+- Aspies For Freedom (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+--- Forum: Treatment in society (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests (/showthread.php?tid=471)
US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - attention-tunnel - 11-28-2004 11:04 PM
Under new law being considered, the federal government would require that every child in America undergo psychological screening and receive recommended treatment, including drug therapies.
Next week the Senate re-convenes to consider an omnibus appropriations bill that includes funding for grants to implement mandatory universal mental health screening for almost 60 million children, pregnant women, and adults through schools and pre-schools. "
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/11/140125.shtml
- Amy - 11-28-2004 11:09 PM
would the mental health tests be forced on people?
- attention-tunnel - 11-28-2004 11:21 PM
I don't know any details, but the idea is, that
1) Bush - pharmaceutical coalition likes to sell drugs
2) scientificly correct screenings become standard procedure at palces like prescholes, elementry schools, and where else I don't know
3) I think screening is good. I think having scienetific studies is good. I think common 'treatments' and diagnosis criteria are very bad and discriminating.
- monk - 11-29-2004 01:06 AM
"scientifically correct" screens to be standard procedure? Excuse for for a few moments while I laugh myself to the point of retching. Or the reverse.
Leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether anything in the field of psychology is valid science....
The Christians conservative movement in the US, which is responsible for a great deal of politics over here, has no interest in scientific correctness. Various such groups around the country have repeatedly attempted to have the Darwinian idea of evolution striken from school texts purely on the grounds that the idea conflicts with the religious dogma of creation. (imo, it doesn't, but that's still another matter).
The theory of evolution has more solid and respectable science behind it than anything to do with psychology, yet the "moral majority" are in favor of suppressing that science knowledge; I have no doubt that any such testing platform created for the use of the US will have the appearance of "good science", but it will not.
What it *will* be is another mechanism for the powers to be to label children. Children get mistreated enough as it is by their own peers when they give each other negative labels; it'll be even worse if those negative labels are government sanctioned.
I was one of the millions of children put on ritalin so many years ago when it was the new fashion in child management. I've read the current information in the PDR about ritalin as treatment - that book indicates that there is a long list of other things that should be tried before a child is put on that stuff.
I'm very against mandatory drugging of children, of people, into some government definition of normality.
Some movies to see: THX-1138 (as much as I dislike George Lucas, this is an excellent movie on the topic), and the much more recent Equilibrium.
Thinking about this concept is starting to piss me off to the extent that I can't think logically about it anymore. How's Oz for this sort of thing? I've been seriously thinking over emigration, although I'm a few years away from being able to do so.
- attention-tunnel - 11-29-2004 01:33 AM
monk Wrote:
"scientifically correct" screens to be standard procedure? Excuse for for a few moments while I laugh myself to the point of retching. Or the reverse.
Sorry for my naive optimism.. Maybe the only hope left is that so many people will be labeled 'sick' - including members of religous preassure groups - that they will put away with strange definitions of what constitutes mental health.
Quote:
I'm very against mandatory drugging of children, of people, into some government definition of normality.
I am very much against any sort of discrimination and involuntary treatment in any way. However, I could also imagine that support of different lerning styles become standard procedures at public schools. If millions of kids are (sadly) labeled to have a learning disorder, the government must accomodate those. If it becomes common practice - like waering glasses for being shortsighted - I won't be such a big deal any more. It would become socially more accepted the more people carry a diagnosis like that.
Actually, if these assesments include sublinical levels of 'mental disoerders', eventually a millions of people will be declared 'sick', and psychology might go into a legitimate- problem. Maybe there is a chance that the system beats itself? And who else could do it?
- monk - 11-29-2004 03:12 AM
Sorry man, I have absolutely no faith in the US. Am I being pessimistic? Possible. But pessimists are never surprised.
That one hope you spoke that people considered "desirable" will also be tagged as mentally ill is about all there is to hold on to. I'm strongly reminded of a series of articles about intelligence that I read that I probably found by way of this site recently regarding the US experimental program regarding intelligence that was carried out over most of the first half of the 20th century.
Respectable scientists spent a lot of time an effort designing intelligence tests to identify "superior" people from "undesirables". That entire system was given an air of scientific legitimacy and was used as a method of legal discrimination, despite the numerous flaws that we know of in retrospect. The most striking result of that article was the bit about how the scientists had administered their tests to hobos and the hobos as a group scored better than the average population.
I do not believe the US or any other country or population is capable of designing and administering a test that cannot and will not be used to discriminate against a class of people. The very nature of a test is to divide people into achievement groups, and it's human nature to look down on / discriminate against people who score lower on whatever the test is than your own group.
On the subject of different learning styles in public schools: I'm still not sold on the idea of public education, at least the way it is implemented in the US. It's very institutional, and loaded to the rafters with propaganda. Texas just finished selected its latest revisions of textbooks, and it came down to the most politically (and also religiously) acceptable books, instead of the ones that were the most correct. Hence, propaganda. The entire bunk about the pledge of allegiance also irks me: it's basically having children take a vow of allegiance to the country when they don't understand the meaning behind doing so, and generally have no choice in the matter. It's a classic example of brainwashing: children grow up believing in that and are incapable of discussing the idea logically later in life. I've already concluded that this country is not deserving of my allegiance, and so I'll never speak those words. Propaganda.
And on to the third comment: modern psychology already considers millions of people to be sick in one way or another. If the profession is allowed to have its way, *everyone* will have some form of disorder. The goal of psychology is to produce the mental equivalent of the physical world's Barbie: dangerously unrealistic expectations. There can be no diversity in psychology: you either fit their definition of normal or you have a disorder you need to take drugs for. I've read here and there that the vast majority of americans take some sort of psychoactive drug, be that xanax or prozac or whatever today's hot new drug is. I find it very strange that the definition of normal is so narrow that the average person doesn't fit into it.
If 50% of people spend 12 hours a week socializing, then that is "normal", and the 25% of people who spend less time a week doing that have some form of social anxiety disorder, and the remaining 25% that "oversocialize" I sure there is a disorder name for them as well as a drug to cure them of it. How is it that half the population is abnormal? (Yes, I do happen to be pulling these numbers out of my ***, but it's the way the whole system seems to be to me).
- Wolfy - 11-29-2004 08:03 AM
Greetings,
Yet another great financially motivated idea :evil:
The worst thing about this is that it reinforces the idea that professionals have that its all just a scam to sell pills and that affects their willingness to diagnose people.
Hod did Taxes do? - attention-tunnel - 11-29-2004 11:41 AM
Quote:
I do not believe the US or any other country or population is capable of designing and administering a test that cannot and will not be used to discriminate against a class of people. The very nature of a test is to divide people into achievement groups, and it's human nature to look down on / discriminate against people who score lower on whatever the test is than your own group.
I join in with you criticism, except for this paragraph. I think it is not about seperating people, its about leveling people - making them equal. I think it could be an attempt to help people as well, and the problem is not neccessarily the government giving people the money to access health programms but that health programms are flawed in fundamental ways.
I have heared that the program was tried out by Bush in Texas before. Does anyone know what happened there? Any experiences?
About the other issues: I think the problem is the parmaceutical companies. Not society, but they have a very valid reason why they want 'sick' people - because they make profit out of them. Only when health industry will work in an economic frame where they make profit from 'healthy' people, thnigs might get better.
- monk - 11-29-2004 06:57 PM
The program that Bush pulled in Texas is called No Child Left Behind, it's more related to education than to mental health. It's also a complete failure and loaded with corruption and abuse.
The basic gist is that schools are penalized for poor academic performance. This has led to schools falsifying documentation about their performance: kids who drop out of high school are recorded as transfers to other schools instead of dropping out so that the school doesn't incur penalties for "leaving the child behind".
I'm not sure how linked the failure of NCLB is to this, but Texas is also about to have a major crisis in school funding. The state has been tightening education funding, that combined with the elevated requirements of NCLB has forced almost every school district in the state to max out their property tax income, and they still don't have enough money. The additional BS is that TX approved a state lotto many years ago with the intent that proceeds from the lotto would go into education funding. Very little of the lotto income has gone there, the majority of that money has gone elsewhere.
I am a native Texan.
- gwynfryn - 11-29-2004 06:58 PM
I expect the end result will be people being devided into the exploiters and the exploited, as happens anyway in most companies, especially here I Europe. The whole way hierarchies are divided into management and "others", has no clear rational as far as functional efficiency is concerned, but it does neatly divide personality types. Anyone who's spent much time in industry knows that being promoted to management has sod all to do with ability or potential, but is all about whether you'll play their games their way, and generally help them loot the coffers to their own advantage; once identified as "management" material, no amount of demonstrated incompetence will change that.
The disturbing thing about this latest trend is how soon it's applied, because the undesirables in this case are not the inept or stupid, it's rather anyone who's intelligent and capable, but not inclined to play the exploitation game. Which categories of people fit into this definition? Well us, for one! It's no accident Aspies struggle to get a job, and it's nothing to do with "communication" skills; the plain truth is, establishment types detest anybody outside their sphere who is resistant to their control, so we are public enemy n° one on this account! We are not interested in status, and will not kiss butt, and so, resist domination. We are not particularly greedy, and would be inclined to pay fair wages accross the board. We have no interest in status symbols, and so cannot be convinced that six figure salaries are "necessary".
If this law comes to pass, the most likely outcome will be a society divided early into cattle, bosses, and people like us doped into uselesness, or terminated before term.
A rational mental health plan would seek to eliminate the greed merchants/war mongers, but I can't see that happening somehow...
- attention-tunnel - 11-29-2004 07:31 PM
'No child left behind' is a different project. Some newspaper reported earlier that this kind of Bush-pharmaceutical alliance proposed for mandatory mental health tests is in plae in Texas already. So I wonder about the experiences trey have made there..
- monk - 11-29-2004 11:45 PM
Can you provide a link? I haven't heard of any mental health testing that was specific to Texas, only the recent bill that applies to the entire US. Google news also didn't turn up anything of use.
- attention-tunnel - 11-30-2004 12:02 AM
Sorry, no. I have reas about it in connection of news coverage of the bill in question, but do not remember the website. You may find it if you do some google news reading..
RE: - tenaciouscj - 10-23-2007 12:06 PM
attention-tunnel Wrote:
monk Wrote:
"scientifically correct" screens to be standard procedure? Excuse for for a few moments while I laugh myself to the point of retching. Or the reverse.
Sorry for my naive optimism.. Maybe the only hope left is that so many people will be labeled 'sick' - including members of religous preassure groups - that they will put away with strange definitions of what constitutes mental health.
Quote:
I'm very against mandatory drugging of children, of people, into some government definition of normality.
I am very much against any sort of discrimination and involuntary treatment in any way. However, I could also imagine that support of different lerning styles become standard procedures at public schools. If millions of kids are (sadly) labeled to have a learning disorder, the government must accomodate those. If it becomes common practice - like waering glasses for being shortsighted - I won't be such a big deal any more. It would become socially more accepted the more people carry a diagnosis like that.
Actually, if these assesments include sublinical levels of 'mental disoerders', eventually a millions of people will be declared 'sick', and psychology might go into a legitimate- problem. Maybe there is a chance that the system beats itself? And who else could do it?
Does anybody know if this legislation was passed. However well-intentioned it could have been, I think any kind of mandatory testing is very dangerous. There is too much scope for abuse and discrimination.
RE: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - aliengirl - 10-23-2007 12:53 PM
And what do they hope to achieve? I don't mean to sound paranoid, but this could lead to eugenics...
RE: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - tenaciouscj - 10-23-2007 02:28 PM
Indeed, and the cost of implementing such a programme would be massive. The money could be better spent providing respite care and vocational education and more teacher aides for schools with aspie students.
RE: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - earthmonkey - 10-28-2007 05:23 AM
I believe this has to do with TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) and TeenScreen (the group trying to administer these tests to every teenager ,usually between age 11-18, in America). I read up on this a couple of years ago. One of the tactics used where they are currently giving out screenings is to mail a letter home about the screening test that's going to be given out, and if the parents don't send a reply to the school expressing opposition, then this is considered to be consent. Other tactics include giving out pizza coupons and such to those who return permission slips, so that more kids remember to show them to their parents (resulting in more kids being tested).
One major flaw is that it is tremendously inaccurate. While in theory it would be good to have a large number of false positives, so that fewer people needing help fly under the radar, since "treatment" often emphasizes consulting with a psychiatrist and seeing about medication, it also adds to the number of people going on medication when perhaps their problems are minor, temporary, or otherwise not needing medication.
It also, I fear, would contribute to the growing sense that to have a time of depression is considered just as much in need of medication as someone who is so depressed that they cannot function, that those who fall outside of the norm are defective and in desperate need of curing, that those who do not fit in the narrow yet arbitrary guidelines as to what a mentally healthy (and thus automatically placed in a class considered superior to its alternative) person is.
TeenScreen has huge financial ties to the pharmaceutical industries. They are trying to fill their pockets even more, and this culture of perfection will only feed that greed, and vice versa. After all: Supply and Demand make the goods go round. I have read of this girl who in Texas, after the screening recommending further evaluation, she was diagnosed with (I think OCD or depression), put on medications, to which she had reactions negatively, which was diagnosed as a mental illness rather than how she reacted to the meds, and she ended up in an institution, where they forcibly injected her with the likes of Haldol in forced confinement.
No person, let alone a child or adolescent, should be subjected to this. I have read many people who experienced this and then, after being screened and "treated", described how they were categorized as mentally ill for things such as slight shyness, experiencing stage fright, being sad, and a number of other things that are minor enough that they should never be given meds to a child for. I wonder how many undiagnosed Aspies, whose social difficulties may be misconstrued as social anxiety, would be given a list of false diagnoses and poorly chosen treatments and wreck them, mentally and/or physically. It happens all too often WITHOUT widespread or forced screening. Nobody, AS or NT, should be put under such a system.
RE: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - garmonbozia - 10-28-2007 06:16 AM
Considering that in the US, textbooks might be chosen not for accuracy but to avoid pissing off the local pastor, might it also be the case that the real motivation for all this is to catch anyone who might "think outside the box". That means less likely to think inside whatever box the powers that be want them to. So, catch them while they're young and vulnerable. The treatments and drugs will either bring them into compliance or $#%& their minds up so bad that they are no threat.
This is personal to me. Back in the third grade (early 1980's), some lady at my school (apparently with too much time on her hands) noticed me not socializing or whatever (drawing in my free time instead of yapping), and made it her business to send her "concerns" to my parents. That set off a chain of events that I'm sure many of you are familiar with, including an IQ test in which I scored too high for their convenience.
And to think that kind of crap might be guaranteed for everyone.
RE: US: Doctors Group Opposes Mandatory Mental Health Tests - ED2003 - 10-28-2007 08:05 PM
There is already a system where suspecting teachers can send a suspect kid to a visiting child psychologist.. I've been through that many times. But the "child psychologists" as I know from someone training to be one, have goals higher than their qualifications. In other words, they will see the symptoms, but can they pin the AS tail on the Autistic Spectrum Donkey? Flip a coin..
I know that if I did not act my way out of their offices as a kid, when AS awareness was much worse, I'd be another one of those multi-diagnosis travesty stories.