When authorities screen your children for mental illness ... !!!!

Originally from Mother Jones, now on unknown news.

There was a very short-lived thread on Sunday about this, but ALL DUers -- especially those with kids -- should see it. This is state-mandated abuse of a child for profit of drug companies, and to force conformity. And using children as guinea pigs for new experimental drugs along the way.

The girl in the story was guilty of "mouthing off" to a teacher too much, tagged as being depressive, and at age 12, put in a psychiatric hospital against her parents' wishes, who were not even allowed to visit or talk to her for five months, during which time she was given 12 different psychoactive drugs and put in restraints 25 times, before finally being released to her parents custody after 9 months.
I feel sick to my stomach.


http://www.unknownnews.org/050426mentalhealth.html

When authorities screen your children for mental illness ...

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.
...
In addition to the antidepressants Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, and Desyrel, as well as Ativan, an antianxiety drug, Aliah was given two newer drugs known as "atypical antipsychotics" -- Geodon and Abilify -- plus an older antipsychotic, Haldol. She was also given the anticonvulsants Trileptal and Depakote -- though she was not suffering from a seizure disorder -- and Cogentin, an anti-Parkinson's drug also used to control the side effects of antipsychotic drugs. At the time of her transfer to a residential facility, she was on five different medications, and once there, she was put on still another atypical -- Risperdal.
...
The case of Aliah Gleason raises troubling -- and long-standing -- questions about the coercive uses of psychiatric medications in Texas and elsewhere. But especially because Aliah lives in Texas, and because her commitment was involuntary, she became vulnerable to an even further hazard: aggressive drug regimens that feature new and controversial drugs -- regimens that are promoted by drug companies, mandated by state governments, and imposed on captive patient populations with no say over what's prescribed to them.

we know he doesn have a chance in hell passin. have a niece and nephew that will "fail" too. this we already know

country back.

It's a general initiative regarding people with disabilities. I reccomend reading the full report here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/newfreedom-report-2004.pdf

It's quite self-congratulatory (of course) but I think you'll see that there's more here than just mental health screening reccomendations.

Disabled rights: YES!

Big Pharma getting into the public schools: NO!

I know of a teacher who turned in parents because the kid came to school with socks that were un-matched. That teacher was really nuts. Some kids think that is a sign of being smart and not going with the other kids. I once had a teacher who said my child was stupid and come to find out her IQ was 130. I guess the kid was smarter than the teacher. When things do not seem right to you, question the people doing the test or setting the style of things.

With all due respect, especially in elementary schools, teachers often were the C students, in my experience. With regard to IQ it's interesting how people with high IQs utilize their intellects in a variety of endeavors, and are not always academically oriented.

This is getting bad. They're also wanting to privitiaze all of our schools I think. These people are horrible. :puke:

anything done to our kids. This country is really messed up! Since most of the crap seems to be born out of Texas, Florida or DC, what can we figure is the lowest common denominator. BFEE.

The spiral down the toilet just keeps coming faster and faster.

I love my kids more than life itself and I would try my damndest to make sure nobody ever harms them in any way. Sometimes though, I wish I had questioned my decision to have kids when I see what kind of world they are growing up in. Nobody has any right to take any human being and force drug experimentation on them, and that's exactly what this is.

We have Dr. Mengele and his staff in the WH, and he's owned by big pharma.

Is the New Freedom Initiative in effect?

And, yes, it has been approved to go national. Here is a link that shows state by state what the implementation activities are:

http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/forced-bush-us-screening-implementation.htm

I did have a link to a waiver form (to be placed in a child's school record) that required the school to inform the parent of any testing outside of the academic realm. Unfortunately, that link no longer works. I'm sure a family attorney could help with the wording of a personalized waiver.

How about the case mentioned above? It sounded as though her parents weren't able to prevent the state's actions. Or, am I just misinterpreting her parents' lack of action as inability to act?

(i.e., a scare tactic from me to the school) Under this program, the school does not have to garner my consent before testing and/or drugging my children -- regardless of the waiver.

There is currently a group in Texas (a very conservative group, BTW) that is trying to oppose this program. In Texas, there is a bill before the legislature called HB 470 that fully funds and makes active the part of the New Freedom Initiative which calls for the screening of the *entire* population (not just school students -- schools are simply the first step). The bill, which also contains several mental health and mental retardation reforms, has been heavily supported by republican Gov. Perry.

"Screening" and "treatment" seem to mean the same thing in this thread, but not necessarily in the stuff i'm reading elsewhere. The case in texas is obviously extreme, but I'm not sure that's exactly relevant to what the NFI is discussing.

If it is completely true it deserves much more media coverage. Psychiatric drugs have their place, they helped my step-daughter recover from post-traumatic stress syndrome she got from living with her abusive father. But this situation is way overboard, and it indeed shows cases in which the government is truly guilty of criminal acts.

I've seen kids on it, and adults. They prescribe cogentin to counter act some of the side effects, like the drooling and the residue that collects around the mouth. Haldol totally zombifies the kids, it's an anti-psychotic drug usually used to treat adult schizophrenics. I haven't seen it used on any kids since the late 80s.

Ativan is used a lot to calm someone down who is having a manic episode, or who is freaking out. It has it's uses, especially on a temporary basis.

I've seen Zoloft used to treat suicidal teenagers, with good success, when combined with intensive individual therapy.

The only person I know who's ever been prescribed Depakote is a diagnosed bi-polar adult. It works for him.

The rest of the drugs mentioned I don't know much about. This kid was 12 and they put her on just about everything they could because she was mouthy. That's unbelieveable.

Them's big guns. It's pretty terrifying that they think they can drug a twelve-year old like that.

Sheesh.

child's head of school's and the school psychiatrist's recommendation, I refused to put my child through any additional psychiatric tests and any potential for medication. They told me that my daughter had some sort of ocular disorder that was causing ADD-like symptoms which was why her grades were 'low'.

This is one of the finest private schools in the USA; one that specialises in diversity and presenting opportunities to those who aren't as fortunate as others; VERY well reputed. Yet the school shrink felt my kid needed to be medicated in order to learn better.

It just never occurred to him that the subjects were boring and that not all children learn with optimal results from a teacher standing in front of the class slamming the stick against the board.

When the admins realized I wasn't going to follow their wishes, I was quietly shunned. It was subtle, but my reception was icy and my daughter was treated a bit differently. When we had our school recommendation interview with the head of school, she made very, very unkind remarks about my daughter and recommended the very worst of the schools available. Her recommendations get kids INTO the schools she wants them to. Were we not leaving the country I'm certain our ability to get into our school choice would have been seriously compromised.

If every parent were confident and strong in the face of school and medical personnel, I'd have no problem with this mandatory screening stuff (well, less of a problem).

Some parents, especially if they've had a difficult time with their child, are very uncertain and easily persuaded by authority figures who might not have the child's best interest in mind.

I can imagine a situation in which a parent may have pretty poor skills, is maybe inconsistent or dealing with their own problems, and the child -- otherwise perfectly healthy -- might be acting out. School officials want the problem to go away quickly and easily, medical personnel want to push the drugs, the parent is confused, and the kid's problem WHICH MIGHT BE ENTIRELY ENVIRONMENTAL is treated by medicating the kid up to the eyeballs.

That scares me -- and if this mandatory screening thing happens, there's no form of oversight to make sure that scenario doesn't occur.

...that suggests screenings will be mandatory. To which passage are you referring?

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/reports/FinalReport/FullReport-05.htm

Growing evidence shows that school mental health programs improve educational outcomes by decreasing absences, decreasing discipline referrals, and improving test scores.114 The key to improving academic achievement is to identify mental health problems early and, when needed, provide appropriate services or links to services. The extent, severity, and far-reaching consequences make it imperative that our Nation adopt a comprehensive, systematic approach to improving the mental health status of children.

Clearly, school mental health programs must provide any screening or treatment services with full attention to the confidentiality and privacy of children and families. The Columbia University TeenScreen® program provides a model for early intervention. (See Figure 4.2.)

The Commission recommends that Federal, State, and local child-serving agencies fully recognize and address the mental health needs of youth in the education system. They can work collaboratively with families to develop, evaluate, and disseminate effective approaches for providing mental health services and supports to youth in schools along a critical continuum of care. This continuum includes education and training, prevention, early identification, early intervention, and treatment.


Figure 4.2. Model Program: Screening Program for Youth
Program
Columbia University TeenScreen® Program

Goal
To ensure that all youth are offered a mental health check-up before graduating from high school. TeenScreen® identifies and refers for treatment those who are at risk for suicide or suffer from an untreated mental illness.

Features
All youngsters in a school are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk. At no charge, the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program provides consultation, screening materials, software, training, and technical assistance to qualifying schools and communities. In return, TeenScreen® partners are expected to screen at least 200 youth per year and ensure that a licensed mental health professional is on-site to give immediate counseling and referral services for youth at greatest risk. The Columbia TeenScreen® Program is a not-for-profit organization funded solely by foundations. When the program identifies youth needing treatment, their care is paid for depending on the family's health coverage.

Outcomes
The computer-based questionnaire used by TeenScreen® is a valid and reliable screening instrument.151 The vast majority of youth identified through the program as having already made a suicide attempt, or at risk for depression or suicidal thinking, are not in treatment.152 A follow-up study found that screening in high school identified more than 60% of students who, four to six years later, continued to have long-term, recurrent problems with depression and suicidal attempts.153

Biggest challenge
To bridge the gap between schools and local providers of mental health services. Another challenge is to ensure, in times of fiscal austerity, that schools devote a health professional to screening and referral.

How other organizations can adopt
The Columbia University TeenScreen® Program is pilot-testing a shorter questionnaire, which will be less costly and time-consuming for the school to administer. It is also trying to adapt the program to primary care settings.

Website
www.teenscreen.org

Sites where implemented
69 sites (mostly middle schools and high schools) in 27 States

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001154 is designed to help all children, including those with serious emotional disturbances reach their optimal potential and achievement. To fulfill the promise of this Act, schools must work to remove the emotional, behavioral, and academic barriers that interfere with student success in school. Consequently, it is critical to strengthen mental health programs in schools. This effort may involve:

Working with parents, local providers, and local agencies to support screening, assessment, and early intervention;

Ensuring that mental health services are part of school health centers;

Ensuring that these services are Federally funded as health, mental health, and education programs;

Building on a recommendation from the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education155 to implement empirically supported prevention and early intervention approaches at the school district, local school, classroom, and individual student levels; and

Creating a State-level structure for school-based mental health services to provide consistent State-level leadership and collaboration between education, general health, and mental health systems.

Since the IDEA requires that a variety of professionals collaborate in the school and in the community, the Commission urges that coordinating services be regarded as a "related service" in the child's Individual Education Plan (IEP). In developing the IEP, there should be a stronger family focus and youth involvement and support. The training and research funds designated in this Act should be considered for use to train teachers, related services professionals, and parents to recognize signs of emotional and behavioral problems in children, make appropriate referrals for assessment and services and classroom accommodations, and implement and evaluate evidence-based school mental health interventions.

On a related topic, the Commission recognizes the particular challenges for youth in transition from adolescence to adulthood. IDEA has transition requirements beginning at age 14, but to date, these requirements have not resulted in acceptable post-school outcomes.

Studies show that approximately 42% of students with serious emotional disturbances graduate from high school as opposed to 57% of students with other disabilities.81 Schools and local mental health agencies could improve their collaboration and use of evidence-based practices to develop transition-to-work services so that children with serious emotional disorders can move successfully from school to employment or to post-secondary education.

Ok, maybe I wasn't entirely clear. What I'm really trying to get at is mandatory treatment, as is discussed in the OP's article. I'm on the fence when it comes to mandatory screenings, as I discuss in a bit more detail below.

Clearly, school mental health programs must provide any screening or treatment services with full attention to the confidentiality and privacy of children and families. The Columbia University TeenScreen® program provides a model for early intervention. (See Figure 4.2.)

This just says that any service provided must be confidential. Not sure it's necessarily relevant.


To ensure that all youth are offered a mental health check-up before graduating from high school. TeenScreen® identifies and refers for treatment those who are at risk for suicide or suffer from an untreated mental illness.


See, they're being ambiguous here, because they're using "offer" now when later on they use "require"

Ensuring that mental health services are part of school health centers;

Ensuring that these services are Federally funded as health, mental health, and education programs;

Are you suggesting that mental health services should not be offered to students?

Also, please note:

The vast majority of youth identified through the program as having already made a suicide attempt, or at risk for depression or suicidal thinking, are not in treatment.152 A follow-up study found that screening in high school identified more than 60% of students who, four to six years later, continued to have long-term, recurrent problems with depression and suicidal attempts.


I would like to make a few things clear: I don't support mandatory treatment of children with mental health issues to physicians over the will of their parents. I am on the fence about mandatory screenings. I certainly wouldn't want any mandatory screening program that didn't allow the parents to seek second opinions or different methods of treatment. I also don't support a parent's right to deny their children necessary medical care because of their belief that their child is perfectly fine (due to the huge stigma attached to mental illness.) That is, in my opinion, child abuse. I've seen it happen too many times.

I think the real issue here has nothing to do with providing mental health services - it has to do with HMOs and pharmaceutical companies. It is my opinion that the report we're discussing is well-intentioned, but doesn't necessarily provide the problem - which is mental health services that are focused on recovery and prevention instead of drug treatments.

Let's say my child is making comments and/or exhibiting behaviors which are consistant with a certain mental illness. (Perhaps schizophrenia) The teacher (with or without the school counselor) contacts me with his/her concerns about my child's health. From that point on, the school itself is out of the loop. I direct my child's healthcare, including mental healthcare.

Under this program -- which, BTW, has its own section under the NFI umbrella, New Freedom Commission on Mental Health -- it is not the school but the parent that is removed from the healthcare loop. Under the guidelines set forth by the NFCMH, the teacher would voice his/her concerns to a mental health professional on the school staff. That person would then screen and possibly initiate treatment based on the screening. The parent would not even need to be informed.

That is my objection to this program. Under the guise of keeping medical information "private," this program takes even parents out of the loop for overseeing the healthcare of their children. I should be the one to decide who and when screens my child and for what illnesses.

Some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle wanted to put in a clause that required parental permission for these proposed screenings, but that was knocked down. (Sorry I don't have a link -- I'm going from memory here. Other DUers might have better/newer info.)

If there's no way for parents to withhold permission, it becomes mandatory.

Now... there's no way to insist that parents *medicate* their children once they've been screened. However, I can see the potential for abuse here: "problem" kids refused services, perhaps, if parents refuse treatment? Etc.

Plus my main point: I think mass-screenings by not-so-disinterested parties has potential to exploit the fears and uncertainties of parents.

Heck, I'm smart and confident, but if someone told me that my energetic 7-year-old has a DISORDER and needed medication, I would be knocked for a loop, would be plunged into a cycle of guilt and worry that my withholding said drugs would not be the right thing.

I hate that crap. Kids shouldn't be treated like this in our school systems. Medicine isn't a form of punishment to make kids mind. My brother used to be on ritalin and my grandmother used to want to use it to punish him and to keep him quiet. The medicine is supposed to help with psychological problems. Not to keep kids quiet.

the Rorschach.

a family practice MD I work with is married to a pediatrician, so both are MD's. Their very normal 6 year old's teacher called them in for a conference (she did not know they were both doctors) and said the social worker "screened" the kid and he needs meds. He hit the roof, "WTF? We are both md's and don't we know our child and how is a social worker trained to make a medical diagnosis" and so on.
Parents have to be aware.

are defective drugs, most of them produce horrible side effects including psychosis and mental illness that they are supposed to be a treatment for.

These kids are being drugged and labeled for no valid reasons, kids have always mouthed off in school.

The war on drugs should begin here.