Bush to screen population for mental illness

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 21, 2004

[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."

[birbear]

I know this is shameless self promotion...but for an insider's view of mental health please visit my ex-wife's blog... she journals about how it's hard to take care of a mentall ill mate (me), and I journal about my struggles with my illness.

www.schizodiaries.blogspot.com

[mississippi red-neck]

.Next time, try READING it before popping off on it, OK?

You are absolutely right Don. She hasn't read anything. I did. It's a nightmare. Farah wasn't making this up. It's worse than he said.

I don't know what's wrong with the President. This commission was created by and operating under his Executive Order.

The way he thinks on domestic policy makes me think he should be the first in line for the screening. He acts like he doesn't want to be reelected.

The Democrats do not beat Republicans in elections . The leaders of the Republican Party just commit stupidcide.

[mississippi red-neck]

.Next time, try READING it before popping off on it, OK?

You are absolutely right Don. She hasn't read anything. I did. It's a nightmare. Farah wasn't making this up. It's worse than he said.

I don't know what's wrong with the President. This commission was created by and operating under his Executive Order.

The way he thinks on domestic policy makes me think he should be the first in line for the screening. He acts like he doesn't want to be reelected.

The Democrats do not beat Republicans in elections . The leaders of the Republican Party just commit stupidcide.

[truthkeeper]

I read a little bit of it. You have a very caring friend there in your ex-wife. Best of luck to you both.

[texasflower]

This is going to be a long post and I apologize for that upfront. Most of my comments are going to be directed at others that might be reading this out of concern or fear about what this issue might involve. I know that you understand all of this already.

Your post is excellent. Thank you for posting all of that.

There are so many people in similar situations that would benefit greatly from having comphrensive mental health evaluation and ongoing care.

You pointed out several areas in which some of this screening would be perfectly applied. In the schools if a child is presenting with behavioral or learning problems that has come to the attention of the school diagnostician, school psychologist or school nurse.

In a prison intake and detention services. Discharge planning by prison staff. Later on by probation officers or other referral agencies after discharge.

There are so many areas that this initiative could and should be applied.

Had you or your son had the option, this sort of thing could have changed both of your lives for the better.

I know that as a parent, you would have loved to be able to have help for your son. I suspect your heart was broken watching your child go through so much, and knowing that it was mostly due to a health matter.

As a loving parent, you tried to get him help, but it wasn't available to you, as you said.

This initiative has the potential to improve life for many, many people and the families that love them.

There is also the simple fact that with proper treatment, the vast majority of people are able to continue with their lives and be productive.

So, by providing care early and consistently, most people will actually be less of a tax payer burden, because they will be better able to get and hold a job. Many would then go to private health care through their employer and or be less dependent on things like food stamps, etc.

Many people don't think they would ever be in need of care themselves. You have shown that perfectly normal people in good loving homes may need assistance.

Besides you never know when circumstances might change in a heartbeat and a person may encounter a crisis that causes them to need help.

A prime and desperately real example of this is something that we have seen all too often in this country.

Remember the young paramedic that rescued "Baby Jessica"? The trauma of that event eventually led to his suicide.

The rescuers that went to work on the morning of September 11, 2001.

A couple of hours later, they were confronted with the sights of bodies torn to pieces on the sidewalk from those souls that preferred to jump to their deaths. The sight of a pregnant woman torn open by the impact, with her baby lying dead and torn beside her, still connected by the umbilical cord.

The agony of finding no survivors in the rubble once the towers collapsed. Recovering remains only.

The hundreds of funerals that the police and fire department personnel had to attend. Going back to work and seeing the rows of empty lockers belonging to co-workers that would not be returning.

The families of 9/11. It doesn't take much to see that many of those survivors have taken their grief and projected it into very unhealthy activities. Some of them have turned that into hatred and rage against the very people who have done the most to help them. (911 Commission Families)

The families of those that are now having to cope with the fact that their loved one has been decapitated.

Families of our fallen soldiers.

Wounded soldiers coping with life changing injuries.

Soldiers suffering from PTSD.

Unexpected mental and physical traumas can happen in a heart beat and without warning.

That means every single one of us is at risk for mental health challenges.

Most of these people have seen or will see a grief counselor or chaplain, etc. These people would provide screening simply by virtue of the incident in which they were involved.

Screening generally begins with someone like that, who under this initiative, can then offer additional services to the person. This initiative can make that process specific and streamlined. It is a tremendous alternative to just handing them a card with crisis hotline centers on it and telling them to be sure and tell "someone" if they need help. They will be able to know exactly who to call and how to go about getting help.

Also, "screening" doesn't involve a brooding psychiatrist with ink blots. Screening may be as simple as a grief counselor, pastor or other, who asks gentle and loving questions like "Are you experiencing trouble sleeping, eating, concentrating..." etc. The answers to those questions is often the basis for offering more extensive assistance and care.

For me, I was called to a scene that was supposed to be a routine "sick call".

When I arrived, the patient put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. I was close enough to him to be covered with his blood and brain tissue.

But, he continued to breathe, even with most of his head gone. As a paramedic, even though I knew he could never survive, by law I was required to treat him aggressively.

So, covered in that mess, I had to work him until I could get a physician on scene to pronounce him dead. I wiped the man's brain out of my eyes, intubated a gaping hole where a face used to be and got to work on him.

When that was over, I went back to the station, showered, changed uniforms and stayed at work.

But later, quite unexpectedly I had a very vivid flashback in which I heard the gunshot, smelled the gunshot and felt all of that blood and tissue on me all over again.

What did my employer do? They paid for me to go to a critical incident stress debriefing and a couple of follow ups. They even paid me for the time I spent there.

I never missed a day of work, I was not stigmatized in any way and a more serious problem was immediately averted.


There are so many on this board that can't see how people can be screened for mental health problems, unless it is forced.

This has been a long way to say that there is no provision in the initiative to force anyone to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Screening can be as simple as situations like those listed in which a significant risk of psychological trauma exists.

Offering a comprehensive health care initiative can save many minds and many lives.

In this age of terror, something like this is crucial.

But finally let me stress that nothing in any of the documents that have been provided or those that can be researched say ANYTHING about every American being tested.

Only that it should be AVAILABLE to every American that needs help.

[texasflower]

Regarding post #905.....

thoughtomator, here is the detailed explanation that I told you earlier I was willing to post.

Nittany Lion, it is not an attempt to get involved in another debate for you, but here is a list of scenarios in which mental health screenings could be done. Read it or not, it doesn't matter to me.

Judith Anne, Howlin and Dane. You guys are responsible voices of reason. Maybe this post could help make some of your points in case you are still debating this with anyone. Most of us are sick and tired of this thread anyway, so you may not even want to read this.......

(and it won't offend me if you don't want to!)

[Sabertooth]

You pointed out several areas in which some of this screening would be perfectly applied. In the schools if a child is presenting with behavioral or learning problems that has come to the attention of the school diagnostician, school psychologist or school nurse.

This is not what the President's commision has recommended.

Here is the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health's Final Report.

Here's an excerpt from Goal 4: Early Mental Health Screening, Assessment, and Referral to Services Are Common Practice

"Schools are in a key position to identify mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services. Every day more than 52 million students attend over 114,000 schools in the U.S. When combined with the six million adults working at those schools, almost one-fifth of the population passes through the Nation's schools on any given weekday.¹²² Clearly, strong school mental health programs can attend to the health and behavioral concerns of students, reduce unnecessary pain and suffering, and help ensure academic achievement."

Further down, the commission advocates a particular screening model developed at Columbia University:

All youngsters in a school, with parental consent, are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk. At no charge, the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program provides consultation, screening materials, software, training, and technical assistance to qualifying schools and communities. In return, TeenScreen® partners are expected to screen at least 200 youth per year and ensure that a licensed mental health professional is on-site to give immediate counseling and referral services for youth at greatest risk. The Columbia TeenScreen® Program is a not-for-profit organization funded solely by foundations. When the program identifies youth needing treatment, their care is paid for depending on the family's health coverage."

That's "all youngsters" in public schools, with parental consent, who are being targeted for mental screening. This is a mental health dragnet, not a situation where "a child is presenting with behavioral or learning problems that has come to the attention of the school diagnostician, school psychologist or school nurse."

[texasflower]

No, Saber. It does say exactly what I said.

Your own post bears that out.

122..."strong school mental health programs can attend to the health and behavior concerns of students."

Those would be students that are indeed presenting with behavioral concerns.

and then..."all youngsters in a school, WITH PARENTAL CONSENT are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk."

With parental consent.

It is not forced on anyone. Therefore all those who are saying that we will be lined up and forced to study ink blots are wrong.

That is what started this whole thing. People saying that this would be forced on every citizen.

[Sabertooth]

With parental consent.

Look, I stipulated the parental consent, and emphasized it in my post to make clear that the commission wasn't recommending mandatory screening.

The point, however, is that the screening targets "all youngsters" in public schools, pending parental consent. It's a massive and ambitious screening process that is envisioned, not something limited to at-risk kids, as your post implied when you wrote "in the schools if a child is presenting with behavioral or learning problems that has come to the attention of the school diagnostician, school psychologist or school nurse," or "screening can be as simple as situations like those listed in which a significant risk of psychological trauma exists."

It is not forced on anyone. Therefore all those who are saying that we will be lined up and forced to study ink blots are wrong.

Who is saying this?

Unless you've got cites and links, this is a strawman.

[mercy]

Oh I don't know. I sometimes think you could use a little medication.

[ApesForEvolution]

LOL. You left out quite a few, but I understand.

So many, so little time...

[thoughtomator]

I think you need to understand a couple of things:

1) Drugs are not the answer to the bad things that happen in life.

2) Man should not play God with the brain chemistry of other men.

Shit happens in life. I personally was in the WTC the first time they bombed it, in 1993. You bet your sweet hindquarters it was traumatic. But to have taken that trauma as an excuse to take drugs would have been an abomination. Life is real, even the awful things that happen in life. Drugs are NOT the answer to dealing with these things.

Also, I hope you understand the implications of the nexus between government schools and school staff ordering mental examinations. It's already resulted in 4 million American kids zombified by Ritalin. I will personally tolerate no more of this.

It is long past time we stopped inventing excuses for poor behavior and using drugs as an alternative to correcting that behavior. One thing that particularly outrages me is parents who, having failed to raise their children properly, pretend they have ADHD and drug them into submission. I shudder to think how messed up the lives of these children will be.

If the Brave New World is coming, I will be fighting it tooth and nail every step of the way.

[ApesForEvolution]

Oh yes, which leads us all to the national choice of a socialist candidate and a communist candidate - one gives you the gun and the drugs and says 'you can handle this' and the other takes your gun and shoots you up while saying 'we'll handle this'.

[ApesForEvolution]

I nominate you Queen of the state of victimhood, the highest class in America today.

[ApesForEvolution]

That's probably where the problems started...

[ApesForEvolution]

I hope the POTUS sends them back to the drawing board with large welts on their hineys...but I doubt we'll see that.

Conservatives aren't compassionate, but compassionate conservatives certainly must be. (sigh)

I blew off this thread because I THOUGHT it was OLD NEWS.

But, apparently, the bots seem to have difficulty doing research and internalizing the realities we face.

[texasflower]

Just for the record, "presenting" signs or symptoms may be recognizable solely on observed behavioral traits, or they may be presenting in their responses to specific questions.

In writing a patient report, presenting signs and symptoms are listed together. Signs you can see, symptoms you cannot.

Symptoms could be found in the answers to certain written or verbal questions.

You may not have said that people would be forced into this, but at the point where I joined this discussion, hundreds of posts ago, that is exactly what was being said by plenty of others.

I got into this debate in the first place by responding to those who were saying this would be forced.

It was being said over and over again. There is absolutely no way I am going to go back and link my posts to you.

You can read them for yourself or you can trust me.

I stopped reading these posts at about 400. Since then I have only responded to those posts that were directed to me.

So I have no way of knowing anything about your posts or your stand on things. (and no offense, but I'm not going to go looking either)

You said that I believed it to be only high risk kids or those with behavioral challenges already.

I can understand how you might have thought that based on that post.

However, the idea of this screening being offered without cost and only with parental consent to all students doesn't bother me.

Kids are screened for scoliosis, hearing, vision, whether or not they have their shots, lice, whether or not they can read, whether or not they qualify for low cost or free meals. I think screening for this very important issue is a good idea.

What is it about this that bothers you so much? Really?

In 1994 my home and business were completely destroyed in a flood. We had losses of about 2.7 million dollars that was not insured for floods.

We lived at the top of a hill. Far away from the areas that normally flood. But our two story house and complete printing business was completely underwater for days.

My kids were little. Elementary school age.

The school psychologist paid very close attention to my daughters. She would invite them to lunch with her every couple of weeks just to check in with them.

It was done with my consent and my gratitude. You see, the kids were at high risk for emotional trauma because everything they knew was gone in an instant, and they had to be sent off with the fire department in a boat, because the water came up very quickly and we couldn't get out.

The kids did just fine, because the school psychologist recognized the potential for trauma and was committed to helping these kids deal with it.

There were 78 other kids in that school that we also affected. She treated each one of the kids the same way she did mine.

The school district bought a bunch of bicycles from a police storage of lost and stolen unclaimed bikes and gave one to each child, so they would have something of their own again.

The bikes were from a very wealthy neighborhood, so these bikes were very nice.

I credit the school with taking solid, caring action in order to help the children in areas where they could and everything they did was coordinated with each parent.

This doesn't have to be a scary thing.

I think many children will grow to be better adults if they get proper direction in every area of their lives.

Most of that direction will be from the parents, but sometimes, more help is needed.

Keep in mind that many, many people may not know what is "normal" or not. That sounds strange, but not everyone knows the danger signs of childhood mental illnesses or disturbances.

The schools may find some cause for concern that the parents weren't aware of.

The Columbine killer's parents didn't know enough about what was going on with those boys. What might have happened differently if the schools did routine screenings?

Many years ago, when my oldest daughter was just barely six years old, she was screened at school for vision just like they all are. The nurse sent home a note and I took her to the eye doctor.

Until the moment that my child put those glasses on and I saw the amazement in her eyes as she looked around, I had no idea that she wasn't seeing things normally.

She didn't know, since her vision had always been like that. She wasn't reading books yet, so I didn't know. (she could see the big print that kindergarten stuff is printed with.)

I love my daughters with all my heart. I would do anything for them. But I didn't know Rachel has somewhat fuzzy vision. Thank God the school screened her. Her world was much more beautiful to her from that moment on. Sure, I would have figured it out eventually when whe would be struggling to read, but it was caught earlier than it would have otherwise.

Let the schools continue to screen kids as far as I am concerned.

Plus, if the schools can find out that little Johnny in third grade thinks it's funny to torture and kill kittens, or is fascinated with death or what have you, then maybe Johnny at 16 will not come to school with an assault rifle and take out your children or mine.

[texasflower]

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO MEAN DRUG THERAPY. I DIDN'T SAY IT DID.

You are the one fixated on the medication aspect of this.

For the record, I never took any medication.

Plenty of other things are much more helpful in dealing with problems than drug therapy.

Some need drug therapy. Some don't.

I am thrilled that you are a strong and healthy person.

That's fantastic, but not everyone has your strength. I am a strong person also. But it helped to learn how to deal with my experience in a productive way, instead of trying to bury it.

Should someone who doesn't have your inner strength just suffer?

[texasflower]

Why, because I used a past experience to illustrate a point?

Did I whine, cry or ask for you to feel sorry for me?

Nope. I don't feel sorry for myself at all. I told a personal story that was pertinent to the point I was trying to make.

I am not a victim of anything.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I am a skeptic about GUMMINT getting involved with this. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Who says where the grate goes in the screen when it comes down to the lowest common denominator? This is the same gummint who won't let foster parents for children in child protection teach these kids, or even their own kids living alongside them, that Christianity is true or that homosexuality is bad.