, our medical records will be confidential, insofar as release to entities like our spouses, or specialists we're seeing are concerned. We have to sign forms, releases, and grant "permission" for those folks to have access to our medical records.
However, any government employee, for any reason, can merely request them, and there they are.
It's not limited to government employees, though. Students doing reports, and no end of commercial interests can have access to your records, without your permission. In fact, you are prohibited from denying them access.
Typical orwellian incrementalism. Call it a "privacy act", and then use it to remove privacy act -- and finally, cloak the deception in a massive</> HIPAA "privacy document" you're offered to read before signing.
And of course, don't bother telling the mark that what he's signing is NOT "permission" to allow those entities access to his records. Nope, if you read the fine print, you will see that the ONLY thing you are signing is an acknowledgment that you have been offered a chance to read the massive document.
Cute, eh?
But, millions of Americans think it's "privacy reform", and, they honestly believe they're signing something completely contrary to what they're actually signing.
BTW, it was Bush who gave us HIPAA.
It's okay that I left the IRE-L's address in, I hope. It's a public mailing list, and I don't think posts there go through unless you're a subscriber anyway (which anyone can be if they want).
For those who simply can't be bothered, try to memorize this line, because you'll be hearing a lot of it in the future:
"Hi! I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you!"
Good grief, man. Get a grip!
Sounds like he's got a pretty firm grip on reality.
If Clinton had proposed anything like this travesty, Freepers would literally take to the streets in opposition.
Doesn't sound like much of a Bush fan to me. What do you all think?
|
And the fact that this fact has been demonstrated ad nauseum, yet, some people persist in their harping about WND, WND, WND, tells me there's an agenda at play.
I never think of politicians as celebrities, so I don't consider myself a *fan* of Bush or any other politician in DC for that matter.
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.
