Posted on 11/11/2004 5:37:46 PM PST by wagglebee
"The return of Soviet psychiatry?"
Why not, they are wild for Uncle Joe and all of his dirty schemes.
pinging for Prozac
This is NOT a Democrat-led idea. It came directly out of the White House under President Bush; he *called for* the commission to set up the "New Freedom" initiative. This was NOT created by liberals. If it (God forbid) comes up for a vote before Congress, *Republicans* will vote for it.
Smart parents should teach their kids to respond that it's none of their business.
I am a caseworker, and I don't think I work with a single school-aged child that isn't medicated, often on multiple psychotropic medications. Many that are not school-aged are being medicated as well, and it is not uncommon for 2 and 3 year olds to be in "therapy."
See post #5.
To be pro-business means protecting US market from the cheap foreign/generic drugs, guaranteeing high/fixed prices and making drugs mandatory.
What??? What state are you in? You should report her to her superiors.
When this first started we did counsel our son. He was not to discuss the degree of home armment we had. (In fact when he was very young, we kept this knowledge from him) so he would not give the information away in a trusting relationship with child care or elementary school. Sad that it comes to this.
The question of mental health screening is in the same league with the second ammendment. I have no doubt that there are people who are mentally ill. I also believe some could be helped with treatment, but the vast majority of the truely mentally ill do not want to know about it and would shun treatment because you can't accept treatment without a certain acceptance of the illness. I will oppose this screening in any venue except voluntary screening in a private office.
Have you seen this?
This is what shows up on Thomas when I search for "mental health screening children". IMO, it's not mandatory, but it is unsettling.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108qRHQNm::
The people behind this are playing both sides of the aisle.
"TMAP was funded through a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant — and several drug companies that stood to gain billions of dollars.The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the philanthropic (read: p.r.) arm of the Johnson & Johnson medical-supply/household-products empire anda major player in promoting controversial prevention curricula in schools."
"Here, the plot begins to thicken.TMAP promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs.For that reason, the commission’s nationwide version of the proposal sent up red flags in the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General.OIG employee Allen Jones essentially blew the whistle when he revealed that key officials had receivedmoney and perks from drug companies with a stake TMAP. Some members of the New Freedom Commission had served on advisory boards for me pharmaceutical companies whose products were being recommended. Other members had indirect ties to TMAP.Jones was sacked in May for speaking to the British Medical Journal and the New York Times."
Rest of the article here.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was a major participant in Hillary's Health Care Task Force, and footed the bill for the airtime to broadcast her Health Care Town Hall Meetings uninterrupted
They also wrote the DARE program, and are part of the Ad Council, and helped produce the "Drugs = Terrorism" Superbowl ads.
I see no problem with testing school children for contagious childhood illnesses. Mental health problems ARE NOT contagious; however, bad behavior often is and I suspect this behavior is what the left (and particularly the NEA) is trying to "treat." If you ever listen to Neal Boortz, he speaks about this at least once a month (and he probably will talk about it a lot more now that the election is over).
Wrong, as usual. There is currently no "free market" in health care. The US Government, aided and abetted by legions of rapacious trial lawyers, has seen to that. Artifical demand (largely created by Medicaid and defensive medical practices) coupled with limited supply (caused by sue-happy lawyers and headline-hungry state Attorneys General) have created a Soviet-style market with Swiss-style prices. It sucks - but please do not have the gall to blame it on pharmaceutical companies and doctors - they are the victims of this rotten political scheme. Drug companies try to make money in such an environment by shifting production toward low-cost manufacturing of high-demand drugs - because they cannot otherwise survive in a risk-ridden environment. Doctors, with less cost control in their hands, just give up and leave the practice - as they are currently doing in droves.
BTTT
Like the one that forced medical insurance carriers to provide "mental health" insurance.
Like the regulations that require nuclear power plant workers to undergo psychological testing.
And another thing. Did you notice that psychologists never find anything good about a person? They always find something wrong.
The definitive study on this "profession" was done by Rosenhan, in 1973, and proved that psychiatrists can't even tell the sane from the insane using their own definitions.
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was very prescient. The population was kept doped up on something called Soma.
In short, mental health professionals lack the diagnostic capabilities of a dentist, for instance. A dentist can look at a healthy set of teeth and see the clear difference between these teeth and unhealthy ones. Psychiatry has a handbook that clearly defines mental disorders (DSM IV); however, they lack an such definition of a healthy and normal mental state.
There is no doubt that more kids than ever are genuinely troubled, but that's because of changes in the family: widespread divorce, illegitimacy, working mothers, daycare, home alone, parental indifference, parental permissiveness and whatever else.
On top of that, what would have been considered normal, albeit annoying, behavior in a child as recently as the 1970s is now a "condition" that must be "treated."
I certainly wasn't suggesting that I am in agreement with medicating these kids. Sometimes I wonder if the treatment isn't often worse than the "problem" it is intended to manage. Children are still developing and there have been no studies of consequence, to my knowledge, that justify pumping them full of mind and mood altering drugs. Drugs that inhibit or stimulate the production of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, could just as likely be inhibiting other biochemical processes necessary to healthy development or stimulating some that are not so healthy. Often, the biochemical mechanism by which some of these drugs have therapeutic effectiveness is not known, let alone the detrimental reactions that may taking place. In adults, some of the benefits may be worth the risk, but in children, it is a gamble that could do irreversible damage. In my opnion, it is professionally irresponsible, at the very least.
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.