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."
there is no plan, as I see it, to REQUIRE mental-health screening
Corin is trying to say "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." It doesn't matter what the President has said what matters is what they want him to have meant.
Pretty strong words by Bush. Thanks for the link.
Presidents say a lot of things without fighting for them (where is Bush's Mars plan now?) We will see how serious he is about this one.....it may be worth it to write to the WH and others to warn about the possibility, in any case.
As many Americans know, it is incredibly painful to watch someone you love struggle with an illness that affects their mind and their feelings and their relationships with others. We heard stories today in a roundtable discussion about that -- what the struggle means for family.
That sounds like a description of eight years of the life of a friends wife. She was little more than a walking vegetable. Her psychiatrist had her on about nine high powered psychotropics, while her physician had her on another eight drugs including coumadin for physical problems, all stemming from initially treating her depression over her adult son's accidental death. Thank God she almost died and was rushed to the hospital where they immediately took her off of all but three of the seventeen drugs. (Those were for physical complaints.)
One drug for depression. Side effect - hears voices.
One drug for the voices. Side effect - anxiety.
One drug for anxiety. Side effect - sees hallucinations.
One drug for hallucinations. Side effect - complete loss of motivation.
One drug for loss of motivation. Side effect - .....
Yes, let's screen for those who don't even ask for this help. More people need to experience the compassion of today's psychiatry sans counseling. There's an expensive and powerful pill for whatever ails you.
Don't you find it peculiar that many of these psychiatric drugs tend to *cause* symptoms of mental illness?
Yeah ... "recommends." That's the key word.
I'd agree that even this goes beyond the government's
legitimate business. But the government cannot require
everyone to be screened. Are there people who would
like this? No doubt. Will it happen? Look, I'm no
optimist about most things political. But your
nightmare scenarios are far-fetched this time. There
are many worse threats to worry about.
No. I've had a lot of experience with drugs and alcohol. Thankfully not Rx drugs. I didn't have anyone with some assumed authority telling me that they would be good for me or suggesting that more would help the problems generated by the ones I was taking.
Look, I'm no optimist about most things political.
Ah, the good ol' "CFR-Safety-Net" gambit, eh? Don't fret over his promise to sign known-bad legislation, but rely on some other branch of gov't to put it in check?
You know what they say about "fool me once, shame on me"?
Let's just leave it at "get back with me after he doesn't sign it", OK? So far, he's got a pretty good track record of doing what he says he's gonna do. The sad ironic part of it is seeing people pin their hopes -- for once -- on a politician's dishonisty, and being 'oist by his honesty.
The fact that he promises to do bad stuff - and then does do it -- well, I think I'll just say that my money would be on him signing it -- as he's said he would. If I were a betting man, that is. Since I'm not, I'll simply say that I am confident that he will do what he said he will do, and I fully expect the AWB to remain in force, permanently.
Same to you.
This has been a remarkable thread. Quite revealing, in a brutally chilling way.
I am the deviate. So are you, now, along with a small handfull of others.
Read about the deviate here.
Thanks for posting relevant material, and don't let one person strongarm you into silence.
If someone doesn't want to read your material, she doesn't have to read it. It's not like you're pumping it into her email box. This is an open thread, and for every bossy drama queen who would bully you into silence, there are countless lurkers who are reading, and archiving your posts.
Correct. It would be crazy to expect him to toss away that which he has ordered up.
When you hear "with parental concent", remember the word "voluntary" on your IRS forms. :)
Yup, "consent" is "voluntary" -- until you decide not to grant it. Then it becoms "mandatory."
LOL!!
Pingus.
Bingo. How's that little Maoist (or was it "Uncle Ho-ist"?) aphorism go, about every nail that sticks up shall be hammered flat?
God save The Union from professional "caring persons".
*shudder*
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.