The Controversy About The Best Treatments for ADHD
January 4, 2010 · Category : Education
What are the best treatments for ADHD? The controversy rages on and there are advocates of ADHD meds who say that the side effects and the risks are minimal while there are other advocates of homeopathy, meditation, yoga, deep breathing, behavior modification, dietary changes and even equine therapy! There seems to be little agreement and the drug companies ware insistent that their psychostimulants are the best treatments for ADHD and this is regarded as the first option by many doctors, parents and paediatricians. It should, in my opinion, be the last option.
Did you know that William Pelham (University of Buffalo) has been given a grant of almost $6 million to carry out a three year project to determine what indeed are the best treatments for ADHD? Basically his work (yet to be published) will determine the effectiveness of a treatment which favours ADHD medications or behavior modification techniques such as parenting skills sessions and social skills training for children. He has quoted the growing concerns about the long term effects and safety of the ADHD medications.
However, other short term studies show that behavior modification is probably best and that the effects of medication are rather short term and riskier. It also seems that the beneficial effects of ADHD drugs last no more than three years! This does not seem to be one of the best treatments for ADHD.
A very interesting experiment carried out at the Children's Hospital in Melbourne, Australia shows how parents' and children's perceptions of the effects of ADHD meds can differ. Not surprising in that each party is looking at it from a different angle and children are hardly mature enough to realize what they are taking. It was a small group of about 100 children who were taking these ADHD meds. About 18% of the kids reported feeling worse while most of the parents reported favourably on the ADHD drugs. The main problems for the kids were the unpleasant side effects which ranged from dizziness, loss of appetite and problems in getting to sleep. The report concluded that there was a substantial proportion of the children who viewed the ADHD drugs rather unfavourably.
Parents are now looking more and more favourably at ADHD homeopathic remedies as probably one of the best treatments for ADHD as there are no side effects and the gentler effects of these medicines are now well documented , although scorned by the medical community. But there are thousands and thousands of children who have had great relief of symptoms when they have used these cures. Let us not forget the ADHD behavioural therapy which in combination with a homeopathic remedy,is the treatment which will really help ADHD children grow up to be mature responsible adults.
Discover what are the best treatments for ADHD . Experts now tell us that child behavior programs combined with a natural treatment for ADHD is by far the most effective ADHD treatment. Robert Locke is a Health enthusiast who specializes in Children's Health. He has written extensively on ADHD
http://articlesmix.com/the-controversy-about-the-best-treatments-for-adhd/
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
More Toddlers, Young Children Given Antipsychotics
More Toddlers, Young Children Given Antipsychotics
HealthDay Reporter by Jennifer Thomas
– Mon Jan 4, 11:49 pm ET
MONDAY, Jan. 4 (HealthDay News) -- The rate of children aged 2 to 5 who are given antipsychotic medications has doubled in recent years, a new study has found.
Yet little is known about either the effectiveness or the safety of these powerful psychiatric medications in children this age, said researchers from Columbia University and Rutgers University, who looked at data on more than 1 million children with private health insurance.
"It is a worrisome trend, partly because very little is known about the short-term, let alone the long-term, safety of these drugs in this age group," said study author Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.
Prescribing antipsychotics to children in the upper range of that age span -- ages 4 and 5 -- is justifiable only in rare, intractable situations in which all other treatments, including family and psychological therapy, have been tried and are not working, Olfson said.
And it's questionable whether 2- and 3-year-olds should ever be prescribed antipsychotics, Olfson said.
The study is published in the January issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Presumably, only children with the most severe mental problems would be given the potent drugs. Yet, less than half of children on antipsychotics had received any mental health services, including a mental health assessment or treatment from a psychotherapist or psychiatrist, the study authors noted.
"You don't see the kinds of mental health services you would expect to see if we were dealing with the most profoundly disturbed toddlers," Olfson said, raising the question of whether doctors had done everything they could to help the child before turning to medications.
The overall numbers of children prescribed antipsychotics remains small, at less than one half of one percent of the national sample. But the numbers are rising. In 1999-2001, about one in 1,300 were being treated with antipsychotics. By 2007, that had risen to one in 630, according to Olfson.
For 5-year-olds, about one in 650 were being treated in 1999-2001. That doubled, to one in 329, in 2007, he noted.
Research published online in December in the journal Health Affairs by the same research team suggested children on Medicaid are even more likely than children with private insurance to be prescribed antipsychotics.
The most common antipsychotic drug prescribed to children was risperidone (Risperdal), which accounted for nearly three-quarters of antipsychotic prescriptions. In adults and teens, risperidone is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Risperidone is also approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat unstable mood or irritability in children with autism aged 5 and up.
Children who were most likely to receive risperidone were male and aged 4 or 5, according to the report. The most common diagnosis was pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or disruptive behavior disorder.
Previous research has shown children on the drugs may experience metabolic and endocrine abnormalities. Little is known about their impact on the developing brain, Olfson added.
"I don't want to minimize the problems children can have at this age, but there are psychological treatments that have been proven to help parents and the kids that emphasize the quality of the parent-child relationship," Olfson said.
One reason for the uptick may be increasing numbers of children diagnosed with autism and some research showing risperidone may help with autism-related irritability, the researchers noted.
Dr. Peter Jensen, co-director of the division of child psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, agreed that the trend is concerning. "We have no doubt there are prescribing practices out there that are very, very worrisome," Jensen said.
It's imperative that children receive a full mental health assessment before getting these drugs, to understand the family situation and school environment and if there is a family history of psychiatric problems, as well as undergoing a physical exam to rule out other medical problems.
"These agents should not be used as an adjunct to a family stressed to the max," Jensen said. "With kids who are 2 to 5, most can be managed without these medicines. Rarely a 5-year-old goes on them. But a child of 2 or 3, in my experience, I have never had to put them on [an antipsychotic]. There is so much else that can be done."
The stress and difficulty of coping with a child who has significant mental health issues, the need to have a child behave well enough to be permitted to attend school, as well as lack of adequate coverage for family therapy and mental health services, may push doctors and parents into believing they have little choice other than medicating the child, Jensen said.
More information
The U.S. National Mental Health Information Center has more on children and mental health issues.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100105/hl_hsn/moretoddlersyoungchildrengivenantipsychotics
.
HealthDay Reporter by Jennifer Thomas
– Mon Jan 4, 11:49 pm ET
MONDAY, Jan. 4 (HealthDay News) -- The rate of children aged 2 to 5 who are given antipsychotic medications has doubled in recent years, a new study has found.
Yet little is known about either the effectiveness or the safety of these powerful psychiatric medications in children this age, said researchers from Columbia University and Rutgers University, who looked at data on more than 1 million children with private health insurance.
"It is a worrisome trend, partly because very little is known about the short-term, let alone the long-term, safety of these drugs in this age group," said study author Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.
Prescribing antipsychotics to children in the upper range of that age span -- ages 4 and 5 -- is justifiable only in rare, intractable situations in which all other treatments, including family and psychological therapy, have been tried and are not working, Olfson said.
And it's questionable whether 2- and 3-year-olds should ever be prescribed antipsychotics, Olfson said.
The study is published in the January issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Presumably, only children with the most severe mental problems would be given the potent drugs. Yet, less than half of children on antipsychotics had received any mental health services, including a mental health assessment or treatment from a psychotherapist or psychiatrist, the study authors noted.
"You don't see the kinds of mental health services you would expect to see if we were dealing with the most profoundly disturbed toddlers," Olfson said, raising the question of whether doctors had done everything they could to help the child before turning to medications.
The overall numbers of children prescribed antipsychotics remains small, at less than one half of one percent of the national sample. But the numbers are rising. In 1999-2001, about one in 1,300 were being treated with antipsychotics. By 2007, that had risen to one in 630, according to Olfson.
For 5-year-olds, about one in 650 were being treated in 1999-2001. That doubled, to one in 329, in 2007, he noted.
Research published online in December in the journal Health Affairs by the same research team suggested children on Medicaid are even more likely than children with private insurance to be prescribed antipsychotics.
The most common antipsychotic drug prescribed to children was risperidone (Risperdal), which accounted for nearly three-quarters of antipsychotic prescriptions. In adults and teens, risperidone is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Risperidone is also approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat unstable mood or irritability in children with autism aged 5 and up.
Children who were most likely to receive risperidone were male and aged 4 or 5, according to the report. The most common diagnosis was pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or disruptive behavior disorder.
Previous research has shown children on the drugs may experience metabolic and endocrine abnormalities. Little is known about their impact on the developing brain, Olfson added.
"I don't want to minimize the problems children can have at this age, but there are psychological treatments that have been proven to help parents and the kids that emphasize the quality of the parent-child relationship," Olfson said.
One reason for the uptick may be increasing numbers of children diagnosed with autism and some research showing risperidone may help with autism-related irritability, the researchers noted.
Dr. Peter Jensen, co-director of the division of child psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, agreed that the trend is concerning. "We have no doubt there are prescribing practices out there that are very, very worrisome," Jensen said.
It's imperative that children receive a full mental health assessment before getting these drugs, to understand the family situation and school environment and if there is a family history of psychiatric problems, as well as undergoing a physical exam to rule out other medical problems.
"These agents should not be used as an adjunct to a family stressed to the max," Jensen said. "With kids who are 2 to 5, most can be managed without these medicines. Rarely a 5-year-old goes on them. But a child of 2 or 3, in my experience, I have never had to put them on [an antipsychotic]. There is so much else that can be done."
The stress and difficulty of coping with a child who has significant mental health issues, the need to have a child behave well enough to be permitted to attend school, as well as lack of adequate coverage for family therapy and mental health services, may push doctors and parents into believing they have little choice other than medicating the child, Jensen said.
More information
The U.S. National Mental Health Information Center has more on children and mental health issues.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100105/hl_hsn/moretoddlersyoungchildrengivenantipsychotics
.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Big Government, Promises, Accountability , Priorities, Real and Fake Benefits, the Propaganda Mill and Social Service Programs like Health Care
Big Government, Promises, Accountability , Priorities, Real and Fake Benefits, the Propaganda Mill and Social Service Programs like Health Care
December 13, 2009 by Lex Loeb
Lex Loeb Published Content: 824Total Views: 89,738Fans: 7View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Single pageFont SizePost a comment Share More topicsHuman Services | Big Family Oregon Department of Human Services Gets Hit with a 32 Million Dollar Lawsuit for Two Children Horribly Abused in a Foster Family Favored by the Agency
1234 X 2009 Credit: Stop Historic Health Care Reform! | © Lex Loeb
Got the dream of free health care for everyone with a big government take over? Government is going to take care of you. Right? In Oregon and across the nation it was not very long away when the US Congress and the state Capitol
in Oregon decided that Government had the duty to go out and protect children from abuse and neglect as a major national and state priority. The money spent already is an enormous sum. In Oregon it is an annual sum in the billions of dollars most of it imported grant funding from Washington, DC. This is multiplied across the country by the number of states. The money is so good that is all that seems to mater to the state social service agencies. The whole system instantly became a racket where children get sucked into the system whether they are abused or not and held as long as possible on some social security funded bounty system that encourages the state child saving protection service agencies to hold children as long as possible or just the number of days required for the funding to application to kick the funds in the state from Washington. In Oregon the social services intentionally extend "investigations" until they get their funding grant money and in the mean time will keep children locked away in "safe" and wholesome foster family farms rather than return them to innocent parents. No mater how abusive or neglectful the State of Oregon gets the more positive glowing reviews they get from the local media. The local media reporter just read the propaganda the agency pumps out on a regular basis. The Department of Human services and local child protection offices have hundreds of people employed just to invent positive looking statistics to justify their existence and the huge sums of money consumed with the employment of social workers, psychologists, medical services, attorneys and judges. Everything is for the benefit of children. 5000 were in custody for a period of time in government custody less than 1000 of them were actually abused or neglected. Annually there are 50,000 reports of abuse and neglect and the agency is too under staffed to take care of all of the report abut all are well trained professionals the need more money and more staff for what they are doing. That is the normal propaganda that comes out and then out of the blue you find out that children are being raped and murdered by a state appointed mentor in a foster family and the local media goes on with the charade. No one is at fault. The agency social workers were not required by law back then to do a background check on people hired by or working for the system and the murder has a long criminal history of dangerous behavior. The knee jerk reaction of the legislators in Salem, the capitol of Oregon is to pass a new law to make background checks required for everyone even. Later on it takes a special law to make it possible for union member teachers in public schools to be accused and investigated of child abuse including sex abuse. Yes it took a special law in Oregon! After that the media goes on with its glowing positive reviews again.
It is the big media that is pushing their progressive addenda to take over health care in the USA. These are the same people that gave us such great government controlled child care. Then the shit hits the fan again. Two children are discovered nearly starved to death in a foster home favored by Oregon state child protection services. The Children are half their normal weight , skin and bones and the immediate reaction of the child care works is to own up and say they made a huge mistake? No, they go on the defensive and they start yet a new cover up. No public employee at the union level, can ever be fired in Oregon and it is not very nice to try to hold them accountable for criminal activity either. Remember in Oregon Child neglect is a crime. Not for the state of Oregon. Not for the federal government.
A few days ago a lawsuit was filed asking for 32 million dollars for the abuse of these children nearly starved to death by the state of Oregon. The state is responsible for having the duty to check up foster families and they did and they did not. The poor
parents of these children may have been non abusers the way the system works. There have been cases where the parents the agency takes the children to complain to the agency that their children are being abused and neglected and the agency threatens them. Oregonians are not aware of just how bad the system is. It is and has been run by goons for years and years and they don't give a damn about child Welfare. The parents are assumed guilty before proven innocent in every case thanks to absurd federal and state law making. But the agency refused to do background checks on employees for years and years because it would harm worker's rights. Parents are not even allowed to get a second medical opinion for their children in custody. A local radio talk show host had his child taken because she had a bruise on her face from an accident. The agency was falsely accusing him of hitting her face with a frying pan which the child consistently denied. The money is good once they get a child into state custody or start an "investigation." Each investigation and custody situation employs hundreds of people directly and indirectly. The money is very good. The state of Oregon looks at the system as a big free cash cow coming from Washington dc where they have to snag as many children in the system as possible even when they are not abused nor neglected. When a 32 million dollar lawsuit comes up they hire a very expensive lawyer to defend the state and its fat purse from those evil lying children who were unfortunately abused and neglected by accident. No parent in Oregon gets the accidental is OK treatment! No way.
What does this have to do with the push for national health care? Everything. These social workers , lawyers, judges, psychologist and unions are the exact same people who want to take over your health care. They say they are doing it for your welfare. NOT! Congress is talking about the national priorities for this and that. Low cost health care , Universal access, benefits for all. Then you read the legislation and their plans don't cover everyone, fine you for not having health care insurance, raise taxes on your pace maker and eye glasses. The progressive media propaganda mill keeps talking about how historic everything is with congress passing various national health care bills. The word "historic" means they favor what congress is doing and is an endorsement. When ever you hear some one of PBS or ABC talking about the health care bill being "historic" it means that health care is really one of your national rights of citizenship just like child welfare was supposed to be. When they use the word "historic" it plainly means they have a progressive socialist bias. They don't use the word historic to describe the stimulus spending bill or TARP funding because they are not sure that is as positive. These are the same people that let give the child saving industry a pass from investigative journalism. Big government promises accountability, priorities and Real Benefits and when it comes to putting children first which we believe is more important than health care since we passed that historic legislation first, we get nothing but false promises and a big fat propaganda mill that keeps the abuses and neglect going.
Can you imagine what long term care will be like for you when the government takes over the health care system? You won't be treated any better than those two children who have to file a 32 million dollar lawsuit against the state of Oregon because the State
of Oregon will not just publicly come clean, fire the worthless public employees who cause this harm and compensate the children directly for the harm done to them with all the unlimited access to federal funding they are gleefully funding. No. They want to pay a fancy lawyer first rather than just settling with the abused children they almost killed. I don't want my doctor as a member of a union. And I don't want to see a wellness social worker before waiting in line for 6 months to see a doctor. It is hard to imagine government being more efficient or cheaper than a completive open market system of health care. If i have to wait six months to see a doctor for a complaint that is an added cost and a big cost. That is what happens in Canada and Britain. The costs are hidden. Time is money or loss of life. After seeing how legislation designed to protect and save neglected and abused children went so bad and became a complete racket in spite of the best original intentions. I can say I don't want anyone's good intentions legislation to take over my health care options. You can't sue the federal government the way you can the the states so they will act with impunity because they have almost absolute immunity. If you have a problem with the federal government you have to go to your senator's office and talk to them but that won't do any good. You can go to a senator like Ron Wyden of Oregon over and over again and they will call the police on you to get you away from them because the big government program that is supposed to be protecting and saving is Saving children by definition no matter how bad it gets! These Senators must be in on getting kick backs in campaign funding from the same people cashing in on the racket. Private lawyers and psychologist are on the payola May be sending Ron Wyden and our other senators a check to keep the system working the way it is. The same thing happened the last time the congress considered going to a flat rate tax system , the accountant lobby started funding senators and congressmen to make sure you still need to file complicated tax forms every year.
Already in the US Senate the money form big health care interests is flooding in and everyday you read in the newspaper that the Senators keep changing their minds on the role of pharmaceutical companies , lawyers and this and that. The whole thing is a scam and a racket and everyone of the well meaning senators that want national health care must necessarily know that the heart felt feeling of just doing the best thing for the American people is a big crock of nonsense with the real benefits going to special interests and not to patients except for show propaganda example patients. In oregon over 70 percent of the run away street kids come out of the state's glorious foster families that only take children "not for the money". Some percentage of these run away children are not even known by the agency to be run aways and they may still be paying the foster family money when the kid is no longer there nor even reported lost or missing.
Wait till you go to the hospital after congress fixes that. You maybe left to die and you wont be reported as lost in the system somewhere because the bureaucrats will have to be making things look better than they are with constant requests for more money and man power and then going on strike if they don't get it. If they accidental cut off the wrong foot of your grandmother, they will lie about it . It never happened. You can't sue the doctor , the hospital and they certainly won't make any immediate compensation available to your grandmother. She is probably at fault. After two years of government cover ups about what really happened your grandmother will have to find a lawyer to sue the state of Oregon for 32 million dollars and they will punish her for doing so by putting her in a long term care foster family from hell where they starve her to death. So you really want to turn your health care into a government service?
Oregon Department of Human Services Gets Hit with a 32 Million Dollar Lawsuit for Two Children Horribly Abused in a Foster Family Favored by the Agency
1234 X 2009 Credit: Stop Historic Health Care Reform! | © Lex Loeb
The State of Oregon should be liable for billions already for the harm they have done to children thanks to BS good intentions. Already the state of Oregon has a public health care plan that has proved to be BS. The state talks about changing the health care cost curve and other
nonsense like that but they exclude a number of expensive medical treatments from patients getting any access to them where the state is taking a state waiver of federal funding rules to redirect limited money to wellness social workers. We are all in for health care hell once the federal government comes up with it's new plan and the state of Oregon uses it as a money machine racket just like they have with child protection care.
Oh, and no mater how bad it gets the media will continue talking about how historic and wonderful and perfect the system is. No wonder Cuba has the best health care on earth!
Written by Lex Loeb
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2487228/big_government_promises_accountability.html
December 13, 2009 by Lex Loeb
Lex Loeb Published Content: 824Total Views: 89,738Fans: 7View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Single pageFont SizePost a comment Share More topicsHuman Services | Big Family Oregon Department of Human Services Gets Hit with a 32 Million Dollar Lawsuit for Two Children Horribly Abused in a Foster Family Favored by the Agency
1234 X 2009 Credit: Stop Historic Health Care Reform! | © Lex Loeb
Got the dream of free health care for everyone with a big government take over? Government is going to take care of you. Right? In Oregon and across the nation it was not very long away when the US Congress and the state Capitol
in Oregon decided that Government had the duty to go out and protect children from abuse and neglect as a major national and state priority. The money spent already is an enormous sum. In Oregon it is an annual sum in the billions of dollars most of it imported grant funding from Washington, DC. This is multiplied across the country by the number of states. The money is so good that is all that seems to mater to the state social service agencies. The whole system instantly became a racket where children get sucked into the system whether they are abused or not and held as long as possible on some social security funded bounty system that encourages the state child saving protection service agencies to hold children as long as possible or just the number of days required for the funding to application to kick the funds in the state from Washington. In Oregon the social services intentionally extend "investigations" until they get their funding grant money and in the mean time will keep children locked away in "safe" and wholesome foster family farms rather than return them to innocent parents. No mater how abusive or neglectful the State of Oregon gets the more positive glowing reviews they get from the local media. The local media reporter just read the propaganda the agency pumps out on a regular basis. The Department of Human services and local child protection offices have hundreds of people employed just to invent positive looking statistics to justify their existence and the huge sums of money consumed with the employment of social workers, psychologists, medical services, attorneys and judges. Everything is for the benefit of children. 5000 were in custody for a period of time in government custody less than 1000 of them were actually abused or neglected. Annually there are 50,000 reports of abuse and neglect and the agency is too under staffed to take care of all of the report abut all are well trained professionals the need more money and more staff for what they are doing. That is the normal propaganda that comes out and then out of the blue you find out that children are being raped and murdered by a state appointed mentor in a foster family and the local media goes on with the charade. No one is at fault. The agency social workers were not required by law back then to do a background check on people hired by or working for the system and the murder has a long criminal history of dangerous behavior. The knee jerk reaction of the legislators in Salem, the capitol of Oregon is to pass a new law to make background checks required for everyone even. Later on it takes a special law to make it possible for union member teachers in public schools to be accused and investigated of child abuse including sex abuse. Yes it took a special law in Oregon! After that the media goes on with its glowing positive reviews again.
It is the big media that is pushing their progressive addenda to take over health care in the USA. These are the same people that gave us such great government controlled child care. Then the shit hits the fan again. Two children are discovered nearly starved to death in a foster home favored by Oregon state child protection services. The Children are half their normal weight , skin and bones and the immediate reaction of the child care works is to own up and say they made a huge mistake? No, they go on the defensive and they start yet a new cover up. No public employee at the union level, can ever be fired in Oregon and it is not very nice to try to hold them accountable for criminal activity either. Remember in Oregon Child neglect is a crime. Not for the state of Oregon. Not for the federal government.
A few days ago a lawsuit was filed asking for 32 million dollars for the abuse of these children nearly starved to death by the state of Oregon. The state is responsible for having the duty to check up foster families and they did and they did not. The poor
parents of these children may have been non abusers the way the system works. There have been cases where the parents the agency takes the children to complain to the agency that their children are being abused and neglected and the agency threatens them. Oregonians are not aware of just how bad the system is. It is and has been run by goons for years and years and they don't give a damn about child Welfare. The parents are assumed guilty before proven innocent in every case thanks to absurd federal and state law making. But the agency refused to do background checks on employees for years and years because it would harm worker's rights. Parents are not even allowed to get a second medical opinion for their children in custody. A local radio talk show host had his child taken because she had a bruise on her face from an accident. The agency was falsely accusing him of hitting her face with a frying pan which the child consistently denied. The money is good once they get a child into state custody or start an "investigation." Each investigation and custody situation employs hundreds of people directly and indirectly. The money is very good. The state of Oregon looks at the system as a big free cash cow coming from Washington dc where they have to snag as many children in the system as possible even when they are not abused nor neglected. When a 32 million dollar lawsuit comes up they hire a very expensive lawyer to defend the state and its fat purse from those evil lying children who were unfortunately abused and neglected by accident. No parent in Oregon gets the accidental is OK treatment! No way.
What does this have to do with the push for national health care? Everything. These social workers , lawyers, judges, psychologist and unions are the exact same people who want to take over your health care. They say they are doing it for your welfare. NOT! Congress is talking about the national priorities for this and that. Low cost health care , Universal access, benefits for all. Then you read the legislation and their plans don't cover everyone, fine you for not having health care insurance, raise taxes on your pace maker and eye glasses. The progressive media propaganda mill keeps talking about how historic everything is with congress passing various national health care bills. The word "historic" means they favor what congress is doing and is an endorsement. When ever you hear some one of PBS or ABC talking about the health care bill being "historic" it means that health care is really one of your national rights of citizenship just like child welfare was supposed to be. When they use the word "historic" it plainly means they have a progressive socialist bias. They don't use the word historic to describe the stimulus spending bill or TARP funding because they are not sure that is as positive. These are the same people that let give the child saving industry a pass from investigative journalism. Big government promises accountability, priorities and Real Benefits and when it comes to putting children first which we believe is more important than health care since we passed that historic legislation first, we get nothing but false promises and a big fat propaganda mill that keeps the abuses and neglect going.
Can you imagine what long term care will be like for you when the government takes over the health care system? You won't be treated any better than those two children who have to file a 32 million dollar lawsuit against the state of Oregon because the State
of Oregon will not just publicly come clean, fire the worthless public employees who cause this harm and compensate the children directly for the harm done to them with all the unlimited access to federal funding they are gleefully funding. No. They want to pay a fancy lawyer first rather than just settling with the abused children they almost killed. I don't want my doctor as a member of a union. And I don't want to see a wellness social worker before waiting in line for 6 months to see a doctor. It is hard to imagine government being more efficient or cheaper than a completive open market system of health care. If i have to wait six months to see a doctor for a complaint that is an added cost and a big cost. That is what happens in Canada and Britain. The costs are hidden. Time is money or loss of life. After seeing how legislation designed to protect and save neglected and abused children went so bad and became a complete racket in spite of the best original intentions. I can say I don't want anyone's good intentions legislation to take over my health care options. You can't sue the federal government the way you can the the states so they will act with impunity because they have almost absolute immunity. If you have a problem with the federal government you have to go to your senator's office and talk to them but that won't do any good. You can go to a senator like Ron Wyden of Oregon over and over again and they will call the police on you to get you away from them because the big government program that is supposed to be protecting and saving is Saving children by definition no matter how bad it gets! These Senators must be in on getting kick backs in campaign funding from the same people cashing in on the racket. Private lawyers and psychologist are on the payola May be sending Ron Wyden and our other senators a check to keep the system working the way it is. The same thing happened the last time the congress considered going to a flat rate tax system , the accountant lobby started funding senators and congressmen to make sure you still need to file complicated tax forms every year.
Already in the US Senate the money form big health care interests is flooding in and everyday you read in the newspaper that the Senators keep changing their minds on the role of pharmaceutical companies , lawyers and this and that. The whole thing is a scam and a racket and everyone of the well meaning senators that want national health care must necessarily know that the heart felt feeling of just doing the best thing for the American people is a big crock of nonsense with the real benefits going to special interests and not to patients except for show propaganda example patients. In oregon over 70 percent of the run away street kids come out of the state's glorious foster families that only take children "not for the money". Some percentage of these run away children are not even known by the agency to be run aways and they may still be paying the foster family money when the kid is no longer there nor even reported lost or missing.
Wait till you go to the hospital after congress fixes that. You maybe left to die and you wont be reported as lost in the system somewhere because the bureaucrats will have to be making things look better than they are with constant requests for more money and man power and then going on strike if they don't get it. If they accidental cut off the wrong foot of your grandmother, they will lie about it . It never happened. You can't sue the doctor , the hospital and they certainly won't make any immediate compensation available to your grandmother. She is probably at fault. After two years of government cover ups about what really happened your grandmother will have to find a lawyer to sue the state of Oregon for 32 million dollars and they will punish her for doing so by putting her in a long term care foster family from hell where they starve her to death. So you really want to turn your health care into a government service?
Oregon Department of Human Services Gets Hit with a 32 Million Dollar Lawsuit for Two Children Horribly Abused in a Foster Family Favored by the Agency
1234 X 2009 Credit: Stop Historic Health Care Reform! | © Lex Loeb
The State of Oregon should be liable for billions already for the harm they have done to children thanks to BS good intentions. Already the state of Oregon has a public health care plan that has proved to be BS. The state talks about changing the health care cost curve and other
nonsense like that but they exclude a number of expensive medical treatments from patients getting any access to them where the state is taking a state waiver of federal funding rules to redirect limited money to wellness social workers. We are all in for health care hell once the federal government comes up with it's new plan and the state of Oregon uses it as a money machine racket just like they have with child protection care.
Oh, and no mater how bad it gets the media will continue talking about how historic and wonderful and perfect the system is. No wonder Cuba has the best health care on earth!
Written by Lex Loeb
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2487228/big_government_promises_accountability.html
Greyhounds over unborn children
Greyhounds over unborn children
Nashoba Publishing
Posted: 01/01/2010 07:36:36 AM EST
Well, it's been about a year since the good people of Massachusetts spoke through the polls. Pot is no longer criminal. Racing greyhounds is. Progress in Iraq is ignored, while the race of a black man in Kenya who fathered a son he never knew is celebrated.
Four thousand babies every day are slaughtered through abortion, but the lives of 4,000 heroes who honorably gave their lives for their country have been politicized and used by a party that treats conservatives as "those damned adults."
Conservatives aren't sexy. We worry about all those boring adult issues: paying the bills, living responsibly, doing things because they are right or wrong, even if no one is looking or they are difficult. For each person, different issues raise passion at the polls. For me, it is abortion. Like slavery, the legal slaughter of defenseless babies is the most insidious evil of its day. Ironically, like Lincoln's Republicans who believed in the rights of black people, we who try to protect the most defenseless members of our society are seen as a bit eccentric. A bit fired up over nothing.
The attitude that 'slaves are people' was seen as silly and inconsequential a mere hundred and forty-three years ago, to at least half of our country. This same attitude exists toward America's tiniest citizens for the same reasons: They can't vote. They don't pay taxes. And they are at the root of an extremely lucrative business. Whenever a true evil is tolerated or even embraced
by a society that likes to pride itself on being ethical, follow the money trail. Abortion is an industry worth billions of dollars.
Planned Parenthood has more access to America's children than their parents, in the eyes of the law. Check it out. Ask your pediatrician about where parents' rights end and Planned Parenthood's begin. A school nurse cannot legally give an aspirin to a child, without written permission from a parent. But that same nurse can legally transport, then aid and abet in a procedure as radical as surgery -- without parental notification or consent -- if it has to do with your 12-year- old's 'reproductive rights'. I am not kidding. Despite the fact that it is illegal for a person of age to engage in sexual activity with a child, if an adult brings a child into Planned Parenthood for birth control or an abortion, no questions are required to be answered. Instead of calling in Child Protective Services, Planned Parenthood is offering free (paid for with our taxes) 'services' to the children involved, with the promise that mom and dad will never find out. They have hated President Bush's noble appointments to the Supreme Court, because they tipped the balance against partial-birth abortions.
Though a ban on this grisly procedure passed through Congress multiple times under Clinton, he vetoed it each time. Then when it passed under Bush, the Supreme Court initially overruled it. While we were giving even the most heinous child killers a humane death under capital punishment, the cruel and violent death of innocent babies was deemed acceptable by our previously liberal Supreme Court. Partial-birth abortion is exactly what it sounds like. Nurses testified in congressional hearings that they had come to the conclusion that this procedure was murder, when they were forced to actually hold full-term babies' heads while they were stabbed in the base of their tiny necks, before their skulls were crushed with tongs. Had that baby moved 3 inches farther down the birth canal, it would have been called 'murder.'
But it took a conservative president to sign a ban on this type of murder into law. The liberals are still screaming about this. They'll protect a greyhound, but to hell with a baby whose harvestable parts make him worth more dead than alive. Its the twilight zone.
Now we have Obama, the most liberal candidate for president ever, about to take the helm. The first choice of Planned Parenthood, his politics send chills up the spine of anyone who cares about the safety of the youngest Americans. At least he is likeable. He seems like anyone's affable brother-in-law, one with whom you would not mind being seated at a wedding. But his politics scare me. I watched the exit polls in Chicago where three black women proudly said that for them this election WAS about race. They were voting for Obama because he was black. Hmmm. Now, my maiden name begins with the old country Mc, just like John McCain's, but if I were to say on national TV that I had voted for John McCain because he was white, or even Irish-American, the media would lynch me. Rightfully so.
I cannot believe that the color of ours skin would have any bearing on anything. I loved Alan Keyes, who was a whole lot 'blacker' than Obama. Or give me J.C. Watts- please! But they were just too conservative for the puppeteers holding the strings to new African-American voters. When I ask liberal friends what issues mattered most to them, I usually get the same answer: Change. Well, folks, change is coming all right. I just pray that its what everyone had in mind. Greyhounds are no longer allowed to run, but I sure wish the babies could.
http://www.nashobapublishing.com/ci_14106548?source=most_viewed
Nashoba Publishing
Posted: 01/01/2010 07:36:36 AM EST
Well, it's been about a year since the good people of Massachusetts spoke through the polls. Pot is no longer criminal. Racing greyhounds is. Progress in Iraq is ignored, while the race of a black man in Kenya who fathered a son he never knew is celebrated.
Four thousand babies every day are slaughtered through abortion, but the lives of 4,000 heroes who honorably gave their lives for their country have been politicized and used by a party that treats conservatives as "those damned adults."
Conservatives aren't sexy. We worry about all those boring adult issues: paying the bills, living responsibly, doing things because they are right or wrong, even if no one is looking or they are difficult. For each person, different issues raise passion at the polls. For me, it is abortion. Like slavery, the legal slaughter of defenseless babies is the most insidious evil of its day. Ironically, like Lincoln's Republicans who believed in the rights of black people, we who try to protect the most defenseless members of our society are seen as a bit eccentric. A bit fired up over nothing.
The attitude that 'slaves are people' was seen as silly and inconsequential a mere hundred and forty-three years ago, to at least half of our country. This same attitude exists toward America's tiniest citizens for the same reasons: They can't vote. They don't pay taxes. And they are at the root of an extremely lucrative business. Whenever a true evil is tolerated or even embraced
by a society that likes to pride itself on being ethical, follow the money trail. Abortion is an industry worth billions of dollars.
Planned Parenthood has more access to America's children than their parents, in the eyes of the law. Check it out. Ask your pediatrician about where parents' rights end and Planned Parenthood's begin. A school nurse cannot legally give an aspirin to a child, without written permission from a parent. But that same nurse can legally transport, then aid and abet in a procedure as radical as surgery -- without parental notification or consent -- if it has to do with your 12-year- old's 'reproductive rights'. I am not kidding. Despite the fact that it is illegal for a person of age to engage in sexual activity with a child, if an adult brings a child into Planned Parenthood for birth control or an abortion, no questions are required to be answered. Instead of calling in Child Protective Services, Planned Parenthood is offering free (paid for with our taxes) 'services' to the children involved, with the promise that mom and dad will never find out. They have hated President Bush's noble appointments to the Supreme Court, because they tipped the balance against partial-birth abortions.
Though a ban on this grisly procedure passed through Congress multiple times under Clinton, he vetoed it each time. Then when it passed under Bush, the Supreme Court initially overruled it. While we were giving even the most heinous child killers a humane death under capital punishment, the cruel and violent death of innocent babies was deemed acceptable by our previously liberal Supreme Court. Partial-birth abortion is exactly what it sounds like. Nurses testified in congressional hearings that they had come to the conclusion that this procedure was murder, when they were forced to actually hold full-term babies' heads while they were stabbed in the base of their tiny necks, before their skulls were crushed with tongs. Had that baby moved 3 inches farther down the birth canal, it would have been called 'murder.'
But it took a conservative president to sign a ban on this type of murder into law. The liberals are still screaming about this. They'll protect a greyhound, but to hell with a baby whose harvestable parts make him worth more dead than alive. Its the twilight zone.
Now we have Obama, the most liberal candidate for president ever, about to take the helm. The first choice of Planned Parenthood, his politics send chills up the spine of anyone who cares about the safety of the youngest Americans. At least he is likeable. He seems like anyone's affable brother-in-law, one with whom you would not mind being seated at a wedding. But his politics scare me. I watched the exit polls in Chicago where three black women proudly said that for them this election WAS about race. They were voting for Obama because he was black. Hmmm. Now, my maiden name begins with the old country Mc, just like John McCain's, but if I were to say on national TV that I had voted for John McCain because he was white, or even Irish-American, the media would lynch me. Rightfully so.
I cannot believe that the color of ours skin would have any bearing on anything. I loved Alan Keyes, who was a whole lot 'blacker' than Obama. Or give me J.C. Watts- please! But they were just too conservative for the puppeteers holding the strings to new African-American voters. When I ask liberal friends what issues mattered most to them, I usually get the same answer: Change. Well, folks, change is coming all right. I just pray that its what everyone had in mind. Greyhounds are no longer allowed to run, but I sure wish the babies could.
http://www.nashobapublishing.com/ci_14106548?source=most_viewed
We asked for help - but they took our kids (This is the reason you don't ask CPS for help. You go to your family!)
We asked for help - but they took our kidsArticle from:
BRYAN LITTLELY
January 05, 2010 12:01am
..TRIGGER-HAPPY social workers are taking children from their homes and creating a new "stolen generation", a group of distraught mothers claim.
The four women, with 26 children between them, say what started as cries for help became the catalyst that destroyed their families.
They say care workers bullied and threatened them and coerced them to put their children into care.
In some cases, the children were ripped from the arms of their parents outside court houses and schools without any warning.
The mums also say their children are now living in situations worse than the conditions they had at home.
Some have unsupervised visits with fathers convicted of child neglect and other crimes, others are separated from siblings and children as young as three have run away from foster homes.
Recent FamiliesSA figures show that at the end of June last year, there were 2111 children under care and protection orders, an 8.6 per cent increase on the previous year's 1943.
HAVE YOU HAD DEALINGS WITH FAMILIES SA? Tell us your story in the comment box below.
There are now about 1780 children in state care, the office of Families and Communities Minister Jennifer Rankine confirmed yesterday.
The minister's office provided reasons for FamiliesSA intervention in each of the cases of the four mothers, and emphasised it was the Youth Court that assesses the department's applications and makes the protection orders. But the mums argue they face no charges of neglect and believe they are good and capable mothers who were "tricked" into handing over their children to the state when they asked for help.
The mothers say FamiliesSA social workers have been "jumpy" and "trigger-happy" since June, 2008 when 21 children were found living in squalid conditions at Parafield Gardens. Six people face child-neglect charges over that case.
All four mothers who approached The Advertiser to tell their stories say they have never been charged with any child neglect crimes.
MUM 1, a 21-year-old from the southern suburbs, has lost the neat, comfortable rental property she had secured to raise her two young children. She says FamiliesSA has not only "stolen" her children, but also her joy of being a mother. She first came to the attention of the service when she and her mother asked for help to deal with her six-week-old daughter.
"They told me that they would help me to get on my feet, that the order would only be for six weeks and I would get her back," the mum said.
"Three months after she was born, I was pregnant. The order got extended to 14 months and throughout my pregnancy they threatened to take my baby away when he was born."
Her daughter was returned to her care and she looked after both children until December, 2008, when her son, now aged three, was admitted to hospital with head injuries sustained while he was in the care of a babysitter. The mother claims her son was in the babysitter's care for just 15 minutes.
No charges were laid over the incident but both children were taken from the mother and are now in the care of their father's parents.
The father lives in the home with the children but an order states he is not to have unsupervised access to the children, the mum says.
The mother says she now lives with her parents and they would like to help her raise her children in that home. But they have only recently been allowed limited unsupervised access to the children.
She said she is required to undergo a psychological assessment before her case can progress and that the current guardians have taunted her, saying she would never get her children back because they are now accredited foster carers.
MUM 2 is a 26-year-old mother of six who was herself under the care of the state as a child.
"I was under the guardianship of the state from 11 to 18 and I learnt what I know about being a mum from FamiliesSA," said the southern suburbs mum, who is pregnant.
"When I needed help with my five-week-old twins, I had to turn to them for help . . . that's all I knew to do.
"They said I would get my boys back, but I can't see that I will get my boys back and now they have taken my other four children.
"I am pregnant and I am scared they will take my baby away, too."
The young mum said her infant twins were taken from her more than a year ago and her other four children - whom her current partner had helped care for - were placed under a protection order in November.
She said she now only has supervised visits with her children, for a few hours twice a week, while the father of the four eldest children has unsupervised access despite having being jailed for child neglect of her eldest son.
"The three eldest kids were taken from school . . . We didn't even know it was happening," the woman's partner said.
"We had our three-year-old daughter with us and they were forcibly removing our girl from my arms. I was distressed and they handcuffed me when they did it."
The mother said: "They are creating the new stolen generation.
"I just want to be a mother. I want for my children to not have to go through what I went through as a child in the care of the state."
MUM 3 lives in the northern suburbs, has 11 children, and seven of them were living with her.
In November, five children were taken from her outside the Youth Court under a protection order.
She said the children who were put into care, aged 3-11, had all tried to run away from their foster home.
These included a four year old and a five year old who had both tried to hitch-hike home. After a month in foster care, they were placed in the care of their grandmother.
The mother's lawyers wrote to the mother, saying the magistrate overseeing her case deemed the foster care home had not provided "superior care" to that which she had offered.
In May, the mother admitted in a TV interview to being a neglectful parent when she was evicted from a rental property because of the putrid environment she lived in.
This week, she told The Advertiser she had done the best she could and had asked for help in a bid to adequately provide for her children.
"This is the worst experience of my life," the mum said.
"The minister . . . needs to come out here and talk to people like me to work out what's going on."
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26552705-5006301,00.html
MUM 4 is the 32-year-old Frewville mother who had seven children removed from her care on Christmas Eve. She said she handed her children to social workers on the promise they would be kept together.
She first visited the children briefly five days after they were removed and she says they are being cared for in four different homes.
Share this article What is this?
Add to MySpace Digg itPost to del.icio.usPost to NewsvinePost to FacebookAdd to kwoffStumble Upon
HEARTBROKEN: One of the mothers places a doll she made in a cot for her daughter who was taken from her along with her son by FamiliesSA.
BRYAN LITTLELY
January 05, 2010 12:01am
..TRIGGER-HAPPY social workers are taking children from their homes and creating a new "stolen generation", a group of distraught mothers claim.
The four women, with 26 children between them, say what started as cries for help became the catalyst that destroyed their families.
They say care workers bullied and threatened them and coerced them to put their children into care.
In some cases, the children were ripped from the arms of their parents outside court houses and schools without any warning.
The mums also say their children are now living in situations worse than the conditions they had at home.
Some have unsupervised visits with fathers convicted of child neglect and other crimes, others are separated from siblings and children as young as three have run away from foster homes.
Recent FamiliesSA figures show that at the end of June last year, there were 2111 children under care and protection orders, an 8.6 per cent increase on the previous year's 1943.
HAVE YOU HAD DEALINGS WITH FAMILIES SA? Tell us your story in the comment box below.
There are now about 1780 children in state care, the office of Families and Communities Minister Jennifer Rankine confirmed yesterday.
The minister's office provided reasons for FamiliesSA intervention in each of the cases of the four mothers, and emphasised it was the Youth Court that assesses the department's applications and makes the protection orders. But the mums argue they face no charges of neglect and believe they are good and capable mothers who were "tricked" into handing over their children to the state when they asked for help.
The mothers say FamiliesSA social workers have been "jumpy" and "trigger-happy" since June, 2008 when 21 children were found living in squalid conditions at Parafield Gardens. Six people face child-neglect charges over that case.
All four mothers who approached The Advertiser to tell their stories say they have never been charged with any child neglect crimes.
MUM 1, a 21-year-old from the southern suburbs, has lost the neat, comfortable rental property she had secured to raise her two young children. She says FamiliesSA has not only "stolen" her children, but also her joy of being a mother. She first came to the attention of the service when she and her mother asked for help to deal with her six-week-old daughter.
"They told me that they would help me to get on my feet, that the order would only be for six weeks and I would get her back," the mum said.
"Three months after she was born, I was pregnant. The order got extended to 14 months and throughout my pregnancy they threatened to take my baby away when he was born."
Her daughter was returned to her care and she looked after both children until December, 2008, when her son, now aged three, was admitted to hospital with head injuries sustained while he was in the care of a babysitter. The mother claims her son was in the babysitter's care for just 15 minutes.
No charges were laid over the incident but both children were taken from the mother and are now in the care of their father's parents.
The father lives in the home with the children but an order states he is not to have unsupervised access to the children, the mum says.
The mother says she now lives with her parents and they would like to help her raise her children in that home. But they have only recently been allowed limited unsupervised access to the children.
She said she is required to undergo a psychological assessment before her case can progress and that the current guardians have taunted her, saying she would never get her children back because they are now accredited foster carers.
MUM 2 is a 26-year-old mother of six who was herself under the care of the state as a child.
"I was under the guardianship of the state from 11 to 18 and I learnt what I know about being a mum from FamiliesSA," said the southern suburbs mum, who is pregnant.
"When I needed help with my five-week-old twins, I had to turn to them for help . . . that's all I knew to do.
"They said I would get my boys back, but I can't see that I will get my boys back and now they have taken my other four children.
"I am pregnant and I am scared they will take my baby away, too."
The young mum said her infant twins were taken from her more than a year ago and her other four children - whom her current partner had helped care for - were placed under a protection order in November.
She said she now only has supervised visits with her children, for a few hours twice a week, while the father of the four eldest children has unsupervised access despite having being jailed for child neglect of her eldest son.
"The three eldest kids were taken from school . . . We didn't even know it was happening," the woman's partner said.
"We had our three-year-old daughter with us and they were forcibly removing our girl from my arms. I was distressed and they handcuffed me when they did it."
The mother said: "They are creating the new stolen generation.
"I just want to be a mother. I want for my children to not have to go through what I went through as a child in the care of the state."
MUM 3 lives in the northern suburbs, has 11 children, and seven of them were living with her.
In November, five children were taken from her outside the Youth Court under a protection order.
She said the children who were put into care, aged 3-11, had all tried to run away from their foster home.
These included a four year old and a five year old who had both tried to hitch-hike home. After a month in foster care, they were placed in the care of their grandmother.
The mother's lawyers wrote to the mother, saying the magistrate overseeing her case deemed the foster care home had not provided "superior care" to that which she had offered.
In May, the mother admitted in a TV interview to being a neglectful parent when she was evicted from a rental property because of the putrid environment she lived in.
This week, she told The Advertiser she had done the best she could and had asked for help in a bid to adequately provide for her children.
"This is the worst experience of my life," the mum said.
"The minister . . . needs to come out here and talk to people like me to work out what's going on."
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26552705-5006301,00.html
MUM 4 is the 32-year-old Frewville mother who had seven children removed from her care on Christmas Eve. She said she handed her children to social workers on the promise they would be kept together.
She first visited the children briefly five days after they were removed and she says they are being cared for in four different homes.
Share this article What is this?
Add to MySpace Digg itPost to del.icio.usPost to NewsvinePost to FacebookAdd to kwoffStumble Upon
HEARTBROKEN: One of the mothers places a doll she made in a cot for her daughter who was taken from her along with her son by FamiliesSA.
Drugging Kids For Profit
Drugging Kids for Profit by Ed Silverman Jan 04 2010
As uses for antipsychotic drugs multiply, these powerful substances with strong side effects are being used to treat kids more and more often.
Sales, Stat!
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire. Read More
Out of Sight
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards. Read More
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More
Antipsychotics have been linked to an increased risk of death, according to some experts.
If elderly people with dementia are so vulnerable to the risks posed by antipsychotics, why are so many nursing-home residents regularly prescribed the medications?
The answer can be found in a controversy with its roots in aggressive marketing and lackadaisical supervision. Known in the medical community as atypical antipsychotics, this group of drugs was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat adults suffering from schizophrenia. They go by snazzy names such as Zyprexa, Geodon, Abilify, and Seroquel. Later, regulators allowed doctors to prescribe them for treating bipolar disorder. Over the past decade, the pills have become a veritable goldmine; in 2008 alone, sales in the U.S. reached $14.6 billion.
But critics say those big sales are actually due, in part, to an epidemic of off-label marketing, which is promoting a drug for unapproved uses, although doctors are free to write a prescription regardless. And so drugmakers encouraged doctors to prescribe these meds for children before the FDA sanctioned their use for youngsters. This was particularly troubling, given that the drugs can cause diabetes and weight gain, side effects that prompted thousands of lawsuits claiming that drugmakers tried to hide evidence of these problems.
Another side effect is even more disturbing—unnecessary deaths among elderly patients, who shouldn’t receive these medicines if they suffer from dementia. A recent study found that more than 140,000 dementia patients in the U.K. are given these meds needlessly and some 1,800 elderly deaths are linked each year to overprescribing. Moreover, only 20 percent of 180,000 dementia patients received any benefit.
In general, people taking antipsychotics are nearly twice as likely to have a stroke compared with those not on the meds, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. And the risk is higher—about 3.5 times—for those with dementia, which means doctors should only prescribe the pills as a last resort.
Of course, there are people in nursing homes with behavioral problems such as agitation and psychotic episodes. Yet reports periodically emerge that chronically understaffed nursing homes all too often dispense antipsychotics in order to subdue patients. A recent investigation by the Chicago Tribune, for instance, found that nursing-home residents in Illinois are drugged without their consent or without a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis that would justify treatment.
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire.
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards.
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More “Companies want to sell drugs, doctors prescribe the drugs most heavily marketed, nursing homes need doctors to legitimize their actions, and nurses are probably overworked and want doctors to medicate people so they’re more malleable,” says Robert Rosenheck, a Yale University professor of psychiatry and epidemiology and director of the Division of Mental Health Services and Outcomes Research.
“The participants start to gain, but the general public and the patients may not be better off. There’s evidence the drugs aren’t always effective, may be harmful, and can cost a good deal of money, but there’s nothing we can do about it, because we’re committed to the principal that doctors should be able to choose whatever treatments are best for their patients,” he continues. “About 60 percent are prescribed off label for non-psychiatric conditions for which there’s no FDA approval.”
Off-label marketing has led to huge fines. Last year, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion fine to settle civil and criminal investigations into fraudulent marketing of several drugs, including Geodon. Eli Lilly, which markets Zyprexa, paid a $1.4 billion fine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor for promoting its drug to the elderly with dementia, even though the pill was never approved for that use. And AstraZeneca reached a tentative $520 million deal to settle probes into off-label marketing, among other charges.
But drugmakers weren’t the only ones tagged. Omnicare, a big pharmacy that specializes in providing drugs to nursing homes, agreed to pay $98 million to settle charges of soliciting or paying kickbacks. One example—payments were made in exchange for recommending Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal antipsychotic to nursing homes. “Illegal conduct like this can undermine the medical judgments of health care professionals, lead to patients being prescribed medications they do not need, and drive up the costs of health care,” Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in announcing the settlement.
Whether the fines will alter marketing practices—and by extension, prescribing habits—remains to be seen. But Sube Banerjee, a professor of mental health and aging at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, says changes must be made immediately and recommends that the use of antipsychotics be cut by two thirds over the next three years in order to minimize deaths.
But as Yale’s Rosenheck notes, billions of dollars are at stake, and changing habits can be difficult. “It’s a major problem, and it goes well beyond these drugs. It’s really the system in which they all participate and has determined the culture in which we live and think about these medications,” he says. “Once you persuade doctors to use these drugs for every mental illness, well, you can sue the company, but litigation won’t make a company go back to doctors and tell them not to use the drugs as they have been doing. The horse is out of the barn.”
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/health-care/2010/01/04/drugging-kids-for-profit/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As uses for antipsychotic drugs multiply, these powerful substances with strong side effects are being used to treat kids more and more often.
Sales, Stat!
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire. Read More
Out of Sight
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards. Read More
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More
Antipsychotics have been linked to an increased risk of death, according to some experts.
If elderly people with dementia are so vulnerable to the risks posed by antipsychotics, why are so many nursing-home residents regularly prescribed the medications?
The answer can be found in a controversy with its roots in aggressive marketing and lackadaisical supervision. Known in the medical community as atypical antipsychotics, this group of drugs was originally approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat adults suffering from schizophrenia. They go by snazzy names such as Zyprexa, Geodon, Abilify, and Seroquel. Later, regulators allowed doctors to prescribe them for treating bipolar disorder. Over the past decade, the pills have become a veritable goldmine; in 2008 alone, sales in the U.S. reached $14.6 billion.
But critics say those big sales are actually due, in part, to an epidemic of off-label marketing, which is promoting a drug for unapproved uses, although doctors are free to write a prescription regardless. And so drugmakers encouraged doctors to prescribe these meds for children before the FDA sanctioned their use for youngsters. This was particularly troubling, given that the drugs can cause diabetes and weight gain, side effects that prompted thousands of lawsuits claiming that drugmakers tried to hide evidence of these problems.
Another side effect is even more disturbing—unnecessary deaths among elderly patients, who shouldn’t receive these medicines if they suffer from dementia. A recent study found that more than 140,000 dementia patients in the U.K. are given these meds needlessly and some 1,800 elderly deaths are linked each year to overprescribing. Moreover, only 20 percent of 180,000 dementia patients received any benefit.
In general, people taking antipsychotics are nearly twice as likely to have a stroke compared with those not on the meds, according to a study in the British Medical Journal. And the risk is higher—about 3.5 times—for those with dementia, which means doctors should only prescribe the pills as a last resort.
Of course, there are people in nursing homes with behavioral problems such as agitation and psychotic episodes. Yet reports periodically emerge that chronically understaffed nursing homes all too often dispense antipsychotics in order to subdue patients. A recent investigation by the Chicago Tribune, for instance, found that nursing-home residents in Illinois are drugged without their consent or without a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis that would justify treatment.
The cozy relationship between health care companies and physicians is coming under fire.
Overseas clinical drug trials are becoming the norm, creating a need for tough new global standards.
Public Health
2009 was a rough year for health care IPOs. But some bankers see signs of improvement in 2010 Read More “Companies want to sell drugs, doctors prescribe the drugs most heavily marketed, nursing homes need doctors to legitimize their actions, and nurses are probably overworked and want doctors to medicate people so they’re more malleable,” says Robert Rosenheck, a Yale University professor of psychiatry and epidemiology and director of the Division of Mental Health Services and Outcomes Research.
“The participants start to gain, but the general public and the patients may not be better off. There’s evidence the drugs aren’t always effective, may be harmful, and can cost a good deal of money, but there’s nothing we can do about it, because we’re committed to the principal that doctors should be able to choose whatever treatments are best for their patients,” he continues. “About 60 percent are prescribed off label for non-psychiatric conditions for which there’s no FDA approval.”
Off-label marketing has led to huge fines. Last year, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion fine to settle civil and criminal investigations into fraudulent marketing of several drugs, including Geodon. Eli Lilly, which markets Zyprexa, paid a $1.4 billion fine and pled guilty to a misdemeanor for promoting its drug to the elderly with dementia, even though the pill was never approved for that use. And AstraZeneca reached a tentative $520 million deal to settle probes into off-label marketing, among other charges.
But drugmakers weren’t the only ones tagged. Omnicare, a big pharmacy that specializes in providing drugs to nursing homes, agreed to pay $98 million to settle charges of soliciting or paying kickbacks. One example—payments were made in exchange for recommending Johnson & Johnson’s Risperdal antipsychotic to nursing homes. “Illegal conduct like this can undermine the medical judgments of health care professionals, lead to patients being prescribed medications they do not need, and drive up the costs of health care,” Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in announcing the settlement.
Whether the fines will alter marketing practices—and by extension, prescribing habits—remains to be seen. But Sube Banerjee, a professor of mental health and aging at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, says changes must be made immediately and recommends that the use of antipsychotics be cut by two thirds over the next three years in order to minimize deaths.
But as Yale’s Rosenheck notes, billions of dollars are at stake, and changing habits can be difficult. “It’s a major problem, and it goes well beyond these drugs. It’s really the system in which they all participate and has determined the culture in which we live and think about these medications,” he says. “Once you persuade doctors to use these drugs for every mental illness, well, you can sue the company, but litigation won’t make a company go back to doctors and tell them not to use the drugs as they have been doing. The horse is out of the barn.”
http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/health-care/2010/01/04/drugging-kids-for-profit/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH INSIDER
Your Source for NH Politics
Front Page Bloggers R Barnes S Connolly Dranotoon Mark Hounsell S Mac Donald E Naile
Thursday
31Dec2009
Laws That Say Follow The Law
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 09:12AM
It always amazes me when I see we've gotten to a point in our society that laws need to be written reminding the government that it too needs to follow the laws. This is being done once again with one of the new bills submitted for 2010.
HB 1330
This bill restricts government action from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.
Isn't this already a right guaranteed by our federal Constitution?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And guaranteed by our NH Constitution?
[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Its sad that our state and federal Constitutions are not respected enough to stand on their own. What's even sadder is that only one single elected official has attached their name on this bill. Rep Wendelboe is so far the sole sponsor on this bill. You would think that any representative that respects their oath to honor and uphold the Constitution would quickly sign their name onto a bill that essentially reminds the government to follow their own rules.
This bill will be one worth watching and those reps who vote against it should be noted.
Richard Barnes | 1 Comment | Share Article
tagged Artticle 5, Constitution, First Amendment, HB 1330 in Constitution
Reader Comments (1)
WHY isn't NH following the US Constitution? Family Rights are also of great concern, as Fathers' Rights, Grandparents rights included under the topic of Parents' Rights have been so very ignored and constantly refused and continually pained by the State of NH. Families have been completely destroyed at the hands of the Dept of "Human Services" including the "Division" of Children Youth and Families, much to the emotional/social/financial detriment of the parents, grandparents, and mostly to the detriment of the children whom "The System" is supposedly servicing. Religious Freedom of the people of NH including the religious freedom of the children who have been taken from their families and placed in "the System" have also been ignored. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness certainly does include Family Rights, yet the State of NH, acting as a toxic-dynamic to We The People, thinks it should be charge of the educational, medical/health and general welfare instead of the parents being incharge of their own children? It's about time that the NH judicial system smartens up enough to recognize that our Laws are based on The US Constitution and that WE THE PEOPLE is not a Judicial System/Dept of "Human Services" State Employee Members-Only-Club! Constitutional Rights belong to our Citizens and therefore these Rights should never be violated by our state, including by our judicial system.
January 3, 2010 | Parentassist
(I had to include this comment. Please go to the link at the bottom and comment.)
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2009/12/31/laws-that-say-follow-the-law.html
Your Source for NH Politics
Front Page Bloggers R Barnes S Connolly Dranotoon Mark Hounsell S Mac Donald E Naile
Thursday
31Dec2009
Laws That Say Follow The Law
Thursday, December 31, 2009 at 09:12AM
It always amazes me when I see we've gotten to a point in our society that laws need to be written reminding the government that it too needs to follow the laws. This is being done once again with one of the new bills submitted for 2010.
HB 1330
This bill restricts government action from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion.
Isn't this already a right guaranteed by our federal Constitution?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And guaranteed by our NH Constitution?
[Art.] 5. [Religious Freedom Recognized.] Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his peers on, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace or disturb others in their religious worship.
Its sad that our state and federal Constitutions are not respected enough to stand on their own. What's even sadder is that only one single elected official has attached their name on this bill. Rep Wendelboe is so far the sole sponsor on this bill. You would think that any representative that respects their oath to honor and uphold the Constitution would quickly sign their name onto a bill that essentially reminds the government to follow their own rules.
This bill will be one worth watching and those reps who vote against it should be noted.
Richard Barnes | 1 Comment | Share Article
tagged Artticle 5, Constitution, First Amendment, HB 1330 in Constitution
Reader Comments (1)
WHY isn't NH following the US Constitution? Family Rights are also of great concern, as Fathers' Rights, Grandparents rights included under the topic of Parents' Rights have been so very ignored and constantly refused and continually pained by the State of NH. Families have been completely destroyed at the hands of the Dept of "Human Services" including the "Division" of Children Youth and Families, much to the emotional/social/financial detriment of the parents, grandparents, and mostly to the detriment of the children whom "The System" is supposedly servicing. Religious Freedom of the people of NH including the religious freedom of the children who have been taken from their families and placed in "the System" have also been ignored. The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness certainly does include Family Rights, yet the State of NH, acting as a toxic-dynamic to We The People, thinks it should be charge of the educational, medical/health and general welfare instead of the parents being incharge of their own children? It's about time that the NH judicial system smartens up enough to recognize that our Laws are based on The US Constitution and that WE THE PEOPLE is not a Judicial System/Dept of "Human Services" State Employee Members-Only-Club! Constitutional Rights belong to our Citizens and therefore these Rights should never be violated by our state, including by our judicial system.
January 3, 2010 | Parentassist
(I had to include this comment. Please go to the link at the bottom and comment.)
http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/2009/12/31/laws-that-say-follow-the-law.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)