Thursday, May 10, 2007

One of the earliest articles I've seen beating up on TeenScreen - it's all yours - no link.






September 19, 2002




TeenScreen and like programs were started with the most honorable of intentions, to prevent teen suicide.

Unfortunately as with most good intentions, they were expanded for financial reasons to include some of the newly created diagnoses that our children are seemingly plagued with today, according to Paul R. McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins.

Many of these mental ailments have sprung up in the years from the time that concern for teen suicide was first taken seriously.


And if one starts to check with "the experts," we find that their camp is split between honesty and money over these diagnoses.


Example: A professor of neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts has examined a large number of diagnoses for children with many of the ailments, and found at least one error in over 75 percent of the case histories studied.


What is even scarier than the error rate is that frequently diagnoses are made within the school system itself by individuals who are neither M.D.s nor Ph.D.s. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong; only the parents and the children pay that price.


Meanwhile there are pharmaceutical companies making in excess of $100 million a year from the sale of products such as Ritalin, Prozac, Luvox for "attention deficit hyperactivity disorders."

To increase their sales even more, they not only advertise these drugs to doctors, and school officials, but to parents through home journal parenting type magazines and with television advertisements, charges columnist Thomas Sowell.


In 2000, almost 20 million prescriptions were written just for ADHD and administered mostly to boys. While we know that there are some children (mainly boys) who can become disruptive, with the correct professional diagnosis they can be helped using, under controlled conditions, one or another of the aforementioned drugs; a parent must realize that administering these drugs is not like dispensing aspirin or cold cure capsules, "Take one and call me in the morning if you don't feel any better."


If you were close with your child before using one of these drugs, you had better be prepared to become even more vigilant, otherwise symptoms could arise if you are not alert, which could lead to serious or even dangerous situations.


A more basic question is why the Tempe School District is pushing for TeenScreen or a like program? Could the health of our children become sacrificed for some teacher's or administrator's political agenda? It wouldn't be the first time that children have been used as guinea pigs for experiments.


If you question that statement, find out who is teaching your children about sex, homosexuality and then handing out condoms.


USA Today reported a couple of years back that some parents back East were coming under pressure from schools and courts to have their children drugged with Ritalin. Teachers apparently wanted passive classrooms. Parents who wanted to refuse were threatened with charges of child neglect or abuse, or the possibility of having their child taken away by the authorities.


The pivotal question is why should schools feel they have the right to take decisions out of the hands of parents when it comes to their children? Claims that "studies prove" the need for children to be forced into taking a psychotropic drug are far less impressive when you realize how many studies have reversed their findings over the last 50 years.


Today, there are in excess of 6 million children ages 5 to 19 using one or more of these drugs. Do you as a parent want your child added to that list if it's not absolutely necessary?

No comments: