[maxintosh]

Next month, President Bush plans to unveil a broad new mental health plan called the “New Freedom Initiative.” Never mind that it couldn’t have less to do with freedom; if you’re a thinking American, this initiative should scare the hell out of you.

The New Freedom Initiative proposes to screen every American, including you, for mental illness. To this end, the president established a New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, to study the nation’s mental health delivery service and make a report. It’s interesting to note that many on the staff appointed to the Commission have served on the advisory boards of some of the nation’s largest drug companies.

The commission reported that “despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed,” so it recommended comprehensive mental health screening for “consumers of all ages,” including preschool children because “each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders.”

Children and school personnel will be the first to be screened. The panel concluded that schools are in “key positions” to screen the 52 million students and six million adults who work at the schools. By doing this, the commission expects to flush out another six million persons not now receiving treatment. But who will decide the screening criteria? Bush and his people? The drug companies? What are their qualifications?

...

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was named by the commission as a “model” medication treatment plan that “illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes.” Medical algorithms are a decision-tree approach to treatment. If symptoms A, B, and C are evident, use treatment X. In 1995, TMAP began as an alliance of individuals from the University of Texas, the pharmaceutical industry, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas. This plan was trumpeted by the American Psychiatric Association even as it asked for increased funding to implement TMAP. When an employee of the Inspector General’s office revealed that state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stood to gain from it, the plan came under severe criticism.

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, wrote a whistleblower report in which he stated that behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission was the “political/pharmaceutical alliance” that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antipsychotics and antidepressants. He further claimed that this unholy alliance was “poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.”

In an article in the British Medical Journal, Jones shows that many companies who helped launch TMAP are also major contributors to Bush’s re-election funds. For example, Eli Lilly manufactures olanzapine. This is one of the drugs recommended in the New Freedom plan. Lilly has numerous ties to the Bush administration according to the British Medical Journal. It says George Herbert Walker Bush was once a member of Lilly’s board of directors. Our current President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, as a member of the Homeland Security Council. Eighty-two percent of Lilly’s $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000 went to Bush and the Republican Party.

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/m...le&sid=830

And a conservative source, confirming the plan, if you don't believe me:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39078

HOLY CRAP BATMAN. The "New Freedom Intiative"?? Is that a JOKE? This essentially makes the government able to *tell* us what medications to take. This is one of the scariest, most corrupt, most messed up things to come out of this administration yet!!

[BRussell]

I can tell you that psychologists are creaming over this. They think it's the greatest thing in the world. I don't really see the problem with early screening.

[PacHead]

I see wackos on the street all the time, that should be locked up.

Lock the crazies-mentally disturbed up, and a lot of other problems will be solved.

[mo]

This sounds like a hoax to me.

Originally posted by PacHead:
I see wackos on the street all the time, that should be locked up.

Lock the crazies-mentally disturbed up, and a lot of other problems will be solved.

Great! You go first.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't really see the problem with early screening.

Because it's being funded by big-money drug companies? You don't find that the least bit disturbing??

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I see wackos on the street all the time, that should be locked up.

Lock the crazies-mentally disturbed up, and a lot of other problems will be solved.

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

The "wackos" that roam the streets are some of the most unfortunate and ignored people in our society. They can't function normally, and we basically sh!t all over them by letting them roam the streets begging and dying somewhere in an alley.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

The "wackos" that roam the streets are some of the most unfortunate and ignored people in our society. They can't function normally, and we basically sh!t all over them by letting them roam the streets begging and dying somewhere in an alley.

Yeah, some of them are unfortunate, and some of them are also there because they are druggies/alcoholics/criminals etc. They are a threat to everybody. I remember that woman who got her head bashed in by some homeless thug with a brick in NYC a while back.

I never give a dime to any homeless person, ever. That's not the right way to help them. Many of them are also annoying scam artists, like I see on the subway.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, some of them are unfortunate, and some of them are also there because they are druggies/alcoholics/criminals etc. They are a threat to everybody. I remember that woman who got her head bashed in by some homeless thug with a brick in NYC a while back.

I never give a dime to any homeless person, ever. That's not the right way to help them. Many of them are also annoying scam artists, like I see on the subway.

Point. I don't give money on the street either. By what I was getting at, is they need help, not just to be ignored or fed once a month like now.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
HOLY CRAP BATMAN. The "New Freedom Intiative"?? Is that a JOKE? This essentially makes the government able to *tell* us what medications to take. This is one of the scariest, most corrupt, most messed up things to come out of this administration yet!!

This must be a definition of "freedom" that I'm not familiar with.

This is quite scary, but I'll reserve judgement until I hear it direct from Bush's mouth.
(And it's not Official Policy until the Daily Show mocks it, after all...)

[BlackGriffen]

That $hit better be voluntary, or there'll be Hell to pay.

BlackGriffen

[voyageur]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I see wackos on the street all the time, that should be locked up.

Lock the crazies-mentally disturbed up, and a lot of other problems will be solved.

They won't be locked up. It's too expensive, and you may not be aware of this, but the government and private insurers don't usually reimburse for psychiatric illnesses at the same rate they do for non-psychiatric illnesses. On top of this we don't have enough facilities for people who are recovered enough to be out of the hospital, but not well enough to function completely on their own in society.

[voyageur]

Screening could be a good thing, but I have many questions. How thorough will the screening be? Will it voluntary? What kind of follow-up will there be, if there is a positive diagnosis? Will non-drug therapies be available, or will the program exclusively rely on drug therapies? How much influence will the drug companies have (sounds like quite a bit!)?

It's great to help people with mental illness, but just giving them a packet of pills and sending them on their way is not enough and will not work.

[Wiskedjak]

I suspect that, shortly after this program begins, such things as homosexuality, liberal thought and the ability to criticize Republican Presidents will be determined to be "mental problems".

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I suspect that, shortly after this program begins, such things as homosexuality, liberal thought and the ability to criticize Republican Presidents will be determined to be "mental problems".

[angaq0k]

Soma, anyone?


Those who read "Brave New World" know what I mean...

[voyageur]

Yes, it does smack of Brave New World, somewhat. Perhaps there will be Soma riots, too.

[OldManMac]

If this comes true, it will be another step in the direction of large corporations becoming the government. This is already happening in many universities, where, strapped for cash, they accept money from drug companies, to fund "research," which of course isn't impartial in the end, because there is a bias to get the results that the funder is looking for. This is an issue to keep an eye on.

I'll have to ask my ex about this; she has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, and has worked with the homeless and less fortunate. She now works at a prison, where many of the prisoners are mentally ill. The trend now is not to attempt to help these people, but rather to warehouse them in prisons. It's much cheaper, and they're "out of sight, out of mind."

[necromactastic]

I don't understand how republicans can support the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government and still support stuff like this. The crazies on the street would only benefit if they showed up for examination , could afford meds, and then started taking them regularly. If they were that responsible, they would already be taking medication. This is about diagnosing middle class families who have perscription drug benefits so that the Pharm industry can sell more prozac. Disgusting.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Yes, it does smack of Brave New World, somewhat. Perhaps there will be Soma riots, too.

voyageur, clever as usual!!!

I agree with BRussell that some screening could be done, but maintaining confidentiality will become a challenge.

What bother me the most is that no prevention seems associated to such a program.

It is as if a large set of reasons (environmental conditions amongst the most important) are irrelevant.

It is being recognized that the working environment is one of the most stressful place (having consequences on the psyche as well as the family). Yet, the use of pills would apparently suffice, from what I gather from the article, to alleviate those challenges and let people recover some basic happiness. Sometimes, the use of medication lead to a cerrtain denial from the causes of mental illness. Therefore, the person is stuck with the medication for the rest of his/her life.

But the reasons of the problem are not resolved, meaning that an ongoing set of conditions perpetuate the problem, and can generate more individuals. Once one individual is affected, the rest of the environment is bound to be affected just as much.

The fast pace in our lifestyle is also an important cause of several mental illness (depression, anxiety, etc.) As long as people cannot take control of their lives, they will be submitted more to such harsh environments (noise is an important element but competitivity at the workplace is also an important factor).

And there is an important social cost to such situations. People affected may blow at some point into violence, and create more havock around them. Although the proportion of people reaching that extreme is still low, it does have a severe impact in the social environment, sometimes irreparable (men killing their wife and kids and attempt suicide afterwards comes to mind).

Providing medication is a reaction to the event. Prevention is about decreasing the odds for these episodes to happen.

Finaly, medication is not a panacea; too often doctors prescribe the pills but do not involve client in any form of psychotherapy, or forget to have follow-ups with the person. The result is that people are left on their own with a medication that can be extremely difficult to live with, which leads them to not take it as prescribed, disturbing the basic treatment. Psychotherapy should always be involved for at least a minimum of supervision, if not to assist the person to gain control over the causes of the situation.

For example, some anti-depressants will take at least a month to have an effect on depression, but secondfary effects are almost immediate: nausea, vertigo, nightmare, etc. which affect close to half of the patient. Those patient are also working people, with responsibilities, which means they cannot always take time to visit their generalist, and that is if the employer agrees to let them go!

It is a very complex issue, and there is a lot, a lot of money being involved. Like it or not, therapists and doctors are compromised (without being necessarily dishonest all the time) because there is a lot of money to gain.

In Canada, it is not so bad, but I understand that in the U.S., the system is very complicated, and somehow controlled at the State level, if not the county or the city level. This complexifies many things, because standardization of services is not possible, and may create different levels of quality for similar services.

In the end, it is easy to say a health system is useless when you are healthy, but it is darn convenient when you need it, as long as it is serving the population, and not the opposite.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by necromactastic:
I don't understand how republicans can support the idea of a smaller, less intrusive government and still support stuff like this. The crazies on the street would only benefit if they showed up for examination , could afford meds, and then started taking them regularly. If they were that responsible, they would already be taking medication. This is about diagnosing middle class families who have perscription drug benefits so that the Pharm industry can sell more prozac. Disgusting.

Prozac is déjà passé: Welcome all the new barely tested meds!

Many medication created for human usage are obviously tested as much as possible, but some appeared ti have issue.

There is a whole family of antidepressants that were actually associated with increase suicide ideation! One might think twice about using medication as the unique and only way to get better.

Also necromastic, mental health issues are not only on the streets. As suprising as it may sound, the people living off the street constitute only a very minor proportion of the people suffering some mental illness or another...

[Zimphire]

Holy Conspiracy theories Batman!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Holy Conspiracy theories Batman!

What conspiracy?

It is only a philosophical choice for the treatment of mental illness. The sole use of medication is not enough, and medication will not stop the increase of mental health issues because of the competitivity of the market place that has a toll on the acting population.

It is not about being agains the use of medicatio; it is about the fair usage of it with the proper support to ensure recovery.

But this is useless if there is no prevention. Period.

Edit: there is no quick fix to mental illness; only imperfect remedies and a lot of work for people who need more than what we can provide in the very little time that is given for recovery.

[chris v]

Buying stock in the Private Locking Up Loonies Industry, now.

[Dale Sorel]

So if something's on the Internet, that means it's true

[zigzag]

This is a Republican proposal? WTF?

I prefer the Old Freedom Initiative.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
So if something's on the Internet, that means it's true

Unless the whitehouse has been hacked:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ne.../toc-2004.html

From near the bottom of the PDF:

The Commission concluded that the mental health service delivery system in the United States must be substantively transformed. In the transformed system: 1) Americans understand that mental health is essential to overall health; 2) mental health care is consumer and family-driven; 3) disparities in mental health services are eliminated; 4) early mental health screening, assessment, and referral to services are common practice;

I think it's early to read too much in to this one sentence, but we should pay attention to this.

[olePigeon]

Does that include alcoholism? Cuz Bush would set off the "mental detector" every time.

[BlackGriffen]

Darn it. There's a dystopia that's older than Brave New World that involves brain surgery to remove a part of the brain of the protagonist because he's a malcontent, and therefore mentally ill.

I just wish I could remember the name. I thought it was Metropolis, but I can't find any info on the novel, and the net is swamped with info about the movie that I'm not sure is related. I'm pretty sure that there was a dystopia written in the 1920s with that plot point, though.

Oh, well.

BlackGriffen

[Secret__Police]

Sounds more like an 'Onion' press release.

[BRussell]

You can read the full Mental Health Commission's report here. I'm sorry, but there's nothing sinister about it at all.

The recommendation on mental health screening of all school kids appears to be based on the following model program:

Program
Columbia University TeenScreen® Program

Goal
To ensure that all youth are offered a mental health check-up before graduating from high school. TeenScreen® identifies and refers for treatment those who are at risk for suicide or suffer from an untreated mental illness.

Features
All youngsters in a school, with parental consent, are given a computer-based questionnaire that screens them for mental illnesses and suicide risk. At no charge, the Columbia University TeenScreen® Program provides consultation, screening materials, software, training, and technical assistance to qualifying schools and communities. In return, TeenScreen® partners are expected to screen at least 200 youth per year and ensure that a licensed mental health professional is on-site to give immediate counseling and referral services for youth at greatest risk. The Columbia TeenScreen® Program is a not-for-profit organization funded solely by foundations. When the program identifies youth needing treatment, their care is paid for depending on the family's health coverage.

Outcomes
The computer-based questionnaire used by TeenScreen® is a valid and reliable screening instrument.151 The vast majority of youth identified through the program as having already made a suicide attempt, or at risk for depression or suicidal thinking, are not in treatment.152 A follow-up study found that screening in high school identified more than 60% of students who, four to six years later, continued to have long-term, recurrent problems with depression and suicidal attempts.153

Biggest challenge
To bridge the gap between schools and local providers of mental health services. Another challenge is to ensure, in times of fiscal austerity, that schools devote a health professional to screening and referral.

How other organizations can adopt
The Columbia University TeenScreen® Program is pilot-testing a shorter questionnaire, which will be less costly and time-consuming for the school to administer. It is also trying to adapt the program to primary care settings.

Website
www.teenscreen.org

Sites where implemented
69 sites (mostly middle schools and high schools) in 27 States

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by BRussell:
You can read the full Mental Health Commission's report here. I'm sorry, but there's nothing sinister about it at all.

The recommendation on mental health screening of all school kids appears to be based on the following model program:

Sounds good.

[sanity assassin]

Wait a minute, if this is not purely done on a voluntary basis, then a huge shot across the bows of freedom has just been snatched away from people. I can't believe this is actually happening, and irrespective of whether or not this is about catching tose with mental disorders. What happens to al this data? Who gets to usew it? Can we trust a nation to use this information completely fairly whiile we see other laws coming in which undermine the notion of liberty, and freedom.

For some odd reason, all those battering on about conmspiracy theories seem to have a point. Bio-metric ID cards, the Patriot act and all its nuainces, and now this. People wold laugh at this stuff if anyone said it would happen, but here we are and no matte how this is being parcelled up to us, it's a damn well scary prospect.

Do I trust that this data wil never be used against my wishes? No, I don't. Do I think for a moment it won't be used fir more than just finding out those with common mental issues? No way.

What a sad thing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Darn it. There's a dystopia that's older than Brave New World that involves brain surgery to remove a part of the brain of the protagonist because he's a malcontent, and therefore mentally ill.

I just wish I could remember the name. I thought it was Metropolis, but I can't find any info on the novel, and the net is swamped with info about the movie that I'm not sure is related. I'm pretty sure that there was a dystopia written in the 1920s with that plot point, though.

Oh, well.

BlackGriffen

well, there's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", I guess.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Wait a minute, if this is not purely done on a voluntary basis, then a huge shot across the bows of freedom has just been snatched away from people. I can't believe this is actually happening, and irrespective of whether or not this is about catching tose with mental disorders. What happens to al this data? Who gets to usew it? Can we trust a nation to use this information completely fairly whiile we see other laws coming in which undermine the notion of liberty, and freedom.

For some odd reason, all those battering on about conmspiracy theories seem to have a point. Bio-metric ID cards, the Patriot act and all its nuainces, and now this. People wold laugh at this stuff if anyone said it would happen, but here we are and no matte how this is being parcelled up to us, it's a damn well scary prospect.

Do I trust that this data wil never be used against my wishes? No, I don't. Do I think for a moment it won't be used fir more than just finding out those with common mental issues? No way.

What a sad thing.

To be efficient, it would have to be voluntary, for fear of getting wrong results in the course of the evaluation.

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
To be efficient, it would have to be voluntary, for fear of getting wrong results in the course of the evaluation.

Is this just the slippery slide downwards now? We're seeing more and more of these things being introduced in a manner which doesn't quite alarm people, but what happens in 5, 10 years? What happens if it's decided that it'l be compulsary for those such as criminals, those who have slight mental health issues, etc? Where does the line stop?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by sanity assassin:
Is this just the slippery slide downwards now? We're seeing more and more of these things being introduced in a manner which doesn't quite alarm people, but what happens in 5, 10 years? What happens if it's decided that it'l be compulsary for those such as criminals, those who have slight mental health issues, etc? Where does the line stop?

It is a good question.

On the other hand, most industrialized societies are facing an increase in mental health issues amongst their population, and not many are able to self-diagnose let alone accept that they may have a problem.

Yet, help is available and should be accessible.

The question regarding confidentiality and and custody of records is also very important.

HIPPAA is a website that can provide you with lots of information regarding this matter. You might find that the rules are quite strong in the U.S. concerning this.

[Taliesin]

If that's true, then this must be the most Orwellian-policy the republicans came up with, calling it "Freedom-initiative", just like in "1984", where every governmental term meant the opposite, but otherwise, wasn't the Bush-administration leading wars in the name of peace? Here comes the peace, beware it comes with the transportation-service of a 500-pound-bomb.

But actually the democrats are as orwellian as the republicans.

Taliesin

[Monique]

And who is going to screen this President for mental capacity??

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Monique:
And who is going to screen this President for mental capacity??

I am sure he has already been.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yeah, some of them are unfortunate, and some of them are also there because they are druggies/alcoholics/criminals etc. They are a threat to everybody. I remember that woman who got her head bashed in by some homeless thug with a brick in NYC a while back.

I never give a dime to any homeless person, ever. That's not the right way to help them. Many of them are also annoying scam artists, like I see on the subway.

If your a real New Yorker you'd know the statistics:

only a handful of cases where homless or minorities just attack. Despite the streotype.

There are more cases of a middle aged white guy going on a rampage during his lunch hour than all of the minority/poor attacks on random people combined.


Ironically (despite the stereotype) minorities, addicts, and the poor do have a higher rate on domestic abuse (within family)... but it's extremely rare for it to extend beyond the close circle.


So your more likely to be attacked in the subway by a white guy named Bob from a middle class neighborohood with 2 kids... than a crack addict.

[el chupacabra]

Originally posted by maxintosh:

Is that a JOKE? This essentially makes the government able to *tell* us what medications to take. This is one of the scariest, most corrupt, most messed up things to come out of this administration yet!!

I don't see where it says the government will force anyone to take drugs.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Point. I don't give money on the street either. By what I was getting at, is they need help, not just to be ignored or fed once a month like now.

Hey, great, let's raise taxes and form another bloated government entitlement program for them!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I can tell you that psychologists are creaming over this. They think it's the greatest thing in the world. I don't really see the problem with early screening.

I'm sorry I must have missed the part where the solution to early-diagnosed psychotic illnesses are dealt with/cured. Namely, fine you screen people and weed out the unstable ones, then what?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I'm sorry I must have missed the part where the solution to early-diagnosed psychotic illnesses are dealt with/cured. Namely, fine you screen people and weed out the unstable ones, then what?

I must have missed the part about "weeding out the unstable ones." Once the screening has been done, the family can take their kid to the doctor, just like always.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I must have missed the part about "weeding out the unstable ones." Once the screening has been done, the family can take their kid to the doctor, just like always.

So why is this being done? I question the motives behind such a move. Why would the government want such an extensive screening really? I'm sure psychologists are creaming themselves over this considering all the extra business and drug companies even more. But what does society get out of this? This sounds to me like a toothless operation.

[Luca Rescigno]

The fact that they're calling it the "New Freedom Initiative" makes me think they're trying to hide something. I think mental health tests are just as important as physical health tests, so it makes sense to have a mental health screening along with the physical most kids get when going into junior high or middle school.

But if that's all it really is, why not call it the Mental Health Screening Act? Why does this administration have to slap buzzwords like "Freedom," "Justice," and "Patriot" on everything? I bet this wouldn't be getting nearly as much press if it weren't hiding behind a deceitful name.

While it seems like a good idea, I am quite worried about it, simply because of the name.

[BRussell]

What do we get out of it? You've got to be kidding me. What does society get out of determining whether people have any illness? Are you against women doing breast cancer screening too? What about men for prostate cancer? Skin cancer? Going to the dentist to check for cavities? Are they all evil plots? Or do those things maybe provide people the chance to treat them early?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What do we get out of it? You've got to be kidding me. What does society get out of determining whether people have any illness? Are you against women doing breast cancer screening too? What about men for prostate cancer? Skin cancer? Going to the dentist to check for cavities? Are they all evil plots? Or do those things maybe provide people the chance to treat them early?

Evil plots? No, I suspect it to be a toothless piece of legislation. Appeal to voters, drug companies and psychologists without actually accomplishing anything. That's what it sounds like to me.

Prostate cancer, skin cancer, cavities etc etc all this you name have cures, at least when caught on at an early stage of development. Screening on those diseases has a very good point, since lives can be lost if diagnosed to late. They can be cured, where the cure leaves the patient 100% as good as before he got said disease.

Comparing screening of basic physiological ailments with neuro-psychological social symptoms where there is seldom a cure is frankly not apt.

I must ask again, what exactly is this screening supposed to accomplish? That the people suffering from mild hysteria seek help immediately? That the developing schizophrenic is medicated pre-emptively? What? I'm really curious. You say that after the screening a person diagnosed with a mental disorder will have to seek help either himself or with the help of family (if he's a minor) but what makes you think that this person would seek help even if diagnosed? Usually it is through the encouragement of friends, not family that people go seek psychological help. I'm all ears.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What do we get out of it? You've got to be kidding me. What does society get out of determining whether people have any illness? Are you against women doing breast cancer screening too? What about men for prostate cancer? Skin cancer? Going to the dentist to check for cavities? Are they all evil plots? Or do those things maybe provide people the chance to treat them early?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Evil plots? No, I suspect it to be a toothless piece of legislation. Appeal to voters, drug companies and psychologists without actually accomplishing anything. That's what it sounds like to me.

Prostate cancer, skin cancer, cavities etc etc all this you name have cures, at least when caught on at an early stage of development. Screening on those diseases has a very good point, since lives can be lost if diagnosed to late. They can be cured, where the cure leaves the patient 100% as good as before he got said disease.

Comparing screening of basic physiological ailments with neuro-psychological social symptoms where there is seldom a cure is frankly not apt.

I must ask again, what exactly is this screening supposed to accomplish? That the people suffering from mild hysteria seek help immediately? That the developing schizophrenic is medicated pre-emptively? What? I'm really curious. You say that after the screening a person diagnosed with a mental disorder will have to seek help either himself or with the help of family (if he's a minor) but what makes you think that this person would seek help even if diagnosed? Usually it is through the encouragement of friends, not family that people go seek psychological help. I'm all ears.

Well other people in this thread seem to be looking at it as an evil plot, but you're probably right that nothing will come of even the good parts of this. But I strongly disagree with you if you're saying that physiological ailments have cures and psychological ones don't. There are quite a number of incurable physical ailments, and quite a number of highly treatable psychological ones. It just depends on what disorder you're talking about. But let me give you one example that they mention: suicide/depression. Those are quite easy to screen for and highly treatable (or preventable in the case of suicide) with therapy and/or drugs. Anxiety disorders, like panic disorder and generalized anxiety and phobias, as another example, are again very responsive to behavioral-oriented treatment or drugs. Other issues may not be treatable, but I don't really see the point in screening for untreatable issues.

I don't know if you can get a school kid to get treatment, nor do I know if you can get a school kid's parents to take them. But I can't imagine that a responsible parent would ignore the issue if a school professional told them of a problem.