
Psychiatric News October 1, 2004
Volume 39 Number 19
© 2004 American Psychiatric Association
p. 8
Plan to Detect Depression Alarms Some Lawmakers
Mark Moran
Psychiatrists say opposition to the state's depression-screening effort
reflects stigma, as well as the work of antipsychiatry groups.
An Illinois task force that has recommended screening of pregnant women for
depression and school children for social and emotional problems has drawn
fire from a number of quarters in the state.
Opposition to recommendations put forward by the Illinois Children's Mental
Health Partnership appears to stem from concern about government overreach on
the part of conservative groups and legislators and from public anxiety about
the use of medications in children.
But some of the opposition to the recommendations, which are preliminary,
also appears to be fueled by antipsychiatry groups, said sources involved in
the partnership.
The Children's Mental Health Partnership is a creation of the Illinois
Children's Mental Health Act of 2003, an ambitious piece of legislation aimed
at transforming mental health services for children, with an emphasis on
prevention, early intervention, and coordination of services across agencies.
The bill was signed into law last year by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich
(D).
The partnership was charged with developing recommendations to the governor
to implement those goals; earlier this year it released a draft for public
comment. That draft included language saying that all pregnant women should be
screened for depression, and all school children should be assessed for social
and emotional development.
The recommendations drew heavily from a previous report by a state task
force on children's mental health.
Barbara Shaw, chair of the Children's Mental Health Partnership, told
Psychiatric News that the intent of the recommendation was that
voluntary screening of pregnant women and school children was an ideal that
the system should strive to achieve by ensuring access to mental health
services. The recommendations were in draft form, and a new version was
scheduled to be released at press time.
But Shaw said that some legislatorsabetted by what she said was an
inaccurate report in the conservative publication Illinois
Leaderassumed that the partnership was calling for mandatory
screening.
Moreover, she said, some misinterpreted the word "screen" to
mean diagnose and label. "They read it as meaning we wanted to force
people to screen their kids, label them as mentally ill, and give them
drugs," she said. "That's the connection they made."
Lawmakers Fear Government's Role
Among those who protested the partnership's recommendations was Illinois
state Rep. Patti Bellock (R), one of the sponsors of the original mental
health law. "I did have some serious concerns that I have voiced about
the preliminary plan," Bellock told Psychiatric News. "We
have had a lot of discussions, and they are making some changes. But I have
gotten calls from all over, especially about the screening issue. That seems
to be an issue with people around the country even."
Another Illinois state representative, Chris Lauzen (R), who had received
similar assurances that future draft recommendations would be clarified,
nevertheless voiced distrust of government and of the "labeling"
of children by psychiatrists and mental health professionals. Lauzen
represents a conservative district to the west of Chicago.
"My experience over the last 12 years with government power is that
once you establish it, you can never overcome it," Lauzen told
Psychiatric News. "People don't fully appreciate why many
citizens are so angry when they see wild behavior out of [the state capital]
Springfield. [Legislators] are the last people who should be deciding what is
normal and what is abnormal. And I certainly don't want some procedure they
come up with to be sorting out our children in the schools."
He also expressed distrust about the use of medications, saying,
"When my kids are upset, they go outside and let nature and endorphins
take care of the problem."
Lauzen, who also voted for the original legislation, said, "We want
all of our citizens to have access to mental health services, but the idea
that we are going to run everyone through some screening system with who knows
what kind of values applied to them is unacceptable."
According to Shaw and others familiar with the controversy, this tempest
over a legislative effort that has what many mental and public health leaders
would call unimpeachable goals, appears to reflect a number of factors:
misinformation, misapprehensions about the language and goals of public health
and the value of prevention, and an abiding stigma surrounding mental
illness.
Psychiatrist Carl Bell, M.D., who is a member of the partnership and argued
vigorously for many of the prevention recommendations, said that
antipsychiatry forces have created some of the heat around the mental health
law.
Prevention Is Hard to Digest
Bell also said that prevention measures are not generally welcomed even in
the mental health community, where they are sometimes perceived as taking
resources away from treatment. "No one is concerned about screening kids
and medicating them for diabetes," he said. "But having a public
health conversation around prevention of psychiatric disorders is not quite
digestible yet."
Bell is president and chief executive officer of the Community Mental
Health Council in Chicago.
Much of the language of the Children's Mental Health Act is modeled on
recommendations by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental
Health.
The Children's Mental Health Act is posted online at
<www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/93/SB/pdf/09300SB1951enr.pdf>;
the task force report on which the partnership based its recommendations is
posted at
<www.ivpa.org/childrensmhtf/ICMHTF_FinalReport2003_1.pdf>.
Get information about faster international access.
a>
Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2004
American Psychiatric Association.
All rights reserved.
Home
| Search
| Current Issue
| Past Issues
| Subscribe
| All APPI Journals
| Help
| Contact Us
|