Controversial Bill to Stop Mandatory Mental Health Screening Fails In Congress

Controversial Bill to Stop Mandatory Mental Health Screening Fails In Congress

Attempt to stop mental health screening funding fizzles

By Rhonda Robinson, Illinois Leader correspondent September 15, 2004

Texas Congressman Ron Paul's attempt to squelch federal funding for mental health screening of school children failed last week in Congress with a vote of 95 for and 315 against.

Four of the 95 amendment supporters were Illinois Republican House members Judy Biggert, Phil Crane, Don Manzullo and Tim Johnson.

Paul's amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill (HR5006) was an attempt to impede implementation of President Bush's New Freedom Commission recommendations, a program that authorizes and funds state programs for mental health screening of school children.

In a "Dear Colleague" letter Republican Congressman Paul sought support to stop the funding by warning Congress that federally funded universal mental health screening in public schools would lead to more children being labeled and forced into taking psychotropic drugs. He warned that the federal program allowed drugs to be prescribed even when parents withheld permission.

Paul wrote in the letter, "As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who have shown nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior."

Children have been harmed by psychotropic drug side effects and parents who refuse them have been charged with child abuse, Paul said in the letter. He urged his fellow House members support in order to ensure that more children would not "spend their wonder years on state-approved psychotropic drugs."

Dr. Karen Effrem, pediatrician from Minnesota, said she had only three days to speak to the federal lawmakers about the pending vote. Effrem told IllinoisLeader.com that she was pleased with 95 supporting the amendment, but did not believe the Senate would consider the legislation.

Groups such as Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, Gun Owners of America, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology registered their opposition to a program requiring the universal screening of children's mental health.

Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-MA), an opponent to the amendment sent also sent a "Dear Colleague" letter urging Congress to "Choose Science Not Stigma."

Kennedy's letter asserted that supporters of the amendment did not want screening for mental illnesses "because then we would not have to treat them."

The letter quoted the Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health that encourages drug therapy for behavior disorders, saying "A range of efficacious psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments exists for many mental disorders in children, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, and the disruptive disorders."

Dr. Effrem, who has been a vocal opponent to widespread use of psychotropic drugs for children, argues Kennedy's point by quoting an earlier Surgeon General Report which cautioned in 1999, "[P]sychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement."

Paul's amendment would have thwarted the development of Illinois' Children's Mental Health Partnership's Preliminary Plan, which has just come to Illinois parents' attention during a recent week of public hearings.

Illinois is the first state prepared to fully implement the federal recommendations, and the mental health partnership's final draft proposal to overhaul the state's mental health system is due on Governor Blagojevich's desk at the end of September.

---------------------------------

Federal amendment would cut funding for mental health screening initiatives

By Rhonda Robinson, Leader correspondent September 08, 2004

In an attempt to pull the power plug on the states' ability to implement President Bush's New Freedom Commission recommendations, Republican Congressman Ron Paul [Texas] is expected to offer an amendment that will prohibit funding for the creation or implementation of any new universal mental health screening programs to the Labor/Health and Human Services/Education appropriations bill, scheduled to be debated on the house floor today and Thursday.

Conservatives and medical professionals have been alarmed at the unprecedented governmental intrusion of the NFC on mental health and what is perceived as pharmaceutical mining of America's school children.

Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, the Alliance for Human Research Protection, the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are all lining up to support an amendment that will pull funding for mental health screening and preserve parental rights.

According to Vera Hassner Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, "There are no reliable, scientifically valid diagnostic tools for uncovering hidden mental illness, nor any effective preventive interventions. This will only produce false positives."

Sharav extended an additional warning to Illinois women, where plans are to mandatorily screen all pregnant mothers. "How much more intrusive can the government get than to reach into a mother's womb?" asked Sharav.

Sharav also warned that screening will increase the number of persons "diagnosed" with a mental illness, thereby increasing the "already skyrocketing use of psychotropic drugs."

The aforementioned groups are encouraging their members to contact their congressmen to vote for Paul's amendment. Texans for Safe Education and Ablechild have also joined efforts and launched a petition drive [http://www.ablechild.org/declaration%20of%20refusal.aspx] in response to the NFC screening recommendations, with a goal to send thousands of signatures to Washington.

The declaration states in part: "We, the undersigned, solemnly declare that we will not allow our children to be the subjects of any form of implementation of New Freedom Commission recommendations to screen our children for signs of "mental illness". Appropriate services in today's psychiatric world means psychotropic drugs, and there are already an estimated nine million school-age children on psychiatric drugs. We consider this to represent a tragic situation and a clear and present danger to our children."

Meanwhile here in Illinois, legislators are shaking their heads over the potential ramifications of Illinois' recently passed Children's Mental Health Act of 2003, which would implement the NFC recommendations.

State Senator Chris Lauzen [R-Aurora] said, "If there has been an error, I want to be a part of repairing that error. I'd be happy to cosponsor legislation substantially modifying or even repealing the Act after people who are a lot more expert than I am help us sort through this."

----------------------

Mandatory Mental Health Screening Threatens Privacy, Parental Rights

by Wendy McElroy MensNews Daily September 16, 2004

On Sept. 9, the 'Ron Paul Amendment' was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 95-315.

The Amendment would have prevented the funds sought by an appropriations bill (HR 5006) from being used for the mandatory mental-health screening of Americans, including public schoolchildren.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a practicing physician for more than 30 years, campaigned against the new program on the grounds that it negates parental rights and would encourage the over-medication of children.

Prior to the House vote, Paul had vehemently denounced mandatory mental-health screening in a letter to fellow congressmen.

Paul wrote, "[P]sychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin."

The idea of nationally screening school children for mental health stems from the establishment of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in 2002. Its mission is to "promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance."

The commission conducted a "comprehensive study of the&health service delivery system," which found mental health problems to be under-diagnosed.

A 2004 progress report outlines the government's plan to assist those with disabilities, including mental health problems. The government intends to use government agencies and services, such as transportation, housing, and education "to tear down the remaining barriers to full integration [of the disabled] into American life."

Thus, as WorldNetDaily reports, the commission's panel "recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children & 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 public schools would address "the mental health needs of youth in the education system" through "prevention, early identification, early intervention, and treatment." How early?

Many practical objections have been offered to the mental screening of the 52 million students and the 6 million adults at schools.

_ Mental health diagnoses are subjective and, to be of value, must be formed by trained professionals who test and observe subjects over time. The expense and magnitude of screening 58 million people means diagnoses are likely to be made quickly and by poorly trained people.

_ The criteria for diagnosing mental disabilities such as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) are vague and a matter of heated debate within the medical community itself.

_ Political pressure can make schools prone to over-apply social programs, especially when they are connected to the continuation of funding.

_ Medicating children for behavioral problems could easily become a form of social control. That is, school authorities could use medication to prevent behavior of which they simply disapproved, such as rebelliousness.

_ The screenings may be used to force parents to put their children on psychiatric medication. Some parents who have refused to do so under current policies have been threatened or charged with "child abuse" for no other reason than their refusal.

_ Many of the psychiatric medications administered to children have been only approved for and tested on adults. The long-term effect on developing children has yet to be determined.

_The known side effects can be severe. Indeed, at least two deaths have been attributed to prescribing Ritalin to children.

Critics also raise matters of principle. First and foremost is the question of parental rights. It is not clear what rights _ if any _ parents preserve over the medical treatment of their children. Will they be threatened with the removal of their child if they refuse to place a son or daughter on Ritalin?

Will children who resist medication be expelled from a school that is supported by their parents' taxes? If so, the government seems to be telling parents that education is a privilege for which parents must not only pay but for which they must also surrender medical control over their children.

And what of medical privacy rights? It defies credibility that psychiatric records on tens of millions of school children would be covered by anything resembling patient-doctor confidentiality. Public school records that include intimate details of medical history may well follow children into adulthood.

Accusations have also been voiced: specifically, that the program is driven by political-pharmaceutical alliances that benefits drug companies.

Critics point to the fact that the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) has been used as a model program.

But, according to whistleblower Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, TMAP promotes "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."

The bill has moved onto the Senate, where it will be heard before the end of the year.

Even for those who advocate the medication of problem children, this measure contains too many uncertainties and possibilities of abuse.

Hopefully, the Senate will find a champion to call out for an amendment similar to that proposed by Rep. Ron Paul.

Source: Illinois Leader

Source: MensNewsDaily

This 'Mental Health E-News' posting is a service of the New York Ass'n of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, a statewide coalition of people who use and/or provide community mental health services dedicated to improving services and social conditions for people with psychiatric disabilities by promoting their recovery, rehabilitation and rights. To join our list, please click on the E-News Subscription button.

Last Updated on 09/16/04 webmaster@namiscc.org

Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations. We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.