Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts

Saturday, 7 March 2009

Sarah Palin and the rights of children, part 2


I feel that the topic about the forced medication of children in care needs to be discussed further. There are fundamental questions which have been overlooked.

The issue of the forced medication of mentally ill people in state institutions is not new. It has been going on for ages in just about every country. It is a lot cheaper to drug people to their eyeballs rather than offer adequate treatment. Mental health is an area still riddled with taboos and misconceptions. The rich won't normally admit to being afflicted by mental illness, but have access to the best care and are able to make informed decisions about their treatment. If they are unable to take responsibility for their own wellbeing, they will probably have relatives or other advocates to act on their behalf.

That is not the case of vulnerable people who find themselves cared for by the state. They are the individuals in correctional facilities, psychiatric hospitals and children in care. People don't end up in these circumstances by choice or because their lives are fantastic but they happen to make some mistake and oops, find themselves locked up somewhere! More often than not they come from problematic families and carry with them some very heavy baggage. How many of them are in a position to make informed decisions about anything, let alone about their mental health? How many have advocates when the need arises?

I am going to focus on children because I have experience in dealing with "difficult" children. I spent twenty five years fighting for their rights. What do I consider to be the rights of children?
  • The right to be loved, to have their emotional needs met.
  • The right to grow up in a safe environment, to be free from fear.
  • The right to have their basic requirements addressed in the areas of education and health.
  • The right to be recognised as our future and to have some investment made in order to fulfil their potential.
  • The right to be supported when having difficulties.
  • The right to be treated and respected as human beings.
I believe ALL children are entitled to all of the above.

Over the years I have seen many professionals in children's services and the medical profession take the easy way out. Diagnosing children as suffering from some condition and prescribing drugs is easier than investigating and addressing the reasons behind their difficult behaviour. Many social workers and teachers are very quick to label children as this or the other and to put them in categories where they remain, their labels following them from school to school and they are rarely given a chance to shake them off.

The majority of children who are treated in this way come from deprived backgrounds, with uneducated or abusive parents. Of course there are children with loving parents who are misdiagnosed and labelled, they are at the mercy of the medical professionals and the large pharmaceutical companies, but that's another story.

Children do not choose to have a social worker, they do not choose to go into foster care or to live in an institution. Through no fault of their own, they end up having all decisions about their lives being made by people who have no emotional investment in them. The professionals. The people who act on behalf of the state.

Deciding that children in care will have their needs met through medication is to take the shortest of short cuts. There will be a percentage who might benefit from specialist treatment and appropriate drugs. Unfortunately, the trend is to make difficult - but not mentally ill - children docile through drugs to make life easier for the adults involved in their care. It is also a lot cheaper than treating them as individuals and making provision to solve their problems effectively.

Children are taken into the care of the state because somebody failed them. If their real needs are not addressed, they are very likely to find themselves in one of the other state institutions mentioned earlier - as adults.

My question is: are children taken into care so they can be failed again?
.

Greta and Sarah



I wonder how Greta Van Susteren would react to the lawsuit against Sarah Palin regarding children in care being forced to take mind altering drugs. Greta is a well known scientologist. Scientologists are very much against Ritalin and believe it to be a "chemical straightjacket".

Ritalin is very widely used to bring children under control whether they're in the care of the state or not.

Do scientologists make a distinction between children living with their families and those who find themselves in foster care or state institutions? Do they believe it's wrong to give Ritalin to ANY child? I'm not very familiar with their beliefs and would be interested in hearing their answers to these questions.

Would Greta's affiliation to scientology trump her allegiance to Sarah Palin?

Links
Scientology and Ritalin, click here.
Andrew Halcro's blog about Greta and Sarah here.

Previous post about lawsuit here.
.

Friday, 6 March 2009

Sarah Palin and the rights of children under state care


There is an ongoing lawsuit in an Alaska Superior Court seeking to stop the de facto forced medication of children under the state's care - foster kids, juvenile detainees - and children covered under state health programs with psychiatric medications. Named as defendants are the State of Alaska, Governor Sarah Palin and a host of officials with various state agencies. The suit was filed by Psych Rights, the Alaska-based mental health law project, which has vigorously fought the forced drugging of adults in the state's psychiatric hospital.

In 2006 Psych Rights succeeded in a lawsuit regarding the administering of drugs to adults in state psychiatric institutions against their will. In a historic and precedent-setting decision, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that the forced administration of psychotropic drugs to patients is unconstitutional. The Court made this recommendation:

"In order to make informed decisions possible, the law requires treatment facilities to give their patients certain information concerning their situation and need for treatment, including advice about: their diagnosis; proposed medications, including possible side effects and interactions with other drugs; their medical history; alternative treatments; and a statement describing their right to give or withhold consent."

In February 2008, before filing the present lawsuit, Jim Gottstein wrote to Sarah Palin on behalf of Psych Rights:

"It is a huge betrayal of trust for the State to take custody of children and youth and then subject them to such harmful, often life-ruining, drugs. They have almost always already been subjected to abuse or otherwise had very difficult lives before the State assumes custody, and then saddles them with a mental illness diagnosis and drugs them. The extent of this State inflicted child abuse is an emergency and should be corrected immediately. Children and youth are virtually always forced to take these drugs because, with rare exception, it is not their choice. Psych Rights believes the children and youth, themselves, have the legal right to not be subject to such harmful treatment at the hands of the State of Alaska. We are therefore evaluating what legal remedies might be available to them. However, instead of going down that route, it would be my great preference to be able to work together to solve this problem. It is for this reason that I am reaching out to you again on this issue."

Gottstein got a mealy-mouthed answer to this letter from an agency head, but there's no indication that Palin ever saw the letter. There was no response from her office.

In his filing, Gottstein notes that over 4,500 Alaska children and teens were being given various psych meds under the state's Medicaid program. The filing consists of 73 pages and I'm not going to go into the fine details here.

What bugs me is that Sarah Palin and all the other co-defendants didn't accept Gottstein's offer to work together to resolve the matter and chose to defend a lawsuit instead.

Taking into account Gottstein's victory in 2006, I would say this is an open and shut case. Or is it?

Choosing to defend the suit says a lot about the defendants. They must see children under state care as not having the same rights as adults, if any, and hope to be able to continue the abhorrent practice of dispensing powerful drugs to an extremely vulnerable group without any form of consent.

It remains to be seen what status these young people will be accorded under Alaskan law.

Links
Article about lawsuit here.
2006 Court ruling here.
Article about 2006 case here.
Present case filing here.
(It takes a while to load, be patient if you're curious)
.