Skip to main content

Tag: Informed Consent

Connecticut State in Mental Health Denial

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

The recent July 9th Ct. Mirror article, Children Stuck in Crisis, accomplishes the intended purpose of deceptively convincing the people of Connecticut that there’s a severe mental health services crisis in the state.

On the surface, the article’s author, Arielle Becker, provides a compelling scenario of the state’s youth failing to get the needed mental health care and forced to rely on emergency room services. The problem with the presentation is Becker’s failure to address a key piece of information in the reported mental-health-crisis-puzzle – the increased psychiatric drugging of Connecticut’s children.

The entire article focuses on the specific case of Peter, a 6 foot, 220 pound 13-year old, who apparently has been in the care of mental health professionals for many years of his young life. Peter is described as having “psychiatric issues and a developmental disorder that places him on the autism spectrum.”

Becker does not provide any details about Peter’s psychiatric history, including information such as when he first was diagnosed with a psychiatric mental disorder, the number of specific mental disorders he has been labeled with and, most importantly, which mind-altering psychiatric drugs he has been prescribed during his young life.

These are not unimportant questions, especially when one considers the known adverse reactions associated with most psychiatric drugs. For example, antidepressants carry the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Black box” warnings for increased risk of suicidality. Other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants include aggressive and abnormal behavior, hallucinations, mania and psychosis.

Other psychiatric chemical “treatments” include anti-anxiety and antipsychotic drugs, which also carry such adverse reactions as hostility, confusion, hallucinations, agitation, restlessness and tremors.

Becker, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this mental health services crisis explains that “some mental health care providers link it to an increase in the number of children with mental health needs…others see a greater willingness to recognize problems because awareness of mental illness has grown.”

What obviously is missing from the list of reasons for the “crisis” is the increased prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs. In fact, the only mention of any psychiatric drug “treatment” comes at the end of the article when Becker finally reveals that Peter was seen by psychiatrists at the Institute of Living and “his medication was changed.” That’s it. Pathetically, that is the extent of the conversation about psychiatric drugging.

But the lack of important information doesn’t end there. Becker also does not provide any information about all the previous failed attempts to “fix” Connecticut’s broken mental health system. For example, in 2008, lawmakers attempted mental health fixes through the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health – “Connecticut’s Mental Health and Transformation State Incentive Grant.”

This $13 million dollar “fix,” as explained by Project Director, Pat Rehmer, as “Transformation efforts and activities are broad based and far reaching as they have been implemented across multiple state agencies offering the state’s citizens an array of accessible services and supports that are culturally responsive, person and family-centered.”

Certainly sounds like this “fix” should have helped Peter but, alas, it is another costly, failed mental health Band aid. Not surprisingly, this “transformation” also did not address the ever-increasing use of psychiatric drugs for “treatment” of Connecticut’s children.

Is it any wonder, then, that the “crisis” not only exists, but is worsening? The people of Connecticut still are not getting accurate information, and it is these omissions that render this article irrelevant in the debate for increased mental health services.

Ignoring important information does not benefit those who are suffering, nor does it help those in a position to make the necessary, and deadly serious, changes that are needed.

 

 

Did Psychiatric Drugs Play a Role in Plaskon’s Violent Behavior?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Violence.

The alleged “Prom day” killer, Christopher Plaskon, is a snap shot of the future result of Connecticut’s increased mental health services.  The 17 year-olds defense apparently will be that his “mental health” caused his murderous actions – not the dangerous psychiatric drugs he obviously has been taking for some time.

Early reports of Plaskon’s behavior included information that he had been taking drugs to treat the alleged ADHD.  What psychiatric drugs? When was the teenager first diagnosed? Had he been further diagnosed with additional “mental illnesses?”  Which diagnoses?  How many psychiatric drugs had the teenager been prescribed during his young life?  Had Plaskon been taking a “cocktail” of psychiatric drugs?  All of these questions are important to understanding Plaskon’s violent actions.   Here’s why.

The teenager is mentally ill. He suffers from one or more psychiatric disorders.   This is the mental health community’s mantra and “ace in the hole.”   Despite there being zero scientific or medical data to support even one psychiatric “disorder” being an abnormality of the brain (objective, confirmable abnormality), the mental health community’s psychiatric labeling goes unchecked, opening the flood gates for prescribing dangerous psychiatric drug “treatments.”

According to recent news reports, Plaskon is being “treated” with two mind-altering psychiatric drugs – an anti-anxiety drug and also an anti-psychotic.  How long has Plaskon been taking these drugs? Had the teenager been prescribed the mind-altering drugs prior to his murderous actions?

For the sake of argument, let’s assumed Plaskon was being “treated” with both the anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs prior to the stabbing.  Had he, like the Santa Barbara shooter, been prescribed the anti-anxiety drug, Xanax?  What are some of the known serious adverse reactions associated with anti-anxiety drugs like Xanaz?  Confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself, aggression, hostility and decreased inhibitions are some of the more serious adverse reactions associated with this class of drug.

What about the adverse reactions associated with anti-psychotic drugs?  Like so many of the psychiatric drug “treatments,” known adverse reactions associated with antipsychotic drugs include increased anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, to name a few.

Given the known adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs, and withdrawal from them, it seems fair to suggest that it’s possible that Plaskon’s violent behavior may have been a result of one or more of the adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs.

Will Plaskon’s psychiatric drug use even be made part of the trial? If history is any indication, probably not. The mental health community, which cannot prove even one of its alleged mental disorders is an abnormality of the brain and,  which, the state of Connecticut has warmly embraced will effectively and without scrutiny argue the worsening of Plaskon’s mental disorders.

As Ablechild’s mission is one of informed consent, we cannot help but wonder if Plaskon’s parents were made aware of the complete subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing or, for that matter, advised of the possible known adverse reactions associated with any psychiatric drugs their son may have been prescribed.  This information can be easily verified by the informed consent document parents should sign when the diagnosis is made, like the one linked.

Because of the state’s ill-informed rush to institute costly, increased mental health services in Connecticut, and being fully aware that mental health “treatment” largely consists of prescribing psychiatric drugs, Ablechild believes that the state has an obligation to insure that parents and families are fully informed on both of these issues.

It’s one thing to tell consumers that the mental health increases are being instituted  to help those who are “suffering.” But without providing all the information about psychiatric diagnosing and the risks associated with psychiatric drugs, the state is nothing more than a shill for the mental health community and pharmaceutical industry.

 

 

 

Regardless of What NAMI Believes Inaccurate Information Harms Mentally Ill

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

The author of the op-ed of May 6, 2014, “Mental health treatment is not perfect, but it can be life-saving,” still is disseminating false information about many things, including the cause of mental illnesses.

First, to be clear, in none of these op-ed exchanges has Ablechild ever suggested that anyone should not be entitled to seek treatment.   Quite the contrary.  But Ablechild believes that accurate information about the cause of mental illness is absolutely necessary for those who are suffering.  To continue to disseminate misinformation about the cause of mental illness is a disservice to those who are desperately looking to the medical and scientific community for help.

Again, specifically, the author states, “…there is ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease.”  Okay. Which mental illness has been proven to be a biological disease? Please, for the public’s sake, provide the verifiable, indisputable, scientific data for the mental illness that has a biological cause.

The author makes an inaccurate, blanket statement about “ample evidence,” yet fails to provide the supporting data for even one alleged mental disorder, leaving the reader to accept the inaccurate information on the author’s belief, and then places the burden of proof on the reader to do the confirming research.

This information is blatantly wrong. If there is “ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease,” then let’s have it. This should be easily documentable and, one would think, the author would be eager to provide such demonstrative, groundbreaking, data.

In fact, the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH, provides no definitive information about the cause of any mental disorder:

Depression: “Most likely, depression is caused by a combination of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors.”

Bipolar Disorder: “Scientists are studying the possible causes of bipolar disorder. Most scientists agree that there is no single cause.”

ADHD: “Scientists are not sure what causes ADHD.”

Schizophrenia: “Experts think schizophrenia is caused by several factors.”

Despite the author’s obvious lack of information about what the nation’s top mental health experts have to say about the cause of any mental illness, the author further attempts to support her inaccurate statement by using the State of Connecticut’s mental health parity standard stating the “state law acknowledged many years ago when it instituted parity for mental health treatment that mental illness is biological in nature.”

Like NAMI, the Connecticut legislature may believe that “mental illness is biological in nature,” but there is no scientific/medical evidence to prove this. Ablechild challenges the state to provide the conclusive and scientifically verifiable evidence that mental illness – any mental illness – has a biological cause.

In fact, if NAMI is testifying before the state about this inaccurate information – that mental illness is a biological disease – then it is no wonder that the state would pass mental health parity.  But inaccurate information is inaccurate information regardless of who utters it.

As to the author’s assertion that NAMI is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, there is ample evidence to the contrary. An October 2009 article in the New York Times titled “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors,” reports that “a majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers…”

In fact, the New York Times obtained information from U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, which revealed that between 2006-2008 NAMI received $23 million from drug makers and the executive director of NAMI, Michael Fitzpatrick, said “for at least the years of 07, 08 and 09, the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be.”

Ablechild reiterates that there is no definitive scientific data to support that any mental disorder has a biological cause.  False statements, like these made by the author, must be addressed because the public, especially those suffering from emotional and behavioral problems, deserve the truth in order to make informed decisions.

In the meantime, Ablechild wants to thank the Connecticut Mirror for allowing this important debate on mental health, and we urge the public to support federal legislation, H.R.4518  which actually protects parents and families from psychiatric abuses.

 

Ablechild Warns of Clinical Trial “offers” to Low-Income Families

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Articles, Lawmaking.

PsychiatricDirectMarketClinicalTrails

Ablechild often is contacted by parents concerning a number of issues surrounding psychiatric diagnosing and psychiatric drugging of children, but the recent information forwarded to us is troubling.

A Connecticut mother, who receives state health benefits, was concerned about a recent letter she received from Acurian Health, a company that “specializes in matching people to clinical research studies,” and forwarded the correspondence to Ablechild.

The mother was concerned about the implications of offering money to low-income mothers willing to enroll their child in a pharmaceutical clinical trial. More than that, she had no idea how Acurian Health obtained her personal information in order to make the “offer.”

Ablechild was equally curious how Acurian obtained this mother’s information and contacted the Behavioral Health Partnership Oversight Council, inquiring whether the state was providing this information to third parties. Ablechild did not receive a reply.

The question is, of course, does Acurian Health have access to the state’s health data? Is it possible this mother unwittingly signed a waiver allowing her personal information to be shared?  The mother in question has no memory of providing authorization to release the data, but admitted that the waiver could have been in the “fine print.”

Nevertheless, Ablechild is providing this information to its members in an effort to make families aware of “offers” such as this from Acurian Health.  The “offer” is targeting children 7-17 years old who “have Depression or may be experiencing symptoms of Depression,” and the “offer” further explains qualified participants “may receive Depression medication approved for use in adults.”

The only antidepressant approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adolescents is Fluoxetine or Prozac.  All other antidepressants have not been approved for children and adolescents ages 8 and older.  The FDA conducted a study including 2,200 children treated with Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors, (SSRI) medications and 4 percent of those taking SSRI’s experienced suicidal thinking or behavior, including actual suicide attempts – twice the rate of those taking placebo, or sugar pills.

In response to this study, the FDA adopted “black box” warnings – the FDA’s most serious warnings – indicating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior.  However, there are many other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants, including mania, psychosis and hallucinations to name a few.

Ablechild cannot help but wonder if these low-income families are being targeted and lured by the pathetic “$50 per visit” offer. We are alerting families to be aware of unknowingly providing authorization for release of personal information to third parties.  When applying for state health services, it is important to ask if personal information is shared with third parties and how you may opt out.

Ablechild, and the mother who provided this “offer,” is concerned that families going through tough financial times may be tempted to participate in clinical trials that admittedly will be using dangerous psychiatric drugs that are not approved for children and without informed consent.

When applying for state benefits, it’s important to know your rights and, specifically, to know if personal data will be provided to third parties.

 

 

Governor’s Newtown Panel Stymied by Lanza’s Missing Mental Health Records

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Sandy Hook Advisory Committee Stymied by Lanza’s Missing
Mental Health Records

Say it isn’t so.  The Chairman of the Sandy Hook Advisory Committee, Scott Jackson, doesn’t have the medical/mental health records of Adam Lanza, which are necessary for his committee to make appropriate recommendations for changes to the State’s mental health system.

This is really old news to Ablechild.  Having spent nearly a year utilizing every legislative and legal avenue available to make public the toxicology, medical and mental health records of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, Ablechild was stymied by State officials at every step.

Yes, Ablechild is empathetic to the difficulties Jackson is having obtaining this important information, which is key to making – or not making – changes to the State’s mental health system.

Interestingly, Jackson has hired a law firm to comb through the thousands of pages released by the State Police. What law firm and at what cost to Connecticut taxpayers?  It only took Ablechild three days to review the redundant and heavily redacted documents within the State Police Report.  Nevertheless, Jackson apparently has read enough of the report to start asking questions.

According to Jackson, “one of the things that we really talked about quite a bit was that we need to understand the story of Adam Lanza and Nancy Lanza and we really don’t have it.” In particular, Jackson said “in order to understand how we got to where he was from a treatment standpoint, they’re going to need a little bit more.”

“A little bit more?”  With all due respect, the Committee needs more than a “little bit” of information.  Other than providing a few psychiatric diagnoses, and the mention of one psychiatric drug prescribed to Lanza, there are no specifics provided about the shooter’s mental health treatment.

In fact, it’s fair to say that more is known about the mental health records that were destroyed by Lanza’s primary psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, than what mental health treatment Lanza received.  Worse still, the last five years of Lanza’s mental health services is nonexistent.

According to the data provided by both the State Attorney’s office and the State Police Report- literally thousands of pages – there is zero mention of any mental health services provided to Lanza after 2007. Why?

And, with what little information is provided, why are physician treatment “summaries” provided in the recently released State Police Report?  Wouldn’t the actual comments of those psychiatrists treating Lanza be of more help to the Committee than a detective’s summation?

Dr. Harold Schwartz, psychiatrist and member of the Committee, understands the importance of hearing directly from the “horse’s mouth.”  “It’s better,” said Schwartz, “than nothing to have these summaries, but these summaries are not by clinical people.”

Schwartz opines that it may be necessary to contact the shooter’s father, Peter Lanza, to obtain the necessary records.  Why?  Wouldn’t the investigative bodies already have requested and obtained these records?  If not, it seems odd that both investigations would conclude they were unable to find a motive for the attack without first having considered Lanza’s complete mental health treatment record.

Additionally, in May of 2013, Peter Lanza signed a PeterLanzaConsent PeterLanzaConsent form allowing the State Medical Examiner to make public his son’s toxicology report.  Why, then, has the full toxicology report been withheld?

Furthermore, it may serve the Advisory Committee members well to speak with Assistant Attorney General, Patrick B. Kwanashie, who explained during the Ablechild Freedom of Information hearing that the reason for withholding Lanza’s toxicology report was because it “would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Sounds like Kwanashie has the inside track on Lanza’s mental health records.  But if that avenue fails to produce results, given that it was his idea to set up the Advisory Committee, perhaps Governor Malloy could pull some strings with his own agencies.

The bottom line is that without reviewing Lanza’s complete mental health record, there is no way the Advisory Committee can, or should, make any decisions about instituting changes to the State’s mental health services.

 

Ablechild Supporters

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Dear Ablechild Supporters,

It has been an amazing year!  Your help has brought the mission of Informed Consent relating to psychiatric drugs to a new level.  In order to keep up the continued fight, we are in need of your generous donations.

We are one of the only organizations in the United States that has been on the front lines of this war against our basic parental rights.  One of the most fierce engagements we had was with the State of Connecticut over the disclosure of Adam Lanza’s mental health, special education, and toxicology report.  We appeared before the freedom of information commission and forced the State to admit the reason why they did not want to disclose the records.

Our website continues to receive increased traffic and the media often seeks us out for our opinion.  This upcoming legislative session in Connecticut and throughout the Country will be totally focused on mental health.  The multi-billion dollar mental health and drug industry will be setting the agenda, we cannot let this happen.  Their agenda has already been spelled out to massively screen ALL children within the public education system for mental illnesses.  As we know, there is no test.   It is totally subjective and will traffic children into an unmanageable whirlwind of drug use.  As we have witnessed time and again the deadly school shootings ending with the shooter’s suicide, we cannot stand by and allow this to happen.

Although the economy is in a deep recession, we cannot think of a better cause then to stop the violence these drugs are inducing into our society.  We urge you to support Ablechild and its continued mission of informed consent by making a year end contribution that is tax deductible.  Knowledge is power, share the information.

We wish you a healthy and happy New Year.

The Ablechild Team

 

 

 

Testimony Before CT Education Committee

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Testimony:

Request Insert of Language of Informed Consent Bill 5007 to Bill 5353.

Ablechild is a nationally recognized 501(3)c non-profit parent’s rights organization. Ablechild was recently featured on CNN Special Projects, Perry’s Principles (Quick to Medicate) December 10, 2011. Ablechild contributed to the groundbreaking Diane Sawyer ABC 20/20 year long investigation into the drugging of foster care children which was shown to be a major problem not only within the state of Connecticut, but throughout the Nation.

Ablechild was founded by two moms, Patricia Weathers and myself, Sheila Matthews. Both our schools diagnosed our boys with ADHD through the IEP process in our school system. This diagnosis was based off a “subjective” ADD checklist. We were never informed during the entire IEP process that this ADD/ADHD checklist was subjective and was not endorsed and had never been endorsed by the Board of Education, the State or Federal Government. We have submitted below letters from the Board of Education, State of Connecticut and a Federal Document that states they do not endorse this type of identification of children.

We were never told this checklist came from the Association of School Psychologists through research: behavioral, and clinical drug trials grants. We were never at any time informed that there is no test in existence to diagnose the condition and the diagnosis itself was not based in science. We were never informed at any time that this was a psychiatric label and that we were in essence labeling our children “mentally ill.” We were never informed that there were any other treatments for this diagnosis other than drug treatment. We were never informed at any time what the risks of this recommended drug treatment were and the fact that many of the drugs recommended were not even FDA approved for children.

In fact, we were never informed that we even had a choice to “opt out” of a school psychologist and his or her testing of our child. During this whole process we were only offered mental health services and little if any educational ones. Parents must have the right to have an education or speech and language specialist test their child instead of a psychologist. All parents should have the right to educational services that are evidence based rather than subjective not only within special education but throughout the entire education system.

For the past five years, Ablechild has fought for legislation to prevent what happened to us from happening to other parents. We in many ways have been fortunate. Our children are survivors of this very risky process. Other children have not been so lucky, being injured and having died from misdiagnosis and recommended drug treatment.

Ablechild and all of its parent members continue to urge this committee to pass an informed consent bill which focuses on full disclosure to protect not only parents informed consent rights but our children’s health and safety. Each year for the last five years, a bill for informed consent has been rejected, and it is our hope this year, that you as a committee seriously consider this issue since it involves both the protection of parent’s rights and our children’s health and safety. We are requesting that you incorporate Representative Hetherington’s proposed bill #5007 last proposed in 2011, AN ACT CONCERNING PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR PARENTS, on informed consent into the language of this bill 5353.

AN ACT CONCERNING PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN AND PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR PARENTS
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/TOB/H/2011HB-05007-R00-HB.htm

We cannot stress enough how important it is to incorporate the Hetherington bill language “5007” within bill “5353“ for parent and children’s rights.

We would be happy to expand on our request and answer any questions you may have.

Thank You for Your Consideration
The Staff of Ablechild.org

ABLECHILD INTERVIEWED BY CNN

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Interviews.

AbleChild Co-founders Interviewed by CNN’s Steve Perry!

CNN education contributor Steve Perry interviewed Patty and Sheila yesterday for a program, “Quick to Medicate,” that will air in early December!

In this two-part episode of “Perry’s Principles,” a CNN Weekend segment examining challenges facing today’s schools, CNN profiles a family using behavioral drug treatment and commentary by Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York of the North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System in New Hyde Park.. Patty and Sheila shared their experiences and offered AbleChild support and resources to parents with issues regarding their child’s ADHD/ADD diagnosis and/or drugs recommended to treat it.

CNN’s Steve Perry interviews AbleChild co-founders Sheila Matthews (left) and Patricia Weathers.

Patty described the pressure she felt from the school system and doctors to treat her energetic, outgoing son with drugs. “I thought maybe they knew more than I did; these were educated people, with degrees.” Stimulants made him withdrawn and listless; adding an antidepressant made him “psychotic.” His increasingly erratic behavior prompted Patty to take him off the drugs and seek alternative solutions. “Parents often aren’t told that there are other solutions to behavioral issues because drugs are a quick fix.”

Sheila offered two key pieces of advice to parents: “First, remember that federal legislation now prohibits schools from recommending or requiring children take controlled substances. Second, it’s critical to document any adverse effects drugs have on your child through Medwatch, the FDA’s reporting system so the agency can regulate their use and consumers receive more accurate information.”

After a break to eat pizza, Perry interviewed Patty and Sheila’s younger sons, Brett and Nick. Brett related how he refused to fill out a behavioral survey administered during math class. “It asked questions like whether I ever had thoughts about hurting anyone. There was no reason for me to fill it out so I didn’t.”

Nick, who receives private tutoring through Chyten Educational Services, discussed the support he receives through public special education to serve his speech and language gaps. “Special education services help me organize my work and review with me what projects I am working on and when they are due.” Nick describes himself as a normal 16-year-old with a passion for music. His work is available on the Oven Fresh Beats YouTube channel.

Your browser may not support display of this image.AbleChild co-founder Sheila Matthews and her son Nick chat with CNN’s Steve Perry over pizza during a break from filming.

Don’t forget to tune in next month when “Quick to Medicate” airs: part one on December 3, and part two on December 10, from 7 – 8PM EST!