- About Us
- Legal Issues
- Take Action
In the immediate weeks after the mass murder and suicide at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 first graders and seven adults dead, Governor Malloy selected 16 experts to make recommendations, many of whom have ties with the behavioral health industry and Yale Child Study Center, the last place Adam Lanza was treated.
Their task according to the New York Times article, Members of Newtown Shootings Panel Recall Toll Their Work Took, by Kristin Hussey, published on March 3, 2005, was “to examine the event.”
The two years of 29 closed sessions to the public were televised where selective “stakeholders” were invited to participate. The carefully scripted agenda did not focus on any material or physical evidence.
The first guest speaker invited by the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission (SHAC) was Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. Governor Ritter did not discuss the mental health records of 18-year-old Eric Harris and his accomplice, Dylan Klebold who killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 26 others before killing themselves in the Columbine High School massacre, a school shooting that occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine.
Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Klebold’s medical records remain sealed. Both shooters had been in anger-management classes and had undergone counseling. Harris had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting. Source: Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights.
The state police report, toxicology, autopsy, ballistics reports, and educational records were not incorporated within the hearings or incorporated in the recommendations. The public was denied access to this critical information.
The public only had access to a fragmented 6,700 page police report that is often referred to in pharmaceutical litigation as a “data dump.”
The Sandy Hook Commission at one point criticized the State Police Report in the Connecticut Post.
“But there is one problem: the recently released State Police report the panel must rely on to understand the crime is all but indecipherable, some members of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission say. Indeed, the report is so disorganized that the commission has sought the help of a Hartford law firm to turn the 6,700 page file — an online collection of hundreds of individual documents, without a table of contents or index — into a searchable database. “I think all of us have gone into the document pages and were just never quite sure whether we missed something or have gotten to the thing that matters most to us,” said Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, chairman of the commission.”
The 6,700 pages were never indexed or placed in a searchable database as promised by the Commission. In fact, AbleChild had to pressure the Governor’s office to release the name of the legal firm that offered it’s services pro-bono.
Furthermore, according to the New York Times article, “The Sandy Hook experts were struck by a common denominator in mass shootings: the killer’s lack of social connectedness.”
It is easy to illustrate the common denominator with the material evidence that has been disclosed for multiple school shootings, which is more likely the mental health “treatment” itself, the mind-altering drugs.
According to the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights who published documents showing between 1988 and January, 2013, there have been at least 31 school-related acts of violence committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 162 wounded and 72 killed.
The Newtown Panel is expected to deliver their final report to the Governor, Friday, March 6, 2015. We know from the New York Times article, that one panel member took a trip to Japan to deal with producing the long awaited report, while another panel member compared Adam Lanza and all children’s lack of social connectedness and isolation, as serious as taking a lethal dose of heroin in their bedrooms. Very dramatic! Where are the facts to support such a comparison? This type of “expert” authoritarian fear tactics erode informed consent protections for parents.
AbleChild has joined forces with 8 other parent right organizations to oppose these bizarre recommendations given without supporting documentation.
In addition, AbleChild wants to clarify that PA 13-3 was passed before the state police report was released to the lawmakers as well as to the general public.
Within PA 13-3 legislation is a program called “mental health first aid.” Mental health first aid provides training to teachers to screen and identify children without parental consent or the right to refuse. This legislation was passed without open public meetings and is funded by a Presidential Executive Order. In addition within that legislation was a mandate for a “taskforce” that believes the state policy should be just “shy of forced medication.” AbleChild strongly opposes PA 13-3.
AbleChild wants to point out that these screenings are subjective and lack science. Adam Lanza was identified and screened by Danbury Hospital and released as not a harm to himself or others. He was also provided “mental health treatment” at Yale Child Study Center. How does one return deadly mental health treatment and get a refund?
Associated Press filed its story on the press conference held on February 23, 2015 by 9 different parental rights groups who joined forces to oppose the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission Recommendations in the aftermath of the mass murder and suicide in Newtown, Connecticut.
AbleChild joined the newly formed “CT Parental Rights Coalition” and participated in the Press Conference along with the following organizations:
TEACH CT – The Education Association of Christian Homeschoolers of CT
NHELD-National Home Education Legal Defense
CHN-Connecticut Homeschool Network
Family Institute of Connecticut
Connecticut Against Common Core
Stop Common Core In New Milford
Quiet Corner Parents for Education
Student Data Privacy: A Voice For The Connecticut Children of P20 Win
Joined by Senator Markley
According to the Associated Press article, “Dr. Harold Schwartz, commission member and psychiatrist-in-chief at Hartford Hospital’s Institute for Living, said there’s been a misunderstanding of the report’s recommendations. He said the panel wanted to make sure that if a child was identified as having special needs while in public school, that his or her IEP plan be followed if they become home-schooled.”
According NBC CT “The commission’s mission has been to change policies and laws in an effort to prevent another violent massacre like the one on Dec. 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown that took the lives of 20 first graders and six staff members.” The misunderstanding Dr. Schwartz should clear up is how any of these recommendations will “prevent another violent massacre.”
Recall, none of the mental health records have been made public despite multiple news organizations and AbleChild petitions via the Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) Commission. In the case of AbleChild, the FOI Commission deferred our argument to the court system; we declined that expensive course of action.
There is another “misunderstanding” regarding the conflicting data released by the Child Advocate’s office and the Newtown Bee’s account of Adam Lanza’s school years at Newtown High School. Clearly the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission (SHAC) has not shown any interest in clearly up these critical “misunderstandings.”
AbleChild would like to point out, the 10 bullet pointed recommendations in the NBC referenced article (linked above) used the following language: Expand, Increase, Implement, Build, Identify. These recommendations come with a very large price tag for taxpayers for subjective, dangerous screening methods that clearly missed Adam Lanza.
The Associated Press report interviewed Hamden Mayor Scott Jackson, the commission’s chairman. “Mayor Jackson hopes the report will encourage homeschooling parents to seek help if their child has behavioral issues.” “That language is actually intended to say, to remind parents who choose to homeschool, that you can still take advantage of everything that the school system has to offer,” he said. “It’s still a one-way swinging door. If they want it, all they have to do is ask.”
None of the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission’s recommendations focus on policies that reflect, “if they want it, all they have to do it ask.” that would be an “opt in” policy. These mental health screenings are subjective and are conducted without parent consent. In fact, they fail to meet the standards of an “opt out” policy.
The Commission failed to address the MEDWatch issue raised by Nancy Lanza with Yale Child Study Center in the State Police Report which should have been the focus to protect consumers seeking mental health services. Remember, Yale Child Study center was the last known “treatment” center for Adam Lanza and they claim that Nancy Lanza was “non compliant” as she tried to report an “adverse drug event.”
Letter to Editor 11/17/14
New York Times
The article “One Drug or 2? Parents See Risk but Also Hope” by Alan Schwarz (New York Times, 11/15/14, A-1) should be titled: “One Drug or 15?” — much more like what goes on in US psychiatry and schools.
The time has come to stop the “mental illness”/ “psychiatric disease” fraud whereby millions upon millions of entirely normal children and adults the world-over are poisoned in the name of psychiatric drug “treatment.”
On November 10, 2008, Director General of Health Canada, Supriya Sharma (letter to Canadian father, B. Verbeek), wrote:
“For mental/psychiatric disorders in general, including depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and ADHD, there are no confirmatory gross, microscopic or chemical abnormalities that have been validated for objective physical diagnosis.”
This was followed, March 12, 2009, by a confession from Donald Dobbs of the US Food and Drug Administration (letter to F.A. Baughman Jr., MD) who wrote:
“I consulted with the FDA New Drug Review Division and they concurred with the response you enclosed from Health Canada.”
Having confessed there is no such thing as a physical abnormality/disease in all of psychiatry, both Health Canada and the US, Food & Drug Administration routinely (1) allow psychiatric “diagnoses” to be called physical abnormalities/diseases, (2) allow psychotropic drugs/compounds to be called “safe and effective,” when (3) each drug/compound is nothing but a poison making every normal individual/phenotype—abnormal. In time, irreversibly so.
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
This New York public event is part of Ablechild’s Informed Consent Awareness outreach to parents (Get Hatch!) celebrating 44 years since the “Right to Privacy” hearings held on September 29, 1970, on the Federal government’s involvement in the Use of Behavioral Modification Drugs on Grammar School Children.
Click here for details………………………………………………AblechildNYLaunch
In a recent article in the pressherald.com, father of Sandy Hook victim Avielle Richman, Dr. Jeremy Richman, is looking for answers, saying “we’re scientists. We ask ‘why’ for a living.” So one can only wonder why he’s failed to ask the questions that scream for answers.
As the father of one of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, Dr. Richman is on a broad, all encompassing mission to understand the workings of the brain of those who commit violent acts. Clearly this is a noble cause. But Ablechild cannot help but wonder what action Dr. Richman has taken to understand the murderous behavior of his child’s killer, Adam Lanza.
Specifically, it is well known that Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut in order to have Lanza’s medical/mental health records, autopsy and toxicology reports released for public review. Ablechild was denied this request as the state randomly concluded the non-profit was “not a stakeholder.” Ablechild believes that we all are stakeholders.
But it seems impossible that the state would deny a request by the family of one of the victims. Clearly the Richman’s would be considered “stakeholders.” Did Dr. Richman contact Ablechild to lend his support in these efforts? No. Has Dr. Richman ever requested that the state release this important information? Ablechild is unaware of any of the victim’s families requesting this information be made public.
It is no secret that Lanza had mental health issues. The problem, though, is that the State Police investigation of the shooting incident provides no information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting.
The public is aware that Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center for OCD and was prescribed two antidepressants – Celexa and Lexapro – experiencing serious adverse reactions to both psychiatric drugs, as reported by his mother. But that was five years prior to the shooting.
What mental health “treatment” did Lanza receive after his “treatment” at Yale? It seems unrealistic that this grieving father would initiate this daunting brain campaign without having investigated every possible lead for answers about the man who killed his daughter.
After all if Lanza had been receiving mental health “treatment” prior to the shooting that consisted of psychiatric drugs, that information may be useful in understanding Lanza’s violent behavior. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has placed “Black box warnings” on all antidepressants as they may cause suicidal ideation and a host of other adverse reactions, including mania, psychosis and hallucinations.
Prior to the shooting was Lanza prescribed one or several psychiatric drugs to “treat” his OCD? Nobody knows. This information has not been made public. Has Dr. Richman made an effort to meet with Peter Lanza to glean information about Adam’s mental health “treatment?”
As a neuroscientist who has worked with pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Richman cannot ignore the fact that psychiatric drugs may actually cause violent behavior and, thus, information about Lanza’s mental health “treatment” may actually help understand his violent behavior. Failing to request specific, detailed information about Lanza’s mental health history seems odd.
Furthermore, has Dr. Richman, or any of the victim family members, requested information about the sealed, stamped envelope found in the Lanza home addressed “for the Young Students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” Does Dr. Richman, or any of the victim families, know what was inside that envelope? Have the family members questioned the State Police about how the DNA of a convicted offender from New York was found on that envelope, while Adam and Nancy Lanza’s DNA was eliminated? Do the family members wonder why, out of thousands of pieces of paper removed from the Lanza home, this particular envelope was fingerprinted and tested for DNA? What made this piece of evidence so important?
Additionally, has Dr. Richman, or any family members, questioned the State Police about the oddities of the ballistics report. For example, have any the family members raised questions about the weapon used to kill Nancy Lanza – the Savage Mark II rifle? Testing revealed the weapon has no fingerprints or DNA from Adam Lanza, but does have DNA for some unknown person.
Dr. Richman’s desire to understand the workings of the human brain of those who commit violent acts is a noble cause, but one cannot help wonder why Dr. Richman, and the other family members, appear to have no interest in the mental health records of the man who killed their loved ones or, for that matter, the ever increasing number of oddities in the official investigation of the shooting.
Ablechild believes these are basic questions that may help provide the answers that Dr. Richman is seeking and, also, make sense of the millions of dollars that were immediately appropriated by the State Legislature for increased mental health services.
According to the August 2nd article in the Hartford Courant titled McKinney Over Foley in Republican Primary for Governor, McKinney is the paper’s choice to remain in the Capitol because, among other things, in immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, McKinney voted for the controversial and intrusive gun safety bill.
The Hartford Courant has thrown its endorsement to McKinney because the Senate Minority leader ignored the Republican base and voted with the Democrats where, “he could engage in the process and try to influence the drafting of the law.”
It is unclear how McKinney influenced that legislation and, actually, it would be of some interest to the voters to know what specific role McKinney played in crafting the sweeping legislative language. While the gun restrictions are repugnant to many, Ablechild is more concerned about the other legislative measures included, specifically the costly increases in mental health services forced on taxpayers.
Recall that the legislation in question was hurriedly passed with little or no public input. More importantly, the investigative report on Sandy Hook had not been completed at the time of the vote and, therefore, lawmakers, including McKinney, literally were writing legislation based on the passions of the moment, not on supporting data.
In fact, a year-and-a-half later, there still is no data to support the costly mental health measures passed in that legislation. There is no publicly available evidence that Adam Lanza lacked mental health services. Frankly, there is no information publicly provided about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment after 2007 – five years prior to the shooting. Is this information not important to McKinney or even the Courant?
Given the obvious lack of information about Lanza’s mental health, does it not seem irresponsible that lawmakers, including McKinney, would rush the passage of costly mental health legislation? After all, there is a projected $1.4 billion deficit next year. How much of this deficit includes the newly passed increased mental health services?
Ablechild appreciates McKinney’s experience and could have used his “influence” when it sued the state for the release of Adam Lanza’s medical/mental health records and toxicology report. But there was no support from McKinney or any lawmaker. There was no, nor is there any, interest on the part of lawmakers to obtain any data about Adam Lanza’s mental health treatment leading up to the shooting.
Yes, McKinney’s 15-years of experience is helpful, but how effective is that experience if those legislative efforts are not based in documentable necessity? One cannot help but wonder how many other legislative measures were passed with McKinney’s “influence” that were based on zero supporting information?
For that matter, one has to wonder why the Hartford Courant, clearly aware of the lack of documentation regarding Adam Lanza’s mental health, continually fails to address this point. Additionally, is it not odd that, prior to the release of the investigative report, the Courant was all over the shooting at Sandy Hook but has failed to report on investigative details that scream for answers.
Specifically, is the Courant not interested in the oddity of the envelope found in the Lanza home, addressed “for the young children of Sandy Hook Elementary” and, of which, the DNA of a known offender in New York was obtained. Is the Courant not interested in what information was contained in the stamped, addressed envelope? Is there no interest by this reporting entity as to how this piece of evidence found its way into the Lanza home?
It’s one thing for lawmakers to ignore investigative material, but when a leading press organization blatantly fails to report on important investigative details, the people of the state truly are not being served.
A recent “E-News” bulletin by the pharmaceutical supported National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) urged Congress to pass legislation to “improve” mental health care in America. The bulletin urges its members to contact their U.S. Representatives to “reinforce our commitment to action.” Nonsense. This is totally industry driven, with no public support.
NAMI members were provided information about two bills currently pending in Congress: The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (HR 3717) introduced by Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA) and the Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014 (HR 4574) introduced by Congressman Barber.
Both of these bills benefit the ever-growing mental health/psychiatric industry and pharmaceutical companies, and both pieces of legislation use shooting incidents as the impetus for Congressional action. Murphy’s bill apparently is in response to the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and Barber’s is in response to the 2011 Tucson mall shooting where Congresswoman Giffords and also Congressman Barber were victims.
“Improved mental health” is the mantra of both bills, suggesting that mental health care in America is subpar. So let’s look at what mental health information is available for both of these shootings.
According to media reports the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, had, in his junior year of High School, broken up with a girlfriend and was dealing with the death of his grandfather. Loughner was seen by psychiatrist, was diagnosed with depression and prescribed medication.
Although it is reported that Loughner never took the prescribed medication, it was at this time that friends began to notice a change in Laugher’s behavior. It also is reported that Loughner never showed any signs of violence or displayed any kind of threatening behavior…until the shooting.
Fast forward to the Sandy Hook shooting. It is reported that the 20-year old shooter, Adam Lanza, suffered from OCD and a profound form of Autism. This data reflects Lanza’s mental health status as a 15-year old, literally five years prior to the shooting. The State Police Report of the incident provides no mental health data about the mental health treatment Lanza may have received in the five years leading up to the shooting.
Five years before the shooting, Lanza was “treated” at the Yale Child Study Center and was prescribed two antidepressants, Celexa and Lexapro, and reportedly experienced serious adverse reactions to both drugs. That is the extent of the known mental health treatment Lanza received.
Both of these shooters had access to mental health professionals, both were diagnosed with psychiatric mental disorders and both received prescriptions for psychiatric drugs. What part of America’s mental health system failed them? Both sought out mental health services and both received the apparent recommended mental health treatment.
Psychiatric diagnosing is completely subjective, and psychiatrists are the first to admit that they are unable to predict whether a patient will become violent. In the case of Lanza, Yale Child Study Center’s, Dr. Robert King, reported “while I was concerned clinically with his rigidity and social constriction, I noted nothing in (the shooter) which would have made this unfortunate outcome foreseeable.”
According to Rep. Murphy, a clinical psychologist, “civil rights concerns are misplaced. When you’re in jail, homeless or in a coffin, what rights do you have?” That is an excellent question, but not for the reasons Rep. Murphy is using.
Ablechild sued the state of Connecticut to obtain the medical/mental health records, toxicology and autopsy report for Lanza. The state denied the request on the grounds that Ablechild was not a “stakeholder.” As a deceased person, Lanza has no rights and, therefore, his records should be made public.
Ablechild urges its Members and all interested parties to write to their Members of Congress demanding that not one more dime of taxpayer money be appropriated for increased mental health services until:
Federal legislation is enacted that in the case of mass shootings (2 or more) the toxicology, medical/mental health and autopsy reports of the perpetrator(s) are released for public review.
Federal legislation is enacted that would make it mandatory that mental health
data, including prescription drug information (regardless of age), is made
public in cases of mass killings (2 or more).
While Representatives Murphy and Barber clearly are concerned about the state of the nation’s deteriorating mental health treatment services, with 70 million Americans taking at least one psychiatric mind-altering drug, there is a much larger discussion that both pieces of legislation fail to address.
With one-in-five Americans receiving mental health services in the form of psychiatric drugs, and what appears to be increasing numbers of violent acts, is it possible that the problem lies in the kind of mental health “treatment” being provided? Rather than rush to increase costly mental health services, perhaps an in-depth look at the “services” being provided is a better use of time and taxpayer funds.
One has to wonder. If the State legislature had been aware of the details of the investigation into Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, prior to passing sweeping, costly mental health legislation, PA 13-3, would the vote have gone the same direction?
Let’s consider for a moment the facts of Dr. Fox’s surrender of his license to practice medicine in not only Connecticut but, also, New York. Ablechild recently requested and received the publicly available investigative file on the circumstances surrounding Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist’s fall from psychiatric grace and, perhaps, his decision to flee the country.
The State Department of Public Health received a complaint about Dr. Fox from Yale New Haven Hospital in March of 2012. A female patient of Dr. Fox had reported detailed information about a “consensual” sexual relationship with Dr. Fox and, by April of 2012, the State Department of Public Health had begun its investigation.
The investigative documents are, in a word, sickening. The 59-year old Fox had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 19-year old patient he supposedly was “treating” for mental illness. Dr. Fox had become the patient’s counselor while employed at Western Connecticut State University Counseling Center and when fired from the University for “ethics” violations, continued to “treat” the patient at his Brookfield office.
In substantiating the sexual relationship, the patient provided detailed documentation, including an inordinate number of written references by Dr. Fox about his private parts, and information about other female patients that reportedly had sexual relationships with the psychiatrist – one threatening to bring a malpractice suit against him. Given the psychiatrist’s apparent proclivity for being sexually active with his female patients, one can only surmise he may qualify as a serial sexual predator.
More importantly, during Dr. Fox’s “treatment” of this 19-year old patient, he not only was prescribing numerous – “three or four” – psychiatric mind-altering drugs, but also was providing the patient with free drug samples (page 69 of report). According to the patient’s mother, “she was turning into a zombie.”
Dr. Fox billed the mother’s insurance for the patient’s drug “treatment,” but when the psychiatrist and the patient “became friends” Fox no longer billed for “counseling services.”(page 68 of report)
The “consensual sexual relationship” between a 59-year old doctor and 19-year old patient lasted about two years, with the good doctor ending with a note saying “please don’t contact me.” Absolutely pathetic!
But why is this investigation of Dr. Fox important and what does it have to do with Adam Lanza and the State’s rush to institute increased mental health services?
First, this investigation raises red flags about the public’s right to know when doctors/psychiatrists are fired for “ethics” violations from a State University, tasked with providing mental health services for teenagers. Furthermore, was Western Connecticut State University aware of Dr. Fox’s sexual relationships with students at the university and, if so, did the university file a report with the Department of Public Health or any state oversight agency?
Additionally, on December 17, 2012 (three days after the Sandy Hook incident) police conducted a telephone interview with Dr. Fox, who is living in New Zealand, inquiring about his “treatment ” of Adam Lanza and the whereabouts of the doctor’s mental health records. (Investigation document 00260339 -Book 7)
Dr. Fox, advised police that he “vaguely recalls treating Adam Lanza.” Dr. Fox further advised that the only records he had in New Zealand were billing records and explained that “all of his medical records pertaining to clients he treated in the United States are currently in storage in the United States.”
Twenty-four hours later, Dr. Fox, contacted police, explaining “any medical records pertaining to Adam Lanza have been destroyed since it has been over five years since he last treated him (per state statute he is allowed to destroy any files over 5 years old).” Dr. Fox further explained that “Adam was about 15 years of age when he last saw him.”
If Dr. Fox last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, his medical record retention, according to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies Medical Records 19a-14-42, “unless specified otherwise herein, all parts of a medical record shall be retained for a period of seven (7) years from the last date of treatment, or, upon the death of the patient, for three (3) years.”
Dr. Fox, upon surrendering his license, agreed to adhere to the regulations regarding medical records. So, if the doctor last saw Adam Lanza in 2007, he destroyed Lanza’s mental health records two years too early.
More than that, is it not odd that Dr. Fox would initially tell police that his medical records were in storage in the U.S., then twenty-four hours later revise his statement, declaring them destroyed? Of course, Dr. Fox’s billing records would yield a great deal of information, especially about the drugs prescribed to Lanza, but apparently the police did not follow that lead. Why?
There’s little doubt that Dr. Fox is material to the Sandy Hook investigation. Fox is reported to have been Adam Lanza’s “primary psychiatrist” and, therefore, key to understanding not only Lanza’s mental status but also his drug history. (Investigation document 00085896-Book 8 email to Dr. Fox from Nancy Lanza)
Because the State Police Report provides no mental health information about Lanza since his “treatment” by Dr. Fox in 2007, due to his obvious questionable ethical behavior, is it possible Dr. continued to treat Lanza? Dr. Fox could answer this question by making public the billing records. The State Police, however, did not request the records.
The larger picture, though, is the State’s rush to implement increased mental health services (Public Act 13-3) when not only was there no investigative information to support the increase, but the psychiatrist “treating” Lanza had lost his license due to ethical violations and fled the country.
If the State legislature had known about Dr. Fox’s egregious ethical violations, his obvious violation of state medical record retention regulations and his excessive prescribing of psychiatric drugs, would the vote have gone the same way?
This, of course, is the problem with political crisis management. The State legislature acted without the necessary information to make informed decisions. Given the above information, most would logically conclude that rather than implementing costly increased mental health services, what actually was needed was a top-down review of the kind of mental health services being provided.