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."
We haven't had a conservative candidate who tried to limit the federal government in my life time, why would we have one now?
I think that they will only drug the Democrats.
Good for you!
Rearranged? Is that a journalistic term?
Rearranged?
Do you realize what you're saying?
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Where does it even CREDIT bmj.com or say they "rearranged" the article?
Most psychiatrists are rather, shall we say, 'liberal' - I don't think this is aimed at the 'politically correct' crowd.
Trivial? Screening EVERY American and getting them on psychotropics?
When I read the title I only hoped that it might be some way to help the mentally challenged homeless population, whom I believe are NOT helped by their "freedom." I think they might be able to live freer lives if medicated, and I was picturing community waystations just for them.
Our tax dollars are SUPPOSED to help those [Americans] who truly are through no fault of their own unable to help themselves, and I am all for funding some kind of system to get mentally ill homeless into civilization, even against their will. Medication for bipolar and schizophrenia will actually make them MORE free to live better lives.
Ah come on ..it was funny. You and CJ hoisted by Joe for a moment.
You'll have a chance to return the favor I'm sure.
(I wonder if I can sleep with this grin.)
I really hope this isn't true. If it is, I am sure someone here will find a way to spin it as a good thing.
So you declare your "principles" then immediately state they're not worth standing for. Way to go - that's what Big Stupid Government politician parasites count on the Sheeple to do!
No wonder it's the same old crapfest every 4 years - you really don't care if you vote for a free-spending proponent of Big Stupid Government.
What flavor Koolaid do you prefer they serve at your polling place?
Huh?! Are you younger than 16?
Reagan First Term Discretionary Spending
Foreign Aid: +1.6%
Energy: -42.5%
Environment: -20.0%
Science & Tech: +10.3%
Agriculture: -6.5%
Transportation: -10.9%
Community Development: -32.6%
Education/Training: -32.6%
Health Subsidies: -15.6%
Income Security: +14.3%
General Govt: +4.2%
---Nope you are referring to the things that HAD to be done because of the Doyle- ( some other name) bill that passed in CAlifornia in the late 50s. Reagan was never the instigator---
I just always associated it with Reagan because they emptied out the state hospitals during his administration. Also I always thought Ken Keasey's book was the impetus for the changes.
Seriously though, it would be a great thing if some money could go into mental health programs at the county level. The state of mental health in this country has never been particularily good. :^)
Sure he was the 'instigator' of mental health care reform in California. He closed down the old, stiffling institutions so that the borderline mentally ill could be cared for in their own communities.
Oh please. Do you seriously think I'm going to get into yet another hysterical debate with you?
No, dear. I don't realize whatever you think I'm saying. Get over it.
It does seem like an odd over reaching program.
I have no problem making mental health care more accessible but this seems like more than that and the drug company PR will be horribly ill timed.
However, I would like to know more.
I don't have the time. But he supported Bush in the War on Terror and often exposed the media bias against Bush. I'm a regular reader of WND.
I've personally seen somebody up close go from almost living out of a box to working and honestly earning over $300K a year. In less than 5 years.
So, I'm not somebody that's going to fall for the "Slippery Slope Scream"-a-thon that most Freepers seem to share in this thread.
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.