Massachusetts' Mandatory Mental Screening - Boston Globe out to Lunch

[Guest guest]

Hopefully your State will not be next. To make sure it is not - jump

on board folks - Communicate!

For starters, you can comment here:

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2008/01/massachusetts_mandatory_m

ental_health_screening.html

Furious Seasons

January 02, 2008

By Philip Dawdy

Massachusetts' Mandatory Mental Health Screening

The State of Massachusetts is embarking on what strikes me as an

excessive social experiment. As of Jan. 1 annual checkups for about

500,000 kids and teens on the state's Medicaid program will have to

include a mental health screening, regardless of whether there's a

reason to suspect mental health issues in the patient or not, reports

the Boston Globe. Doctors are required to do this with each patient,

although parents and children are not legally required to comply. But

then most people are utterly in thrall to doctors and I doubt many would

tell their doctor to back off.

The paper also has an enthusiastic editorial supporting the program.

That's kind of bizarre since the paper has been one of the best at

reporting on just how screwed up mental health care for kids is and how

dangerous some of the treatments are. Perhaps the paper's editorialists

should re-read the paper's series on the Riley case and the

bipolar child paradigm.

One of the symptom checklists on the paper's website contains a stunning

array of non-symptom symptoms: teases others, refuses to share, is

fidgety, acts younger than others, daydreams too much, is afraid of new

situations. And so on. Many of these symptoms are hardly indicative of

abnormal behavior or psychology

Could someone please let me know what is the objective standard for

daydreaming?

I object to this mandatory screening for a number of reasons:

1. It represents the kind of governmental intrusion into peoples'

personal lives that Americans should be against.

2. The criteria for diagnosis is not objective. Asking a kid if they are

having less fun is not likely to elicit a reliable response and is

hardly a predictor of mental illness.

3. Pharmaceutical treatments for these conditions are not

well-researched in children and their long-term effects are generally

bad. With anti-depressants in particular there are significant risks of

medication-induced suicidality and extreme agitation.

4. There is not good evidence that pharmaceutical treatments work well

in treating these conditions--the usual 30 percent success rate hardly

inspires confidence--and there is virtually no evidence that these

medications prevent future episodes of a disorder. This is true in

adults, teens and kids.

5. The whole screening paradigm is the brain child of the public health

crowd and pharmaceutical companies, neither of whom are to be trusted.

6. Given that this is limited to Medicaid participants, it unfairly

targets low-income families and ethnic minorities.

I hope parents in Massachusetts are smart enough to refuse to cooperate

with doctors when they start breaking out these screening tests unless

the parent wants their kid screened.

It will be interesting to see where this program goes as the year goes

on and if any resistance breaks out.

As for the Globe, I think the paper's editorial board is out to lunch on

this one. What do readers think?

+++

About Philip Dawdy / Furious Seasons - excerpted from

http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html

For the last several years, I have been reporting extensively on mental

health issues, locally and nationally, primarily at Seattle Weekly,

where I was a staff writer until November 2006. In that time, I have

interviewed patients living on the streets, in homeless shelters and in

state mental hospitals, as well as patients leading more ordinary lives.

I have interviewed researchers and doctors great and small.

As far as fancy stuff like journalism awards go, I won awards from the

National Mental Health Association for my newspaper reporting in 2005

and 2006, and have won a half-dozen local and regional awards from the

Society of Professional Journalists for my reporting on mental illness.

In addition, I have won a national award for food writing, and 14 other

SPJ awards for government reporting, investigative reporting, science

reporting, feature writing and religion reporting.

24,159 signatures against TeenScreen

http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video:

[Guest guest]

Hopefully your State will not be next. To make sure it is not - jump

on board folks - Communicate!

For starters, you can comment here:

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2008/01/massachusetts_mandatory_m

ental_health_screening.html

Furious Seasons

January 02, 2008

By Philip Dawdy

Massachusetts' Mandatory Mental Health Screening

The State of Massachusetts is embarking on what strikes me as an

excessive social experiment. As of Jan. 1 annual checkups for about

500,000 kids and teens on the state's Medicaid program will have to

include a mental health screening, regardless of whether there's a

reason to suspect mental health issues in the patient or not, reports

the Boston Globe. Doctors are required to do this with each patient,

although parents and children are not legally required to comply. But

then most people are utterly in thrall to doctors and I doubt many would

tell their doctor to back off.

The paper also has an enthusiastic editorial supporting the program.

That's kind of bizarre since the paper has been one of the best at

reporting on just how screwed up mental health care for kids is and how

dangerous some of the treatments are. Perhaps the paper's editorialists

should re-read the paper's series on the Riley case and the

bipolar child paradigm.

One of the symptom checklists on the paper's website contains a stunning

array of non-symptom symptoms: teases others, refuses to share, is

fidgety, acts younger than others, daydreams too much, is afraid of new

situations. And so on. Many of these symptoms are hardly indicative of

abnormal behavior or psychology

Could someone please let me know what is the objective standard for

daydreaming?

I object to this mandatory screening for a number of reasons:

1. It represents the kind of governmental intrusion into peoples'

personal lives that Americans should be against.

2. The criteria for diagnosis is not objective. Asking a kid if they are

having less fun is not likely to elicit a reliable response and is

hardly a predictor of mental illness.

3. Pharmaceutical treatments for these conditions are not

well-researched in children and their long-term effects are generally

bad. With anti-depressants in particular there are significant risks of

medication-induced suicidality and extreme agitation.

4. There is not good evidence that pharmaceutical treatments work well

in treating these conditions--the usual 30 percent success rate hardly

inspires confidence--and there is virtually no evidence that these

medications prevent future episodes of a disorder. This is true in

adults, teens and kids.

5. The whole screening paradigm is the brain child of the public health

crowd and pharmaceutical companies, neither of whom are to be trusted.

6. Given that this is limited to Medicaid participants, it unfairly

targets low-income families and ethnic minorities.

I hope parents in Massachusetts are smart enough to refuse to cooperate

with doctors when they start breaking out these screening tests unless

the parent wants their kid screened.

It will be interesting to see where this program goes as the year goes

on and if any resistance breaks out.

As for the Globe, I think the paper's editorial board is out to lunch on

this one. What do readers think?

+++

About Philip Dawdy / Furious Seasons - excerpted from

http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html

For the last several years, I have been reporting extensively on mental

health issues, locally and nationally, primarily at Seattle Weekly,

where I was a staff writer until November 2006. In that time, I have

interviewed patients living on the streets, in homeless shelters and in

state mental hospitals, as well as patients leading more ordinary lives.

I have interviewed researchers and doctors great and small.

As far as fancy stuff like journalism awards go, I won awards from the

National Mental Health Association for my newspaper reporting in 2005

and 2006, and have won a half-dozen local and regional awards from the

Society of Professional Journalists for my reporting on mental illness.

In addition, I have won a national award for food writing, and 14 other

SPJ awards for government reporting, investigative reporting, science

reporting, feature writing and religion reporting.

24,159 signatures against TeenScreen

http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video:

[Guest guest]

Hopefully your State will not be next. To make sure it is not - jump

on board folks - Communicate!

For starters, you can comment here:

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2008/01/massachusetts_mandatory_m

ental_health_screening.html

Furious Seasons

January 02, 2008

By Philip Dawdy

Massachusetts' Mandatory Mental Health Screening

The State of Massachusetts is embarking on what strikes me as an

excessive social experiment. As of Jan. 1 annual checkups for about

500,000 kids and teens on the state's Medicaid program will have to

include a mental health screening, regardless of whether there's a

reason to suspect mental health issues in the patient or not, reports

the Boston Globe. Doctors are required to do this with each patient,

although parents and children are not legally required to comply. But

then most people are utterly in thrall to doctors and I doubt many would

tell their doctor to back off.

The paper also has an enthusiastic editorial supporting the program.

That's kind of bizarre since the paper has been one of the best at

reporting on just how screwed up mental health care for kids is and how

dangerous some of the treatments are. Perhaps the paper's editorialists

should re-read the paper's series on the Riley case and the

bipolar child paradigm.

One of the symptom checklists on the paper's website contains a stunning

array of non-symptom symptoms: teases others, refuses to share, is

fidgety, acts younger than others, daydreams too much, is afraid of new

situations. And so on. Many of these symptoms are hardly indicative of

abnormal behavior or psychology

Could someone please let me know what is the objective standard for

daydreaming?

I object to this mandatory screening for a number of reasons:

1. It represents the kind of governmental intrusion into peoples'

personal lives that Americans should be against.

2. The criteria for diagnosis is not objective. Asking a kid if they are

having less fun is not likely to elicit a reliable response and is

hardly a predictor of mental illness.

3. Pharmaceutical treatments for these conditions are not

well-researched in children and their long-term effects are generally

bad. With anti-depressants in particular there are significant risks of

medication-induced suicidality and extreme agitation.

4. There is not good evidence that pharmaceutical treatments work well

in treating these conditions--the usual 30 percent success rate hardly

inspires confidence--and there is virtually no evidence that these

medications prevent future episodes of a disorder. This is true in

adults, teens and kids.

5. The whole screening paradigm is the brain child of the public health

crowd and pharmaceutical companies, neither of whom are to be trusted.

6. Given that this is limited to Medicaid participants, it unfairly

targets low-income families and ethnic minorities.

I hope parents in Massachusetts are smart enough to refuse to cooperate

with doctors when they start breaking out these screening tests unless

the parent wants their kid screened.

It will be interesting to see where this program goes as the year goes

on and if any resistance breaks out.

As for the Globe, I think the paper's editorial board is out to lunch on

this one. What do readers think?

+++

About Philip Dawdy / Furious Seasons - excerpted from

http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html

For the last several years, I have been reporting extensively on mental

health issues, locally and nationally, primarily at Seattle Weekly,

where I was a staff writer until November 2006. In that time, I have

interviewed patients living on the streets, in homeless shelters and in

state mental hospitals, as well as patients leading more ordinary lives.

I have interviewed researchers and doctors great and small.

As far as fancy stuff like journalism awards go, I won awards from the

National Mental Health Association for my newspaper reporting in 2005

and 2006, and have won a half-dozen local and regional awards from the

Society of Professional Journalists for my reporting on mental illness.

In addition, I have won a national award for food writing, and 14 other

SPJ awards for government reporting, investigative reporting, science

reporting, feature writing and religion reporting.

24,159 signatures against TeenScreen

http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video:

[Guest guest]

Hopefully your State will not be next. To make sure it is not - jump

on board folks - Communicate!

For starters, you can comment here:

http://www.furiousseasons.com/archives/2008/01/massachusetts_mandatory_m

ental_health_screening.html

Furious Seasons

January 02, 2008

By Philip Dawdy

Massachusetts' Mandatory Mental Health Screening

The State of Massachusetts is embarking on what strikes me as an

excessive social experiment. As of Jan. 1 annual checkups for about

500,000 kids and teens on the state's Medicaid program will have to

include a mental health screening, regardless of whether there's a

reason to suspect mental health issues in the patient or not, reports

the Boston Globe. Doctors are required to do this with each patient,

although parents and children are not legally required to comply. But

then most people are utterly in thrall to doctors and I doubt many would

tell their doctor to back off.

The paper also has an enthusiastic editorial supporting the program.

That's kind of bizarre since the paper has been one of the best at

reporting on just how screwed up mental health care for kids is and how

dangerous some of the treatments are. Perhaps the paper's editorialists

should re-read the paper's series on the Riley case and the

bipolar child paradigm.

One of the symptom checklists on the paper's website contains a stunning

array of non-symptom symptoms: teases others, refuses to share, is

fidgety, acts younger than others, daydreams too much, is afraid of new

situations. And so on. Many of these symptoms are hardly indicative of

abnormal behavior or psychology

Could someone please let me know what is the objective standard for

daydreaming?

I object to this mandatory screening for a number of reasons:

1. It represents the kind of governmental intrusion into peoples'

personal lives that Americans should be against.

2. The criteria for diagnosis is not objective. Asking a kid if they are

having less fun is not likely to elicit a reliable response and is

hardly a predictor of mental illness.

3. Pharmaceutical treatments for these conditions are not

well-researched in children and their long-term effects are generally

bad. With anti-depressants in particular there are significant risks of

medication-induced suicidality and extreme agitation.

4. There is not good evidence that pharmaceutical treatments work well

in treating these conditions--the usual 30 percent success rate hardly

inspires confidence--and there is virtually no evidence that these

medications prevent future episodes of a disorder. This is true in

adults, teens and kids.

5. The whole screening paradigm is the brain child of the public health

crowd and pharmaceutical companies, neither of whom are to be trusted.

6. Given that this is limited to Medicaid participants, it unfairly

targets low-income families and ethnic minorities.

I hope parents in Massachusetts are smart enough to refuse to cooperate

with doctors when they start breaking out these screening tests unless

the parent wants their kid screened.

It will be interesting to see where this program goes as the year goes

on and if any resistance breaks out.

As for the Globe, I think the paper's editorial board is out to lunch on

this one. What do readers think?

+++

About Philip Dawdy / Furious Seasons - excerpted from

http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html

For the last several years, I have been reporting extensively on mental

health issues, locally and nationally, primarily at Seattle Weekly,

where I was a staff writer until November 2006. In that time, I have

interviewed patients living on the streets, in homeless shelters and in

state mental hospitals, as well as patients leading more ordinary lives.

I have interviewed researchers and doctors great and small.

As far as fancy stuff like journalism awards go, I won awards from the

National Mental Health Association for my newspaper reporting in 2005

and 2006, and have won a half-dozen local and regional awards from the

Society of Professional Journalists for my reporting on mental illness.

In addition, I have won a national award for food writing, and 14 other

SPJ awards for government reporting, investigative reporting, science

reporting, feature writing and religion reporting.

24,159 signatures against TeenScreen

http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html Video: