Posted on 07/04/2004 6:39:03 PM PDT by SkyRat
A sweeping mental health initiative will be unveiled by President George W Bush in July. The plan promises to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," according to a March 2004 progress report entitled New Freedom Initiative (www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html). While some praise the plan's goals, others say it protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Bush instructed more than 25 federal agencies to develop an implementation plan based on those recommendations.
The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. According to the commission, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote the commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
Dr Darrel Regier, director of research at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), lauded the president's initiative and the Texas project model saying, "What's nice about TMAP is that this is a logical plan based on efficacy data from clinical trials."
He said the association has called for increased funding for implementation of the overall plan.
But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times.
The Texas project 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. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant—and by several drug companies.
Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which, according to his whistleblower report, 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" (http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf).
Larry D Sasich, research associate with Public Citizen in Washington, DC, told the BMJ that studies in both the United States and Great Britain suggest that "using the older drugs first makes sense. There's nothing in the labeling of the newer atypical antipsychotic drugs that suggests they are superior in efficacy to haloperidol [an older "typical" antipsychotic]. There has to be an enormous amount of unnecessary expenditures for the newer drugs."
Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of George Bush, seen here campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival John Kerry
Credit: GERALD HERBERT/AP
Olanzapine (trade name Zyprexa), one of the atypical antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the Texas algorithm, grossed $4.28bn (£2.35bn; 3.56bn) worldwide in 2003 and is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris reported that 70% of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.
Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs.
Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products have contributed $764 274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their political action committees and employees—far outstripping the $149 400 given to his chief rival, John Kerry, by 26 April.
Drug companies have fared exceedingly well under the Bush administration, according to the centre's spokesperson, Steven Weiss.
The commission's recommendation for increased screening has also been questioned. Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of Mad in America, says that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers," and that exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter programmes."
But Dr Graham Emslie, who helped develop the Texas project, 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."
The Outcome Based Education Program (Goals 2000) already does screening on students and their families. The children are given personal questions to answer as part of their curriculum, and the family information is put on file.
If you have a child in a public school, they know more about you and your family than you know about yourself. They get everything they need from the kids.
We'll all be on prozac soon.
Good one. This idea, though, even if it's well intentioned, opens up all sorts of avenues for abuse down the road. Citizens could find their right to vote curtailed, disqualification to run for public office and even wills nullified.
Some would say marraige, in general, is the result of momentary mental illness.
This might be a good idea. Consuming preschool children was banned long ago.
Good one. This idea, though, even if it's well intentioned, opens up all sorts of avenues for abuse down the road. Citizens could find their right to vote curtailed, disqualification to run for public office and even wills nullified.
Your children taken...
Where do the people come from who buy into this stuff?
Or SOMA.
(a) Implementation of the Screening tests.
(b) A whistleblower who was fired for exercising the First Amendment.
(c) An argument about whether they should scrap the old medicines and go big time with the new, more expensive medicines, and
(d) Kick-back scandals and how much more the pharmaceuticals donated to the Republicans than they did to the Dems.
But I see another story here that hasn't been touched on. If the entire population is going to be screened, ostensibly to optimize the quality of life for all, this means that everyone will be blood sampled and their genetic codes will be in a master data base.
This worries me for several reasons, one of which opens up old fears concerning population pruning and maximizing the potential (future) tax base to keep up with interest payments and cost of government and its socialistic programs.
No, I don't believe they are going to open the ovens again . . . not when they can chemically pin-point and reduce what has been described as 'useless eaters' groups, either by age or by measure of usefulness and/or productivity.
But those are only the beginning of my fears if this screening actually is implemented. Consider how easy it would be to rule over a zonked-out population.
Also consider that under current gun-control laws (not sure if state or federal), you will be unable to own a gun if you are being chemically treated for an unbalanced mental condition. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
Well, this should be enough food for thought. Someone tell me I'm mentally ill for stating the above and you'll make my day.
Happy Fourth of July to all. But I fear the fireworks haven't begun yet.
Your tag line ("It was horrible, a monster...like, like, with the body of a crab and the head of a social worker") illustrates your point.
Social services, not services of socialism.
My tag line is a quote from Woody Allen.
Not country in the world could pull off a screening of its "whole...population" for mental illness, not even the great and mighty USA.
Much less make sure that 300 milion people take their pill every day.
What might seem like a ridiculous possibility is that say, a first grader that likes to play cowboys and indians could be considered potentially violent and possess a fascination with guns. What type of "treatment" will they provide for him? Then, it becomes part of his permanent health record and what would that do for potential future job opportunities, especially if the only notation is "potentially violent and a fascination with firearms"?
One addendum - An Executive order was signed April 29, 2002 to establish the commision, so the wheels are already in motion on this one.
Keep talkin like that and you'll be identified as needing to be 're-educated'.
Of course you are correct in your assertion.
There is no reason such a horror as the state locking up those who hold conservative views/christian views/straight views can not occur.
We have quit following the rule of law and the constitution is an interesting document but one that doesn't seem to have any impact on government anymore.
Mr. Conservative is at it again.
How much is this compassion going to cost?
I agree. I hope this is campaign bullsh*t and about as serious as the Mars spaceshot endeavor he was pushing a couple of months back.
But we're all forgetting that it is the federal gubmint's role of provider and protector at stake here. it's even in the Constitution: '...to provide for the defense, common welfare, and mandatory psychological health of its citizens'. And in the Declaration: 'When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to screen everyone against potentially harmful mental imbalances, including but not limited to depression, overt aggression (including road rage (Ben Franklin added that part)) and frustration due to lack of Passion Parties...'
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.