Forced Drugging By Government

Eagle Forum ^ | March 27, 2002 | Phyllis Schlafly

[IRtorqued]

thanks for the heads up, it reminded me I need to write another letter to the school telling them my 10 year old daughter won't be getting the hep b shot they want her to have. they tried to give that one to my newest grandchild, it was funny watching the nurse fumble all over herself attempting to cite why new borns should get the shot.

[ChaseR]

interesting chit....thanks for the ping ratcat/bttt

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Well, you are absolutely right. The insurance companies and the government are doing everything they can to dictate how doctors and nurses treat patients. It is horrible to see how politicized medicine is becoming. Many are leaving their professions out of frustration.

Regardless, America has become a pill popping nation. No one wants to deal with their problems anymore, they just want to medicate their emotions and pretend everything is okay. The insurance companies love that because it's cheaper in the long run to pay for pills than therapy or inpatient treatment. And don't EVEN get me started on the way children are drugged. Many parents are so involved in their lives that they don't pay attention to their children, much less raise them themselves! These kids are brought up by strangers in group conditions(infants and toddlers in daycare-God help us!), taught no framework for self-discipline and living in the world, and get no quality time from their parents. They are starved for attention. We used to say that many children act out and misbehave because 'negative attention is better than no attention at all'. Now when they misbehave they are given a label and a prescription. So sad.

Personally, I'm not gone forever from this arena, just taking a little break and incubating ideas;) I will be going back for my Master's in counseling or some integrative/alternative health field. You're correct, I do have some ideas on how health care can change for the better, specifically psych. It's just a matter of getting the right people together and initiating change. I do think things are happening in this direction already.

Well, that's it for my rant tonight:)

--gsg

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

If and when that day comes, my newborn will not be getting the Hep B either. Baby immune systems are assaulted with far too many things now. He or she will get the minimum, tried and true, and then perhaps a few others, maybe. I'm sure I will get grief from the schools and government for this, especially because I'm a nurse.

[Fred Mertz]

Yates was on five different psychotrophic drugs when she murdered her children. She probably didn't know who she was or what she was doing.

I remember when her crime was breaking news and I thought no person could be that evil. Then I learned she was on medication, and that helped explain it.

[Lion's Cub]

Indexing

[SR71A]

It was bound to happen...a Government that assumes enough power to tell you what drugs you can't take will assume more power to tell what drugs you must take.

[KrisKrinkle]

...if they can (without drugs) sit in the chair, keep their mouth shut, and refrain from trying to kill anyone in the courtroom, then they can stand trial.

Actually, I don't have a lot of problem with that and I might have said something similar (I know, I asked the question back in Post 11, but I wanted to see what others might say.)

I do not see an objective need "...to drug Dr. Sell in order to try him..." as the articale says is the government's position. (Now there might be some sort of procedural need due to previous court decisons. If so, such a decison was probably made in the inerests of due process and fair trials and so forth, and those are legitimate objectives. But, they could be met by other means.)

If a trial is an examination of the issues between parties, the issues can still be examined regardless of the mental state of the defendant as long as someone can adequately (not perfectly) state the defendants side of the issue.