Bush to screen population for mental illness

[dolphin]

If this is in the wrong forum please move it for me.

I'm still trying to digest exactly what this will mean. I'm kind of in shock at the moment. Since so many of us or our loved ones deal with mental health issues I thought it was important for you all to read this.

I pasted the whole article as I got a pop up from the link but here it is if you want it.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39078


LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Bush to screen population for mental illness
Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 21, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern


© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.

The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.

Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.

The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."

The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.

The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."

Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."

The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.

But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab."

Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.

Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.

Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."

Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.

However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.

"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."

[Missy]

I don't think i understand the article. I might have it all backwards ... but it seems like another big brother cattle call, more government interfearance? ... to screen everyone and lable everyone... maybe i didn't get the article right...

if i do understand the article I don't like it. If i don't understand, i hope i haven't offended anyone. But it seems liek the pharmacutical companies are on board not from a humanitarian stand point, but the obvious stand of if the population at large is screened, more chances to sell the medications. I think that is totally wrong. 20 people can all have depression ( for instance) not all 20 will respond well to medication. and of those that do some of them won't respond to the same meds... and once again of those who do respond to the same meds...ruh roh, i think i am climbing up on a soap box, lol. i will stop my tirade here.... again, i may have totally misunderstood the artice

[dolphin]

No Melissa, I think you hit the nail right on the head. It purely sounds like they are trying to push drugs and have found a legal way to do it.

Can you imagine if they make it mandatory for all school children who have a tantrum to be screened or something like that? I think the article was written to confuse us just like some of the bills that are written (so we don't get the real intention till it's too late).

Like I said, I'm still in shock over this. If it's there to help people get the drugs that they need or want that's one thing but if it's being set up so the government can screen the population, then woooooooow.

[Missy]

What are they going to do if someone they screen just happens to be having a bad day? And with the wide range of people, there is just a wide a range of illnesses, and of people with the illnesses everyone who has them has them at differeing levels. If they are going to start medication our population as a whole, let them start at Capitol Hill. Won't sound like such a great idea then i bet.

oops, how did i get back up on this soap box?? climbing back down...

[frugalmel]

OK after having read the article, I am thinking that this is a case of catching "politics". Kinda like catching a cold. _$ from one company goes to one party, then that party/politician supports X company's policies, etc, etc, etc. I am thinking this is the Washington game and not something that is meant to help/protect the American population. Its very sad.

If I view this from the "glass half-full" side, I think this is a "trying to be helpful" urge manifesting itself in a not so hot idea.

[canadian gardener]

I'm with Mel on this, not well thought out, bumbling but probably well meant, and the people who mean well are probably being manipulated cleverly by the pharmaceutical businesses to sell more drugs.

The issue of forcing young children into medication is a big one though and the problem of teachers and school boards forcing the prescribing of things like Ritalin is very real. Dr's nurses and pharmacists are against that kind of prescribing of meds but in the crowded and often difficult classroom situations, the teachers are at their wits end to deal with some kids and they holler pretty loud for some kind of behavioural control chemical or otherwise.

I would NOT like to see that kind of thing expanded. I would love to see early intervention with behavioural help first and foremost. Teaching kids how to manage their own behaviour is the top priority with meds prescribed as needed to give them a little edge of control of themselves. But not willy nilly.

And I'm afraid that's not how it's happened for a lot of kids that have had drugs given without any behavioural therapy or cognitive therapy in the management of ADD/ADHD. If the way things went with the management of ADHD tells us anything, it's that things are cheaper fixed by throwing a pill at the patient.

I should make it clear I'm all for Ritalin, it helped my son, and when you need it, it's a blessing from God but I'm very much against mass prescribing of anything and we did years of behaviour management before going on the Ritalin.

There is also too much room for mistaken diagnosis, as Melissa points out. People given a diagnosis are often stuck with it on their medical records even when it's a mistake and that can affect things like whether they can get certain jobs or medical insurance (discrimination is alive and well in the 21 century!)

Our govt here in Canada has long tried to move out of institutional care into group home care or independant living. We do have drugs available for those on social assistence which is available for anyone who is unable to work although the amounts are often inadequate but basic generic meds, including psych meds are included.

Down side is there are more deeply obviously disturbed people around but most of them aren't dangerous and they are usually the ones who can't stay on their meds on their own. We don't force anyone to take them.

And that is the bottom line for kids and adults both. Do we force them into taking their meds if they aren't a danger to others? They and their parents have a right to say no. When we remove that right, we are tampering with the whole human rights issue.

On the flip side, schools need to have the right to say Ok if you don't take the meds, do the therapy (and I wish it was the other way around for all) then you can't continue to disrupt our classroom because we have a duty of care to the kids in our care and a duty to teach which includes providing an atmosphere conducive to learning, free of unusual distractions.

If the kids parents won't allow the meds and they should have that right, then they must provide their child an education by alternative means perhaps thru correspondance, a live in boarding school, a private day school, homeschooling or a co op situation.

Since they are providing a service that the govt provides free for all, I think the govt could at least provide the funds they would normally spend on that child in the public system towards whatever educational choice the parents make. (voucher system)

That way everybody wins.

[canadian gardener]

But mass screening has a terrible potential for harm thru mistakes, sloppy methods, inappropriate prescribing of medication, not enough work done on cognitive and behavioural stuff, future discrimination. I think it needs to be looked at from the question

Does it do more harm than good?

How many undiagnosed cases actually slip thru now and what is the harm there

vs the harm from the above mentioned problems.

If we do mass screenings, we will still miss a number of cases or misdiagnose, give the wrong drugs so the number of undiagnosed cases may actually go up, along with misdiagnosed cases, medication errors, medication reactions, potential for further harm due to discrimination.

When you look at it, you can see that the compassion side of govt is trying to go for perfection --- eliminate all psychiatric illness but that isn't a reasonable goal and may end up causing more harm.