Entire US population to be screened for mental illness

[[Malks] Pixie]

[Warning : This is not what I would describe as a "balanced" article but it does cover an awful lot of the facts surrounding whats going on and many references. This is also quite a long read so those NZ gamers with an attention span of less than half an hour may like to pass...]

According to a recent article in the British Medical Journal, US president George Bush is to announce a major “mental health” initiative in this coming month of July. The proposal will extend screening and psychiatric medication to kids and grown-ups all over the US, following a pilot scheme of recommended medication practice developed in Texas and already exported to several other states.

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) will serve, according to the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, as a model for the upcoming initiative. The TMAP medication guidelines were established in 1995 as an “expert consensus” based on the opinions of prescribers, rather than an analysis of scientific studies. The pharmaceutical companies who funded the scheme include Janssen Pharmaceutica, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen-Ortho-McNeil, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott, Bristol Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst and Forrest Laboratories. The drugs recommended as “first line treatment”, many of them with potentially deadly side effects, are patented expensive drugs produced by the sponsors of the guidelines: Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroqual, Geodone, Depakote, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Wellbutron, Zyban, Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Buspar, Adderall and Prozac.

More than that. The pharmaceutical companies appointed the experts and wrote the survey questions which led to their products being endorsed. The resulting model is now to be extended to the country.

Full article
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...rug_regime.htm

Associated Blog of a friend (which drew it too my attention)
http://www.undulatingungulate.com/blog/

[Discuss!]

Pixie

[JERI]

Well I would screen the US population for mental illness as well if they elected Bush to a second term.

[caffiend]

I thought this was going to be some kind of joke. And I guess, in a way, it is - although the figurative instead of the literal kind.

When the time comes to retake the planet, who's with me?

[seanfish]

Original British Medical Journal (a little more reliable perhaps) here:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte.../328/7454/1458

The actual commission that came out with the report:

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.go...FullReport.htm

Originally Posted by executive summary

Quality screening and early intervention will occur in both readily accessible, low-stigma settings, such as primary health care facilities and schools, and in settings in which a high level of risk exists for mental health problems, such as criminal justice, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems. Both children and adults will be screened for mental illnesses during their routine physical exams.

...

(recommendation)5.1 Accelerate research to promote recovery and resilience, and ultimately to cure and prevent mental illnesses.

Interesting.

The system will be designed to look for mental health problems - the people working in it with the best intention in the world cannot help but overread "symptoms" to produce a tendency positive results imho, because instead of mental health diagnosis being provided by the few and the specialised (who are poor enough at it given the difficult nature of the field) it will be provided by the many. Thus a new massive underclass could be created.

I see "accelerate research" as the part where the drug companies get money thrown at them, also where mental health patients get to volunteer to be guinea pigs. Lots of guinea pigs = lots of potential harm through side effects. Whee!

[DrTiTus]

a 19-year-old woman was strangled, shot in the head and set on fire.


whoops I meant to post this in mydeathspace

[leadinjector]

seems to me everyone has a fucking disorder these days, i say dope the lot of them up and make them stand near a cliff. then videotape it for shits and giggles

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by George Orwell in 1947 - Partisan Review

The fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. . . . It would mean the division of the world among 2 or 3 vast superstates, unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by a complete severance from the outside world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilizations of this type might remain stable for 1000s of years.

[armourking]

So I'm assuming "dissent" is going to be a mental illness, followed by a long stay in a "re-education center".

[[Malks] Pixie]

It's this sort of thing which scares me...

A similar "patient recruitment" move for psychiatry is the re-definition of environmental illness - a debilitating condition with varying symptoms due to environmental causes such as chemical poisons and electromagnetic pollution - as a purely psychological phenomenon. "It's all in your head, stupid!" seems to be the rationale.

My mother spent 6 years seriously ill (at the time she weighed less than 35kg) with the doctors trying to tell her it was all in her head until she discovered it was linked to a garden chemical which she used (which they had said had nothing to do with it). Once they'd identified it they were able to treat her and she made a pretty full recovery in less than 6 months - but thats 5 years that she had to deal with doctors telling her it was all in her head.

In my job I spend a lot of time look at wether a substance is dangerous to us (humans) so am very aware that there are huges amounts of "enviromental" dangers in the substances we use day to day.

Shit like the quote above just scare the crap out of me (and make me feel very sorry for the American public).

Pixie

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by caffiend

complete severance from the outside world,

In the coup against Chavez in Venezuala the private TV stations disallowed footage of the opposition to the coup*. In the last US presidential elections protesters were held in 'free speech' areas which didn't get on air or were shown in a negative light. Basically, we're looking at actions (by private individuals and governments) to not only sever people from the outside world but also from their own country.

Psychiatric screening has been going on in the US since WWII - this seems to be a more invasive extension of that.

Originally Posted by armourking

So I'm assuming "dissent" is going to be a mental illness, followed by a long stay in a "re-education center".

More than likely.


*The Revolution Will Not Be Televised - About the Venezualen coup.

[Golden Teapot]

What's wrong this this? It's no different to measuring IQ and then streaming kids who are having trouble.

Lots of people have minor mental difficulties that really could do with treatment. There's currently a big social stimga associated with seeking help of this kind and this needs to be changed.

Of course, it could be something really sinister, but it isn't.

It's beyond obvious that people who make these drugs will be keen on the idea - it helps people that need it (discharging social responsibility) and makes money too (the whole point of having gambled with drug research in the first place). This is Capitalism at its best.

Maybe I'll read the article someday - the headline is enough for me right now.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

What's wrong this this? It's no different to measuring IQ and then streaming kids who are having trouble.

There's a huge difference.

• The kids having difficulty with their schoolwork aren't getting massive amounts of drugs pumped into their system which may or may not have been properly tested (Higher chance that they haven't been properly tested)
• The taxpayer isn't paying huge amounts of dollars to private coporations

Lots of people have minor mental difficulties that really could do with treatment. There's currently a big social stimga associated with seeking help of this kind and this needs to be changed.

I agree with this.

Of course, it could be something really sinister, but it isn't.

It's being drawn up by the people to financially benefit from it for the people who politically benefit from it ie, yes it is.

It's beyond obvious that people who make these drugs will be keen on the idea - it helps people that need it (discharging social responsibility) and makes money too (the whole point of having gambled with drug research in the first place). This is Capitalism at its best.

The average run of the mill corporate doesn't give two hoots about social responsibility. Some of the capitalists do but not enough to make a difference.

Watch The Corporation and even GT might change his tune.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

1. It's being drawn up by the people to financially benefit from it for the people who politically benefit from it ie, yes it is.
2. The average run of the mill corporate doesn't give two hoots about social responsibility.

For #1, so what? It's fair reward for their leg work. Self-interest is the best motivator. They get money / politcal power and the needy get treatment that they otherwise would never get.

For #2, I'm gusessing you simply define "social responsibility" in a way that no organisation can live up to. The good created by most organisations acts to profoundly better society - open your eyes!

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

For #1, so what? It's fair reward for their leg work. Self-interest is the best motivator. They get money / politcal power and the needy get treatment that they otherwise would never get.

But is it going to be treatment in their best interests or in the interests of the corporations and the politicians?

For #2, I'm gusessing you simply define "social responsibility" in a way that no organisation can live up to. The good created by most organisations acts to profoundly better society - open your eyes!

The definition of social responsibility I use any body can easily live up to - the corporations et al choose not to. My eyes are open and I can see just how much the corporations are holding us back for the benefit of the few.

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Lots of people have minor mental difficulties that really could do with treatment. There's currently a big social stimga associated with seeking help of this kind and this needs to be changed.

Which is all well and good, but in many cases simply prescribing drugs is a false cure, and can ultimately lead to even worse societal problems. As Pixie's blogger friend eloquently says:

Originally Posted by www.undulatingungulate.com

People’s struggles with their minds are usually (IMO) a function of imbalance in their lives. A disease model for mental illness is inappropriate in the absence of a physical pathology/cause. Drugs cannot “cure” because there is no disease to fight. A better solution is to make changes in lifestyle, to engage honestly with the self and find meaning, and move towards balance, rather than to drug the crap out of oneself so as to maintain an ongoing unbalanced state causing misery. This approach is mainly pushed by those who benefit financially.

Not to blanketly say drugs are bad, here. But they should be a last resort, not least because of their side-effects, but especially because of their actual effects. We don’t need disconnected zombies, we need actively engaged humans.

Several years ago I was given Fluoxetine to treat what was an all-consuming chronic anxiety leading to depression. I won't deny that it assisted me out of that malaise, but several relapses after coming off it meant that I began to believe the drug would always be my crutch, and I started to look at it as though it was insulin, or an asthma inhaler.

Now, 6 years later, I haven't had any medication for 4 years, and despite the world progressively becoming a more depressing place, I am more in control of my own mood and mental state than ever before.

The reason as far as I'm concerned is that I've done exactly those things described in the above quote: "changes in lifestyle, to engage honestly with the self and find meaning, and move towards balance". However, I'm sure to someone as emotionally crippled as yourself that sounds like ineffectual wank.

[DrTiTus]

yay caffiend

finally a mental who speaks the truth! :P


haha just playin, but you're absolutely right.

[seanfish]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

yay caffiend

finally a mental who speaks the truth! :P


haha just playin, but you're absolutely right.

oh fuck off.

=P

to explain; what works for caffiend is great, but in no way changes that there are people with genuine mental illnesses who can best be treated with drugs. Even adjusting my dosage (trying to wean myself off) creates huge difficulties for me, and I have learnt many ways to moderate my moods as an adjunct to chemical treatment. This is why I'm not on seriously heavy stuff like lithium combined with antipsychotics. You might call that using a crutch, but I don't see it that way.

Caffiend says himself that the fluoxetine helped him. Good on him for recognising that, and good on him for being able to get off it. It's just not logical however to universalise from his single experience and use it to justify a view of the world.

Oh yes. And I'm far from being a "disconnected zombie", thank you very much (refers to undulating ungulate quote).

[xin]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

In my job I spend a lot of time look at wether a substance is dangerous to us (humans) so am very aware that there are huges amounts of "enviromental" dangers in the substances we use day to day.

I swear to fuckin' god your job makes you do everything under the sun. But I could be imagining things.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by xin

I swear to fuckin' god your job makes you do everything under the sun. But I could be imagining things.

It's pretty wide ranging thats for sure - the core things I look at are hazardous substances and their impacts on people and the enviroment and what controls are placed on substances. I end up doing a lot of research and hunting round for information and have a pretty onto it group of scientists to direct me when I get lost. It's damn interesting (and I can't say that about most jobs I've worked) and I get quite into it - but thats mostly because I like finding stuff out and learning.

Pixie

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by caffiend

However, I'm sure to someone as emotionally crippled as yourself that sounds like ineffectual wank.

Not ineffectual, more like incomplete.

The World isn't becoming a more depressing place and I suppose it saddens me to suppose you think the reverse. May be you just need a different type of help?

Anyway, your experience isn't a proxy of what is best for every other living person.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

But is it going to be treatment in their best interests or in the interests of the corporations and the politicians?

Yes - it seems so.

My observation is that the World is a positive place and thus my premise set is geared to reflect that.

It's just so easy these days to find articles that support and encourage exclusively black-hat mentality.

[DrTiTus]

Originally Posted by seanfish

what works for caffiend is great, but in no way changes that there are people with genuine mental illnesses who can best be treated with drugs.

Thats cool, agreed.

But what these drug companies are doing is testing everybody, and then prescribing drugs to all those with some sort of mental illness.

I'm not sure what percentage of mentals are best suited to drugs, and how many just need a good hug, kick up the ass, or to lay off the /other/ drugs - but I imagine its not 100%, which is what I'm guessing those who are identified as "abnormal" will be treated with.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Yes - it seems so.

My observation is that the World is a positive place and thus my premise set is geared to reflect that.

So you agree that the actual laws will be made to benefit the rich and powerful and to basically screw over everybody else?



My observation is that the rich and powerful write the laws to protect themsleves. They manage to get away with it by outright lying. Recently this has become far more problematical as people have become more educated and have far better information available to them.

I believe the world is wonderful place as well and that the presently rich and powerful will eventually get their comeuppance.

[Trvln Nalzmn]

Treat the cause not the symptoms.

[Trvln Nalzmn]

BTW the rich a powerful apart from being more rich and more powerful are just as fucked in the head as the general joe blow.

[Draco T Bastard]

Yep - actually, wasn't there a study awhile back that suggested that most of the rich and powerful were psychopaths?


Ever notice how many exceptions to the rules there are?

[crocos]

I thought it was sociopaths, not psychopaths, but yes, I do vaguely recall said report.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

In my job I spend a lot of time look at wether a substance is dangerous to us (humans) so am very aware that there are huges amounts of "enviromental" dangers in the substances we use day to day.

when you come home from work, do you ever find yourself having to differentiate between a real health risk and just plain paranoia?

[Foggerty]

Originally Posted by seanfish

to explain; what works for caffiend is great, but in no way changes that there are people with genuine mental illnesses who can best be treated with drugs.

True, but they are in a minority - the most common mental illness? Situational Depression (which leads to a chemical imbalance, and yes drugs are a huge help in balancing that out, but not the eventual solution).

Keep focused on the idea that this is a bunch of people with a vested self interest in seeing as many people as possible labeled "needing drugs to operate in normal society." For these bastards psychological help is bad, because at its best it teaches people how to help themselves.

Yes there are people who have a chemical imbalance that they're born with, and drugs can help, but that's not what this is about.

[seanfish]

Originally Posted by Foggerty

True, but they are in a minority - the most common mental illness? Situational Depression (which leads to a chemical imbalance, and yes drugs are a huge help in balancing that out, but not the eventual solution).

Keep focused on the idea that this is a bunch of people with a vested self interest in seeing as many people as possible labeled "needing drugs to operate in normal society." For these bastards psychological help is bad, because at its best it teaches people how to help themselves.

Yes there are people who have a chemical imbalance that they're born with, and drugs can help, but that's not what this is about.

I agree entirely. Simply pointing out that it's not universal - that there are people who have genuine needs.

In fact this truth makes it worse - with the system clogged up with dealing with people who simply need to get along a little, people in genuine need are competing for an incredibly thin slice of resources.

And the spread of competent professionals in the currently proposed US model? The mind boggles. I know of teachers who prescribe autisim/adhd/you name it to hide their incompetence despite lack of qualification. Putting more power in these kinds of people's hands is a horrific recipe.

[seanfish]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Yep - actually, wasn't there a study awhile back that suggested that most of the rich and powerful were psychopaths?

Reference please if you're going to develop this kind of argument. There might have been, or it might have been the usual science reporting ie misreporting.

For a start, I'd like to know how any group of scientists got "the rich and powerful" to line up for a series of indepth clinical diagnostic interviews.

It's as easy to argue that the rich and powerful use some of the same behavioural strategies that psychopaths do to manipulate their environment, but for different ends and from different motivations.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by crocos

I thought it was sociopaths, not psychopaths, but yes, I do vaguely recall said report.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...3200647AAXyERX

A psychopath and a sociopath are the same thing; nowadays the more popular term appears to be sociopath. You might say a sociopath is a person with antisocial tendencies and a psychopathic personality

Originally Posted by seanfish

Reference please

This isn't the correct article but has some bearing
Another article with some info
Can't find the original article though.

Oh, and if the rich and powerful are using the "same behavioural strategies that psychopaths do" that would be a good indication that they are psychopaths.

[Trvln Nalzmn]

I was just going on the rich and powerful people I know, have meet and the biography's I've read.

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Not ineffectual, more like incomplete.

Fair call. It was just my experience; but I'm convinced it would apply to many. No I don't have any tangible evidence as to why.

The World isn't becoming a more depressing place and I suppose it saddens me to suppose you think the reverse. May be you just need a different type of help?

Yeah, well there we can just agree to disagree. My point was that the way things are (and are heading) there is more potential for people to become depressed. You can't deny that recent world events and the general prognosis for the world prevalent in the populist media (regardless of how accurate it is) make for pretty shitty reading/viewing/listening. Are you seriously saying the world is a happier place from 10 years ago? 5 years even? Maybe for you and your individual circumstances, but I'd wager not for the majority of people.

And I'm not sure where you're going with the 'maybe you need help' comment. Is that meant to get me riled? Are you being serious? Because I'm genuinely not sure what you're driving at. Please, elaborate.

Anyway, your experience isn't a proxy of what is best for every other living person.

Again fair point, but by the same logic neither is your opinion. In fact your opinion, devoid of personal experience, has even less merit.

[seanfish]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Another article with some info
Can't find the original article though.

Articles which I can't read without subscribing to "premium content", and also according to you do not demonstrate the original research you're referring to. Furthermore, the NZ Herald is not a specialist science journal by any stretch of the imagination. Again, please reference.

Oh, and if the rich and powerful are using the "same behavioural strategies that psychopaths do" that would be a good indication that they are psychopaths.

No. If they were only able to use those same strategies, they would be. Psychopaths are stuck in their condition. Manipulation is the main weapon in the psychopath's arsenal, yet in my role as a team leader I must often consider how best to motivate my staff, which is definitely a form of manipulation. I can tell you that a caring, sharing, open and honest approach does not work with every staff member. Does this make me a psychopath? Only if I cannot leave that role when I walk out the door. Only if I feel a need to manage every part of my staff's life. Is a businessman who hides the truth in negotiation a psychopath? No he's a good businessman using established means to gain competitive advantage, unless hiding the truth is the way he deals with everyone in his life.

I think you should be honest and admit to yourself your bias against business is driving you to call on half-remembered pop sci reports here. Or reference an actual, scientifically-based study.

[seanfish]

Originally Posted by caffiend

Again fair point, but by the same logic neither is your opinion. In fact your opinion, devoid of personal experience, has even less merit.

Very true.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by seanfish

Articles which I can't read without subscribing to "premium content", and also according to you do not demonstrate the original research you're referring to. Furthermore, the NZ Herald is not a specialist science journal by any stretch of the imagination. Again, please reference.

http://www.psychology.org.nz/industr...Psychopath.htm

No. If they were only able to use those same strategies, they would be. Psychopaths are stuck in their condition. Manipulation is the main weapon in the psychopath's arsenal, yet in my role as a team leader I must often consider how best to motivate my staff, which is definitely a form of manipulation. I can tell you that a caring, sharing, open and honest approach does not work with every staff member. Does this make me a psychopath? Only if I cannot leave that role when I walk out the door. Only if I feel a need to manage every part of my staff's life.

Pointing out 1 or 2 aspects isn't going to prove anything which is why I said it would be a good indication and not an outright diagnosis.

Is a businessman who hides the truth in negotiation a psychopath? No he's a good businessman using established means to gain competitive advantage, unless hiding the truth is the way he deals with everyone in his life.

I wouldn't call him a good businessman - a liar and a cheat maybe but definately not a good businessman.

Or reference an actual, scientifically-based study.

I did - I just didn't realise that you wouldn't be able to access them.

[seanfish]

Thank you for the article.

It does not indicate any psychological research was undertaken as to the prevalence of psychopathy in business. It indicates that some already convicted business criminals had psychopathic tendencies - thus it argued that a group of demonstrably "antisocial" people were antisocial. Quite circular in argument.

This is popular opinion masquerading as research. There is no actual clinical investigation being cited here - just a loose lining up of impressions of public people with the DSM-IV. The writer of the article, Alan Deutschman is a senior writer for http://www.fastcompany.com/ - which is a management e-magazine. He is a business journalist, not a psychological researcher.

Understand that I don't grudge you your opinion - you're free to hold it. I am however an information professional. When you claim your opinion is backed up by "research", I become concerned for the provenance of that research. There is no research here at all - so I am left to think you only have opinion, and are willing to bolster it from any source if you think it proves your point.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

So you agree that the actual laws will be made to benefit the rich and powerful and to basically screw over everybody else?

No. It will benefit the rich and powerful and those needing help too. The status-quo applies for everyone else.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by caffiend

You can't deny that recent world events and the general prognosis for the world prevalent in the populist media (regardless of how accurate it is) make for pretty shitty reading/viewing/listening.

Are you being serious?

So, I don't see much change between now and a few years ago. The World has changed for sure, and I guess I see the outlook as being just as positive now as I've ever known it.

The problem with the media is that it goes out of its way to find doom-and-gloom content since people loves this sort of stuff and thus will pay more to hear about it.

Was I serious about you needing help? Well I was asking a question. From the little I've observe you have a very different outlook on things to me. I'm happy and you're not quite so perhaps sums it up. May be you've got to 95% of where you're going to get to and need some form of help to get the last inch? I dunno, hence my question.