Mental health plan- good idea or bad

[Epicurus]

http://www.illinoisleader.com

Mental health plan forums end, parents concerned about findings

Friday, July 23, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau (admin@illinoisleader.com)

Children required to be screened for mental health problems from ages
zero through 18 is an invasion of parental rights, several parents
said at task force hearings held throughout Illinois this week.


CHICAGO -- Finishing up a week of public forums, the members of the
Illinois Children's Mental Health Partnership ended early in Chicago
today following testimony from an overwhelming number of program
supporters who agree that mental health screening is needed for
Illinois children ages zero through 18.


As a hyphenated sponsor of last year's legislation, State
Representative Patti Bellock (R-Wheaton) said she thought that the
stigma on mental health problems was fading, and that the new mental
health plan's main emphasis was to create an awareness of mental
health needs in the state's children.


The Illinois plan is the first in the nation to have progressed thus
far.


"This program will not be voluntary," Paul Schneider of Champaign
told the task force. "No one will be exempt. If a family doesn't want
to accept the school's evaluation of their child's mental health,
what recourse will they have?"


Schneider said he is very concerned that pharmaceutical companies
will benefit tremendously from having an explosion of young children
diagnosed with hyperactivity or ADHD whose parents are told that
their children need Ritalin or another psychotropic drug.


"Who is going to pay for this and who will determine who is mentally
healthy and who is not?" Schneider said. "I'm a business owner, and
this worries me."


Bellock agreed that questions are likely to be raised as more people
learn about the contents of the program, something, she said, she
hadn't had time to fully read through yet herself.


"I am one of the appointed task force members, but I'm not familiar
with all this contains," Bellock said. "There should be a lot of
discussion and that's good to get us to the place where we can find
consensus," she said.


Tragedies like the Columbine shooting are connected to young people
who are depressed and with low self-esteem, she said. Studies show
that one out of six students suffer from depression, the reason why
she believes such a program is so important.


The proposed plan says that depression affects a child's ability to
learn and increases their propensity for violence, alcohol and
substance abuse and other delinquent behaviors.


If the plan is implemented as suggested, pregnant women will begin
evaluation for depression and will check in during the first year
after their expected babies are born.


"If anyone thinks they can escape this because their children are not
in public schools, they are mistaken," Schneider said after hearing
the testimony at the Champaign hearing on Monday.


Mental health assessment will be added to the state's physical
examination certificate, along with mandatory immunization records.
All children in Illinois, unless religiously exempt, are required to
have up-to-date health examinations and immunizations for school
entry.


Schneider said he was also concerned when a woman asked about how
sexual orientation would be handled in the program.


"She basically bashed Catholics for their strong conviction against
homosexuality," he said.


The $10 million set aside for the mandatory screening is likely to be
simply for the start up, and that's what concerns some who voiced
opposition at the public hearings.


For others, it was an invasion of parental rights.


"We are here reviewing one of the largest recent attempts by the
state to subvert, devalue and undermine parental authority in
Illinois. 'Subvert' sounds harsh, and we recognize that many hours
have been spent by many well-meaning people to draft this 26 page
plan. No disrespect is meant, but our concerns must be presented,"
Karen Hayes, associate director of Concerned Women for
America/Illinois told task force members today.


The recourse may be minimal for those who are not happy with the
program, however. It is already law, signed in to law by Governor
Blagojevich last year. A report will be due on September 30, 2004,
according to the provisions as they have been set up in the law.


On the other hand, a task force member Barbara Shaw told a downstate
reporter that, "We heard very different points of view with
thoughtful input," Shaw said. "The greatest thing I took out of this
today was a reminder to think outside of the box. We don't have to
think in traditional ways."


Hayes, frustrated that the state legislation became law with little
or no fanfare or notice, even from conservative, pro-family
lawmakers, suggested at the end of today's testimony, "In summary, it
is neither beneficial to children, nor to taxpayers, to ask
government bureaucracies to set competency standards for mental
health.


"With some amount of lightheartedness, may I propose that the mental
health of the perpetrators of this concept be evaluated?"


© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

[Clio]

Hmmmm, tough one.

On one hand I think if it can catch mental issues which can lead people to commit such attrocities like Columbine, then how can it be a bad thing?


I don't agree that it's an invasion of parental rights, I think it is intended to be a parental back-up. Not all parents can be in-tune with their childs mental wellbeing as much as we would like so surely that could be perveived as positive action.

I would, however, like my son to develop the skills that enable him to deal with minor personal issues on his own. I would prefer him to be able to decide for himself if anything he's going through can be dealt with on his own or to decide when it's time to ask for help. I think this is an invaluable lesson to teach children and prepare them for adulthood.
He's not going to have constant mental health supervision when he's an adult so if he was to end up completely relying on an outside source as a child, what is he expected to do as a grown man?

I'm sure the intention is to help teach children how to deal with their feelings, no matter how major or minor, but there is always that fear that it could become too strict. I wouldn't want my child to feel that every single emotion he has will be put under a microscope.

And who's to say what's normal. A shy, quiet, pensive and introspective child could be deemed as brooding, moody and social misfit when they are anything but.

Who's to say what behaviour can be considered abnormal, expecially when they get to the teen years.

[Echo2]

I think it is a great adea, but I don't think it should be done by the school or any other government agency. Parents should be able to choose their own health practicianer to do the screening. Too many chances for partison abuse if done by a government agency.

[Scarlet]

I think it is a horrendous idea!

For one I think ADD is massively overdiagnosed and the treatment plans commonly used are heavy on drugs, which I believe not to be ideal for most children and have known side-effects. This would mean more children put on medication who don't really need it instead of addressing the problems we have in society and education that mean that ADD children do not do as well. I personally think that along with the obvious drawbacks of ADD there are some real benefits too. For instance, my paed believes that many of her peers at medical school who became great doctors had it.

Secondly it means strangers who have met your child for probably the first and only time in their life would be able to label your child for life with something that may effect their abilities to get certain jobs, insurance etc and they might not even be right!

Thirdly, there are many people who have undiagnosed mental illness that cope better without medication and treatment, why force them to be recognised. Once we enforce labelling it is a small step to enforce treatment... disagree? Well how do you think it will go down with CPS if your child is diagnosed and in the system but you decide that treatment is not necessary right now?

All that said, I have no problem with a voluntary program, similar to public schools having a voluntary vision screening, vaccination or dental program. So long as there is no coercion for parents to comply with the program.