By Trace
Karen Vigneault wrote me an email with this op-ed and said "So sad, we are such a disposable society."
We are a disposable society. We in America have collectively lost our minds! As I wrote I my memoir, I could have been medicated and drugged for many behaviors as an adoptee/child, but that was the 1960s and they weren’t drugging adoptees then. In order to cope, I had developed an obsessive compulsive disorder. Eventually my OCD did go away but by then I was a young adult. It helped I had "talk therapy' at age 22.
I also wrote about my foster care training in Oregon when I had 12 weeks of training and one class on “Medicating -- YES or NO" -- and the social workers showed us a film. In fact in 1995, YES, drugging was highly RECOMMENDED. They suggested foster parents/adopters get drugs for newly-adopted children and foster children. One father in the film said it was absolutely necessary for his son to be heavily medicated. (I recall there was quite a discussion among 20 of us in this class. I was the only single person.)
We have lost our minds (thanks to BIG PHARMA) if we believe drugs help children. If you really think about it, “children” are expected to be tranquil, compliant, grateful and act a certain way as children, even though many of us children have been lost and exposed to the gravest injustices being taken from our mothers and families. The children are expected to accept strange new people as parents and smile as though nothing's happened.
I was so afraid as a child.
Reading this latest article, I am very afraid for all the new children thrust into this system of insanity.
The Drugging of Children in Foster Care
It's no secret that here in America, foster children are being prescribed psychiatric drugs, especially neuroleptics, as a means of controlling their behavior. A great deal has been said and written on the matter. Politicians have declared the practice deplorable. Children's advocacy groups have expressed concern, and, of course, those of us in the antipsychiatry movement have screamed till we're hoarse. But the problem persists.
For the past six months or so, the San Jose Mercury News, a California newspaper, has been running frequent articles on this topic, calling for oversight and corrective action.
Here are some quotes:
"California's foster care system 'has grown more addicted to mind-altering medication,' the chair of a powerful Senate committee told a packed public hearing in the state Capitol on Tuesday, adding that 'here in California, we've done little to act on this alarming issue.'"
"Lightbourne said two state-sponsored panels have spent years working to develop guidelines that would protect foster children from the excessive use of psych medications and to house fewer kids at residential group homes, where drugs are most frequently prescribed. Foster children deserve 'nonmedical treatments whenever possible,' Lightbourne said."
"'We need to shift our thinking away from the primacy of psychiatric medications toward relationships,' testified George Stewart, a Berkeley child psychiatrist who has spent much of his career tapering severely traumatized children safely off high-risk drug cocktails. 'We are going to look back on this era of great enthusiasm for psychiatric medications and either scratch our heads or beat our heads. We will look back in 20 years and say, 'What were we doing?'"
"Senators also said they were alarmed by the newspaper's analysis that showed how pharmaceutical companies lavish the state's foster care prescribers with millions of dollars for meals, gifts, travel, speaking engagements and research grants -- a practice Lightbourne called 'deeply troubling.' The newspaper found the doctors who prescribed the most, typically were rewarded the most."
All of which tells a familiar story. Pharma-psychiatry systematically targets foster children as potential customers. They do this because the residents of foster homes, group and individual, are a "captive audience," in the sense that the foster parent or staff member will ensure that the resident takes the pills. In this way, non-compliance – the great drain on pharma revenue – becomes a non-issue.
Karen de Sá's article is cogent, articulate, and powerful, and undoubtedly she and her colleagues are raising awareness on this matter. But there was one paragraph in her article that I felt warranted some additional discussion.
"Tuesday's four-hour hearing before the Human Services Committee highlighted a package of bills being introduced this month, following this newspaper's investigation 'Drugging Our Kids,' which revealed nearly one in four foster care teens take psychiatric drugs -- often to control behavior, not to treat mental illnesses. Most are prescribed antipsychotics, a powerful class of psychiatric drugs with the most harmful side effects."
Note the phrase "…often to control behavior, not to treat mental illnesses." What the author is missing here is that, within psychiatry's spurious domain, misbehavior is a mental illness. In fact, it is several mental illnesses. If a child is frequently defiant, he has a mental illness called oppositional defiant disorder. If he is given to outbursts of anger, he has a mental illness called intermittent explosive disorder. If he is given to violating rules or infringing on the rights of others, he has a mental illness called conduct disorder. If he is given to setting fires, he has a mental illness called pyromania. If he is persistently angry and given to very frequent temper tantrums, he has a mental illness called disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. And, of course, if he is disruptive and inattentive in the classroom, he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If the child's misbehavior can't be shoe-horned neatly into any of these categories, psychiatry has two residual categories:
other specified disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder; and unspecified disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorder.
Contrary to popular opinion, no neurological pathology is required to establish these "diagnoses."
So, by neatly re-labeling every conceivable kind of misbehavior as a mental illness, psychiatry has established turf in this field, and has legitimized the use of drugs to "treat" this misbehavior.
This is the crux of the entire debate. There is literally no significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving that is not listed, either directly, or by implication, in the DSM. So, Karen de Sá is incorrect. In the looking-glass world of psychiatry, practitioners are notprescribing major tranquilizers to control children's behavior. Rather, they are "treating mental illnesses," with medications that have been proven by highly questionable pharma research to be "effective and safe." We have actually reached the position in our society where a physician who does not follow these practices could be held liable for failure to treat.
And this is the problem. Every attempt to eliminate, or even reduce, this widespread and persistent practice, is doomed to failure as long as psychiatry's spurious diagnoses are accepted as bona fide illnesses. Because if childhood misbehavior is an illness, then psychiatrists and other physicians are not using drugs to control behavior, rather they are "treating," compassionately and effectively, these "disabling illnesses."
Psychiatry, over the past five decades, has systematically and deceptively pursued a self-serving policy of medicalizing virtually every significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving. Their pharma allies have provided the money, and psychiatry has provided the credentials, in what is arguably the most widespread and destructive swindle in human history. And they have been enormously successful. Their spurious notions are widely accepted today as reality.
No significant progress will be possible in these areas until the swindle is finally and utterly exposed, and sanity is restored to our conceptualizations of human activity. Until then, despite the protests of politicians, advocates, journalists, and others, the pharma-psychiatry maw will remain wide open, and the ranks of "the mentally ill" who need "treatment" will continue to grow.
.jpg)
.jpg)
