The Sydney Morning Herald – September 13, 2011
by Tanveer Ahmed

"Mental health possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine."

Imagine a tribunal where the public could challenge clinical decisions by neurosurgeons or cardiologists. It would be ridiculous. But mental health is different. Unlike other medical specialties, it resembles law or politics: fields where subtle variations in the interpretation of a word can alter the entire trajectory of a patient’s treatment.

That’s why the right to appeal clinical decisions by mental health professionals through a tribunal, announced recently by the NSW government, met with public approval. Mental health possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine. A patient’s psychiatric diagnosis has enormous cultural power in many other fields, from the marketing of antidepressant medications, to general practice, disability claims and legal proceedings.

The contestable nature of mental health is also why there is a constant battle to keep it free from politics. Some of the 20th century’s most despotic regimes used mental health to oppress opponents, coining disorders such as ”delusions of capitalism” in the Soviet Union or ”politically paranoid” in China. But psychiatry has a way of becoming a political football in public discourse regardless of how authoritarian or democratic the society.

Today it is increasingly a tool of progressive politics, used to highlight the human pain apparently caused by harsh policies. In the case of asylum seekers, for example, any emotional distress is automatically viewed through the lens of mental health. Resilient individuals who have escaped harsh circumstances and coped with far-reaching travel are suddenly classified as fragile, undone by bureaucratic delay and limited incarceration. There is no doubt mental illness exists among asylum seekers, but its prevalence is vastly overstated.

In one of the more farcical applications of psychiatry to political debates, a report this month linked inaction on climate change to the possibility of worsening mental health. Released by the Climate Institute, it suggested that increasing natural disasters might be linked to climate change, which might lead to increased costs in mental healthcare. The evidence for every link was slight at best, yet the novelty of the report ensured widespread attention.

It was launched by Professor Ian Hickie, who has been rightly recognised for giving mental health a greater profile, but who has also played politics to do so.

Hickie has done more than any other clinician to promote tick-a-box diagnosis, particularly among general practitioners, who now regularly prescribe antidepressants through questionnaires alone.

"It is disingenuous to suggest, as McGorry has done, that there is no conflict of interest because their organisations are non-profit."

With former Australian of the Year Professor Patrick McGorry, Hickie has made overblown claims about the prevalence of mental health. It is disingenuous to suggest, as McGorry has done, that there is no conflict of interest because their organisations are non-profit. Their bodies shared in $2.2 billion of funding in the federal budget. Their exorbitant claims – such as one in four people will suffer mental illness – are indicative of a blurring of the lines between illness and normal, human responses to adversity.

Another good example of the uneasy relationship between politics and mental health – and how one can colour the other – is the former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett, a tireless campaigner in raising awareness for depression who openly admits he uses the term not in its medical context, but as a synonym for emotional distress.

The fiercest critics of this modern therapeutic culture in Western societies have argued that the decline of the political left is at the heart of the trend – in particular, the collapse of any ambition for social change.

Having given up on the notion that human beings could collectively change the world, the argument goes, the left has instead focused on people adapting to their circumstances.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Meet the Psychiatrist Pushing For A Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids—Patrick McGorry (4)
• Australian Psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s push for psychiatric “early intervention” called “a prescription for disaster” (3)
• Pharma Backed Australian of the Year Psychiatrist Wants Millions in Government Funding for Brave New World of “Pre-Drugging” Kids (18)
• INFOWARS.COM — Madhouse Medical Tyranny: When Health Becomes Sickness (0)
• Australian of the Year, psychiatrist Patrick McGorry’s pre drugging agenda comes under fire from fellow psychiatrist (1)

By Bob Fiddaman and Shelia Matthews
March 10, 2011

For some time now, Sheila Matthews has been suspicious about her home state of Connecticut’s treatment of its most vulnerable children. As a mother of two children and co-founder of Ablechild, her instincts led her to scrutinize the dubious relationships among Connecticut’s Department of Children and Family Services [DCF], the pharmaceutical industry and a billion dollar law firm who has defended the likes of Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co., among others.

Sheila’s investigation has led her on a journey that links a non-profit children’s advocacy group, with assets over $15 million [2009] with nationally-renowned mass tort and class action defense law firms, to the Connecticut DCF – an $865 million bureaucracy, as described by the Connecticut Mirror.

The Connecticut DCF serves approximately 36,000 children and 16,000 families across its four Mandate Areas:

1. Child welfare;
2. Children’s behavioral health;
3. Juvenile Services; and
4. Prevention.

Sheila’s Ablechild has been questioning the Connecticut DCF since 2003, when Ablechild demanded that the Connecticut DCF immediately ban the use of the antidepressant Paxil in its treatment of mental disorders after multiple studies confirmed Paxil increased the risk of suicide in children and adolescents. This was more than a year prior to America’s Food & Drug Association (FDA) announcement that all antidepressants, including Paxil, should bear a black box warning regarding this suicide risk. Ablechild was disturbed that children in state custody were being prescribed this dangerous psychotropic medication. Ablechild’s public pressure paid off, and the Connecticut DCF deemed Paxil unsafe for children and adolescents, and according to the DCF drug approval list, Paxil has not been approved for use in over eight (8) years.

In August 2003, less than one month later, Ablechild reported that the commissioner of the Connecticut DCF held a ‘behind closed doors‘ meeting with Glaxo officials. This meeting was reported by the Associated Press, who wrote:

The maker of the anti-depressant Paxil plans to meet this week with Connecticut officials, weeks after the State stopped using the drug to treat young people in its care.

GlaxoSmithKline, a British pharmaceutical company, is sending its regional medical director and a medical team to meet with officials from the Department of Children and Families. [Source]

Despite repeated requests from Ablechild, the Connecticut DCF refused to inform the public what was discussed at this secret meeting.

Eight years later, Sheila and Ablechild continue to raise concerns and investigate potential wrongdoings and conflicts within the Connecticut DCF. Last month, in February 2011, Sheila attended a meeting sponsored by the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership [CBHP], where its medical director, Dr Steven Kant, presented the Husky Behavioral Pharmacy Data. The CBHP is a state vendor that provides mental health services to DCF children. These services are paid, in part, by the State-run insurance program, HUSKY. Incredibly the pharmacy data presentation showed that dangerous psychotropic drugs, like Paxil, are still being prescribed to thousands of children and adolescents. In fact, the Pharmacy Data presentation showed that the HUSKY program, financed by taxpayer dollars, paid drug companies over $60 million for psychotropic drugs for Connecticut’s children and adolescents in 2009 alone – many of which are not approved by the FDA for use in the pediatric population and all of which carry the most serious warning possible regarding the risk of suicide.

According to the pharmacy data presentation: [Which can be downloaded as a Powerpoint presentation HERE]

More than 50% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on stimulants.
Close to 30% of HUSKY Youth Behavioral med utilizers are on antipsychotics.

The pharmacy data also revealed the following:

Most Frequently Used Behavioral Meds for DCF-Involved Youth

Medications for ADHD

Ritalin (10%)
Adderall (5%)
Vyvanse (4%)
Strattera (3%)

Atypical Antipsychotics

Abilify (11%)
Risperdol (10%)
Seroquel (8%)

Anti-anxiety

Hydroxyzine (2.5%)

Antidepressants

Prozac (4.5%)
Zoloft (4%)
Zyban (3%)
Desyrel (2.5%)
Celexa (2%)

Mood Stabilizers

Lithum (3%)
Depakote (3%)
Lamictal (2.5%)

Curiously, none of the above medications are on the Connecticut DCF list of approved/unapproved drugs listed in its DCF PMAC document.

With this in mind, Sheila Matthews contacted Dr Steven Kant and inquired as to whether any of the above drugs were approved by the Connecticut DCF for use in children.

Dr Kant replied:

… the answer to your question is not that straight forward.. . . Medications may be indicated by age and/or by specific treatment needs so it is not either a simply “yes” or “no”. Also, some medications may have the age indication but for a totally different condition, such as anti epileptic condition. . .Also FDA indications are static, they do not change over time though medical practice is constantly evolving…

Contradicting the very document that lists Connecticut’s approved and unapproved drugs, a “check-off” list that verifies the status of medications, Dr Kant replied, “I don’t think a “check off” for each medication would work in terms of verifying their status.”

With such an ambiguous response from Dr. Kant, we found the DCF Approved Medication List on the Internet. This particular version was revised in 2009.

It appears that the DCF has approved drugs in children that have not been approved for children by the FDA. In fact, the FDA has issued multiple advisories and alerts since 2004 about the increased risk of suicide in children, adolescents and young adults up to age 25 who are treated with psychotropic medications.

And while Fluoxetine (Prozac) is the only medication approved by the FDA for use in treating depression in children ages 8 and older, it still carries a black box warning regarding the risk of suicide.

In contrast, the DCF seems to be ignoring the conclusions of the FDA. Its list of approved medication in children and adolescents include every single antidepressant except paroxetine [Paxil] and venlafaxine [Effexor].

Forest Lab’s citalopram [Celexa] – APPROVED

Forest Lab’s escitalopram [Lexapro] – APPROVED

Solvay Pharmaceuticals’ fluvoxamine [Luvox] – APPROVED

Pfizer’s sertraline [Zoloft] – APPROVED

GlaxoSmithKline’s bupropion [Wellbutrin -also marketed as an anti-smoking cessation drug under the name of Zyban] – APPROVED [1]

Alarmingly, the DCF has produced a guide entitled, “MEDICATIONS USED FOR BEHAVIORAL & EMOTIONAL DISORDERS – A GUIDE FOR PARENTS, FOSTER PARENTS, FAMILIES, YOUTH, CAREGIVERS, GUARDIANS, AND SOCIAL WORKERS” where it writes, “Most of the side effects from the medications are mild and will lessen or go away after the first few weeks of treatment.” The guide also points out possible side effects of SSRI’s/SNRI’s:

SSRIs and SNRIs:

Headache
Nervousness
Nausea
Insomnia
Weight Loss

One of the most dangerous side effects of these medications, suicidal thoughts/ideation, doesn’t even make the 5 bullet-pointed list. The Guide does, however, add the following: “Watch for worsening of depression and thoughts about suicide.”

The DCF Approved Medication List writes:

“The DCF Approved Medication List is a list of psychotropic medications that has been carefully established by the Psychotropic Medication Advisory Committee, a group of DCF and community professionals.”

Sheila has since investigated other advocacy groups that were concerned about the off-label prescribing of psychiatric medications to youths in state custody. This is where she stumbled upon Children’s Rights, a non-profit charity based in New York City.

In 2005, Children’s Rights employed ten (10) attorneys and a staff of 31. It claims to use its expertise to change child welfare red tape and scrutinize failing systems. If the child welfare system fails to respond, Children’s Rights files a lawsuit. If successful, it enforces reform and then monitors its implementation.

In 1989, Children’s Rights had in fact filed a suit against William O’Neill and the Connecticut state Department of Children and Youth Services [DCYS].

The suit charged that an overworked and underfunded DCYS failed to provide services including abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, foster care, mental health care, caseloads and staffing. The case has been pending for over twenty (20) years, and while there have been numerous arguments that DCYS should be more inclusive or has failed to provide certain services, the issue of massive off-label prescription of psychotropic medications has never been brought to the court’s attention.

Children’s Rights is chaired by Alan C Myers, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, a billion dollar law firm which represents the pharmaceutical industry in mass torts and class actions. Myers is also co-head of the firm’s REIT Group [Real Estate Investment Trust].

Also, listed on the Children’s Rights website are individuals and law firms that have served as co-counsel on Children’s Rights’ legal campaigns to reform America’s failing child welfare systems, including:

Missouri - Shook Hardy & Bacon – Eli Lilly Co. and Forest Labs, defended the original Wesbeker Prozac trial in Kentucky and still defend Prozac, Celexa and Lexapro.

New Jersey – Drinker Biddle & Reath – GlaxoSmithKline attorneys – defended Paxil as local counsel in Philadelphia cases.

Oklahoma – Kaye Scholer LLP – provides work in Pharmaceutical Products Liability defense and employs an attorney who was former General Counsel of Pfizer, Inc.

A particular success for Skadden Arps occurred in 2010 when it secured a summary judgement ruling for Pfizer Inc. in a suit filed by two insurance companies who sought $200 million in damages for Pfizer’s predecessors alleged “off-label” marketing of its epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Furthermore, in February 2011, Skadden Arps secured the dismissal of over 200 cases in a multi-district litigation pending against their client, Pfizer Inc. The plaintiffs had alleged injuries related to the use of Pfizer’s anti-epilepsy drug, Neurontin.

Neurontin, the generic version is called gabapentin, is prescribed by psychiatrists for a variety of “off-label” indications. It is often tried as an alternative treatment, when patients are unable to tolerate the side effect of more proven mood stabilizers such as lithium. [2]

Gabapentin has also been associated with an increased risk of suicidal acts or violent deaths.

This is a drug that has been known to cause behavioral problems, which include unstable emotions, hostility, aggression, hyperactivity or lack of concentration.

Children dependent on child welfare systems have rights and, according to its web page, Children’s Rights is dedicated to protecting them.

It should come as no surprise that the site fails to discuss the off-label prescription of non-approved psychotropic medications to children and adolescents, unless this falls under the ‘abuse and neglect’ category?

If Children’s Rights’ motive was to accomplish fixing the child welfare system then why hasn’t it investigated why thousands of children under state care are prescribed “off-label” psychiatric drugs? With a partner in a billion dollar pro-pharmaceutical law firm as its Chair, and supporters who also defend pharmaceutical products, is it safe to assume that its stance on the drugging of children is one that is being ignored?

Children’s Rights push to remove abused and neglected children into safety.

The basic question always comes down to trust. When power, money and a good cause is mixed, it is imperative to check motives. We would be less of a society if we didn’t check out all the facts. Abuse and neglect exist, always has and always will, but society is obligated to ensure those victims are not transformed into “good cause victims” and expensed out. There is no doubt we have a right to question the system and those who claim to promote change for the good of the children within it.

Children’s Rights Chairman, Alan C. Myers, Medical Director of Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, Steven Kant and the Connecticut Department of Children and Families may get their knickers in a twist with regard to an advocate of Ablechild and a blogger from Birmingham, UK questioning their motives but hey, what’s the downside of shinning a light on all these players, be they good or bad players?

Sheila’s concern is that Children’s Rights with its multi-million dollar budget and with the help of its billion dollar law firms, will continue to ignore the risks of these unapproved and dangerous medications, under the guise of helping our nation’s most vulnerable children. The question remains: how can the lawyers who defend psychotropic drugs also be the same lawyers who advocate for abused and neglected children to get into state welfare programs which place these children on the same drugs? The conflict is clear and obvious – and it poses an unmistakable danger to children who truly need our help.

[1] Bupropion [also known as Wellbutrin, Zyban] is a non-tricyclic antidepressant.
[2] Gabapentin

Bob Fiddaman is the author of the Seroxat Sufferers blog and the book, “The evidence, however, is clear… the Seroxat scandal.” Chipmunka Publishing.

Sheila Matthews is the co-founder of Ablechild and a mother of two children.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

Blog Feed

Related Posts

• Nation of Pill Poppers: 19 Potentially Dangerous Drugs Pushed By Big Pharma (0)
• Prescription Pill-Popping By Far a Leading Killer as Florida’s Drug Deaths Spike 20% (1)
• Child/Teen Suicide Rate 5 Times Higher for Kids on Antidepressants; Researchers Say findings support FDA Black Box Warnings (5)
• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged (0)

The association was made by Thomas Moore, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., and Curt Furberg, M.D., Ph.D. Moore is a senior scientist for drug safety and policy at the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in Horsham, Pa. The ISMP is a nonprofit organization that educates health care providers and the public about safe medication practices. Glenmullen is a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, and Furberg is a professor of public health sciences at Wake Forest University.

In a study published in the December 15, 2010, PloS One, the researchers used 2004 to 2009 data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System. They found that during the study period, 780,169 serious adverse events of one kind or another had been reported for 484 drugs, and that of those serious adverse events, 1,937 had been acts of violence. They defined a violent event as any case report containing one or more of the following items: homicide, physical assault, physical abuse, homicidal ideation, or violence-related symptom, but not more ambiguous descriptions such as crime, aggression, belligerence, or hostility.

The researchers then set out to see whether any of the 484 drugs had been disproportionally linked with the acts of violence. To be “disproportionally linked,” a drug had to be associated with at least five cases of violence, to have at least twice as many cases of violence associated with it as expected given the volume of overall adverse events reported for it, and statistical analysis had to indicate that the violence cases associated with it were unlikely to have occurred by chance.

The researchers found that 324 of the 484 drugs (67 percent) had no link with violence cases and that 86 of the drugs (18 percent) had links with only one or two cases of violence. However, 31 of the drugs (6 percent) were found to be disproportionally linked with violence cases. These drugs included varenicline, 11 antidepressants, three drugs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and five hypnotics/sedatives.

Moreover, of the 484 drugs evaluated, varenicline had the largest number of violence cases, the highest proportion of violence cases (PRR = 18.0), and the highest statistical probability that the violence cases associated with it were not by chance (x2 = 5,172df = p<0.01).

Thus “varenicline had the strongest association with violence by every measure used in this study,” Moore and his colleagues pointed out. “In addition, antidepressant drugs showed consistently elevated risk, even when compared with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers. . . .”

Just because these drugs have been linked with cases of violent behavior does not prove that they actually promoted such behavior. Yet some of the varenicline-linked violence cases that Moore and his colleagues scrutinized suggested to them that there might be a causal connection. For example, the individuals in question started displaying psychiatric symptoms a few days after they had begun taking varenicline. They appeared to direct their violence senselessly, that is, at anybody who happened to be near them, and once they stopped taking varenicline, they stopped engaging in violent acts.

As Moore told Psychiatric News, both an earlier study his research group conducted and one by FDA researchers “noted that the onset of adverse effects for varenicline frequently occurs before the subject stops smoking,” implying that it is varenicline, not nicotine withdrawal, that prompts violent behavior. Still another reason to believe that it is the medication, not nicotine withdrawal, that leads to violent behavior is that “varenicline has a seven-day dose-escalation period prior to setting a target date to stop smoking,” Moore noted.

This study is “a preliminary review of adverse events . . . that indicate a risk of violence toward others,” Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H., director of APA’s Division of Research and executive director of the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, told Psychiatric News. “[Also the findings come] from a historically difficult database to interpret—FDA adverse event data. . . . There is clearly a need to conduct prospective studies [to see whether the findings can] be confirmed. The same was true for the proported risk of suicidality associated with antidepressants.”

“This seems to be a reasonably good study with a high number [of medications evaluated] and a lot of double-checking,” Paul Fink, M.D., an expert in the study of violent behavior and a past APA president, commented. “I can tell you that as a psychiatrist who has practiced for a long time, I was unaware that [varenicline and antidepressants] had been linked with violence toward others. . . . Psychiatrists and mental health professionals need to be aware of this association.”

The study had no outside funding.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/46/3/16.1.full

“Prescription Drugs Associated With Reports of Violence Toward Others” is posted at <www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015337>.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Can Prozac Cause Kids to Kill? A Canadian Judge Has Ruled it Can (2)
• Carrollton Mother In Murders-Suicide Took Depression Meds (0)
• New Study Links ADHD Drugs, Antidepressants, Hypnotics & Anti-Smoking Drug to 1,527 Acts of Violence (0)
• The Huffington Post: “Pilots Taking Antidepressants? The FAA Is Risking Our Lives” (1)
• Prozac is now a defense for murder, writes Australian Member of Parliament Martin Whitely (0)

AsiaNews.it  October 30, 2010

Report reveals scandalous cases of dissidents subjected to years forced of hospitalization, systemic shock treatments and chains. Human Rights Watch: this is what the Chinese Communist Party has done since it took power. Nobel Liu Xiaobo: dozens of his friends are under arrest, forbidden to go to claim his prize.

Hong Kong (AsiaNews / Agencies) – A “campaign” to denounce the numerous abuses against those who protest or present petitions in China and because of this have been detained in psychiatric hospitals, beaten, subjected to electric shocks and sedatives. The activist Liu Feiyue explains that the campaign “SOS Mental Hospitals” wants to make public the many victims of this “system”.

Xiao Yong, an activist of the Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch, speaking to Radio Free Asia about Gu Xianghong, who protested the abuses imposed by family planning authorities, the office in charge of enforcing the general prohibition on having more than one child.

“Since 1992 – explains Xiao – [Gu] has attempted to protest the abuse through official channels”, in short by presenting petitions higher authorities for justice.

As a result, Gu has on many occasion been interned in Hospital No. 5 of Xiangtan (Hunan).

Xiao and another activist Zheng Chuangtian filmed a video of Gu, who speaking with some difficulty, denounces being subjected to electric shocks and repeated injections against her will and that he has been interned in the hospital 9 times.

“My entire family was ruined by the village authorities- she says – because I have made petitions … I have been interned here for revenge and forced to undergo injections.” “They won’t let me go … I can not get clear answers from them.” “They have applied electrodes to my temples and turned them on” – she says – “They have covered my head and chained my feet.”

Xiao and Zheng managed to enter the Hospital No. 5 in secret, by outwitting surveillance, then they were caught and locked up for a while.

Gu’s mother, Xu Meijiao, is held by the authorities.

Xuetao Huang, a human rights lawyer, wrote in a report released Oct. 10 that many psychiatric hospitals accept patients without mental illness, at the request of public authorities, because they are well paid.

“The level of implied consent [in these practices] in the psychiatric profession – Huang reports – is growing at a terrifying rate.”

The hope is that these complaints will bring some results: the authorities have given great prominence in recent months to punishments imposed on 5 Henan officials for having sent Xu Lindong, a petitioner, to Luohe City Mental Hospital, on false documents. Xu (pictured) remained interned for 6 ½ years, was locked up 50 times, tortured with electric batons 55 times.

In a 2002 report, “Dangerous Minds”, Human Rights Watch complained that the Chinese Communist Party has always considered “political dissidents, believers, the authors of protests and other dissidents” a major social threat”. These people are often “forcibly interned in psychiatric institutions of various kinds.”

But experts note that coercive methods are still applied by the authorities, even at high levels. They observe that after the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the democratic dissident Liu Xiaobo, the authorities have dozens of dissidents and activists put under close surveillance or house arrest, they have cut their phone lines or follow them everywhere and many have been ordered to leave Beijing and return to their city of origin. His wife, Liu Xia is under house arrest and her connection to Twitter cut off, after she posted an open letter on the Internet to 143 Chinese celebrities and activists asking them to go in her place to Oslo to receive the award for her husband, sentenced to 11 years in prison for crimes of opinion.

The Christian writer Yu Jie has been under house arrest for 12 days. The South China Morning Post said authorities “are afraid” that Liu’s friends “will go to the ceremony to receive the award”.

Note: CCHR is the only organization to have drafted a Declaration of Mental Health Rights that must be universally adopted.  There are virtually no rights granted to anyone psychiatry deems mentally ill, and given that psychiatric diagnoses are strictly a matter of opinion, given that there is no medical test to “prove” who is mentally ill, it is imperative that a set of guidelines for patient’s rights be adopted that address the issue of human rights in the field of mental health.  Read the Declaration here: http://www.cchrint.org/about-us/declaration-of-human-rights/

Read the article from AsiaNews.it here: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Chinese-dissidents-forcibly-interned-in-psychiatric-hospitals-19865.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Psychiatric Torture in China: One Child Policy Victim “Treated” with Electroshock, Injections (0)
• Renowned human rights lawyer—Persecution of Chinese political dissidents under guise of psychiatric treatment increasing (0)
• Chinese citizens sent to mental hospitals to quiet dissent (0)
• “Stop the Chinese Government’s Psychiatric Torture of Falun Gong Practitioners” (5)
• Psychiatric Torture in China (0)

Note from CCHR: This article highlights the need for CCHR’s Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights to be universally adopted.  CCHR is the only organization to have drafted human rights guidelines for the field of mental health,  something desperately needed as there are virtually no rights granted to those psychiatry determines, by opinion alone, are “mentally ill.” Read the declaration here: http://www.cchrint.org/about-us/declaration-of-human-rights/

The Guardian, October 27, 2010

by Randeep Ramesh

Mental health patients are increasingly being locked up in hospitals without legal authority, a practice which may infringe human rights law, the health regulator said today.

The Care Quality Commission said the proportion of people in low secure beds has increased significantly since 2006. More than a quarter of psychiatric patients are now in held in low secure units (LSUs). Three years ago, the figure was less than a fifth.

Such changes in the pattern of care have rung alarm bells at the commission. It says patients were being subjected to a regime of close observation behind high fences and “airlocks”, where patients sometimes faced “unsafe or abusive practices”.

The regulator cited cases where the mentally ill were limited to “two to six sheets” of toilet paper and where nurses were unable to administer care because they were busy guarding patients.

One example saw a male nurse assigned “to preserve the dignity” of a highly disturbed female patient who was constantly attempting to remove her clothing. Other female patients in a different unit also complained that male nurses were involved “during night-time observation, bathing and toileting”.

The commission said these were “serious concerns for the dignity and safety of vulnerable [people]“. “Examples of poor practice being followed in the name of patient security included blanket measures that risked infringing human rights law, and disregard for privacy and dignity that was verging on unsafe or abusive practice,” said the report.

There had also been an alarming trend of security measures that banned mobile phones or forbade patients from preparing their own meals. The commission said, in some circumstances, this could “amount to an unwarranted infringement of patients’ ECHR article eight rights to a family and private life”.

The commission recommends reviewing the national policy of standards in such units. Matt Kinton, the report’s author, said there was a “real worry that the more mental health wards look like prisons, the less they function as hospitals where people will get better and be able to live independently”.

Kinton said one of the driving forces of this trend towards security was that the private sector had built many new low-security wards. “It is the old adage that if you build a hospital, patients will fit it.”

The regulator also noted that there was a sharp rise in the doctors prescribing compulsory treatments for mental health problems. On average, 367 community treatment orders (CTOs) have been made each month. This is at least ten times the number anticipated when the legislation was introduced in 2008.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/27/mental-health-patients-hospital-law

Watch CCHR’s video: What We Believe, here: http://www.cchrint.org/about-us/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Is the American Psychiatric Association in Bed with Big Pharma? Answer: Yes (1)
• Politics and mental health a poor mix (0)
• CCHR exposes list of psycho-pharma front groups (0)
• ADHD drugs linked to heart disease and death (1)
• America conned: Psycho pharma drug pushing empire under fire (0)

PrisonPlanet.com

Off the Grid
Oct 14, 2010

Is nonconformity and freethinking a mental illness?  According to the newest addition of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it certainly is.  The manual identifies a new mental illness called “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.  Defined as an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

The DSM-IV is the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illnesses and, with each new edition, there are scores of new mental illnesses.  Are we becoming sicker?  Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy?  Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today.  Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.

New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior.  In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases.

And there are treatments available.

All of this is a symptom of our over-diagnosing and overmedicating culture.  In the last 50 years, the DSM-IV has gone from 130 to 357 mental illnesses.  A majority of these illnesses afflict children.  Although the manual is an important diagnostic tool for the psychiatric industry, it has also been responsible for social changes.  The rise in ADD, bipolar disorder, and depression in children has been largely because of the manual’s identifying certain behaviors as symptoms.  A Washington Post article observed that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.”

According to the DSM-IV, the diagnosis guidelines for identifying oppositional defiant disorder are for children, but adults can just as easily suffer from the disease.  This should give any freethinking American reason for worry.

The Soviet Union used new “mental illnesses” for political repression.  People who didn’t accept the beliefs of the Communist Party developed a new type of schizophrenia.  They suffered from the delusion of believing communism was wrong.  They were isolated, forcefully medicated, and put through repressive “therapy” to bring them back to sanity.

When the last edition of the DSM-IV was published, identifying the symptoms of various mental illnesses in children, there was a jump in the diagnosis and medication of children.  Some states have laws that allow protective agencies to forcibly medicate, and even make it a punishable crime to withhold medication.  This paints a chilling picture for those of us who are nonconformists.

Although the authors of the manual claim no ulterior motives but simply better diagnostic practices, the labeling of freethinking and nonconformity as mental illnesses has a lot of potential for abuse.  It can easily become a weapon in the arsenal of a repressive state.

Read the article here:  http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-free-thinking-a-mental-illness.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• Shrinks on the couch as they ponder who is and is not crazy (1)
• “ADHD is a total 100% fraud. The millions of schoolchildren around the world being drugged have no disease” – Neurologist (4)
• Those in favor of Psychiatry’s Billing Bible? The American Psychiatric Association. Against it? Just About Everyone else (0)
• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)

The Huffington Post
By Dr. Ronald Ricker and Dr. Venus Nicolino
June 21, 2010

Adderall is abused mostly by college students and young adults. Estimates are that somewhere between 20-30 percent of college students regularly abuse Adderall.

Adderall has the dubious distinction of being the latest addition to the rogue’s gallery of lawful drugs that have made the transition to the black market. In recent years, abuse of Adderall and its imitators has increased by nearly 200 percent. Calling it an “upper” is like calling a hydrogen bomb a grenade. It is made of pure amphetamine, it’s already picked up its share of street monikers: Speed, Beans, Black Beauties, Christmas Trees, and Double Trouble, amongst others.

What are the pluses in this wonder-drug? In ordinary people it often but not always offers increased concentration. It also keeps people awake for more studying and lots more partying. It often offers a sense of euphoria and happiness and a lot better and more frequent sex, all fun at parties.

Between the glut of pop-psychology theories (often fraudulent) and the never-ending blitz of promotion by Big Pharma, people now believe they can diagnose themselves with something like ADHD as easily as ascertaining if they have a head cold and believe they have the ability to determine the correct medication for their condition. Sometimes they’re grandiosely right. Most of the time, however, they’re wrong on both counts. Even more of the time, diagnosis is irrelevant. The relevant question is where’s the “connection?” Sadly, that’s where many of us physicians fit in. We certainly don’t intend to, but often serve as the ‘connection’. Then, of course, there are those ‘patients’ and doctors that inhabit the bottom of the barrel: lying ‘patients’ and immoral doctors. Scripts can and are sold, for lots of money. Never mind the human cost, there’s money to be made and drugs to be copped. Take that prescription to the pharmacy. Or, take your money to a nearby local University. You’ll pay $30 to $40 dollars per pill for a very small amount of Adderall, usually sold to you by a student. Sales are usually student to student although the numbers of genuine drug dealers are growing rapidly in numbers, bringing with them all the problems of low-life, criminal drug dealers. Dealers recognize good business opportunities. Imagining little Johnny, having just finished Geography 1A, dealing with a real dealer chills the mind.

Illicit Adderall is taken in many ways. Most obviously, a pill can be swallowed. Pills can also be chewed, ground up and snorted, and ground up and injected (the most dangerous way of administration, by far). And then there’s ‘Stuffing’. This is accomplished by ‘stuffing’ Adderall in any orifice with a mucous membrane (anus, vagina, penis, mouth, etc.). Shooting gets the most immediate and strongest effect. Snorting is second, chewing third, and stuffing fourth. What ‘stuffing’ lacks in immediate ‘oomph’ and the loss of whatever dignity the person may retain, is made up by the length of effect and allows for the greatest amount of Adderall to be used at one time. The anus and vagina are big places and can hold a great deal of Adderall.

Sadly, there’s no free lunch.

1) Side effects are numerous. Some are minor, some serious, and some very serious. Most users have no clue as to negative side effects and usually don’t care. Ignorance, we suppose, is bliss. The most important and most negative side-effect is the Overdose. Overdose with Adderall is nasty. Results include Cardiac and/or pulmonary arrest, death, severe and lasting mental effects/defects. Which one happens to you is a matter of chance. If you’re in an Emergency Room and still alive your chances are relatively good. If you overdose at your apartment and are alone, the chance of your living is slim. If you Over Dose at a party, maybe a Frat Party, you’ve probably bought it. Drunken, high Frat boys are not known for their medical skills or even a modicum of clear thinking. Minor side effects include anxiety, and transient depression. More serious effects include heart palpitations, elevation of blood pressure, Tourette’s syndrome, seizures, stroke, and psychotic episodes or plain old psychosis.

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ronald-ricker-and-dr-venus-nicolino/adderall-the-most-abused_b_619549.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• The Small Group of Thoughtful, Committed Citizens Has Been Drugged (0)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• The Over-Prescribing of Psychoactive Drugs to Children: A Scourge of Our Times (0)
• Psychiatric Meds 101: A Surprising Discovery – Your Own Personal Hell (15)
• Hidden Facts About Ritalin; Side Effects include brain damage, psychosis, severe dependence, paranoia (2)

The Purdue University Calumet Chronicle
By Andrea Drac
April 12, 2010

According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA)’s survey the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2008 15.2 million Americans age 12 and older had taken a prescription pain reliever, tranquilizer, stimulant, or sedative for nonmedical purposes at least once in the year.

Addiction to and the abuse of prescription drugs, also known as “pill popping,” has become a national trend. According to Ivan Budisin, a psychologist at the PUC Counseling Center, pill popping has become a trend due to the fact that prescription drugs are becoming more available.

“In 1991, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse there were 40 million orders for prescription drugs sent out,” said Budisin. “In 2001, 180 million orders were sent out. It’s a huge increase.”

According to an article on the NIDA web site entitled, “Prescription Drug Abuse – Topics in Brief,” the three most commonly abused classes of prescription drugs are Opioids such as Vicodin, which are often prescribed to treat pain; Central Nervous System (CNS) depressants such as Valium, which are used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders; and stimulants such as Ritalin, which are prescribed to treat certain sleep disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Budisin said that prescription drug addiction is most popular among high school and college students due to easy access, either by taking their own prescription drugs for non-medicinal purposes, or taking someone else’s prescription drugs for non-medicinal purposes. Another reason for addiction has to do with cost; prescription drugs do not cost a lot of money, so it is easy to afford.

There is also a huge misconception involved in prescription drug abuse and addiction, which makes it such a huge trend.

“The misconception is that prescription drugs aren’t dangerous because a doctor gives them out,” said Budisin.

Read entire article:  http://media.www.pucchronicle.com/media/storage/paper1082/news/2010/04/12/News/Pill-Popping-3903522.shtml

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• The London Times: “Brittany Murphy, Michael Jackson, Heath Legder… America’s fatal addiction to prescription drugs” (0)
• Huffington Post—Adderall: The Most Abused Prescription Drug in America; can cause lasting mental defects & death (1)
• The National Post: “Message to disease industry — That’s why they call it ‘acting like a child’” (0)
• Disease Mongering on Adult ADHD: Just another way to sell Speed (aka Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall) (1)
• New Study Exposes Psycho/Pharma Myth: Kids On ADHD Drugs Do Not Do Better in School—They Do 10 Times Worse (0)

Maia Szalavitz
The Huffington Post
November 4, 2009

Are lap dances an effective therapy for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder or drug addiction? It doesn’t seem like a question that should require a serious answer — but a state investigation of Oregon’s Mount Bachelor Academy (MBA) has substantiated allegations made by students and staff that such “therapy” was part of the school’s “emotional growth” curriculum and forced an emergency shutdown of the campus.

Just this June, the Supreme Court had decided in favor of a couple who sued for payment of MBA’s tuition to treat their son’s ADHD and marijuana problem. The Court determined that parents of disabled children do have the right to seek such taxpayer support from a school district, even if they haven’t tried public special education first.

While the decision didn’t specify whether MBA itself was appropriate, some districts across the country are already reimbursing parents for its current $76,000 annual tuition, despite decades of allegations of similarly inappropriate and unproven practices.

Read entire article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/school-using-lap-dances-t_b_345477.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System (0)
• Huffington Post—Adderall: The Most Abused Prescription Drug in America; can cause lasting mental defects & death (1)
• Pill popping: “The misconception is that prescription drugs aren’t dangerous because a doctor gives them out” (7)
• Kids diagnosed ADHD prescribed ‘medical’ marijuana. Harvard Psych agrees – Says he has no hesitation doping kids (0)
• 7 Reasons America’s Mental Health Industry Is a Threat to Our Sanity (0)