Horizon: How Much Is Your Dead Body Worth? (BBC 2008)
Do you know where your remains will end up?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sage, the miracle dog.
DARTMOUTH — Dave Lechan had given up. Sage, his beloved, 5-year-old German shepherd, had been missing for a week and he was convinced she was dead.
He was almost right.
Badly wounded by a gunshot that Lechan believes was intentional, the dog lay in the woods for seven days before somehow mustering the strength to stagger home to her master.
Read more...
Friday, October 2, 2009
Coroner: Doctors Had to Let Woman Die
(Oct. 1) -- Doctors who let a 26-year-old woman die after she swallowed antifreeze acted within the law, a coroner has ruled.
Kerrie Wooltorton, of Norwich in eastern England, is believed to be the first person to use a living will to commit suicide, The Guardian newspaper reported Thursday.
She wrote the document on Sept. 15, 2007, three days before she poisoned herself. She called an ambulance, which took her to Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. There, she gave doctors a letter addressed to "To whom this may concern."
"If I come into hospital regarding an overdose or any attempt of my life, I would like for NO life saving treatment to be given," she wrote in the letter, which Sky News printed on its Web site.
"I am aware that you may think that because I called the ambulance I therefore want treatment, THIS IS NOT THE CASE! I do however want to be comfortable as nobody wants to die alone and scared and without going into details there are loads of reasons I do not want to die at home which I realize you will not understand and I apologise for this," she wrote. Wooltorton had been depressed over her inability to have a child, an inquest into her death heard. Doctors said they feared they would be charged with assault if they treated her because she had made her wishes clear, The Telegraph reported.
"It is a double-bind for doctors. She was very clear in her wishes. To have forced treatment on her would have been unlawful," hospital spokesman Andrew Stronach said, according to the Norwich Evening News.
Her family has said doctors should have tried to save her, despite her written instructions. But the doctors said Wooltorton was considered mentally competent to decide on treatment -- or refuse it.
"Please be assured that I am 100% aware of the consequences of this and the probable outcome of drinking antifreeze, eg death in 95-99% of cases and if I survive then kidney failure, I understand and accept them and will take 100% responsibility for this," she wrote.
Greater Norfolk Coroner William Armstrong said Monday that the hospital could not be blamed for Wooltorton's death. "She had capacity to consent to treatment which, it is more likely than not, would have prevented her death," he said. "She refused such treatment in full knowledge of the consequences and died as a result."
Living wills are commonly associated with people who are terminally ill and wish to refuse treatment, or people who would not want to be kept alive if they were mentally incapacitated in some sort of accident. In England, living wills were introduced under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act.
The ProLife Alliance called for a change in the law.
"A lot of people who attempt to commit suicide are thankful they have been revived the next day," said the group's chairwoman, Dominica Roberts.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
"Mercy Killing": When Love & Law Conflict
by Jacob M. Appel
Bioethicist and medical historian
Posted: September 25, 2009 09:58 AM
~~~~~~~
I'd sooner be dead than live in a nursing home.
I've chosen to emphasize that point now, when I am relatively young and in good health, to show solidarity with two brave men who have recently found themselves at the center of the public debate over assisted suicide. One is Paul Weinstein, a 78-year-old retired pharmacist from New Rochelle, New York, who killed his dementia-afflicted wife of fifty years to fulfill a pledge not to institutionalize her. The other is James Fish, a 90-year-old California physician who shot to death his 88-year-old wife, Phyllis, to end her ongoing suffering from dementia and terminal pancreatic cancer. Mr. Weinstein now faces murder charges, while Dr. Fish -- who is recovering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound -- will apparently be tried for manslaughter. Such prosecutions may vindicate the rule of law, but they do so by compounding human suffering. The real tragedy in both of these cases, beyond the obvious misfortune of human illness, is that both Mr. Weinstein and Dr. Fish felt compelled to act illegally. But the fault is not theirs. The blame rests squarely with a society that forces devoted husbands and wives to choose between the welfare of their spouses and the letter of the law.
Which returns us to nursing homes. I respect the fact that some older Americans find rich and meaningful lives within such institutions, and that many of the caregivers at these facilities are deeply devoted to their work. I would certainly never deny anybody the right to live out his final days in such a place, if he affirmatively so chooses. At the same time, such facilities impose grave limits on human autonomy. These restrictions often encroach upon the residents insidiously, as their conditions decline. One may enter a nursing home with mild cognitive impairment, but soon enough one needs permission to leave one's room unsupervised or is being forcibly medicated to reduce unwanted behaviors. That is a risk I am entirely unwilling to take. As a personal matter, I find the prospect of relying on another human being to change my clothing or to empty my bedpan incompatible with the minimum level of human dignity that I ever wish to endure. When I can no longer manage my activities of daily living at home, I am prepared to conclude my life with the same dignity that I hope I have displayed during my life. I prefer a timely death to a lengthy sojourn in a human warehouse. Moreover, when I do pass on, I want my money to go to the causes that I believe in and to the people that I care about -- not into the coffers of health care conglomerates. Needless to say, the nursing home industry views matters differently.
Some opponents of legalized aid-in-dying are genuinely motivated by a concern that the process will be abused -- and these concerns ought to be taken seriously. Any legislation on the subject should certainly include safeguards to ensure that participants are willing, or if incapacitated, have spelled out their wishes clearly in advance. Other opponents of legalized aid-in-dying appear to believe that human suffering is somehow ennobling and that God's mission is for each of us to die a "natural" death. These zealots are often far harder to engage in any meaningful dialogue, as there is little purpose in discourse with individuals who believes they are acting in accordance with divine will. What should not be overlooked is that there are also organizations, such as "True Compassion Advocates" of Washington, which oppose legalized aid-in-dying in the name of better end-of-life care. These groups would have us believe that well-funded palliative therapies and hospice programs cannot exist simultaneously with legalized aid-in-dying. The experience of the Netherlands, which has both a well-developed aid-in-dying system and some of the best palliative care in the world, belies this claim. However, as people choose to control their own deaths and the legal system increasingly accepts these choices, as is already the case in Oregon, Washington and Montana, one can expect these palliation-only organizations to align themselves ever more closely with a "nursing home-industrial complex" that stands to lose billions of dollars if people choose to die on their own terms.
Each year, millions of Americans enter into conversations similar to the discussion that Paul Weinstein allegedly had with his wife, Helena. Mothers and fathers tell their children that they would rather die peacefully at home than in hospitals or nursing facilities. Husbands and wives pledge to each other than they will never end up in institutions. I have witnessed these conversations in my own family and, during my work as a clinical ethicist, I have heard them recounted at patients' bedsides. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these individuals do end up in nursing care, often against their own strongly-stated wishes. Most families are not equipped to care for their loved ones at home. Some such patients lack any social support at all. So their choice is either the "slow glue factory" -- as my grandmother used to call nursing homes -- or to convince someone to help them die. In an ideal world, that would be a clinic where trained professionals could ease the suffering out of earthly existence. Or they might summon their own family physicians, who would provide lethal cocktails to be consumed in a home setting, as is done in Holland. The cruel reality, in forty-seven states, is that the suffering must hope they have relatives or friends who love them enough to sacrifice their companionship, and to risk prison time, in order to effectuate their wishes.
Mercy killing is not a problem. It is a symptom. While I certainly do not encourage the spouses of terminally ill or chronically suffering patients to take the law into their own hands when asked, I cannot fault those who do so. It may be that the tide is finally turning on aid-in-dying, as the cause has gone from a television spectacle associated with Jack Kevorkian to a matter of personal dignity embraced by large numbers of ordinary citizens. Great Britain is poised to establish guidelines for when not to charge those who aid in dying. California and New Hampshire appear ready to follow in the path of Oregon and Washington. After centuries of suffering, jointly-fostered by a partnership of church and state, a moment of moral enlightenment appears at hand. Alas, that does little good for men like Mr. Weinstein and Dr. Fish. Or for their wives. They do not have time to wait for the dithering of legislators to overcome political inertia or for meddlesome bishops to adopt a different cause célèbre. So while legalized aid in dying may be a few years off for many, we desperately need a moratorium on prosecutions in cases where such action is both altruistic and desired.
Men like Paul Weinstein and Jim Fish are neither heroes nor villains. They are ordinary men who have been forced to make decisions that no reasonable human being ought ever have to confront. We should honor their fortitude, but temper any admiration with a healthy concern for the value of the rule of law. And, most importantly, we should change that law. As much as I wish that, when I'm no longer independent, I have someone who cares about me enough to help me die, even if doing so is still illegal, I can only hope that nobody ever has to choose between love and the law on my behalf.
Bioethicist and medical historian
Posted: September 25, 2009 09:58 AM
~~~~~~~
I'd sooner be dead than live in a nursing home.
I've chosen to emphasize that point now, when I am relatively young and in good health, to show solidarity with two brave men who have recently found themselves at the center of the public debate over assisted suicide. One is Paul Weinstein, a 78-year-old retired pharmacist from New Rochelle, New York, who killed his dementia-afflicted wife of fifty years to fulfill a pledge not to institutionalize her. The other is James Fish, a 90-year-old California physician who shot to death his 88-year-old wife, Phyllis, to end her ongoing suffering from dementia and terminal pancreatic cancer. Mr. Weinstein now faces murder charges, while Dr. Fish -- who is recovering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound -- will apparently be tried for manslaughter. Such prosecutions may vindicate the rule of law, but they do so by compounding human suffering. The real tragedy in both of these cases, beyond the obvious misfortune of human illness, is that both Mr. Weinstein and Dr. Fish felt compelled to act illegally. But the fault is not theirs. The blame rests squarely with a society that forces devoted husbands and wives to choose between the welfare of their spouses and the letter of the law.
Which returns us to nursing homes. I respect the fact that some older Americans find rich and meaningful lives within such institutions, and that many of the caregivers at these facilities are deeply devoted to their work. I would certainly never deny anybody the right to live out his final days in such a place, if he affirmatively so chooses. At the same time, such facilities impose grave limits on human autonomy. These restrictions often encroach upon the residents insidiously, as their conditions decline. One may enter a nursing home with mild cognitive impairment, but soon enough one needs permission to leave one's room unsupervised or is being forcibly medicated to reduce unwanted behaviors. That is a risk I am entirely unwilling to take. As a personal matter, I find the prospect of relying on another human being to change my clothing or to empty my bedpan incompatible with the minimum level of human dignity that I ever wish to endure. When I can no longer manage my activities of daily living at home, I am prepared to conclude my life with the same dignity that I hope I have displayed during my life. I prefer a timely death to a lengthy sojourn in a human warehouse. Moreover, when I do pass on, I want my money to go to the causes that I believe in and to the people that I care about -- not into the coffers of health care conglomerates. Needless to say, the nursing home industry views matters differently.
Some opponents of legalized aid-in-dying are genuinely motivated by a concern that the process will be abused -- and these concerns ought to be taken seriously. Any legislation on the subject should certainly include safeguards to ensure that participants are willing, or if incapacitated, have spelled out their wishes clearly in advance. Other opponents of legalized aid-in-dying appear to believe that human suffering is somehow ennobling and that God's mission is for each of us to die a "natural" death. These zealots are often far harder to engage in any meaningful dialogue, as there is little purpose in discourse with individuals who believes they are acting in accordance with divine will. What should not be overlooked is that there are also organizations, such as "True Compassion Advocates" of Washington, which oppose legalized aid-in-dying in the name of better end-of-life care. These groups would have us believe that well-funded palliative therapies and hospice programs cannot exist simultaneously with legalized aid-in-dying. The experience of the Netherlands, which has both a well-developed aid-in-dying system and some of the best palliative care in the world, belies this claim. However, as people choose to control their own deaths and the legal system increasingly accepts these choices, as is already the case in Oregon, Washington and Montana, one can expect these palliation-only organizations to align themselves ever more closely with a "nursing home-industrial complex" that stands to lose billions of dollars if people choose to die on their own terms.
Each year, millions of Americans enter into conversations similar to the discussion that Paul Weinstein allegedly had with his wife, Helena. Mothers and fathers tell their children that they would rather die peacefully at home than in hospitals or nursing facilities. Husbands and wives pledge to each other than they will never end up in institutions. I have witnessed these conversations in my own family and, during my work as a clinical ethicist, I have heard them recounted at patients' bedsides. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these individuals do end up in nursing care, often against their own strongly-stated wishes. Most families are not equipped to care for their loved ones at home. Some such patients lack any social support at all. So their choice is either the "slow glue factory" -- as my grandmother used to call nursing homes -- or to convince someone to help them die. In an ideal world, that would be a clinic where trained professionals could ease the suffering out of earthly existence. Or they might summon their own family physicians, who would provide lethal cocktails to be consumed in a home setting, as is done in Holland. The cruel reality, in forty-seven states, is that the suffering must hope they have relatives or friends who love them enough to sacrifice their companionship, and to risk prison time, in order to effectuate their wishes.
Mercy killing is not a problem. It is a symptom. While I certainly do not encourage the spouses of terminally ill or chronically suffering patients to take the law into their own hands when asked, I cannot fault those who do so. It may be that the tide is finally turning on aid-in-dying, as the cause has gone from a television spectacle associated with Jack Kevorkian to a matter of personal dignity embraced by large numbers of ordinary citizens. Great Britain is poised to establish guidelines for when not to charge those who aid in dying. California and New Hampshire appear ready to follow in the path of Oregon and Washington. After centuries of suffering, jointly-fostered by a partnership of church and state, a moment of moral enlightenment appears at hand. Alas, that does little good for men like Mr. Weinstein and Dr. Fish. Or for their wives. They do not have time to wait for the dithering of legislators to overcome political inertia or for meddlesome bishops to adopt a different cause célèbre. So while legalized aid in dying may be a few years off for many, we desperately need a moratorium on prosecutions in cases where such action is both altruistic and desired.
Men like Paul Weinstein and Jim Fish are neither heroes nor villains. They are ordinary men who have been forced to make decisions that no reasonable human being ought ever have to confront. We should honor their fortitude, but temper any admiration with a healthy concern for the value of the rule of law. And, most importantly, we should change that law. As much as I wish that, when I'm no longer independent, I have someone who cares about me enough to help me die, even if doing so is still illegal, I can only hope that nobody ever has to choose between love and the law on my behalf.
Friday, September 25, 2009
We're # 37
Here is a song celebrating our proud ranking in the World Health Organization's list of world health systems for all the obstructionist hecklers to sing as they continue down the road to total irrelevance.
Monday, September 21, 2009
In Lies We Trust
This feature length documentary about medical madness, cloaked in bioterrorism preparedness, will awaken the brain dead. It exposes health officials, directed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for conducting a “War of Terror” that is killing millions of unwitting Americans.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Enormous waste, unconscionable greed in health care
A human profile and an important perspective on the ongoing debate over health care reform. Dr. Steffi Woolhandler and Dr. David Himmelstein lead a campaign by doctors to reform health care which they see as needlessly expensive and corrupt. Together they founded Physicians for a National Health Program in 1987 which aims for a system where everyone is covered. They decry the soaring costs of health care – and how that hurts poor people who are uninsured -- and many in the middle class who are under-insured. The doctors pull no punches in describing what they see as enormous waste and unconscionable greed in health care expenditures. The second segment features American doctors who have visited other nations to learn of workable alternative systems.
Listen to the program online: HUMANKIND: Universal Health Care
Shared via AddThis
Listen to the program online: HUMANKIND: Universal Health Care
Shared via AddThis
Monday, July 6, 2009
Help dogs get their day in court
When you see footage of a puppy mill bust and watch as dogs who have never had a toy, warm bed, or affection find hope for the first time, what you don’t see is the legal work behind the scenes that makes it all possible.
The Humane Society of the United States has the largest and most effective legal team ever assembled on behalf of animals -- with 15 in-house lawyers, a network of more than 1,000 pro bono attorneys, and a docket of more than 40 active cases in state and federal courts around the country.
Will you help keep this legal team in court fighting for animals?Last month, a class action lawsuit filed by our legal team bankrupted and shuttered the notorious Florida-based puppy retailer Wizard of Claws. The case not only put an end to this cruel and abusive operation, but also resulted in the rescue of all 32 of the store’s remaining puppy mill puppies.
In the last two years, our legal team has filed dozens of new cases, and won more than 30 courtroom victories to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. This year we have already won court orders halting canned hunting of endangered species, ending the sale of cruel raccoon dog fur by a major fashion designer, overturning the Postal Service’s policy of mailing illegal animal fighting paraphernalia, and blocking the sport hunting and trapping of wolves in the Great Lakes.
Our legal team is working hard every day to ensure that all animals get the legal protection they deserve, but our opponents are strong and we cannot win this fight alone. Please make a contribution today to help puppy mill dogs and other animals get their day in court.
Thank you for all you do for animals.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Stop Mass General from needless killing of animals!
From Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
On Monday and Tuesday, live sheep are scheduled to be used and then killed in a trauma training course at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. We need your help to end this unnecessary and cruel practice.
Mass General may be one of the nation’s best hospitals, but it is woefully behind the times when it comes to teaching Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Across the nation, more than 90 percent of ATLS courses are taught using only human-based simulators, which Mass General currently owns.
Please call, e-mail, or write a letter to Massachusetts General Hospital president Peter L. Slavin, M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in the institution’s ATLS program. Then forward this message to your friends who care about animals and effective medical education. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. Send an automatic e-mail.
Peter L. Slavin, M.D.
President
Massachusetts General Hospital
55 Fruit St.
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-724-9300
E-mail: pslavin@partners.org
Mass General owns the American College of Surgeons-approved simulator known as the TraumaMan System. The hospital uses the simulator to teach ATLS surgical skills to medical students while using live sheep to teach the very same procedures to practicing physicians.
On May 14, PCRM filed a formal request with Mass General’s Subcommittee on Research Animal Care asking that it deny the use of animals in the hospital’s ATLS program.
The letter cites an ongoing survey by PCRM, which has so far received responses from 201 ATLS programs in the United States and Canada. The survey has found that 187 of those programs (more than 90 percent) exclusively use nonanimal models for instruction. The vast majority of those 187 programs exclusively use the TraumaMan System.
Learn more about the TraumaMan System. If you have any questions, please contact me at rmerkley@pcrm.org. Thanks so much for your help!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Insurance coverage for "mental health" disorders influenced by psych drug industry
Through a back door darkly: new mental health insurance requirements: costly and mandatory mental health coverage sneaks through in the Federal bailout bill.(Psychology)
Publication: USA Today (Magazine)
Publication Date: 01-JAN-09
Author: Vatz, Richard E. ; Schaler, Jeffrey A
IT HAS THE KIND of intuitive appeal that should make thoughtful people skeptical-mandatory insurance coverage for all mental illnesses by all companies that cover mental illness at all. What images come to mind? Many, perhaps most, conjure up pictures of cognitively damaged people who are at the mercy of something called "mental illness." In this fantasy, mental illness can strike without warning and leave individuals involuntarily debilitated, walking around aimlessly, spouting incomprehensible "word salad."
With its major audience a government with increasing control over its citizens' daily fives and a credulous general public mystified by the allegedly medical components of the edifice of mental health care, psychiatric self-interest groups have tried for years to force insurance companies to cover the treatment of mental illness and addiction. Treating depression as well as disturbing and sometimes simple problems in riving on the same level as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes is the essence of what has come to be known as "parity."
Now, through political legerdemain, this government-mandated coverage has become law as an undebated amendment attached to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Thus, a proposal which had failed in a variety of forms for over a decade to enforce mental health parity has become law. The parity amendment requires that mental health and substance use disorder benefits be "no more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered" by an insurance group health plan or coverage (only if said plan covers mental illness). Again, to the untutored ear, this has a reasonable sound to it. Logicians would say its supporting arguments sport a sort of "face validity." Yet, this legislation, unless reversed--or at least modified to apply only to organic-based mental disorders-is likely to open up a Pandora's box for the U.S. health care system.
Organic-based mental disorders are those with known physiological bases. Regardless of what many "experts" and laypersons say, there are no known brain lesions or organic causes responsible for "mental illness." If there were, these would be brain or neurological diseases, not mental diseases. These would be identified by their physical origins. Another way to understand the difference here between brain disease, for example, and mental illness is this: brain disease usually is characterized by cognitive deficit, e.g., short-term memory loss; mental illness, by false claims--self-reported imaginings, also known as hallucinations.
Addiction often is treated with religion. Alcoholics Anonymous is the best example. Courts in the U.S. increasingly are viewing AA as a religious activity. When courts order people into AA, or when states give money to addiction treatment providers utilizing AA's "12 Steps," the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment are violated. The $35,000,000 Federal project MATCH of a few years ago showed that AA is as effective as the best contemporary psychology has to offer when it comes to treatment of alcoholism. We know from past studies that AA is as effective as leaving people to their own devices. It is important to remember, particularly in light of the parity bill, that AA and other self-help groups are free. No money needs to be appropriated to them at all. In fact, they do better without Federal or state subsidy. Quietly slipping the parity requirement into the financial bailout bill surreptitiously adjudicates by legislative flat a halt-century of contentious debate over the definition of "mental illness," whether "psychiatric disorders" are medical disorders, and the nature of addiction. What it does not address are the many valid objections to the entire concept of mental health parity-objections that barely have been allowed to see the light of day and indisputably never have been resolved satisfactorily.
This analogy--that mental illness is like physical illness--is not reciprocal. People with cancer hardly are like John Hinckley, Theodore "Unabomber" Kaczynski, or Jeffrey Dahmer. Those struggling with the devastation of diabetes hardly are like those who choose to destroy themselves by shooting heroin or smoking crack. When a person with diabetes is deprived of his insulin, that individual gets sick and dies. When a crack user is deprived of cocaine, he or she gets better and lives. There are far more differences between mental and physical disease than there are similarities, but medical science increasingly is becoming political science, especially when government gets involved in mandating and defining illness, treatment, and medicine--and individuals with real diseases always will lose relatively when mental health professionals stand to gain by hiding behind their "patients."
The issue of coverage for mental illness, made increasingly salient since the 1970s, became a prominent national concern largely through the lobbying efforts of Tipper Gore, wife of former Vice Pres. Al Gore. Her political activism, revealingly, first was motivated by her situational depression following her young son's serious injury in a car accident after he darted into a street. Does anyone really believe such upset is an indication of "illness?" Does anyone believe that such a reaction is revelatory of what psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders calls a "depressive disorder."
Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz accurately predicted close to 50 years ago what we are experiencing today when he warned against the "therapeutic state"--a term he created--as the greatest threat to liberty and justice in a free society.
Through Mrs. Gore's encouragement, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered Federal parity coverage for psychiatric "illness," though mental illness and addiction never were defined adequately. In Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, he stated his policy as follows: "I want to make sure that a patient with depression is given access to care on terms no different from a patient who has diabetes." If depression is like diabetes, is diabetes like depression? The analogy, again, is not reciprocal.
Verifying mental illness
The lack of pathological verification necessary to label someone as "mentally ill" has led to some truly anomalous phenomena. According to The New York Times, Olympic swimming superstar Michael Phelps was diagnosed in early childhood as having the mental disorder Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He no longer takes drugs for the diagnosis, and famed ADHD psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell says of the disorder, "I have been treating this condition for 25 years and I know that, if you manage it right, this apparent deficit can become an asset. I think of it as a trait and not a disability." So, should such a claim mandatorily be covered by insurance? Now, according to Hallowell, this "disorder" not only is a "trail" and not a "disability," it is an "asset" as well.
Other generally ignored objections to the parity argument include those disputing the American Psychiatric Association's claims that over 50% of Americans are--or will be at some point--mentally ill. In the December 2008 Archives of General Psychiatry, there is a report that "almost half of college-aged individuals had a psychiatric disorder in the past year," and this includes heavy drinking, categorized under "alcohol use disorders." These findings were not based on any type of medical examination, but on "face-to-face interviews" conducted by nonphysicians. Moreover, these estimates, more than doubling the APA's and National Institute of Mental Health's assessment from years ago, virtually are unlimited since there is no way to confirm accurately the existence of "mental illness" or "psychiatric disorders." Mental illness and psychiatric disorders always are diagnosed on the basis of symptoms or complaints. There are no signs. Most physical illness is diagnosed on the basis of signs, discovered through objective tests.
Parity amendment supporters celebrate the new law as signaling the end of "stigma," but they fail to consider that stigmatization is a marvelous punishment reinforcer for undesirable behavior, some of which is called "mental illness." If there is no "stigma" to having mental illness, there is no disincentive for those who--consciously or unconsciously, innocently or strategically--want the label to justify their unnecessary medicating or seeking of privileges, special rights, and competitive advantages in a variety of situations ranging from jobs to education.
Substance disorders arguably are a function of behavioral choices and in no way constitute diseases to which insurance should apply. Such self-destructive behavior is best explained by mindset, personal values, and how a person copes with his or her environment. Incidence varies by cultural context, and people clearly can stop or control their addictions through an exercise of free will. Not so when it comes to bodily illness; one no more can will away cancer, heart disease, or diabetes than he or she can will their onset independently of smoking or eating badly.
Schizophrenia is used to typify "mental illness" when it, in fact, constitutes no more than 1.5% of those labeled "mentally ill." Such citing of unrepresentative problems as the prototype of mental illness--including some examples of schizophrenics who have authentic brain disease--is used to make people falsely envision enfeebled, helpless, sympathy-inducing sick people as poster children for mental illness. A more prototypical mental illness, "adjustment disorder," is a name given by psychiatrists to people who have problems in living--hardly worthy of health insurance and an inducement against confronting one's problems and choices. The same could be said for "impulse-control disorders" such as gambling too much (called "pathological gambling"), Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, and other supposed mental disorders whose incidence rises and falls with their marketability at any given time.
Most major media outlets generally ignore the foregoing arguments in coverage of the passage of parity for mental disorders. Major articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times covering the passage of parity in 2008, for instance, often include testimony only from supporters of the amendment. Recall that it took but a single boy to expose the Emperor's "new clothes."
Passing a measure that is objectionable in so many ways is bad enough. Even worse is the tact that such a contentious, scientifically questionable, and potentially expensive piece of legislation--especially for purchasers of health insurance--was passed through the back door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The dangers of parity - insurance coverage for so-called "mental health" disorders, are being disguised through the back door under the influence of the psych drug industry, in particular. The result of such coverage creates a mandate for drugging anyone under a diagnosis of depression, post dramatic stress disorder, bigomania, or a multitude of other stigmatizing labels - a disguise for control. Too often, the result is used to control/manipulate nursing home patients.
Please tell your legislator not to pass this option, allowing mandatory (forced) treatment.
Publication: USA Today (Magazine)
Publication Date: 01-JAN-09
Author: Vatz, Richard E. ; Schaler, Jeffrey A
IT HAS THE KIND of intuitive appeal that should make thoughtful people skeptical-mandatory insurance coverage for all mental illnesses by all companies that cover mental illness at all. What images come to mind? Many, perhaps most, conjure up pictures of cognitively damaged people who are at the mercy of something called "mental illness." In this fantasy, mental illness can strike without warning and leave individuals involuntarily debilitated, walking around aimlessly, spouting incomprehensible "word salad."
With its major audience a government with increasing control over its citizens' daily fives and a credulous general public mystified by the allegedly medical components of the edifice of mental health care, psychiatric self-interest groups have tried for years to force insurance companies to cover the treatment of mental illness and addiction. Treating depression as well as disturbing and sometimes simple problems in riving on the same level as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes is the essence of what has come to be known as "parity."
Now, through political legerdemain, this government-mandated coverage has become law as an undebated amendment attached to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Thus, a proposal which had failed in a variety of forms for over a decade to enforce mental health parity has become law. The parity amendment requires that mental health and substance use disorder benefits be "no more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered" by an insurance group health plan or coverage (only if said plan covers mental illness). Again, to the untutored ear, this has a reasonable sound to it. Logicians would say its supporting arguments sport a sort of "face validity." Yet, this legislation, unless reversed--or at least modified to apply only to organic-based mental disorders-is likely to open up a Pandora's box for the U.S. health care system.
Organic-based mental disorders are those with known physiological bases. Regardless of what many "experts" and laypersons say, there are no known brain lesions or organic causes responsible for "mental illness." If there were, these would be brain or neurological diseases, not mental diseases. These would be identified by their physical origins. Another way to understand the difference here between brain disease, for example, and mental illness is this: brain disease usually is characterized by cognitive deficit, e.g., short-term memory loss; mental illness, by false claims--self-reported imaginings, also known as hallucinations.
Addiction often is treated with religion. Alcoholics Anonymous is the best example. Courts in the U.S. increasingly are viewing AA as a religious activity. When courts order people into AA, or when states give money to addiction treatment providers utilizing AA's "12 Steps," the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment are violated. The $35,000,000 Federal project MATCH of a few years ago showed that AA is as effective as the best contemporary psychology has to offer when it comes to treatment of alcoholism. We know from past studies that AA is as effective as leaving people to their own devices. It is important to remember, particularly in light of the parity bill, that AA and other self-help groups are free. No money needs to be appropriated to them at all. In fact, they do better without Federal or state subsidy. Quietly slipping the parity requirement into the financial bailout bill surreptitiously adjudicates by legislative flat a halt-century of contentious debate over the definition of "mental illness," whether "psychiatric disorders" are medical disorders, and the nature of addiction. What it does not address are the many valid objections to the entire concept of mental health parity-objections that barely have been allowed to see the light of day and indisputably never have been resolved satisfactorily.
This analogy--that mental illness is like physical illness--is not reciprocal. People with cancer hardly are like John Hinckley, Theodore "Unabomber" Kaczynski, or Jeffrey Dahmer. Those struggling with the devastation of diabetes hardly are like those who choose to destroy themselves by shooting heroin or smoking crack. When a person with diabetes is deprived of his insulin, that individual gets sick and dies. When a crack user is deprived of cocaine, he or she gets better and lives. There are far more differences between mental and physical disease than there are similarities, but medical science increasingly is becoming political science, especially when government gets involved in mandating and defining illness, treatment, and medicine--and individuals with real diseases always will lose relatively when mental health professionals stand to gain by hiding behind their "patients."
The issue of coverage for mental illness, made increasingly salient since the 1970s, became a prominent national concern largely through the lobbying efforts of Tipper Gore, wife of former Vice Pres. Al Gore. Her political activism, revealingly, first was motivated by her situational depression following her young son's serious injury in a car accident after he darted into a street. Does anyone really believe such upset is an indication of "illness?" Does anyone believe that such a reaction is revelatory of what psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders calls a "depressive disorder."
Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz accurately predicted close to 50 years ago what we are experiencing today when he warned against the "therapeutic state"--a term he created--as the greatest threat to liberty and justice in a free society.
Through Mrs. Gore's encouragement, Pres. Bill Clinton ordered Federal parity coverage for psychiatric "illness," though mental illness and addiction never were defined adequately. In Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, he stated his policy as follows: "I want to make sure that a patient with depression is given access to care on terms no different from a patient who has diabetes." If depression is like diabetes, is diabetes like depression? The analogy, again, is not reciprocal.
Verifying mental illness
The lack of pathological verification necessary to label someone as "mentally ill" has led to some truly anomalous phenomena. According to The New York Times, Olympic swimming superstar Michael Phelps was diagnosed in early childhood as having the mental disorder Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He no longer takes drugs for the diagnosis, and famed ADHD psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell says of the disorder, "I have been treating this condition for 25 years and I know that, if you manage it right, this apparent deficit can become an asset. I think of it as a trait and not a disability." So, should such a claim mandatorily be covered by insurance? Now, according to Hallowell, this "disorder" not only is a "trail" and not a "disability," it is an "asset" as well.
Other generally ignored objections to the parity argument include those disputing the American Psychiatric Association's claims that over 50% of Americans are--or will be at some point--mentally ill. In the December 2008 Archives of General Psychiatry, there is a report that "almost half of college-aged individuals had a psychiatric disorder in the past year," and this includes heavy drinking, categorized under "alcohol use disorders." These findings were not based on any type of medical examination, but on "face-to-face interviews" conducted by nonphysicians. Moreover, these estimates, more than doubling the APA's and National Institute of Mental Health's assessment from years ago, virtually are unlimited since there is no way to confirm accurately the existence of "mental illness" or "psychiatric disorders." Mental illness and psychiatric disorders always are diagnosed on the basis of symptoms or complaints. There are no signs. Most physical illness is diagnosed on the basis of signs, discovered through objective tests.
Parity amendment supporters celebrate the new law as signaling the end of "stigma," but they fail to consider that stigmatization is a marvelous punishment reinforcer for undesirable behavior, some of which is called "mental illness." If there is no "stigma" to having mental illness, there is no disincentive for those who--consciously or unconsciously, innocently or strategically--want the label to justify their unnecessary medicating or seeking of privileges, special rights, and competitive advantages in a variety of situations ranging from jobs to education.
Substance disorders arguably are a function of behavioral choices and in no way constitute diseases to which insurance should apply. Such self-destructive behavior is best explained by mindset, personal values, and how a person copes with his or her environment. Incidence varies by cultural context, and people clearly can stop or control their addictions through an exercise of free will. Not so when it comes to bodily illness; one no more can will away cancer, heart disease, or diabetes than he or she can will their onset independently of smoking or eating badly.
Schizophrenia is used to typify "mental illness" when it, in fact, constitutes no more than 1.5% of those labeled "mentally ill." Such citing of unrepresentative problems as the prototype of mental illness--including some examples of schizophrenics who have authentic brain disease--is used to make people falsely envision enfeebled, helpless, sympathy-inducing sick people as poster children for mental illness. A more prototypical mental illness, "adjustment disorder," is a name given by psychiatrists to people who have problems in living--hardly worthy of health insurance and an inducement against confronting one's problems and choices. The same could be said for "impulse-control disorders" such as gambling too much (called "pathological gambling"), Body Dysmorphic Disorder, Multiple Personality Disorder, and other supposed mental disorders whose incidence rises and falls with their marketability at any given time.
Most major media outlets generally ignore the foregoing arguments in coverage of the passage of parity for mental disorders. Major articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times covering the passage of parity in 2008, for instance, often include testimony only from supporters of the amendment. Recall that it took but a single boy to expose the Emperor's "new clothes."
Passing a measure that is objectionable in so many ways is bad enough. Even worse is the tact that such a contentious, scientifically questionable, and potentially expensive piece of legislation--especially for purchasers of health insurance--was passed through the back door.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The dangers of parity - insurance coverage for so-called "mental health" disorders, are being disguised through the back door under the influence of the psych drug industry, in particular. The result of such coverage creates a mandate for drugging anyone under a diagnosis of depression, post dramatic stress disorder, bigomania, or a multitude of other stigmatizing labels - a disguise for control. Too often, the result is used to control/manipulate nursing home patients.
Please tell your legislator not to pass this option, allowing mandatory (forced) treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)