Posts Tagged ‘mental health’

« Older Entries

Ron Paul reintroduces Parental Consent Act, prohibiting federal funding for psychiatric screening of children

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Natural News – February 15, 2012

Even from the campaign trail, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has not forgotten his roots, his vision and, most importantly, his liberty-first philosophy.

As a practicing physician, Paul has the most insight into what is right – and wrong – with the U.S. healthcare system among all the GOP candidates. As such, when he re-introduces legislation such as the Parental Consent Act, which he first proposed in 2009 and which would keep federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program, you should listen.

“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain” Paul has said. “Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.”

Though first introduced a couple of years ago, the repackaged Parental Consent Act of 2011 (H.R. 2769 – previously H.R. 2218 in 2009) would keep “federal education funds from being used to pay any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide consent to mental health screening as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such charge,” according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International.

All About the Children

In a House floor speech April 30, 2009, when he first introduced the legislation, Paul said the impetus behind his opposition to using taxpayer dollars to fund so-called “mental health screening” without parental consent was the fact that it was not in the best interests of those parents, or their children.

“Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time,” Paul said. “In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.”

He decries the recommendations of a mandated group called the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,” which he says “has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans.”

That commission, he says, wants “the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans,” a process which would begin “in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public.”

Looking for Support

In addition to looking for votes on the campaign trail, Paul is also searching for support for his bill. As such, he’s established an online petition supporters can use to send a message to Congress that they back what the Texas congressman is selling.

Besides establishing “a parent’s right to refuse mental health screening of their child,” Paul says the bill is “crucial” in protecting parental rights in general.

How important are parental rights to the mainstream media? Well, a Google news search using the terms “ron paul parental consent act,” as of this writing, produced no appreciable results.

Sources for this article include:

http://news.nationalpost.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/026187_child_health_children.html

http://www.petitiononline.com/rppca/petition.html

http://www.google.com

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Psychiatry’s Flawed Tool: A book full of subjective checklists—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

First Things – December 29, 2011
by Joe Carter

Photo: Garry Mcleod; Origami: Robert Lang

Someday our grandchildren’s grandchildren are going to sitting in college classroom learning about the early 21st century and wonder how a society so seemingly advanced could have such primitive ideas about mental health.They will no doubt be shocked and appalled that our major diagnostic tool for psychiatry is a book full of subjective checklists—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM versions I-IV).

I became all too familiar with the DSM in my college days, first as a psychology major and then as a behavioral science major (I switched because I believed behavioral science would be more scientifically rigorous. It wasn’t.) I was constantly shocked that such an utterly absurd book could be considered our primary mental health tool. The diagnostic criteria is often so vague that it is virtually impossible to determine if a patient truly has a mental disorder. Yet almost every diagnosis in America is made based on comparing a patient against the DSM’s checklist of “symptoms.”

Part of the reason the DSM is so flawed is because it is highly politicized. For example, homosexuality was classified in DSM as a sexual disorder until the 1970s. And until 1987, “ego-dystonic homosexuality” was still classified as a pathology. These “mental disorders” were later removed, not because of a change in empirical data (since there is none) but because of the protest of gay rights groups. I agree with the gay rights activists on this one: homosexuality should have never been classified as a mental disorder. But this example shows that the judgments made by psychiatrists are often highly subjective and are rooted more in speculative theories than in scientific fact. (Keep in mind that this is the same profession that, for almost a century, believed the Freudian idea that holding your feces in as an infant affected your personality as an adult.)

Such criticisms against the DSM have been made for decades (mostly by cranks like me) but they are gaining a new hearing because of who is now making them: Allen Frances, lead editor of the DSV-IV. As Frances says, “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s [BS]. I mean, you just can’t define it.” As Wired magazine notes:

Some of this disputatiousness is the hazard of any professional specialty. But when psychiatrists say, as they have during each of these fights, that the success or failure of their efforts could sink the whole profession, they aren’t just scoring rhetorical points. The authority of any doctor depends on their ability to name a patient’s suffering. For patients to accept a diagnosis, they must believe that doctors know—in the same way that physicists know about gravity or biologists about mitosis—that their disease exists and that they have it. But this kind of certainty has eluded psychiatry, and every fight over nomenclature threatens to undermine the legitimacy of the profession by revealing its dirty secret: that for all their confident pronouncements, psychiatrists can’t rigorously differentiate illness from everyday suffering. This is why, as one psychiatrist wrote after the APA voted homosexuality out of the DSM, “there is a terrible sense of shame among psychiatrists, always wanting to show that our diagnoses are as good as the scientific ones used in real medicine.”

Since 1980, when the DSM-III was published, psychiatrists have tried to solve this problem by using what is called descriptive diagnosis: a checklist approach, whereby illnesses are defined wholly by the symptoms patients present. The main virtue of descriptive psychiatry is that it doesn’t rely on unprovable notions about the nature and causes of mental illness, as the Freudian theories behind all those “neuroses” had done. Two doctors who observe a patient carefully and consult the DSM’s criteria lists usually won’t disagree on the diagnosis—something that was embarrassingly common before 1980. But descriptive psychiatry also has a major problem: Its diagnoses are nothing more than groupings of symptoms. If, during a two-week period, you have five of the nine symptoms of depression listed in the DSM, then you have “major depression,” no matter your circumstances or your own perception of your troubles. “No one should be proud that we have a descriptive system,” Frances tells me. “The fact that we do only reveals our limitations.” Instead of curing the profession’s own malady, descriptive psychiatry has just covered it up.

Read more . . .

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/12/29/psychiatrys-flawed-tool/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Drugs Used for Psychotics Go to Youths in Foster Care

Monday, November 21st, 2011

The New York Times, November 20, 2011

by Benedict Carey

Click image to see video on psychiatric drug warnings for kids

Foster children are being prescribed cocktails of powerful antipsychosis drugs just as frequently as some of the most mentally disabled youngsters on Medicaid, a new study suggests.

The report, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first to investigate how often youngsters in foster care are given two antipsychotic drugs at once, the authors said. The drugs include Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa — among other so-called major tranquilizers — which were developed for schizophrenia but are now used as all-purpose drugs for almost any psychiatric symptoms.

“The kids in foster care may come from bad homes, but they do not have the sort of complex medical issues that those in the disabled population do,” said Susan dosReis, an associate professor in the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and the lead author.

The implication, Dr. dosReis and other experts said: Doctors are treating foster children’s behavioral problems with the same powerful drugs given to people with schizophrenia and severe bipolar disorder. “We simply don’t have evidence to support this kind of use, especially in young children,” Dr. dosReis said.

In recent years, doctors and policy makers have grown concerned about high rates of overall psychiatric drug use in the foster care system, the government-financed program that provides temporary living arrangements for 400,000 to 500,000 children and adolescents. Previous studies have found that children in foster care receive psychiatric medications at about twice the rate among children outside the system.

The new study focused on one of the most powerful classes of drugs, antipsychotics. It found that about 2 percent of foster children took at least one such drug, even though schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, for which the drugs are approved, are extremely rare in young children.

“It’s a significant and important finding, and it should prompt states to improve the quality of care in this area,” said Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University who did not contribute to the research.

In the study, mental health researchers analyzed 2003 Medicaid records of 637,924 minors from an unidentified mid-Atlantic state who were either in foster care, getting disability benefits for a diagnosis like severe autism or bipolar disorder, or in a program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. All of these programs draw on Medicaid financing. The investigators found that 16,969, or about 3 percent of the total, had received at least one prescription for an antipsychotic drug.

Yet among these, it was the foster children who most often got more than one such prescription at the same time: 9.2 percent, versus 6.8 percent among the children on disability, and just 2.5 percent of those in the needy families program.

Antipsychotic drugs, the authors said, also cause rapid weight gain and increase the risk for metabolic problems in many people, an effect that may be amplified by the use of two at once.

Doctors who treat such children are aware of the trade-offs and often prescribe lower doses of the medications as a result. And when they add a second such drug, it is often to counteract side effects of the first medication.

read the rest of the article here:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/health/research/study-finds-foster-children-often-given-antipsychosis-drugs.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1321895404-XjlZbL3lXs10CI4v4o6z6w

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Depression Screenings Not Recommended!

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

Whistleblower Allen Jones gained international press coverage after uncovering pharmaceutical industry payments to government officials for the purpose of implementing a national mental health screening/psychotropic drug treatment plan.

Click image to watch video of whistleblower Allen Jones

Ivanhoe Newswire – September 21, 2011

If you’re feeling down, don’t rush to your doctor just yet. Many instances of mild depression resolve without intervention. In fact, a new analysis published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) concludes that routine screening for depression isn’t beneficial or efficient.

The United States and Canada recommend screening for depression by primary care providers, but the United Kingdom says no way! The UK does not recommend screening because of a lack of evidence and ineffective use of scarce health care resources.

In addition, The UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, cite concerns about high rates of false-positive results (in some cases more than 50 percent), lack of evidence, high costs and resources, and the diversion of resources away from people with serious depression.

“The prevalence of depression and the availability of easy-to-use screening instruments make it tempting to endorse widespread screening for the disease,” writes Dr. Brett Thombs, Senior Investigator, Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, with coauthors.

Screening for depression involves the use of questionnaires, concerning the symptoms of depression, to identify patients who may have depression but have not sought treatment

“However, screening in primary care is a resource-intensive endeavor, does not yet show evidence of benefit, and would have unintended negative effects for some patients,” Dr. Brett writes.

One of the effects can be seen in the high prescription rates for antidepressant medication. In a 2005 study from Canada, seven percent of a sample from the general public reported current use of anti-depressant medication, a figure well above the estimated four percent who actually suffer major depression.

Another negative effect is the potential “nocebo effect”. The opposite of a placebo effect, this occurs when patients, who are not concerned about their mental health, are told they have depression. This can lead to the development or worsening of symptoms.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=28073

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Mental health services have become increasingly dominated by psychiatry’s ”medical model”

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia – “With More Talk in Mind” – Sep 15, 2011

by Dr. John Reed, Professor of Clinical Psychology

SERIOUS problems in Victoria’s mental health system have been revealed recently in The Age. The important thing now is to find solutions. In doing so we should remember that although Victoria is in the spotlight, similar ”crises” occur regularly all over the world. Perhaps this is because Victoria is not alone in having a system based on fundamentally flawed principles.

Mental health services have become increasingly dominated by psychiatry’s ”medical model”, which claims that feeling depressed, anxious or paranoid is primarily caused by genetic predispositions and chemical imbalances.

This has led to alarming rises in chemical solutions to distress. In New Zealand, one in nine adults (and one in five women) is prescribed antidepressants every year.

The public, however, in every country studied, including Australia, believes that mental health problems are caused by issues such as stress, poverty and isolation. The public also prefers talking therapies to drugs and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

Research suggests the public is right. For example, the single best predictor of just about every mental health problem is poverty, followed by other social factors such as abuse, neglect and early loss of parents in childhood, and – once in adulthood – loneliness and a range of adverse events including losses and defeats of various kinds.

Meanwhile, reviews of studies on anti-depressants (which only recently have been able to include those previously kept secret by drug companies) conclude that they are superior to placebos only for those at the extreme end of the ”most severe” group of depressed people. This represents less than 10 per cent of the people who are receiving these drugs.

A recent Cochrane review (the type most highly regarded in the scientific community) for risperidone, a leading anti-psychotic drug, ”suggests that there is no clear difference between risperidone and [a] placebo”.

A placebo (from the Latin meaning ”I please”) is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed the talking therapies are effective partly because, if done well, they too instil hope and expectations of recovery.

The problem is that psychiatric drugs often have serious adverse effects. Anti-psychotics, for instance, can cause rapid weight gain, loss of sexual function, diabetes, heart disease, neurodegeneration and reduced life span.

As previously reported, my review of ECT studies (with Professor Richard Bentall of Liverpool University) found that this treatment is ineffective for most recipients and frequently causes permanent memory loss. This in itself can be depressing.

ECT also has a slight but significant risk of death, most frequently from cardiovascular failure.

Inpatient units are equally ineffective and can also be damaging. When will we learn that putting large numbers of extremely distressed people in the same building is not a good idea?

What I conclude from all this is that any review of mental health services in Victoria, or anywhere else for that matter, should probably be led by anyone other than a psychiatrist – and certainly not in Victoria’s case the state’s Chief Psychiatrist, whose job, according to Dr Ruth Vine herself, is “to watch over how the system is functioning”.

It is unfair to expect Dr Vine to take an objective view on the failure of the system for which she is responsible. That lack of objectivity is amply demonstrated by her claims that ECT is “safe and effective” and that the problem is the public’s “negative” views.

Perhaps a lawyer from the Mental Health Legal Centre might be a good choice.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/with-more-talk-in-mind-20110914-1k9m2.html#ixzz1Y8tVJQlv

 

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Politics and mental health a poor mix

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

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

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Dozens arrested in Medicare mental health fraud

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

Miami Herald – September 7, 2011

by Jay Weaver

Federal agents have arrested dozens of suspects charged with bilking Medicare of hundreds of millions of dollars in bogus services for mental health therapy and other types of healthcare.


Click to watch video

Agents with Health and Human Services and the FBI have fanned out across three South Florida counties, arresting clinic owners, healthcare employees, patient recruiters and assisted living facility owners who allegedly supplied hundreds of patients to the mental health clinics.

The sweep comes after the indictment of Miami-based American Therapeutic Corp., which was charged along with 24 employees and others over the past year. That case alone involved $200 million in false claims submitted to the federal healthcare program for the elderly and the poor.

American Therapeutic’s top executives and others have been convicted in recent months. The latest sweep entails clinics offering group therapy sessions, home healthcare, HIV services and medical equipment.

The U.S. attorney’s office is expected to have a news conference Wednesday afternoon to provide details of the cases and defendants.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/2394354/dozens-arrested-in-medicare-mental.html#ixzz1XIwqbWgR

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Australia—Deaths in mental health facilities: unexpected, unnatural and violent

Friday, September 2nd, 2011

 

Click Image to Read CCHR's Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights

 

The Sydney Morning Herald— September 3, 2011

by Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie

 

THIRTY-SIX people died unexpected, unnatural or violent deaths in Victorian mental health facilities between 2008 and 2010, Coroners Court files reveal.

Data released to The Saturday Age by the Coroner’s Prevention Unit reveals 119 of the 502 coronial inquests held in Victoria between 2008 and 2010 involved people with diagnosed mental illnesses.

Of those 119 mental health coronial cases, almost a third related to the deaths of patients while they were being treated at state-run and private mental health facilities.Other figures from the Department of Health show 975 people under the care of Victoria’s mental health system have died unnatural, unexpected or violent deaths between 2006 and 2010.

These include mental health patients under the care of the state who committed suicide outside psychiatric facilities, as well as those who died in car accidents and house fires or drowned. But they also include dozens of patients who died in Victorian psychiatric wards.

The Saturday Age today publishes an investigation into the deaths of three men who died in state-run psychiatric wards across Melbourne between 2007 and 2009: Adam White, 31, Anthony Travaglini, 40, and Jeffery Hartwig, 43.

Each case involves allegations that serious failings by senior mental health staff may have contributed towards their unexpected deaths. Evidence also suggests that the health services involved allegedly covered up or failed to collect important information about the deaths, possibly preventing a proper examination of their cause.

Mr White’s death was the subject of a coronial inquest this year but a finding has yet to be made. The deaths of Mr Travaglini and Mr Hartwig are to be investigated by a coroner at a later date.

Southern Health, the health service responsible for the care of Mr Hartwig and Mr White care, this week complained to the Coroner’s Court after receiving questions from The Saturday Age about their deaths. A suppression order was made by coroner John Olle preventing the newspaper from publishing important information about Mr Hartwig’s death. Despite this, the paper is determined to report as much as it can about these deaths.

Our investigation found:

■ Mr Travaglini, who died in September 2008 at Eastern Health’s Upton House psychiatric hospital in Box Hill, was killed by a combination of powerful anti-psychotic medications given to him by staff, according to a Victorian government pathologist. Staff and patients aware of the circumstances of his death say the 40-year-old was pleading not to be given more drugs on the night he died. Staff and patients also allege there was an attempt to conceal information about the circumstances of his death from his family.

■ Mr Hartwig died at the Monash Medical Centre in December 2009 after he went into a coma following a suspected overdose of illicit drugs supplied by unknown visitors. His family says the hospital’s psychiatric ward kept no visitor log nor did it supervise visits to patients. Police sources say the hospital’s legal department interfered with their investigation and ordered staff not to speak about the circumstances of Mr Hartwig’s death.

■ Mr White’s 2007 death at Dandenong Hospital’s psychiatric ward during a struggle with security guards was the subject of a recent inquest. A finding has yet to be made, but evidence to the inquest suggests Mr White was asphyxiated while being held face down by security staff. A witness told the inquest that Mr White apparently yelled ”I give up”, but security did not ease off. He died soon after.

The circumstances of the men’s deaths and the treatment of their families raise questions about whether there is a culture of cover-up in the Victorian mental health system. The families have complained of a lack of answers from health services responsible for the care of their loved ones.

Eastern Health declined to comment, citing the coming inquest into Mr Travaglini’s death.

In addition to asking that details of Mr Hartwig and Mr White’s deaths be suppressed, Southern Health said it was ”committed to patient-centred care and constant improvement in regards to the quality of service we provide to our patients”.

Health Department statistics show that 239 people, 162 of them men, under the care of Victoria’s mental health system died unexpected, unnatural or violent deaths in 2009-10.

Melbourne Health and Eastern Health had the highest rates of unexpected, unnatural or violent deaths, with 44 and 31 respectively.

In 2008-09, there were 302 such deaths. In 2007-08 there were 205 and in 2006-07 there were 229.

Victoria’s chief psychiatrist, Ruth Vine, admitted the performance of Victoria’s mental health system could improve.

Dr Vine said she could not comment on the specific issues identified in the three deaths.

But she said the mental health area was one of the most difficult for health professionals.

”I don’t wish to be defensive or an apologist because I’d be the first to admit that our care provided is not perfect all the time,” Dr Vine said.

”But it is difficult to manage fairly large, fairly aggressive men and I think it is the case in some of these [deaths] that there was a degree of physical unwellness underlying.”

Dr Vine said Victoria had taken steps in recent years to improve care given to mental health patients.

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Ron Paul Reintroduces The Parental Consent Act 2011- Prohibits Federal Funding For Psychiatric ‘Screening’ of Kids

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul has re-introduced  The Parental Consent Act ,  A bill which prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.

“Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.” – RON PAUL

Sign the petition in support of the Parental Consent Act here: http://www.petitiononline.com/rppca/petition.html

Bill information:  The Parental Consent Act 2011 (H.R. 2769 – previously H.R. 2218  in 2009) Prohibits federal education funds from being used to pay any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide consent to mental health screening as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such charge.

Defines a screening program under this Act as any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment, including: (1) any program of state incentive grants to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and (2) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.

Ron Paul speech given on April 30, 2009 on his bill, The Parental Consent Act (formerly H.R. 2218, now  reintroduced as H.R. 2769 ):

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”

Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

For more information on the Parental Consent Act watch this video featuring Kent Snyder, Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign manager 2008, and former Executive Director of the Liberty Committee  http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/ron-pauls-parental-consent-act-of-2009/

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE

RSS Blog Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog | 2 Comments »

Ron Paul Reintroduces The Parental Consent Act 2011! Prohibits Federal Funding For Psychiatric ‘Screening’ of Kids

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Congressman Ron Paul has re-introduced  The Parental Consent Act ,  A bill which prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.

Click Video for more information on the Parental Consent Act

Sign the petition in support of the Parental Consent Act here: http://www.petitiononline.com/rppca/petition.html

Bill information:  The Parental Consent Act 2011 (H.R. 2769 – previously H.R. 2218  in 2009) Prohibits federal education funds from being used to pay any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide consent to mental health screening as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such charge.

Defines a screening program under this Act as any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment, including: (1) any program of state incentive grants to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and (2) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.

Ron Paul speech given on April 30, 2009 on his bill, The Parental Consent Act (formerly H.R. 2218, now  reintroduced as H.R. 2769 ):

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Parental Consent Act. This bill forbids Federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory mental-health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill protects the fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and education of their children.

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the federal and state governments work toward the implementation of a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for all Americans. The commission recommends that universal or mandatory mental-health screening first be implemented in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the general public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related mental-health screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is subjected to mental-health screening. Federally-funded universal or mandatory mental-health screening in schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children as “ADD” or “hyperactive” and thus force more children to take psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, against their parents’ wishes.

Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic drugs for nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According to Medco Health Solutions, more than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time. In fact, according to Medico Trends, in 2003, total spending on psychiatric drugs for children exceeded spending on antibiotics or asthma medication.

Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic drugs. Some of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and weight gain. Yet, parents are already being threatened with child abuse charges if they resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will be to drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federally-funded mental-health screener makes the recommendation.

Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification for stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values. Even the authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health diagnoses are subjective and based on social constructions. Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person’s disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental disorder. For example, a federally-funded school violence prevention program lists “intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence. Because “intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values, children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having mental problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in traditional values could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental disorder. Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who adhere to traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”

Madam Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to undermine parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by leading to more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin, or stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because they adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the nation’s parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Parental Consent Act.

For more information on the Parental Consent Act watch this video featuring Kent Snyder, Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign manager 2008, and former Executive Director of the Liberty Committee  http://www.cchrint.org/videos/experts/ron-pauls-parental-consent-act-of-2009/

« Return to news items

RSS News Feed

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News | 7 Comments »

« Older Entries