Teen Screen on Steroids: Typical or Troubled?™

TYPICAL OR TROUBLED?™ SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION PROGRAM appears to be Teen Screen on steroids...The website for the American Psychiatric Foundation (APF) cites no collaborators on it's website, it simply states, "The American Psychiatric Foundation, recognizing the important role adults can have in a teen's life, has begun an initiative to encourage and equip adults (such as parents and teachers) who closely interact with teens to notice the warning signs of mental health problems and refer teens to help in addressing these issues." here 

New York public television station WLIW, which broadcasts "Healthy Minds" states on it's webpage for "Teens: Typical or Troubled? Part One – What You Need to Know (#115)" that Colleen Reilly is the founder of Typical or Troubled?™  here

I find it more than a little strange that the APF basically pretends that this program was developed by psychiatrists in response to school violence as a public service, when it is plainly a marketing strategy developed by a marketing and public relations company in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry--so the APF not citing any collaborators  is not honest, or ethical; but it is sadly, typical for the American Psychiatric Association to be less than forthright...    

Typical or Troubled?™ is supported by Janssen and McNeil Pediatrics, divisions of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. here

via CNS News.com:

Is That Kid Normal? Teachers Trained to Notice When Students May Not Be; Training Sponsored by Drug Companies

January 29, 2013 by Susan Jones

a few excerpts:

"APF says its "Typical or Troubled" program is sponsored by drug-makers Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, and Shire, and it teaches that effective treatments for mental problems include therapy and medication or a combination of both." 

Colleen Reilly, director of "Typical or Troubled?“ told The Miami Herald that after what happened in Newtown, "This needs to be a national curriculum and a part of every school.”

The newspaper quoted Reilly as saying the goal of the program is not to have teachers diagnosing students: "We're asking them to learn about and notice the warning signs, and if they see a problem to refer them to someone who has a better grasp.”

And what about normal children who are flagged as "troubled?" Judge Leifman told The Miami Herald, "The worst that would happen is they’ll get evaluated.” read here

The Judge is apparently ignorant about the potential consequences for a kid being flagged as "troubled;"  being sent for an evaluation is not the worst thing that could happen.  The kid being told he/she has a brain disease, disorder, or defect when they are evaluated and being given a psychiatric diagnosis along with the standard prescription of one or more psychotropic drugs to treat the "disease" is much worse, and much more probable than, "they’ll get evaluated...” Colleen Reilly I will assume stands to earn some money since she is the "founder." Small wonder she believes this program, "needs to be a national curriculum and a part of every school.” 

via The Reilly Group: 

Products and Programs

The American Psychiatric Foundation

"We've been working with the Foundation for over a decade helping to create and build programs and products to educate Americans about mental health disorders and encourage help seeking behavior. One program, the Typical or Troubled?™ school mental health education program, is a nationally recognized, program that is helping parents and school communities learn about teen mental health and connect students to help." 

Colleen Reilly

President, The Reilly Group, Inc.

Colleen Reilly has more than twenty five years experience in communications, public affairs and health.  Having worked in senior positions in the government, non-profit organizations, media and the private sector, she uses this multi-dimensional experience to conceive and implement communications strategies to achieve clients’ goals.  She is a recognized communications and branding expert on women’s health, mental health and integrative medicine.  She brings creativity and innovation to her work in public education and advocacy campaigns, alliance building, public and private sector partnerships, global philanthropy, conferences and forums

She works directly with Executives from a diverse group of national and multinational public and private organizations to take ideas from creative inception to effective detailed execution.

Colleen is a notable expert in new media and health 2.0 tools, and advises clients on leveraging digital technologies to advance global health issues, patient education and advocacy.

Prior to starting The Reilly Group, Inc, Colleen  served as senior communications advisor to the US Public Health Service Office on Women’s Health in Washington, DC, where she was responsible for designing and implementing national partnership and public education campaigns on a range of women’s health issues with other government agencies, non-profit groups and corporations.  She also served as the Senior Vice President for Communications and Marketing for the National Mental Health Association where she oversaw national media, public education and advocacy campaigns on mental health issues for over 300 affiliated chapters.  Before founding The Reilly Group, she worked as a newspaper journalist and political consultant in Colorado and California.

Colleen received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado and a Master of Public Policy from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California.

Public Education Health Campaigns

National Public Education Campaign on Clinical Depression

We're known for helping direct, produce and manage the first ever mental health public education campaign in our nation’s history - The National Public Education Campaign on Depression, sponsored by the National Mental Health Association that forever changed the way Americans viewed this public health issue.

Results:

• Engaged the White House Office of the Vice President in launching the campaign and other media and other public education activities
• Built a coalition of over 20 national organizations
• Managed over 40 state campaign coalitions conducting educational and media events and training campaign leaders
• Helped launch National Depression Screening Day
• Launched the groundbreaking report Economic Burden of Clinical Depression
• Changed the way the public viewed depression and led to millions of people seeking help and treatment

The campaign’s success was replicated in the UK and Australia.

photo credit: msn

Friday Funny: Model Behavior

Picture Credit: sodahead.com

In My Mother's House

In My Mother's House

In my Mother's house

I will remember:

Love today for tomorrow

Never comes.

Laugh, because here

Right now, is the present

A gift.  Freely given.

To one whose heart

Flows with memories:

Attend the moment.

Tides of time ebb,

Then wash over me.

As waters from baptism

Sanctify, imparting Grace.

Remind me to Love

Today.  

Tomorrow

Becomes a present.

Wrapped in dreams

Fading memories heal,

Renewing my soul.

I will laugh with joy.

In my Mother's house.

photo credit: HD Wallpaper

it's kind of like taking a little trip: subscribe to save a kitten!

Things That Will Blow Your Mind

4 Lies You tell yourself

Destiny vs Free Will

DeanLeysen on youtube

All Trials Registered All Results Reported

via AllTrials.net:
All Trials Registered | All Results Reported

It’s time all clinical trial results are reported. Patients, researchers, doctors and regulators everywhere in the world will benefit from publication of clinical trial results. Please sign the petition: Click the red +AllTrials folder above on the right to the All Trials site.

Thousands of clinical trials have not reported their results; some have not even been registered.

Information on what was done and what was found in these trials could be lost forever to doctors and researchers, leading to bad treatment decisions, missed opportunities for good medicine, and trials being repeated unnecessarily on people and animals.

All trials past and present should be registered, and the full methods and the results reported.

We call on governments, regulators and research bodies to implement measures to achieve this.

Tenney on GROUND ZERO RADIO

Friday Funny: Gun Control, what a couple girls do for Jesus, a workout NSFW

via: OGFurious:

via Videosift:

Garfunkel and Oates

The Experts: The American Psychiatric Association Department of Government Relations, Assessing the Risk for Violence and Access to Firearms

No one should be surprised that the "experts," in the American Psychiatric Association do not have any plan, "Policy" or "Position Statement" on how the APA will act to mitigate the risk for violence caused by the adverse effects of the psychotropic drugs they use off label without any valid indication the drug will treat the symptom it is being prescribed to treat...In fact, there is no mention that the drugs they use are a factor in many school shootings. Obviously, the APA does not use all of the relevant information available when offering "expert opinions" on Public Policy. It is unprofessional and unethical for a psychiatrist, let alone a group of them, to use incomplete and biased information when offering a professional opinion. Psychiatrists offer professional opinions to people seeking treatment, to educate child-serving professionals, and the general public; and psychiatrists provide "expert" opinions on Public Policy.

The risks inherent in each of the contexts psychiatrists offer a "professional opinion" are serious; and potentially fatal. Apparently, the APA is not capable, or is simply unwilling to be honest. If it were honest, the APA would not pretend there is no elephant in the room, e.g. the adverse effects of psychotropic drugs. The adverse effects of the drugs must be considered in every honest discussion about the treatment of psychiatric diagnoses, and people who have a psychiatric diagnosis who have violent and aggressive behaviors. It's not possible to offer an "expert opinion" or make a treatment recommendation without dicussing the known risks of following a treatment recommendation. It is unethical to provide misleading and inaccurate information about drug risks.

via forums.officer.com

                 

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Statement of Paul S. Appelbaum, MD
Representing the American Psychiatric Association
January 9, 2013
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments to the Gun Violence Task Force. I am Paul Appelbaum, a former president of the APA and the Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law at Columbia University. I have spent several decades studying violence and mental illness, and thinking about systemic issues in the delivery of mental health care.

It is important, by way of preface, to note some of the key realities related to violence and mental illness. Most violence in this country—96% by the best available estimate—is not committed by people with mental illness, and most people with mental illness are not violent. Indeed, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of violence; for example, women with mental illness have five times greater risk than other women of being the victims of domestic abuse.

Thus, America’s problem with violence is not mostly a mental illness problem. Whatever is done to reduce violence among the mentally ill will have only a small impact on the overall rate of violence, including firearm violence. That is not an argument for inaction, but it does suggest that focusing on people with mental illness alone is not likely to be a successful strategy for gun violence reduction.

However, the Newtown tragedy—coming so soon after the mass shootings in Tucson and Aurora—has opened a discussion about how we might improve the treatment of mental illness. Given the great needs for improved delivery of care for mental illnesses, this is too important an opportunity to allow it to pass. We may currently have an opportunity to begin rebuilding a system of care that has been decimated over the last several decades by the progressive withdrawal of resources in both the private and public sectors. As the task force heard, public sector appropriations alone have dropped by $4 billion dollars over the last 4 years.

In response, I would like to suggest 4 approaches to this issue that I think are worth of attention.

1) Appointment of a Presidential Commission to Develop a Vision for a System of Mental Health Care – It is a truism in discussions about mental health in America that no real system of care exists. Evaluation and treatment are difficult to access, often unaffordable, and fragmented across a variety of providers and payers. Families of children with mental illness in particular can recount horror stories of their efforts to find someone to treat their loved ones. Transitions from inpatient to outpatient treatment often result in patients falling through the cracks, and mental health and general medical treatment are rarely coordinated. Substance abuse treatment frequently takes place in an entirely different system, again with little coordination with mental health care. Auxiliary interventions of the sort essential to many people with serious mental illnesses—supported housing, employment training, social skills training—to the extent that they are available, may be offered through other agencies altogether. Our mental health system is a non-system.

The last major reconceptualization of how to deliver mental health care in this country began in 1955 with an act of Congress that resulted in the appointment of the Joint Commission on Mental Health. The Commission’s report, Action for Mental Health, provided a vision of a community-based mental health treatment system that included preventive and supportive services, along with community outreach and education. This vision helped to motivate the downsizing of large state hospitals and in 1963 culminated in the passage of the Community Mental Health Services Act. The Act envisioned the creation of a network of mental health centers spanning the country, so that every citizen would have a single point of access to the care they required.

Unfortunately, fewer than half of the centers envisioned were ever built, and adequate support for their operation was never provided. The promise of an effective community-based system of care was unfulfilled. But the Act represents the last thoroughgoing effort to conceptualize what a system of mental health care for all Americans should look like. We are now 50 years later, in a different world, for which a different vision may be required. However, the essential notion of having an integrated system of care is too important to relinquish. President Obama has the opportunity to initiate a process that would think creatively about the how a genuine system of mental health care could be created today. Establishment of a Presidential Commission to propose a vision for the mental health system and suggest realistic steps to implement that vision could be a landmark contribution. It would shape the next half-century of mental health and constitute a positive legacy from the tragic events that led to the creation of this task force.

2) Creating a Mechanism for Facilitating Response to Key Mental Health Issues – In addition to the long-term issues regarding mental health care that a Commission could address, there are a large number of more immediate concerns. These range from ensuring that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act operationalizes the promise of parity for mental health treatment to reintegrating returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with their high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. Response to these issues by the Administration would be facilitated by the designation of a member of the White House staff as the point person (perhaps a “mental health coordinator’”) for mental health issues as they affect domestic policy. Such an appointment would also be seen as a strong statement about the importance that the Administration places on mental health issues.

3) Improving Early Identification of Young People with Mental Health Problems – Many of the organizations represented at this meeting emphasized the importance of early identification and treatment of children and adolescents with mental health problems. The need for such mechanisms has been underscored by the murders in Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown, among similar tragic events, which frequently have been carried out by troubled adolescents and young adults who have not received necessary mental health care.

Fortunately, the American Psychiatric Foundation, an arm of the APA, developed in the wake of the Columbine shootings a highly effective program for outreach to schools called Typical or Troubled?® School Mental Health Education Program that trains teachers to distinguish between students who are “just being adolescents” and those manifesting early signs of mental disorders. Typical or Troubled?® has trained staff in 500 schools across 38 states, and recently developed a culturally competent Spanish version of the program. It could serve as a model for early identification programs of the sort that should be available in every school. I left information about Typical or Troubled?®with Ms. Feldman of the Vice President’s staff, but we would be delighted to provide further information about the program if that would be helpful.

4) Sensible, Non-Discriminatory Approaches to Keeping Firearms Out of the Hands of Dangerous People – While we attend to meeting unmet mental health treatment needs, consideration also needs to be given to concrete approaches to restricting firearms access for persons who are likely to use those guns to harm themselves or others. Nearly 20,000 gun suicides occur in the U.S. each year, and guns are used in over two-thirds of all murders. Much of the public’s attention has been focused on means of limiting access to guns by people with mental illnesses. However, as is clear from the statistics cited earlier, people with mental illness account for approximately 4% of violence in the U.S. Thus, focusing on this group is not likely to be a highly effective strategy, and runs the risk of reinforcing the stigmatizing association in public perceptions between mental illness and violence.

In contrast, an Indiana statute provides an alternative approach. Indiana empowers law enforcement officers to seize weapons from persons who by their behavior indicate a likelihood of committing violent acts. One provision addresses people with mental illness, but a second does not require that the person be mentally ill. A judicial hearing follows within a prescribed period of time at which the state bears the burden of proof that the weapons should not be restored. Evaluation of the statute’s operation has shown that although a majority of people whose weapons are seized are perceived to have a mental illness (though they are far more often believed dangerous to themselves than to others), many are not. The latter include people involved in substance abuse, domestic disputes, and other behaviors presenting a serious risk of violence. Although there is no single cure-all for the problem of violence, Indiana’s law (Connecticut has a somewhat different statute that requires a court order for seizure) offers a model for a commonsense approach to reducing the risk of gun violence that does not overtly discriminate against people with mental illness. (See Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 47, Chapter 14)


AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 1000 WILSON BLVD, SUITE 1825, ARLINGTON, VA 22209
Tel: 703-907-7800 Fax: 703-907-1083 www.psychiatry.org

Position Statement on Assessing the Risk for Violence

Approved by the Board of Trustees, July 2012
Approved by the Assembly, May 2012

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees…These are…position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…"

– APA Operations Manual.

This position statement was proposed by the Workgroup on Violence Risk of the Council on Psychiatry and Law. During their careers most psychiatrists will assess the risk of violence to others. While psychiatrists can often identify circumstances associated with an increased likelihood of
violent behavior, they cannot predict dangerousness with definitive accuracy. Over any given period some individuals assessed to be at low risk will act violently while others assessed to be at high risk will not. When deciding whether a patient is in need of intervention to prevent harm to others, psychiatrists should consider both the presence of recognized risk factors and the most likely precipitants of violence in a particular case.
The members of the Workgroup on Violence Risk are Alec Buchanan, M.D. (Chairperson), Michael A. Norko, M.D., Renee L. Binder, M.D., and Marvin Swartz, M.D.

via Daniel Mackler

Day of Action to Stop Mental Health Profiling

"The salvation of our world lies in the hands of the maladjusted."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

via Occupy Psychiatry:

Day of Action to Stop Mental Health Profiling 1/21/13 MLK Day

*To protest the scapegoating of people labeled with mental illness by politicians, media, gun control advocates and the pro-gun lobby

:In particular to protest the "NY SAFE Act" pushed through NY's legislature and signed by Gov Cuomo, which expands state and federal criminal databases of people labeled as mentally ill, unconnected to any actual crime or act of violence, and expanded outpatient commitment (forced drugging in the community)
:To protest any discriminatory proposals coming out of Vice President Biden's Task Force

*To invoke our connection to Martin Luther King Jr. and the values and traditions of nonviolence:

:We are a nonviolent community
:Many of us have been traumatized by violence and do all we can to stop it
:We are being labeled and profiled wrongly as violent, because of the actions of a few individuals
:Forced psychiatry is violent
:The new laws being enacted - in NY and likely at the federal level and in other states - will further restrict our civil liberties and constitutional rights
:We are protesting nonviolently for our civil and human rights

*To affirm and celebrate our "creative maladjustment" to a society that pits neighbor against neighbor with a duty to report thoughtcrimes and eccentricities to the state

("Creative Maladjustment" comes from several of King's speeches, including a 1967 speech of King to the American Psychological Association where he called for an International Association to Advance Creative Maladjustment, see http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/53556. David Oaks and MindFreedom International have taken up this call as part of the Mad Pride movement, http://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/mental-health-global/iaacm. We honor David and wish him well in his recovery from serious injuries and surgery.)

****

On Martin Luther King Day, January 21, 2013, people everywhere are invited to hold demonstrations, vigils and any other nonviolent acts of expression and protest, to inform the public about our point of view and gather in solidarity.

Please take photos and post them.

You can use hashtags #OccupyPsychiatry #StopMHProfiling and #CreativeMaladjustment

 

The Military's Billion-Dollar Pill Problem

The Military's Billion-Dollar Pill Problem via MensJournal.com

'via Blog this'

Washington State's Involuntary Treatment Act legalized discrimination and Civil Rights violations

This post is in response to an OP-Ed in the Seattle Times written by Walt Stawicki which was published January 5, 2013 

No one is free when others are oppressed.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.  

~Abraham Lincoln

I believe we must speak our conscience in moments that demand it, 
even if we are but one voice.
~Richard B. Sanders

via The Seattle Times:

Op-ed: Mental illness and violence — what must change in Washington state

We’re in denial about the connection between mental illness and the shootings at the school in Newtown, Conn., the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and Cafe Racer in Seattle, writes guest columnist Walt Stawicki 

"We’re in denial about the connection between mental illness and the shootings at the school in Newtown, Conn., the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and Cafe Racer in Seattle. These statistics suggest that half or two-thirds of spree shooters were often formally diagnosed, formerly hospitalized, or had shown rage, aggression, paranoia and/or delusional thinking.

"If half to two-thirds does not suggest a pattern, what can? Would it be suggested by the extensive statements of family members who lived with the emergent dangers?" read here

All due respect to Mr. Stawicki, who is seeking to help other families, the perspectives and the needs of family members who are concerned about a loved one with mental illness, are valid and important, but are not necessarily the perspective from which a rational response to tragedy will come. The sense of social responsibility that Mr. Stawicki has is admirable.  That said, I find it troubling that this OP-Ed was published in the State of Washington's largest newspaper with no source given for the "facts" it contains. Mr. Stawicki flatly declares that the criteria to have a person civilly committed is too strict, and needs to be loosened up; because he says, that's what families have told him. I suspect, that his opinion is offered at least in part because Mr. Stawicki was sought out, "informed" and encouraged to advocate by DJ Jaffe; a forced treatment proponent who lives in New York State. 

Mr. Stawicki, by his own admission, has no experience with the mental health system, no history of unsuccessful attempts to access mental health services for his son. In light of this lack of experience, it is troubling that he states,  "In most cases, families see something coming. Even though we may be afraid of what our loved ones may do, we have learned that the system is not going to help until it’s time for ambulances and body bags." 

Mr. Stawicki did not cite any sources for the "statistics" he used in his editorial, and has no personal experience to base his belief that "the system is not going to help until ambulances and body bags are needed" on.  This statement and Mr. Stawicki quoting DJ Jaffe making the outrageous claim that, "There are ways to know which mentally ill individuals become or are likely to become violent," undermines his credibility as an advocate. This quote is an opinion without a factual basis. It is an outrageous claim for a so-called "advocate for the seriously mentally ill" to make, and Mr. Stawicki using it as if it is a fact, is irresponsible. The professional literature is quite clear that there is not yet any way to reliably predict who will become violent.  The methods the professionals do have to assess the risk for violence are not accurate enough to reliably predict an individual's potential for violence. Additionally, the belief that psychiatric treatment can prevent violence is contradictory to well documented adverse effects of the psychotropics drugs that psychiatrists use to treat mental illnesses they diagnose that are known to cause  violent, aggressive, suicidal and homicidal behaviors.  

via the American Psychiatric Association: 

Position Statement on Assessing the Risk for Violence

Approved by the Board of Trustees, July 2012
Approved by the Assembly, May 2012

"Policy documents are approved by the APA Assembly and Board of Trustees…These are…position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects…" 

– APA Operations Manual.

This position statement was proposed by the Workgroup on Violence Risk of the Council on Psychiatry and Law.

During their careers most psychiatrists will assess the risk of violence to others. While psychiatrists can often identify circumstances associated with an increased likelihood of violent behavior, they cannot predict dangerousness with definitive accuracy. Over any given period some individuals assessed to be at low risk will act violently while others assessed to be at high risk will not. When deciding whether a patient is in need of intervention to prevent harm to others, psychiatrists should consider both the presence of recognized risk factors and the most likely precipitants of violence in a particular case.

The members of the Workgroup on Violence Risk are: Alec Buchanan, M.D. (Chairperson), Michael A. Norko, M.D., Renee L. Binder, M.D., and Marvin Swartz, M.D.

While there is no way to know for certain, it is possible the tragic events in which Ian Statawicki shot and killed five people, and injured a sixth before taking his own life, may have never occurred had he been prosecuted for the two assaults he committed in 2007 and 2010.  He was not prosecuted because a girlfriend and his mother lied about what had occurred, and the King County and Kittitas County Prosecutors had to drop the assault charges against him.  

HAD IAN STAWICKI BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ASSAULT EITHER OF THE TWO TIMES HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE RIGHT TO OWN OR POSSESS ANY FIREARMS; HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GET A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT. HAD IAN STAWICKI BEEN CONVICTED, HE COULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO GET THE TREATMENT HIS FATHER SAYS HE NEEDED AS PART OF HIS SENTENCE.

via Seattle Times:

"One of Stawicki's ex-girlfriends, who he dated for three years, noticed his personality "suddenly changed" in late 2007, when he began flying into a violent rages, according to a domestic-violence court filing. In February 2008, she came home to find Stawicki smashing more than $1,000 worth of belongings, including her computer monitor and vinyl-record collection.

"When she tried to call 911, "All of a sudden I was on the ground and my nose was bleeding," she told police.

"He grabbed his .45-caliber handgun and fled into nearby Discovery Park before a police K9 unit tracked him down.

"He was charged with four domestic violence-related misdemeanors, but the charges were dismissed when the woman filed a sworn statement to Stawicki's attorney, Michael Kolker of Seattle, disputing the police report. Kolker declined to comment.

"Two years later, in March 2010, Stawicki displayed similar rage when, according to police report, he attacked his brother, Andrew, at their family's Ellensburg home. Stawicki said he "was blind" because of his younger brother, and began punching him in front of their mother.

"Andrew Stawicki said the incident is the reason he stopped talking to his brother.

"Ian Stawicki was again charged with misdemeanor assault, and represented by Kolker. This time it was his mother disputing the police report, describing it as a verbal, not physical, confrontation, and prosecutors dropped the charges." read  here 

I live here in Washington, and I have all my life, as have my children who are now grown. I have no doubt that the civil commitment criteria in Washington State's Involuntary Treatment Act do not need to be lower than they are currently. Washington State allows gossip and hearsay to be used as "evidence." I know for a fact from experience, that when the current standards are not followed, there is no investigation, even though the Law states it is a requirement. I know for a fact that perjury and forgery can be used by unethical mental health professionals with impunity. These "professionals can then shred the original Court documents and cover up their crimes; knowing that no criminal investigation will be conducted if  the crimes are reported. The reality is, when people with serious mental illness are the victims of crime, the perpetrators are seldom held accountable.  Even if the perpetrator is a Police Officer another one here.

Two of my major issues with mainstream advocacy groups and and advocates like DJ Jaffe is the utter and complete failure to do any advocacy for bringing those who  perpetrate crimes harming and killing the people diagnosed with mental illnesses to justice. The other, is the fact that these groups are silent about the amount of fraud and blatant corruption in psychiatry through it's collusion with the drug industry. It is pseudo-science with consensus based psychiatric diagnoses and "medical," e.g. psychopharmacological treatments.  Instead, these sort of advocates capitalize on tragedies involving mentally ill victims and/or perpetrators and enlist the parents as advocates for the forced treatment agenda. Advocating for an agenda is not the same thing as advocating for the people who have a psychiatric diagnosis that the forced treatment agenda is going to be implemented against. 

I have not been myself since the summer of 2010 when I realized that many things are just not at all how I believed them to be. This realization is painful, as were the events which brought it about. Felony crimes were committed in Yakima County Superior Court against my son, and when I filed a criminal complaint reporting the crimes with Law Enforcement, and the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, and the Department of Justice, Office of Civil Rights, Criminal Division--nothing happened. Well, some things happened; however, none of the things that should have happened, have happened. No investigation, no prosecution, and no conviction for the felony crimes committed by medical and legal “professionals” who abandoned their training, the ethics of their chosen professions, their duty to my son and their duty as Officers of the Court. Using a forged document and perjury as “evidence” these people went into Yakima County Superior Court to obtain Court Orders to detain and subsequently commit my son. These crimes were committed when he sought to be hospitalized because he was in crisis. He had committed no crime. He has never refused to take prescribed medications; nor has he ever refused to go to scheduled appointments.

Although involuntary treatment commitment proceedings are considered, “civil” as opposed to “criminal;” one should have no doubt that the loss of one’s liberty and the loss of legal and political status, without being afforded equal protection under the law, is a violation of one’s Human Rights, codified as one's Constitutional rights, here in the United States. The consequences are as detrimental, if not more so, than the consequences for a misdemeanor criminal conviction. The consequences of a civil commitment proceeding which results in a Court Order, can conceivably last the remainder of one’s lifetime. The legal protections the law affords a person in a civil commitment proceeding is less than that afforded criminal defendants; even if the person facing involuntary commitment is not suspected of committing any crime...Not unlike a misdemeanor criminal conviction, a Court Order for involuntary treatment alters a person’s legal status; however, unlike most criminal convictions, a civil commitment may ultimately result in a lifetime deprivation or limitation of the individual's Liberty; vis-à-vis community treatment orders.


Why are there different, and much lower standards used in Civil Involuntary Commitment proceedings than in any other type of Court proceeding? The Involuntary Treatment statute deprives a person of their individual Constitutional Rights which are preserved and defended for people who are charged with crimes.   

1. The “evidence” required to obtain a Court Order to detain, and/or commit a person can be nothing more than hearsay, speculation, gossip and innuendo. In my son's case, the "evidence" was fabricated by unethical mental health "professionals" who acted Under Color of Law with impunity. The mental health clinic that employs them shredded the original court documents, a violation of the law that was reported, but never investigated or prosecuted.

2. It is alleged or implied in these proceedings that the person has a “brain disease” a genetic defect, or a "chemical imbalance" and that it is a psychiatric diagnosis that can be corrected, or at least, “medically treated.” No factual evidence is offered to substantiate what is alleged or implied; nor is any evidence that the person has a disease or defect even required.

3. Standard Court Procedures are not followed. By law, following Standard Court Procedures is not required in civil commitment proceedings.

4. The person subjected to these proceedings is appointed an attorney; however, this does not mean that Effective Assistance of Counsel is provided. Not only are the legal, social and political consequences of a Court Order for Involuntary Treatment  profound; the medical consequences can be lethal--A vigorous defense is needed, yet rarely is any defense, let alone a vigorous one, even attempted. An attorney was assigned 700 Involuntary Commitment cases to defend in one year working as Assigned Counsel in Yakima County's Office of Assigned Counsel, he unabashedly admitted that he had unsuccessfully mounted a defense in 3 of the 700 cases.

The obvious detrimental social, political and legal consequences to the person court ordered to Involuntary Treatment demands that individuals who are subject to these proceedings have equal protection under the law. It is ethically, legally and morally indefensible that the law requires so much less. It is an intentional violation of an individual's civil rights. It is a legally mandated social policy that “legalized” discrimination against an entire class of people. It purposely deprives people of their individual rights Under Color of Law. It is inhumane to deprive vulnerable people of equal protection under the law. The attempts to justify this social policy by claiming it is in a victim’s “best interest;” or that any of this is done “for their own good” is all things considered, truly despicable and utterly reprehensible.

The answer to “Why are there different, and much lower standards used in Civil Involuntary Commitment proceedings?” It is because there is no evidence that a psychiatric diagnosis of schizophrenia, for example, is caused by a brain disease or genetic defect. It is a hypothesis, not even a theory. Therefore, there is no evidence to offer a Court that complies with or conforms to the Rules of Evidence used in Courts of Law in every other criminal or civil proceeding. These involuntary treatment hearings can only be undertaken by depriving individuals of their Constitutional Rights. So, this unconstitutional law further declares that the standard Rules of Evidence do not apply, and neither do Standard Court Procedures. 

Psychiatry is not an ethical medical practice, if it were, it would use ethical medical principles. It would not use fraudulent and discredited research, and adopt standards based on subjective opinions. It would not rationalize and justify misinforming patients and the general public about the nature of psychiatric diagnoses and treatments as being done "for their own good." Psychiatry if it were an ethical medical practice,would not later claim that professionals were stating diagnoses are diseases not because it was the truth,(because it is not) but it was simply, "a metaphor" used to help patients "understand" how important taking their drugs and being "treatment compliant" is. What a despicable juvenile rationalization and justification for an intentional deceit that in effect, and in fact made committing criminal fraud a standard clinical practice. Psychiatrists participated in widespread corruption and fraud to "practice medicine." The billions of dollars of fraud that the pharmaceutical industry has been fined for what is still an ongoing criminal enterprise has netted taxpayers billions of dollars in fines; a very small percentage of what was defrauded from the public coffers. The fraud and and illegal marketing could not have been implemented at all without the willing cooperation and felonious complicity of psychiatrists who are considered "leaders" in the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Every one of the "patient advocacy groups" have some of these same criminals serving as "scientific advisers" and/or Board members.

If Involuntary Treatment is, "in the patient's best interest," and "for their own good..." 
I'm Mary Freakin' Poppins!

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis

Grace E. Jackson, M.D., affidavit on toxicity and brain damage

Involuntary Commitment and Forced Psychiatric Drugging in the Trial Courts: Rights Violations as a Matter of Course, by James B. (Jim) Gottstein, 25 Alaska L. Rev.  51 (2008).

Neurleptic Drugs and Violence Catherine Clarke SRN, SCM, MSSCH, MBChA.
and Jan Evans MCSP. Grad Dip Phys.

Adverse Treatment Effects Become Symptoms of "Mental Illness"?

via Mental health America:

MENTAL HEALTH IN THE HEADLINES

Week of January 7, 2013

---

Mental Health in the Headlines is a weekly newsletter providing the latest developments at Mental Health America and summaries of news, views and research in the mental health field. Coverage of news items in this publication does not represent Mental Health America’s support for or opposition to the stories summarized or the views they express.

TODAY’S HEADLINE

Brain imaging can identify young people at risk for bipolar disorder, according to a new study…more

NEWS FROM MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA

Mental Health America Calls for National Action in Response to Newtown Tragedy: Urges Leaders to Identify, Implement Solutions That Expand Capacity, Capabilities of Mental Health Programs and Services.(de-emphasis mine)

I could go no further. I thought the primary mission for Mental Health Programs and Services is to assist individuals and families to increase their own capabilities, so each can  achieve their own best functional capacity...but what the hell do I know...

Maybe I'm too sensitive,  I am saddened by the fear-driven biased manner in which public policy for "mental health" is formulated, funded and structured. Building the sytems capabilities and capacity while relying on flawed and biased information, is not the best way to help the children, youth, adults and families and elderly citizens that mental health programs serve.  Focusing precious resources on identifying kids "at risk for being diagnosed with bipolar disorder," would virtually ensure the kid becomes a life-long patient; becoming the fodder that fuels an ever-expanding drug marketing agenda. This particular endeavor is predicated on the notion one can actually rely on  a brain scan to make a determination who will be diagnosed with bipolar disorder in the future. To date, no person has ever been given a psychiatric diagnosis for a mental illness on the basis of a brain scan. 

Would it be reasonable to suspend disbelief and conclude that it's possible to predict a future diagnosis, like it's simply a parlor trick? I could do it, without a brain scan.  Identify the kids experiencing multiple traumas, since experiencing multiple traumas is the most common risk factor associated with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.  

I wonder if a patient's purported "lack of insight" is the excuse used for dismissing anything a patient says that anyone else just doesn't want to hear?  It is really strange that people delude themselves into believing that their own callous behavior that invalidates the patient, is caused by the patient's "lack of insight." It'd be hilarious; if it weren't dehumanizing and deadly. How a psychiatric diagnosis justifies not using ethical medical principles; necessitates decimating individual rights protections for an entire class of people in Courts of Law; and allows Designated Mental Health Professionals with no legal training, to detain people Under Color of Law; is a total mystery to me...Why would the ethical and legal duty owed to a human being diagnosed with a mental illness become less?  It's criminal.    

The Nation's Voice on Mental Illness says, 

"A mental illness is an illness like any other illness." 

Psychiatry is a sub-specialty of "medicine" that treats; but does not cure. Treatment is recommended for life for patients diagnosed with the "diseases" Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder, and the various combinations/types of both these "serious mental illnesses."  A life that may be 25-30 years shorter than it would be without diagnosis and psychiatric treatment, due to an early or sudden death from the cumulative adverse effects and iatrogenic injuries.

Given the paucity of evidence for the disease hypothesis of schizophrenia, and the minimal "effectiveness" and the dangers of the using neurloetic drugs; it is a tragic irony that prescribing neuroleptics off label to children, is vehemently defended, repeatedly investigated, and monitored; but NEVER carefully considered or questioned...How did it become a standard practice without a solid foundation in clinical research? Devotion to the idea that the disease hypothesis of schizophrenia is an established "fact" seems to cause psuedologia fatastica, blindness to medical neglect of psychiatric patients, and the unwavering belief that a patient who says the treatment is torture, lacks insight.  It's for their own good!  No need to pay any attention to what the patient feels, believes, or experiences, they lack insight... 

There is this CME gem: 

via Psychiatric Times:

PTSD, VIOLENCE, AND TRAUMA 

Violence in Bipolar Disorder

What Role Does Childhood Trauma Play?

By Allison M. R. Lee, MD and Igor I. Galynker, MD, PhD | November 17, 2010

an excerpt:

Checkpoints

■ A history of 2 or more types of trauma has been associated with a 3-fold increased risk of bipolar disorder, as well as a worse clinical course that includes early onset, faster cycling, and increased rates of suicide.

■ There is an overlap between the neurochemical changes found in adults with histories of traumatic stress and those in adults with increased impulsive aggression, in particular, increased functioning of both the catecholamine system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis..

■ Agitation may result in impulsive aggression during manic and mixed episodes in bipolar patients, and depressed states may also carry a risk for violent behavior.

The above article is preparation for the "Risk Assessment Quiz:

A history of trauma is uniquely related to which of the following? A. Borderline personality disorder B. Substance abuse C. Major depressive disorder D. Bipolar disorder E. Schizophrenia

This is all so eerily reminiscent of the violence initiative. Why are we seeking to indentify kids "potentially at risk" for being diagnosed with biploar disorder with violent behavior, by a brain scan, but not seeking to correct the various identified socio/economic/political environmental deficits known to increase the risk? It is an effort to identify poor kids in violent neighborhoods who are being harmed. Wouldn't it make more sense, be more effective (and actually be helpful) to address the causes of increased risk?  Scanning kids' brains to predict future "mental illness" reeks of...

The Violence Initiative

When did "Symptoms such as paranoid delusions or command auditory hallucinations" become symptoms of bipolar disorder?  I'm guessing it was about a  decade or so after patients with bipolar disorder diagnosis began to be treated with neuroleptic, or "antipsychotic" drugs in standard clinical practice.  The diagnostic critieria for schizophrenia underwent a similar change about a decade or so after neuroleptic drugs were in use.  Once a significant percentage of patients experienced common, detrimental adverse effects, the adverse effects were by consensus, considered to be symptoms of the mental illness the drugs were prescribed to treat. The adverse effects were not to be considered iatrogenic biochemical injuries, they were now either symptoms of mental illness, or the "tolerable side effects" of "necessary medical treatment." Adverse effects become symtoms of the diagnosis because of errors of attribution, intentional deceit, willful blindness, and/or sheer hubris. 

Claiming the treatment is "for the patient's own good," is truly despicable. It is akin to the rapist justifying a rape as being for the victim's own good. The trauma of  a rape does not serve the best interests of the victim; how can the risk and the common outcome of iatrogenic disease, disability and death be justifiable risks that can be forced upon a patient under Color of Law after they have been stripped of their human dignity, perhaps without any factual basis according to the Rules of Evidence that are mandatory for every other Civil or Criminal Court proceeding?

Neuroleptic drugs  cause a sense of restlessness and inner agitation.  It is a common negative effect described by some who experience it, as relentless torture. Neuroleptics are known to increase the risk for aggression, and can actually cause delusions and hallucinations. These are called "side effects;" in reality, calling negative effects "side-effects" is misleading; these are more accurately described as  negative effects that are caused by the drug's mechanisms of action. So, in truth, the effects are direct adverse effects.  For a prescriber to interpret the iatrogenic injuries caused by a drug's known direct effects, as "tolerable side effects" of "effective pharmacological treatment" shows a profound lack of insight. It is an added insult to the iatrogenic injuries inflicted upon patients with impunity by psychiatric professionals.