Congress Funds Mandatory Psychological Tests for K

[Pure]

Credit for this goes to

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.p...364/an/0/page/0

 

 

 

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/22/215244.shtml

 

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.

 

Last September, AAPS lifetime member Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., R-Texas, tried to stop the plan in its tracks by offering an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005. The amendment received 95 “yes” votes, but it failed to pass.

 

According to Serkes, Paul is now mulling offering stand-alone legislation in the next session to once again try and get a provision for parental consent.

 

The federal bill on its face does not require mandatory mental health testing to be imposed upon states or local schools, explained Serkes.

 

However, the HHS appropriations bill contains block grant money that will likely be used – as is often the case with block funding – by the various states to implement mandatory psychological testing programs for all students in the school system.

 

The spending bill has its roots in the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, created by President Bush in 2002 to propose ways of eliminating waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the mental health care delivery system.

 

Although the report does not specifically recommend screening all students, it does suggest that “schools are in a key position to identify the mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services.”

 

The bottom line, explained Serkes, is that a state receiving money under this appropriation will likely make its mental testing of kids mandatory – and not be out of synch with the federal enactment.

 

The other telling point, said Serkes, is that although the relatively minimal funding at this point is certainly not enough to fund mandatory mental testing for kids countrywide, it's an ominous start:

 

“Once it's established and has funding, a program exhibits the nettlesome property of being self-sustaining – it gets a life of its own. More funding follows.”

 

Officials of the AAPS decry in the measure what they see as “a dangerous scheme that will heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects.”

 

One of the most “dangerous side effects” from antidepressants commonly prescribed to children is suicide, regarding which AAPS added, “Further, even the government's own task force has concluded that mental health screening does little to prevent suicide.”

 

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul says the mental testing scheme is a looming feature of "Big Brother" that if unchecked will push parental rights out of the picture:

 

“At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.

 

“Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory.

 

“Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It's not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.

 

“American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children's well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children's minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.”

 

 

 

Background:

Bush to screen population for mental illness

Sweeping initiative links diagnoses to treatment with specific drugs

 

WorldNetDaily.com | June 21, 2004

 

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.

 

The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report , seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.

 

Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.

 

The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."

 

The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.

 

The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."

 

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 commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."

 

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."

 

The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.

 

But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.

 

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into 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."

 

Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.

 

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.

 

Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.

 

Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."

 

Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.

 

However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.

 

"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."

[Pickle]

I'm scared, realy scared.

 

If big brother keeps this up we won't have rights. Like a salesman getting a foot in the door this is how they take away our rights:

 

“Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory.

 

Has anyone noticed how once police got permission to use pepper spray for certain circumstances and before you could blink they had permision to use it as an "extra tool to subdue suspects" now they are getting tasers for aircraft security and it wont be long before every person questioned by police with be either arrested for resisting arrest or distubing the peace or profanity because they have a face full of pepper spray or burning puncture wounds and muscle spasms from tasers, not to mention jocks full of shit because their bodily functions went spac from a fear response and muscle spasms and secondary wounds from the police who beat the shit out of the guy coughing and choking, blinded, stunned, screaming in agony, who couldn't get up off the ground let alone put up a fight (not that he wanted to fight in the first place before the cruel cunts who we call police decided to put this guy in a world of hurt because they can get away with it). And they do get away with it, when was the last time you saw police brutality? Now let me ask you: When was the last time you reported it? I can't blame you, i know, open your mouth and you will pay, there's always something a cop can charge you with if they don't like you.

 

People are being spoon fed, trouble is it's chocolate flavour, everyone likes the taste. It seems people in power have finally found a way to keep the masses quiet... Give them what they want.

 

We read about this kind of thing in sci fi novels and we just sit back and watch it happen because life seems ok and they realy couldn't do that anyway, could they?

 

We don't even own our own DNA for fucks sake!

 

But of course there is another way to keep people quiet, after having said this i am quite obviously paranoid... or am i? I've heard it said, "It's only paranoia if they are not out to get you".

 

I'm scared, realy scared.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Pickle