Mandatory
Mental Health Screening Threatens Privacy, Parental Rights
by Wendy McElroy, September 17, 2004, FoxNews.com
See
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,132397,00.html
for links and more information related to this story.
For more articles like this
visit
https://www.bridges4kids.org.
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.
back to the top ~
back to Breaking News
~ back to
What's New
|