so, did universal mental screening pass? Where can I see the legislation?

[Sperk]

I was talking to my daughter's doctor yesterday, she didn't know anything about it. She found it hard to believe that parents would be forced to medicate their children. She said, "This is still America!" I said, "Is it?"

By the time the lawsuits get to the Supreme court millions of kids will be affected.

I wanted to give her more specific info but I can't seem to find the actual legislation on it.

I'm of the understanding that it has passed and will be implemented in 2005-2006 school year but I wanted to have the actual facts to send to my kid's doctor.

I told her that I was not going to allow my daughter to be tested.

anyone have a link to the hard facts?

Thanks.

[sui generis]

1. no link, just a comment

what a great deal for the pharmaceutical companies. Or am I being too cynical?

I think I'd be engaging in planned civil disobedience.

[cynatnite]

2. I've heard a lot about it...

but I've yet to see the actual legislation myself. There are a lot of links to sites concerned about it, but have yet to even quote directly from the legislation.

That's not to say it doesn't exist, but I do wonder.

[w8liftinglady]

3. this has links...

http://www.sierratimes.com/05/06/21/24_209_102_203_25047.htm

[tigereye]

4. screening doesn't necessarily mean medications....

although I agree that it would be very intrusive if everyone "had to be" screened. Can't say I approve and I'm a mental health professional.

Considering that schools can barely force anyone to do anything, this seems unlikely to me. You will likely see a lot of screaming before this sees the light of day. Privacy issues alone would be massive.

[OneBlueSky]

5. I'm pretty sure that's what the legislation mandates . . .

don't have it handy right now, but I'm almost positive that the law includes a provision that mandates specific therapies for various conditions . . . which makes sense, given that this whole thing is a drug company boondoggle . . .

[tigereye]

8. but the schools can't mandate that

insurance companies do recommend specific treatments ( best practice) for different mental health disorders, but it really is up to parents in most cases to decide, with their doctor, what to do.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

11. Not in Texas, and this is what the new law will do nationwide.

ALIAH GLEASON IS A BIG, lively girl with a round face, a quick wit, and a sharp tongue. She's 13 and in eighth grade at Dessau Middle School in Pflugerville, Texas, an Austin suburb, but could pass for several years older. She is the second of four daughters of Calvin and Anaka Gleason, an African American couple who run a struggling business taking people on casino bus trips.

In the early part of seventh grade, Aliah was a B and C student who "got in trouble for running my mouth." Sometimes her antics went overboard—like the time she barked at a teacher she thought was ugly. "I was calling this teacher a man because she had a mustache," Aliah recalled over breakfast with her parents at an Austin restaurant.

School officials considered Aliah disruptive, deemed her to have an "oppositional disorder," and placed her in a special education track. Her parents viewed her as a spirited child who was bright but had a tendency to argue and clown. Then one day, psychologists from the University of Texas (UT) visited the school to conduct a mental health screening for sixth- and seventh-grade girls, and Aliah's life took a dramatic turn.

A few weeks later, the Gleasons got a "Dear parents" form letter from the head of the screening program. "You will be glad to know your daughter did not report experiencing a significant level of distress," it said. Not long after, they got a very different phone call from a UT psychologist, who told them Aliah had scored high on a suicide rating and needed further evaluation. The Gleasons reluctantly agreed to have Aliah see a UT consulting psychiatrist. She concluded Aliah was suicidal but did not hospitalize her, referring her instead to an emergency clinic for further evaluation. Six weeks later, in January 2004, a child-protection worker went to Aliah's school, interviewed her, then summoned Calvin Gleason to the school and told him to take Aliah to Austin State Hospital, a state mental facility. He refused, and after a heated conversation, she placed Aliah in emergency custody and had a police officer drive her to the hospital
Much more at link:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/medicating_aliah.html

[tigereye]

12. wow!

that is frighteningly extreme. Although I do not have all the facts, I cannot imagine anyone taking a child by court order to a state MH facility unless he or she were seriously impaired and a risk to themselves or others. Perhaps Texas has very backward MH laws... I can't see that happening to that extent in my state, PA.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder alone (it is typically combined with other disorders) is not usually a disorder that leads to hospitalization unles it is mixed with other problems and very, very risky behaviors. Maybe there was more to this than we know about, but that seems extreme to me.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

15. I found the full version of the article, because it talks about how they

have attempted to put TMAP into other states, specifically Pennsylvania.
It's well worth the read if you have the time.

ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT of the algorithms was largely complete, Shon began hitting the road, making about one trip a month-often at the expense of drug companies-to spread the TMAP gospel to officials in other states. This close relationship between TMAP and the pharmaceutical industry raises disturbing questions about whether the drug companies were wielding undue influence or profiting at the expense of patients. But no one raised these questions until 2002, when Allen Jones, an investigator for the state of Pennsylvania's Office of Inspector General (OIG) began to look into a complaint that mental health officials had set up an unorthodox bank account to collect money from drug companies.

Jones, a lanky, 50-year-old chain-smoker, had spent several years with the OIG in the late '80s and early '90s, but left to pursue real estate investing to pay for his daughters' college tuition. He had only just rejoined the agency in the summer of 2002 when he began investigating this case. Over several months, he interviewed state officials, traveled to New York and New Jersey to question pharmaceutical company executives, and learned all he could about TMAP. He soon felt that something inappropriate, and possibly illegal, was going on. "It just did not pass the smell test," he says.

Jones learned that in early 2000, Dr. Steven Karp, who was then medical director of the state's Office of Mental Health, had become interested in implementing a Pennsylvania version of TMAP. Karp discussed his interest with executives of Janssen Pharmaceutica, Jones found, and the company paid for Shon to come to Pennsylvania in late 2000 to meet with Karp and Steven Fiorello, the state's chief pharmacist. Shon returned in March 2001 to train state medical personnel, according to records Jones obtained and provided to Mother Jones. To cover Shon's travel expenses, Janssen made an "educational grant" of $1,765.75. A Janssen funding request form notes that the grant was to support the "TMAP initiative to expand atypical usage and drive Steve Shon's expenses." A box marked "Risperdal" is checked on the form. Janssen's check was sent to Fiorello and placed in the account where other donations from pharmaceutical companies were deposited.

Two months later, Janssen provided $4,000 for Fiorello and a state psychiatrist to travel to New Orleans for meetings with Dr. Madhukar Trivedi, a UT-Southwestern psychiatrist and TMAP project team director. The funding request form for this payment listed the "deliverable" as the "successful implementation of PennMAP." A Janssen representative also attended and paid for $80-per-person dinners for the Pennsylvania and Texas officials. Fiorello and the psychiatrist made another trip to New Orleans later that year, also paid for by Janssen, according to Jones. Such perks, while of no great consequence to a company the size of Janssen, did forge a friendly relationship with Pennsylvania officials whose decisions carried enormous financial stakes for the company.
http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MedicatingAlliah.htm

[rockedthevoteinMA]

6. Melodybe posted a thread about this yesterday:

Melodybe Tue Jun-21-05 01:53 AM
Original message
Congress has already passed leg. to drug YOUR kids, here is the downlow


Edited on Tue Jun-21-05 02:01 AM by Melodybe

One of the petitions I have on my table is a petition in support for HR181, the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act, written by Republican Representative Ron Paul. This is a big deal, ever read Brave New World? Well, that is what this legislation is all about. Tucked away in the Omnibus Spending Bill in December millions of dollars we allocated for the implementation of this program. This has ALREADY passed, thanks to the lobbyists of big pharmaceuticals our tax dollars are being spent to screen children for mental illness, once diagnosed they are required to take the medications prescribed to them. Their parents have NO say in this! They are NOT allowed to get a second opinion. If the parents argue or refuse to put their children on the meds, they could face parental neglect charges. I have called and written numerous emails to many in the corporate "news" media, that was months ago. Since you probably haven't heard about it, you can see how well they covered it.

Remember a time where every other commercial on television wasn't an ad for some miracle pill you should ask your doctor about? Well, when they made advertising prescription drugs legal this is the effect, NONE of the major "news" outlets will touch it, else they loose the BILLIONS of dollars they make every year in advertising.

Here is a link to a great explanation of the program and it's first lawsuit:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/061405Prin...

here is a link to everyone in the corporate, we're fine with the government drugging your kids, cause mine are in private school, whores:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/MEDIA_EMAIL_ADDRESSES.htm

Please, I beg you send this to everyone you know. Write a letter to the editor, write an e-mail to the corporate whores that refuse to cover it.

Thanks a lot,
Melody
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3908769

Mother Jones also ran an article in their last issue about this, and how it all started in Texas. (surprised?) :sarcasm:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. bad link

for the online journal article - try this one

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/062105Pringle/062105pringle.html

[tigereye]

14. that was pretty alarming

although the article contained a number of exaggerations and inaccuracies.

1. Actually it is only a small percentage of children that have either had increased suidical thoughts or committed suicide while taking certain anti-depresssants. However, that was sufficient for the FDA, etc. to issue their warnings.

2. Also, most MH treatments involve both treatment and medications, not just medications. Most research, esp. related to kids, points out that for most disorders you need a combination to do the most good. It really isn't ethical for kids to be taking medication only in most cases.

3. Any good child psychiatrist or pediatrician will be very careful before prescribing any medication, to make sure that it is needed. There are many behavioral treatments that should be used before kids should be placed on medications, because of the side effects of some of them. I agree that that may be less likely within government funded health care in some cases and that you are more likely to see more kids on more medications if the kids are in foster care or have MA type insurance.

4. I agree that Pharmaceutical companies do push these medicines in ways that were not permitted when I first entered the field. The increased use of Risperdol in the field has alarmed me in my own work; although there are many research studies related to the use of that medication, there are also many concerns about it's long-term effects on developing brains, or so a colleague who is a psychopharmacologist told me.

5. Mental health problems overall are very undertreated. The high percentage of those illnesses that are untreated lead to many health and other problems. Teens are more likely to experience depression for the first time and may be at increased risk for suicide. So I don't think it is bad to pay attention to these issues in schools. I suspect that is why these laws are appearing. Screening could be done in a non-mandatory, less intrusive way, based on accurate and identifiable risk factors and would cause much less fear in schools and for parents.

[tigereye]

9. hmm

this type of legislation makes little sense, given that the FDA has issued "black box" warnings for many psychiatric medications prescribed for kids. There are letters in my mailbox all the time about this from insurers and the doctors themselves are becoming very cautious about prescribing them.

[EC]

10. I'm not sure it would be doctors doing the exams, it's already

in effect in Texas and from what I understand it's representatives of the chemical companies doing the reviews, it's called The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, it was put together by ELI LILLY and parents don't have to be told....


http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/06/23/bush_to_impose_psychiatric_drug_regime.htm
This one you must read the whole thing, it's eye-opening...

Bush To Impose Psychiatric Drug Regime
Plans to screen whole US population for mental illness

According to a recent article (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458) in the British Medical Journal, US president George Bush is to announce a major "mental health" initiative in this coming month of July. The proposal will extend screening and psychiatric medication to kids and grown-ups all over the US, following a pilot scheme of recommended medication practice developed in Texas and already exported to several other states.

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) will serve, according to the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, (http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/) as a model for the upcoming initiative. The TMAP medication guidelines were established in 1995 as an "expert consensus" based on the opinions of prescribers, rather than an analysis of scientific studies. The pharmaceutical companies who funded the scheme include Janssen Pharmaceutica, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Ortho-McNeil, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Bristol Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst and Forrest Laboratories. The drugs recommended as "first line treatment", many of them with potentially deadly side effects, are patented expensive drugs produced by the sponsors of the guidelines: Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroqual, Geodone, Depakote, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutron, Zyban, Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Buspar, Adderall and Prozac.

TMAP was extended to cover children, again by "expert consensus", and no doubt the Bush program for widespread testing in schools all over the US will find hundreds of thousands if not millions of new "customers" for the dangerous psychiatric drugs the scheme promotes. A recent article in the New York Times about "the use of juvenile detention facilities to warehouse children with mental disorders" might give us an idea of how many future patients are already waiting in the sidelines. But more importantly it shows that the problem that fits the TMAP solution is now being promoted by the media - go figure.

A similar "patient recruitment" move for psychiatry is the re-definition of environmental illness - a debilitating condition with varying symptoms due to environmental causes such as chemical poisons and electromagnetic pollution - as a purely psychological phenomenon. "It's all in your head, stupid!" seems to be the rationale.

Here's another view:

<snip>
Educational Mandatory mental health testing not only provides an “out” for academic failure by providing labels that excuse individual actions; it generates more funding to provide special services for those labeled with deficiencies. The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH) represents a massive victory for those activists and lobbyists who champion the cause of pharmaceutical companies who produce medication for those deemed “mentally ill and unable to function in ‘normal’ capacity.” It is a blow against those fighting to preserve the rights of individual liberties guaranteed under the US Constitution. With individual liberty comes individual responsibility, but that is not expected of someone excused from the standards that apply to everyone else.

The NFCMH has made it easier to justify irresponsible behavior such as impulsiveness and other unrefined character bi-products of the “me first” and permissiveness era, heralded in by Dr. Spock. Today’s children are granted adult rights while retaining minor status, for example; having an abortion without parental consent and being guaranteed their right to privacy in other areas, as well. Judicial activism selectively emancipates minors. Those who behave irresponsibly while accepting no responsibility can site a variety of mental disorders as their “modus operandi” and dismiss the consequences of their actions!
<snip>
Rather than address the real problem which is inadequate teaching and classroom management stemming from poor pedagogy, children can be labeled with a mental disorder that excuses their academic performance and behavior. Public education, seemingly forced to account for their performance, has been dealt the ultimate trump card. The Orwellian conclusion to legislating away accountability is that whether or not a child performs is no longer up for discussion. What matters ultimately, is the excuse given for not meeting expectations. A label changes everything.
<snip>
Who decides what is in the range of normal? There are 374 Diseases listed in DSM IV, including, “Math Disorder,” “Shopping Disorder,” and “Disorder of Written Expression.” Psychiatry doesn’t require “the identification of physical symptoms to diagnose a disease.” The medicines used to treat these alleged problems have been scientifically proven ineffective, but they are associated with some horrible side effects such as violent behavior or psychosis. This could explain some of the school violence in the form of shootings over the last 10 years. It’s hard to imagine that there is no proven, “genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness, but no tests have conclusively proven chemical imbalance because there is no identifiable chemical balance.

more--> http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/mental_health_trumps_individual_accountability.htm

And this one, what he is saying is that although the funding has been provided, the testing isn't (as yet) required.

MENTAL HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL CONTROL
Part 6

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
January 24, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
There are many who believe that recent federal legislation mandates mental health screening of children. However, it does not! Therefore, it seems appropriate at this time to explain what has transpired and why there are concerns.

In February 2001, almost immediately after taking office, President George W. Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative. Then on April 29, 2002, President Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH), which developed a number of recommendations, among which was mental health screening for Americans, especially children. Then, H.R. 5006 was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives, and it was later rolled into the larger H.R. 4818, which on December 8, 2004 became Public Law 108-447. In this law, Division F, Title II concerns "Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services," which provides funds for mental health "data collection and evaluation activities." Since it was logical to assume this could include mental health screenings, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul tried to amend the earlier legislation (H.R. 5006) to exclude such screenings, but he was defeated. Later, he tried to amend legislation at least to require parental permission before such screenings would occur. However, he was once again defeated, primarily by U.S. Senate leader Bill Frist and Sen. Arlen Specter. This logically has resulted in the conclusion that Congress indeed does want to allow funds from this public law to be used for mental health screening of children, perhaps even without parental permission. To try to overcome this, Rep. Paul on January 4, 2005 introduced H.R. 181 into the new 109th Congress. The bill is titled "To Prohibit the Use of Federal Funds for Any Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program" (short title: "Parental Consent Act of 2005").

Although there is no federal law mandating mental health screening, lawyer Phyllis Schlafly in her November 24, 2004 article "No Child Left Unmedicated" has written that "President Bush has instructed 25 federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the NFCMH's recommendations." In her article, she further explained that the NFCMH "recommends 'routine and comprehensive' testing and mental health screening for every child in America, including preschoolers....The NFCMH proposes utilizing electronic medical records for mental health interrogation of both children and adults for mental illnesses in school and during routine physical exams. The NFCMH also recommends integrating electronic health records and personal health information systems. The NFCMH recommends 'linkage' of these mental examinations with 'state-of-the-art treatments' using 'specific medications for specific conditions.'...'State-of-the-art treatments' will result in many thousands of children being medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous drugs. The long-term safety and effectiveness of psychiatric medications on children have never been proven. The side effects of suggested medications in children are severe. They include suicide, violence, psychosis, cardiac toxicity, and growth suppression. Several school shooters, such as Eric Harris (Columbine) and Kip Kinkel (Oregon) had been on antidepressants or stimulants when they committed their crimes.....A Columbia University pilot project of screening students called TeenScreen resulted in one-third being flagged as 'positive' for mental health problems, and half of those being turned over for mental health treatment. If this is a preview of what would happen when 52 million public school students are screened, it would mean hanging a libelous label on 17 million American children and putting 8 million children into the hands of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry." Why isn't this considered cruelty to children?

And to make it clear that the NFCMH recommendations do not only include children, Dr. Karen Effrem at Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum Conference on September 18, 2004, explained that the NFCMH recommends "screening for mental disorders in primary health care, across the life span, and connect to treatment and supports." Dr. Effrem emphasized, "That is cradle-to-grave."

more and must read-->http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis21.htm

And here is the Phyllis Schlafly piece he references ( the electronic medical records she is discussing in this article is now being brought before the Senate by Bill Frist and Hillary - so I'm thinking they'll slip this in, on that bill, making Democrats look just as guilty as they are at forcing us into this):

http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue33/am47.htm

No Child Left Unmedicated
November 24, 2004
by Phyllis Schlafly

Big Brother is on the march. A plan to subject all children to mental health screening is underway, and the pharmaceuticals are gearing up for bigger sales of psychotropic drugs. Like most liberal big-spending ideas, this one was slipped into the law under cover of soft semantics. Its genesis was the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH) created by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The NFCMH recommends "routine and comprehensive" testing and mental health screening for every child in America, including preschoolers. President Bush has instructed 25 federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the Commission's recommendations.

The NFCMH proposes utilizing electronic medical records for mental health interrogation of both children and adults for mental illnesses in school and during routine physical exams. The NFCMH also recommends integrating electronic health records and personal health information systems.

The NFCMH recommends "linkage" of these mental examinations with "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." That means prescribing more expensive patented antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs.

This one references Newsmax, so take it or leave it:

Congress Funds Mandatory Psychological Tests for Kids

Newsmax | November 23 2004

One of the nation's leading medical groups, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), decried a move by the U.S. Senate to join with the House in funding a federal program AAPS says will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America – without the consent of parents.

When the Senate considered an omnibus appropriations bill last week that included funding for grants to implement universal mental health screening for almost 60 million children, pregnant women and adults through schools and pre-schools, it approved $20 million of the $44 million sought, Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for AAPS, told NewsMax.

This $20 million matches a like amount already approved by the House, Serkes advised.

While the funding cut of some $24 million was a little good news, suggested Serkes, whose organization has zealously opposed the the measure, she said the organization was most worried about the failure of Congress to include “parental consent” language sought by the AAPS.
more---> http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/231104mandatorytests.htm


You haven't heard anything about it, because like so many other travasties in this administration the money for it passed last Nov. tacked onto the omnibus appropriations bill. Anytime there is something they want, that they know will not pass on it's own, or will lead to discussion, they bury into a must pass piece of legistration (like the Real ID - tucked into the funds appropriated for Iraq.) It is to be implimented as part of the No Child Left Behind Program.
Rep. Ron Paul writes allot about it on his site: So writes Representative Paul.

The so-called political party of small government, the Republicans, has put into motion a plan which is a poorly-hidden attempt to build a larger market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic medications. The New Freedom Initiative injects big government into the lives of Americans in a way it has never done before. Surely, thinking Americans must question the appropriateness of its presence there.

[SmokingJacket]

13. There IS NO actual legislation.

It was merely a recommendation by/a goal of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Ron Paul wanted to pass legislation that would PREVENT it, but it Paul's thing failed to pass.

http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Public_Policy/New_Freedom_Commission/Default1169.htm

That's my take on it, anyway. If you look through the omnibus spending bill that purportedly mentions this, it's not there.

http://coastalrain.tripod.com/legacy/id12.html

But global national screening based on the Texas Algorithm is a Bush goal.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

16. Rep. Ron Paul's Letter "Psycho Feds Target Children"

Psycho Feds Target Children
Psycho Feds Target Children
By Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Every parent in America should be made aware of a presidentialinitiative called the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health." Thiscommission issued a report last year calling for the mandatory mental healthscreening of American schoolchildren, meaning millions of kids will beforced to undergo psychiatric screening whether their parents consent ornot. At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medicaltreatment is appropriate for their children.

Forced mental health screening simply has no place in a free or decentsociety. The government does not own you or your kids, and it has nolegitimate authority to interfere in your family's intimate health matters.Psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, and the drugs regularlyprescribed produce serious side effects, especially in children's developingbrains. The bottom line is that mental health issues are a matter forparents, children, and their doctors, not government.

Unfortunately, however, the mental health screening initiative received funding from House and Senate appropriators in the 2005 federal budget. This funding allows states to create or expand mental health screening programs with your tax dollars. More importantly, the commission recommends a broader federal program in the near future.
snip
http://www.icspp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=44