Your Best Interests in Mind
That's how I feel about this article from the New York Times. It seems awfully convenient that the the U.S. Government (whose political parties are both in bed with the pharmaceutical companies) and psychiatrists (who make money from mentally ill people) see a huge need for "routine depression screening" and treatment (i.e. medications). And if you object to this, it's because you don't take mental illness seriously.
Who do these people think they're fooling?
If ever the political parties were to unite to protect The People, the time is now. They're just trying to screen adults now. Soon government officials will try to implement this nationally in our public schools. As if the overprescription of ritalin in children wasn't awful enough at present ...
-------------------
Depressed? New York City Screens for People at Risk
Doctors in New York City have begun to use a simple questionnaire to determine if a patient is at risk for depression, a practice that health officials hope will become a routine part of primary care, much like a blood pressure test or cholesterol reading.
The new program is the first to carry out depression screening using a scored test on a wide scale. It comes amid a spirited national debate among psychiatrists, policy makers and patient-advocacy groups on the wisdom of screening for mental disorders, especially in children.
In 2003, an expert panel convened by President Bush recommended expanding mental health screening, and Congress budgeted $20 million in supporting money for state pilot programs for this year. Several states, including populous states like Florida and Illinois, have begun to investigate large-scale screening plans, and scores of schools and other youth centers throughout the country have used instruments to test youngsters for suicide risk.
...
Psychiatrists and other proponents say mental health screening is long overdue. They argue that millions of people with serious mental disorders never get help, and that heightened vigilance would not only allow doctors to head off much worse mental problems later, but would also reduce the tremendous costs of untreated illness.
...
Critics like Ms. Sharav contend that screening tests will also increase the use of psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants like Zoloft and Prozac, whose use in children and adolescents has recently come under scrutiny by regulators.
Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican and a gynecologist, introduced an amendment last fall to block federal financing for screening programs, in part because of worries about overmedicating schoolchildren. The plan was rejected.
<>"We already have a tremendous number of kids being put on drugs like Ritalin and Prozac," Dr. Paul said, "and I think if these screening programs grow, you're going to see a lot of people pushed into medication programs for behavioral problems."...
"Depression is a leading illness in New York City, but it can be effectively treated," said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city's health commissioner. "Our surveys show that there are an estimated 400,000 New Yorkers with depression; many have not been accurately diagnosed or effectively treated."

4 Comments:
The first step to better mental health is being open to the idea that there might be something amiss with your current mental state of affairs. Once you are willing to admit you may have an issue, seeking help becomes a non-issue.
Therefore, making help available (preferably as part of a universal baseline healthcare guarantee for Americans) is a fine idea; however, making screening manditory is only going to push those who are in denial further into denial, and take advantage of latent hypochondriacs (a great number of people).
Your remark about hypocondriacs is right on the money. I hadn't even considered them ...
Is there any evidence that it is untreated, rather than treated, depression that is so costly to society or the individual? In England the number of people taking antidepressants has about doubled over the past ten years. But so too have the numbers of people on incapacity benefit for stress and depression.
The latest figures show 28 million prescription items for antidepressant drugs which I think represents about 4 million people taking the drugs. That is nearly one in ten of the adult population. Of course there are children taking them too, but only (only?) about 15,000.
And there are now more than one million people on incapacity benefit for stress and depression. That must be approaching one in ten of the working-age population.
Do we really need more people on antidepressants?
Cheeky scientist makes a good point. Screening for depression (which seems to involve asking people questions like "do you feel depressed") doesn't reveal a hidden disease like other forms of screening. If you answer yes to the question then you must know you feel depressed and presumably you could ask for treatment if you wanted to.
I'm sorry, I was talking rubbish there. I meant to say that the numbers of people on incapacity benefit for stress and depression must be approaching one in thirty of the working age population, not one in ten.
Post a Comment
<< Home