The Mothers Act
Information on Previous Versions of The MOTHERS ACT: A previous version of this bill was steamrolling through Congress, and did not pass due to valid problems in the bill including the fact that it called on using a method of “screening” pregnant women and new mothers called EPDS, a screening method documented to triple the number of women diagnosed with Post partum depression, according to a study published in Obstecrics & Gynecology. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health stated that EPDS screening was unethical and should not be used. None of the proponents of the bill (many with pharmaceutical backing and funding) had no objections whatsoever to endorsing such an unethical screening tool, and this bill would have passed with no objections from them, if not for the dedication of those groups that have no vested interests (ties to Pharma) opposing this bill that would certainly have lead to an increase of women being put on dangerous antidepressant and other psychiatric drugs to “treat” them. At best, those who supported this bill failed completely in their lack of due diligence on what they were promoting for new mothers, and for the psycho/pharma industry funded groups that supported it, their interests were clear.
Here are the major flaws within the current Mothers Act bill:
- The latest MOTHERS Act bill, fails in its safeguards for nursing mothers and pregnant women exactly like the previous bill did. The bill omits language clearly stating there will be an evaluation of the large amount of data available on the known risks of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications currently being prescribed to pregnant women and nursing mothers (including birth defects, heart defects, spontaneous abortions, and infant deaths). See May 9, 2009 Vogue article, “Pregnant Pause: With a flurry of recent reports challenging the safety of antidepressant drugs for unborn babies, doctors and concerned mothers-to-be are rethinking the guidelines” by Alexis Jetter at http://www.box.net/shared/deulxo16fp
- The bill defines ‘postpartum condition’ as only ‘postpartum depression (PPD) or postpartum psychosis.’ The danger is that per these DSM-extracted terms to label women with mental disorders, this is only psychological, not physiological conditions which will be checked for, ruling out discovery of any real physical causes, such as hormonal imbalances or vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and neglecting the treatments thereof. This relates to the issue of “screening tools” in development cited in the bill. Are these merely psychological questionnaires, and who is developing them? Are they pharmaceutically funded?
- The bill cites various “entities” that will be eligible for grants and for participating in research and/or development of screening methods and/or treatments and delivery. Who or what are these “entities?” Are they pharmaceutically funded? Do they have conflicts of interest? There are ongoing investigations of various “non-profit” organizations who heavily promote or conduct screening. For example, Screening for Mental Health, Inc., and its sub-organization Signs of Suicide, who heavily promote and conduct mental health screening, received $4,985,925 from pharmaceutical companies prior to 2008. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) receives 56% of its funding from pharmaceutical companies. Ten leading psychiatric researchers (many from prominent universities) have been exposed in the last year for failing to disclose millions of dollars in pharmaceutical payments — yet this bill contains no provisions for full disclosure of conflicts of interest for any “entity” receiving federal taxpayer funded grants.
- Given that the Senate Finance Committee recently exposed the financial conflicts of interest of the top ten psychiatric researchers in the U.S., it is no small issue that The MOTHERS Act provides no research guidelines for public disclosure. See Wall Street Journal article on Emory psychiatrist considered “leading expert” on use of antidepressants in pregnant women who was being funded tens of thousands of dollars by Pharma while doing federal research about the use of antidepressant drugs on pregnant women; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124460466072501139.html and http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/second-emory-doc-fesses-conflicts/2009-06-10
- Under The MOTHERS Act’s current language, research will be conducted without peer review — no checks and balances, no one to validate the integrity of the research which then will be used to determine a woman’s mental health status.
- Simultaneously, without allowing any checks and balances whatsoever on the research, it promotes a national “public education” campaign to include Public Service Announcements and television and radio advertisements, essentially giving Pharma an opportunity for free, federally-funded advertising.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES EXPOSING THE PSYCH/PHARMA AGENDA BEHIND THE MOTHERS ACT
Sex, Psych Drugs, Side Effects and the MOTHERS Act
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/sex-and-psych-drugs-young-couples-beware.html
Stress Testing the Mothers Act
http://www.naturalpath.com/stress-testing-mothers-act
Mothers Act Disease Mongoring
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/blog/mothers-act-disease-mongering.html
Stop the Mothers Act
http://www.naturalnews.com/024254.html
Mothers Act Fuels Multi Billion Dollar Industry
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_4638.shtml
Donate
[...] This post was Twitted by jojozawawi [...]
It concerns me that there is never any discussion about the strong hormonal medications that doctors prescribe to women who are not nursing. Certainly these medications meant to dry up milk go against nature and will have an adverse effect on mood. I nursed my first child for 6 months and then returning to work, I did not know any better and let the doctor give me medicine and stopped nursing abruptly, I became severely depressed crying all the time and ended up stopping the medicine. My second son I weaned more slowly before returning to work, and I did not have any depression, we are often giving one medicine which causes a new illness and then another medicine to counteract that medicine. We should be trying to give new mothers the most natural experience possible, and we don’t educate them enough already about the primary issues, such as the course of recovery after birth, breast feeding, and baby care. The bill proposes education about depression, when we already fail to adequately prepare new mothers about birth and baby care which would help prevent much of the s/s the bill is talking about.
Many of these drugs already have known severe side effects about taking them while pregnant or nursing. It is to the level that women who are considering becoming pregnant be removed from these drugs until after their baby is weaned.
Now, suddenly, all pregnant women are to be “screened”, and if someone declares it, given these drugs which are already known to be damaging to foetuses or newborns. And, to take the whole matter of choice in evaluating mental health, and whether to take any drugs, what kinds of drugs, doing a risk/benefit analysis between patient and doctor is removed. The pregnant woman is put on drugs. That’s that. Drugs that cause severe birth defects. Drugs that change sadness to murderousness. (See Susan Smith for an example). This doesn’t help mothers or babies.