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 would, but the terlet's acting up, and I can't find the plunger.
After reading the Commission Report's introduction and index I agree completely. The recommendations are hideous and insidious.
I don't know if you're going to believe me, but in the medical field (and, I would argue, in layman's terms as well), the phrase "every person with cancer" (or mental illness, or any other disease) is generally accepted to mean "every person diagnosed with cancer (or mental illness, etc.)."
You may, for example, have a couple of cavities in your mouth right now that you don't know about, and won't ever know about until the next time you visit a dentist for a checkup, a cleaning, something like that. That doesn't mean the Tooth Cops are going to come after you before that making sure they haven't missed any opportunities to perform a filling and get some cash from your insurance or Medicare for it.
It will start with pre-school children. In order to enroll your child in the local government training center (euphemistically termed "public school"), he or she will have to be evaluated by a government-licensed psychologist. Any child who does not fall within the parameters of whatever the State considers "normal" will be prescribed an "anti-psychotic" drug concocted The prescription will of course be mandatory; any parents who refuse to "medicate" their child will find themselves in the same position as the father in this news story who, after seeing his son's personality deteriorate under the effect of Ritalin, took his son off the poison and now may face prosecution--except that, in the near future, there won't be any "maybe" about it, parents will face prosecution, they will have their children taken away from them, and they will be imprisoned for defending their children.
That's how it will start. Then prisoners, whether they got into trouble for murder or burglary or marijuana possession or failure to pay a parking ticket or holding "politically incorrect" views or refusing to medicate their children, will be screened for mental illness. And they will be forcibly medicated, or implanted with a device to control their emotions. And the average, stupid American citizen will not care, because it's "only" being done to prisoners.
But then, one day, you will wake up and discover that you cannot get health insurance, a driver's license, government benefits, or a job, unless you submit to mental health screening. And they will test your "normality" with all manner of diabolical high-tech gadgetry. For instance, they will analyze your brain wave activity to discern whether or not you are lying when they ask you about your finances, your sex life, your favorite television shows, your political views, your religious beliefs, and so on. It will, of course, be junk science, with results subject to any sort of interpretation, but it won't matter--it will be the Law that you submit, and if you are deemed "abnormal" you will be medicated or micro-chipped, and you will be "cured.
If it saves just one life....
LOL I know. But every parent, spouse, and/or child who has lost a loved one to those demonic killers sure wishes it had saved their "one life".
1. Don't call me "pal", dear. TUVM.
2. Do not dare to equate my relating a pleasant memory of an event my mother told me, with your vile attacks on her person.
And rant all you want, you still posted an absolute falsehood about my posts on this thread and haven't been able to back it up.
Hey, I said you win. What more do you want?
LMAO!
Oh my God, you're HILLARY!
Welcome to the rarified atmosphere shared by those very few who've bothered to look at the actual materials.
I've noticed a strange correlation between the very few who've looked at it -- and agree that it is a travesty -- and the seething masses who are too busy condemning those who have read it, to be able to spare the time to read it themselves.
JMO, NL, you are the professional at practicing willful ignorance on FR.
Gee, thanks for the concern -- especially since I've already mentioned in this thread that I do have CHF.
Don't fret your little heart out. I'm costing the good ratepayers of Blue Cross close to fifty grand a year.
Oh my God, you're HILLARY!
Nope, I'm just a tired old fart with a natural immunity to anklebiters. :)
And what does it mean when someone speaks in terms of finding "every person with [____}" so that they can be "helped"?
Seems pretty clear to me that in the context under discussion, the goal is one of bringing in the undiagnosed.
Did you read the original source materials?
Here's a starting point or three:
Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America, the White House's source document
Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness, by Jeanne Lenzer, British Medical Journal
I see. So you used a "pleasant" memory of your mother to trash somebody who you don't agree with and then screamed bloody hell when I referred to her.
Good to know how you operate.
This is already the case (and has been for a decade or more) in many places.
... any parents who refuse to "medicate" their child will find themselves in the same position as the father in this news story who, after seeing his son's personality deteriorate under the effect of Ritalin, took his son off the poison and now may face prosecution--
A close friend was blackmailed by the school to put his nine year old on Ritalin. The tried when she was five and entering kindergarten but their pediatrician gave them a stay of execution then. After a year of Ritalin at age 9-10 he got mad about it and took her off. They didn't however retaliate. (Other schools have with other people.) She is 14 now and quite bright and normal. Children who take Ritalin or other psychotropics are something like 20% more likely to become addicted to street drugs by age 18 FWIW.
The question here should be "will a sweeping federal program to revamp public and private mental health care services improve this situation?
Well, I hate to break any hearts, but I'm outta here again.
Try to play nice, folks.
You never know -- you might actually enjoy it.
Well, I gotta admit, they haven't quartered troops in my house!Naw - it can't be, can it?
Another member of the 'I don't care to live civilly amongst humanity' and 'don't impose on me one iota for my time, my assistance or cooperation' club?
Hyperbole, used tactically, can refreshingly get a 'point' across -
-but hyperbole used excessively and continually reveals you may have hold of no other forms of logical/argumentative ammunition ...
All this 'crying' about 'my rights' are being infringed is pathetic; if, in the course or your ordinary life you could make the case how your 'constitutional rights' have been grevioulsly violated THAT might be the argument you should put forth ...
We can't possibily do this, are we really willing to put all of the Democrats and Liberals in Mental Instutitions? I would say "yes". Build them and fill them.
Whew, that is the first time I've heard of a major malcontent on a FR thread describing changing his diaper as breaking hearts.
That sounds more like an argument for letting the AWB sunset to me. Life has no guarantees and the last one I want trying to give me one is the federal gov.
I've always liked the Marine slogan "lead, follow or get the f out of the way." When it comes to democratic style republics I think the people should lead, the state should follow and the fed should get the f out of the way.
"Do you have any idea how you sound?"
No! Tell me.
"Get over your self."
You won't believe it, but everyone here will tell you-You could easily have been talking to yourself there.
I have no problem with secret ballots. Union members would be afraid to vote for Republicans, if the goons who run their unions knew about it.
If you haven't made up your mind about the Candidates by now, you must be planning to flip a coin on the way to vote.
Don't be so over sensitive every time someone mentions your Mother. I lost my own Mother in 1994. Nothing offensive has been said about your Mother and I would be the last person to disrespect anyone's Mother.
Believe me Don Joe, when I say: The last thing anyone here wants to see, is your being banned from this site. You have almost single handedly ran this thread up toward a thousand responses-no small achievement.
So bring it on.
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.