Posted on 09/14/2004 9:27:02 AM PDT by jmc813
A presidential initiative called The “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” has issued a report recommending forced mental health screening for every child in America, including preschool children. The goal is to promote the patently false idea that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment.
One obvious beneficiary of the proposal is the pharmaceutical industry, which is eager to sell the psychotropic drugs that undoubtedly will be prescribed to millions of American schoolchildren under the new screening program. Of course a tiny minority of children suffer from legitimate mental illnesses, but the widespread use of Ritalin and other drugs on youngsters who simply exhibit typical rambunctious, fidgety, and impatient behavior is nothing short of criminal. It may be easier to teach and parent drugged kids, but convenience is no justification for endangering them. Children’s brains are still developing, and the truth is we have no idea what the long-term side effects of psychiatric drugs may be. Medical science has not even exhaustively identified every possible brain chemical, even as we alter those chemicals with drugs.
Dr. Karen Effrem, a physician who strongly opposes mandatory mental health screening, warns us that “America’s children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses.” She points out that psychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective, as authors of the diagnostic manuals admit. She also is concerned that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with the secular orthodoxy that dominates our schools.
The greater issue, however, is not whether youth mental health screening is appropriate. The real issue is whether the state owns your kids. When the government orders “universal” mental health screening in schools, it really means “mandatory.” Parents, children, and their private doctors should decide whether a child has mental health problems, not government bureaucrats. That this even needs to be stated is a sign of just how obedient our society has become toward government. What kind of free people would turn their children’s most intimate health matters over to government strangers? How in the world have we allowed government to become so powerful and arrogant that it assumes it can force children to accept psychiatric treatment whether parents object or not?
Parents must do everything possible to retain responsibility and control over their children’s well-being. There is no end to the bureaucratic appetite to rule every aspect of our lives, including how we raise our children. Forced mental health screening is just the latest of many state usurpations of parental authority: compulsory education laws, politically-correct school curricula, mandatory vaccines, and interference with discipline through phony “social services” agencies all represent assaults on families. The political right has now joined the political left in seeking the de facto nationalization of children, and only informed resistance by parents can stop it. The federal government is slowly but surely destroying real families, but it is hardly a benevolent surrogate parent.
If that is the case, plague on both their houses. However, the implication of this thread is W is to blame again. The right cause may be being used for politics. I have a kid, it's serious, I want to find out. But I want a serious discussion, not political propaganda.
It's Bush's program.
http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=19137
And what is the program about? To what extent is it enforceable? Can you advise any sources of information? And why the Democrats are so keen to enact Bush's initiatives? Thanks.
I first read about it on the educationnews.org website and couldn't believe it. I thought it was a joke. In fact, on their message board I said that maybe Bush should be screened first and then I dismissed it as nonsense.
Then I read in the Illinois Leader where the Illinois legislature passed it. I don't know what they're thinking about either. I don't know how they think they can force pregnant mothers to be screened, or how they can force school kids to be screened against the wishes of their parents.
Does Illinois have a large pharmaceutical industry that would benefit by this legislation? Does Bush's family have an interest in pharmaceuticals? Has the Illinois legislature gone further with this than what Bush proposes? All I know is what I read on the educationnews.org site a couple of months ago and the Illinois Leader.
We live in interesting times.
Ummmmm, reading 101. Might want to peruse it once more and see that I said you opinion was just that,,,,AN OPINION. Not repression.
I won't bother to wait for a retraction of your childish rant. Most people would be embarrassed, I'm guessing you will work your little tail off to justify your screed. Human nature I guess.
>>And what does Dem-slimed legislation have to do with W?<<
Well, apparently Bush is having the issue studied. And I do agree with Ron Paul that that is a very bad sign.
Here is the article from educationnews.org, and guess what? Sen Ted Kennedy and Rep Pat Kennedy had this incorporated into NCLB and then Bush signed the law. I read where he really doesn't know what's in NCLB because he didn't read it. He just wanted an education law to sign.
NCLB is a large bill. It probably has lots of controversial things in it. I also read somewhere that it has a mandatory community service component. Heck, we'll probably have the draft implemented after the elections.
http://www.educationnews.org/proposed-universal-mental-health.htm
Nice what our leaders have planned for us peasants.
Thanks for the sources. I will visit the site you recommended. However, if anyone could post or give a link to the full text of the program, it would be nice, cause, again, we are getting all agitated just reading a newspaper article "about", not the source document. Newspapers will have us believe anything.
No, I plainly did not interpret your statement in the manner you intended. Given your informal writing style, you'd be hard pressed to assert that you were unambiguous.
I will concede that "repressive" is a subjectively defined adjective. But as with all subjectively defined words, one is obliged to assume a "normal" reading of the word, given the absence of any further context. And it is both laughable and dangerous to compare the United States, which is still one of the most free societies in history, to those states which are commonly termed "repressive."
Ted Kennedy is not my leader. Nor any other democratic politician. The draft was proposed by two democrats, one of them is Sen. Rangel. Bush is totally against draft. Draft-based army is a dead-end. Maybe, emotions aside, we will see a little clearer who wants to do what?
I meant to address this to you, and then proceeded to address it to myself:
Here is the article from educationnews.org, and guess what? Sen Ted Kennedy and Rep Pat Kennedy had this incorporated into NCLB and then Bush signed the law. I read where he really doesn't know what's in NCLB because he didn't read it. He just wanted an education law to sign.
NCLB is a large bill. It probably has lots of controversial things in it. I also read somewhere that it has a mandatory community service component. Heck, we'll probably have the draft implemented after the elections.
http://www.educationnews.org/proposed-universal-mental-health.htm
Nice what our leaders have planned for us peasants.
Ted Kennedy is not my leader. Nor any other democratic politician. The draft was proposed by two democrats, one of them is Sen. Rangel. Bush is totally against draft. Draft-based army is a dead-end. Maybe, emotions aside, we will see a little clearer who wants to do what?
Err, how does he know the idea is "patently false," without doing some screening? He's assuming facts not in evidence.
>>>Big Government RINO's HATE him probably worse than Clinton.<<<
Ain't it the truth!
Are you saying we need to screen kids for mental illness to see if we need to screen kids for mental illness?
I have a novel idea: If someone goes nuts, they (or their parents) seek help.
This 'pre-emptive screening' is disturbing.
True enough.
I will concede that "repressive" is a subjectively defined adjective.
It's not an apology, but as close as I could have expected.
And it is both laughable and dangerous to compare the United States, which is still one of the most free societies in history, to those states which are commonly termed "repressive."
I don't find it amusing much less laughable. And it's more dangerous to live in denial than to look at things as they are.
I don't grade on the curve. And if you want to do a comparative analysis, you might compare where we are now to where we used to be. Or even better, where we should be.
This 'pre-emptive screening' is disturbing.
When I was in elementary school, one day every year they lined us up in the gym, and made us bend over and touch our toes while the school nurse looked for scoliosis. Should I have been offended?
>>I don't grade on the curve. And if you want to do a comparative analysis, you might compare where we are now to where we used to be. Or even better, where we should be.<<
Fine, I encourage you to point out those areas in which we have lost liberty, or to compare us to where we could be. But that is to ignore the context that "repressive" was used in, which was an attempt to define the United States as being a police state. The use of the term "police state" is still outrageous.
Whoops, forgot to address this part, sorry. I tend to agree with you that it is the ultimate responsibility of the child's family. However, mental illness by its very definition is a reality distortion - they're not going to think they need help! Especially so in pediatric mental illness where the kids have grown up thinking that their thought patterns were normal and the parents are used to it; they've never known any different.
I understand the tender area this encroaches on - the Soviet Union used to define opposition to the government as mental illness, and there's that whole mess with medicating children for behaving like children - but early treatment is the best chance these patients have for normality.
If someone goes nuts, it's normally too late. Some form of early diagnosis may save lives. Total screening sounds scary, some sort of evaluation is not so bad like with any condition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.