Parents Need to Know,...
DO WE REALLY WANT UNIVERSAL
MENTAL HEALTH SCREENING
FOR OUR CHILDREN?
By Theresa McGrath and Judy Aron
Widespread mental health screening of children, through youth programs and public schools is being promoted by federal and state initiatives. Parents need to know about these initiatives which are funded by public and private interests. Screening is portrayed as a means to reduce suicide and help young people with mental health issues by identifying needs. While early diagnosis and treatment of any health issue, physical or mental, is beneficial, the implementation of universal mental health screening is quite disturbing. The risks involved in having the government screen and diagnose children, while accumulating resulting information on the entire school-age population cannot be overstated. The funding of these screening programs by pharmaceutical companies is also suspect.
On the federal level, in April, 2002, President Bush issued an executive order creating the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. In July 2003, the commission’s final report identified implementation of universal mental health screening of schoolchildren as a primary goal. Last year, the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awarded 37 grants totaling $9.7 million, substantially funding the initiation of screening projects in 45 states. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) have introduced bills seeking to fund screening programs such as these.
Here in Connecticut, Governor Rell developed a Blue Ribbon Commission on Mental Health, which established a Comprehensive Suicide Prevention Plan. Lieutenant Governor Kevin Sullivan developed a Mental Health Cabinet, which advocates for an overhaul of the mental health system in CT. In its report it focused on early intervention, and has resulted in plans to provide increased mental health services through the HUSKY Medicaid program. Lt. Governor Sullivan has also worked closely with NAMI-CT, the local branch of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which is a strong advocate for widespread mental health screening of children. Other states have already started programs like this. Illinois has implemented a program for mental health screening of all pregnant women using Medicaid benefits.
Screening programs currently being utilized are Wested’s Healthy Kids Survey, Signs of Suicide (SOS), and TeenScreen. TeenScreen is a non-profit organization affiliated with Columbia University and funded in part by contributions from pharmaceutical companies that produce and profit from psychotropic drugs used to treat depression and other mental health conditions. The stated goal of TeenScreen is to implement universal mental health screening for all children in America. Over the last few years, TeenScreen has opened sites throughout the country, and significant concerns have surfaced about its methods and effectiveness and potential adverse effects on children.
Watertown, Wilton, and Bridgeport have used TeenScreen, with some sites publicly funded by the CT legislature. The TeenScreen website invites anyone to consider starting a program in your town; no experience required. They provide tips on how to get started, who to get on board, and where to get funds. The process resembles setting up a fast-food pizza franchise. Many grants are available from organizations and agencies influenced by the same pharmaceutical companies directly or indirectly funding TeenScreen.
Technology permits the harvesting and filing of personal information and it is important to safeguard particularly sensitive records. As the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Connecticut, recently opined in O’Connor v. Pierson, mental health information is particularly “intimate” and is protected by the Constitutional right to privacy. The state can mandate disclosure of this kind of information only upon a showing of a substantial government interest, and even then it should only be disclosed and analyzed by professionals.
Mental health assessment should only occur in private session with a highly trained mental health professional based on an observed need; particularly utilizing the federally mandated Child Find process and the IDEA laws where a parent must be a part of the process for the best interest of the child. However, in order to implement widespread screening of an entire school, TeenScreen relies on volunteer clinicians reviewing responses to a brief questionnaire. With a six week training session, anyone can provide mental health services. This is a recipe for disaster.
It has been questioned whether the screening process is at all effective in identifying mental health disorders. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the leading source of recommendations and guidelines for screening tests, looked into the issue of whether licensed physicians should routinely screen their patients to detect suicide risk, and determined, in a report published in 2004, that the available evidence was insufficient to recommend for or against routine screening.
The New Freedom Commission briefly mentions parental consent regarding screening. Parents have legal rights regarding active informed consent. Parents are understandably reluctant to allow TeenScreen access to their children to be asked highly personal questions by volunteers with little training, for unstated reasons. TeenScreen and other screening programs use Passive Parental Consent, so that parents inform the school only if they wish to opt out. Forms going home tend to get lost, so kids end up participating without their parent’s knowledge. Also, The TeenScreen News noted that if the local board of education approves TeenScreen as an “educational program” or makes it part of the education curriculum, parental consent is not required.
There is no doubt that early diagnosis and interventions for true brain dysfunctions benefit people in need, but the wholesale mental health screening of school children and pregnant and post partum women is quite chilling and a very dangerous thing to implement for a multitude of reasons. It is crucially important that parents know what is going on regarding these programs, who is behind them, who benefits from them, and what happens to the information that is produced, as well as what happens to the people who are being identified and very possibly mislabeled.
Theresa McGrath is the Executive Director of the Family Alliance for Children in Education, a parent advocacy group who watches legislation which affect children in Education. She can be reached at FACE0203@comcast.net
Judy Aron is the Director of Research of the National Home Education Legal Defense. www.nheld.com . She can be reached at imjfaron@sbcglobal.net
"Mental illnesses" are completely subjective, diagnosed by behaviors and feelings ONLY. No science, no objective tests whatsoever!
Then, the treatment. Who is to say that early treatment is a good idea. Take a child age 10. On average, he has about 60 years to live. You want to take actions that benefit him throughout all those 60 years, if you really care about children. Psychiatric drugs, on the other hand, the treatment of choice in today's world, are testing only for SHORT-TERM manipulation of symptoms. How good an idea is it to drug away symptoms, thinking of today, with 60 years of future at risk? (Comment this)
-Jampa Williams (Comment this)