Showing posts with label children in care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children in care. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 February 2011

Sarah Palin failed vulnerable children in Alaska

I'd like to revisit a subject close to my heart, involving the rights of children.

In April 2009 I wrote a post about a lawsuit against then 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, 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. It was filed on September 2, 2008.

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.

When I wrote the last update on this topic, Sarah Palin was still governor and I didn't know the outcome of the lawsuit. Today I found out what happened.

In May 2009, the trial court decided PsychRights lacked standing and the case should be dismissed and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on October 1, 2010, including the approximately $4,000 attorney fee award against PsychRights.

Another lawsuit was filed by PsychRights more recently.

Jim Gottstein is taking on psychiatry in Alaska for over-prescribing medicine to children.

The list of those named in Gottstein's lawsuit is long: More than a dozen child psychiatrists, health agencies, state officials, and pharmacies that include Walmart, Fred Meyer and Safeway.

Gottstein believes foster children are one of the largest groups of children that are over-medicated in Alaska. The goal of the lawsuit is to stop this practice.
He says they are using powerful drugs on children that are intended for adults.

"People put on these drugs have a life expectancy of 25 years shorter than the general population. These drugs are so harmful, that they literally kill people," Gottstein said.

"A lot times it's easier to medicate someone and just have them go numb than to actually help them process all these emotions," said Candice Tucker, who is now a part of Facing Foster Care in Alaska.

Tucker was in foster care for three years and believes her social workers and doctors relied too heavily on drugs.

"I remember every medication I've ever been on," she says.

"Abilify, Respridol, Trozidone and Benzatropine for the side effects," she listed off.

"It angers me, because there are harmful side effects to these medications. They cause health problems. Half of them aren't even recommended to be used by someone under the age of 18, yet they're being prescribed to four-year-olds," she said.

I included the latest case because practices that preceded Sarah Palin and continued under her administration are still widespread and still harm vulnerable children.

It seems to me that there's a culture of collusion against the most vulnerable members of society in Alaska. Various agencies, that should be looking after the interests of these children, take them away from a bad situation and attempt to "solve" their problems through the use of unsuitable medication, creating other problems that will have repercussions in their future lives.

News from England highlight some of these repercussions:

Ten girls who were heavily sedated while living at a care home during the 1970s and 1980s went on to have children with a range of birth defects, an investigation revealed.

As teenagers at the Church of England-run Kendall House home in Gravesend, Kent, the ten were restrained with huge doses of tranquillisers and other drugs, according to BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

It is feared hundreds of other girls who were in UK care homes during the same period and suffered the same mistreatment may also be at risk of having children with birth defects. (Daily Mail, UK)

Alaska has a higher than average incidence of birth defects. Governors and state agencies seem incapable of acting in the interests of vulnerable people in Alaska. The attitude of those in charge range from total indifference to outright collusion. They seem incapable of joining the dots and co-ordinating services to improve the quality of people's lives and prevent their ever damning statistics from getting worse. The courts help legitimize the position of the state and its agencies.

Sarah Palin can't be sued now. But she should bear responsibility for her legacy, gladly perpetuated by those who came after her.

If we take Sarah Palin's record in this particular area, add her destructive rhetoric regarding healthcare, her general indifference to the vulnerable, young and old, can the country really afford her the opportunity to make any future decisions on their behalf? Can anybody turn a blind eye while she influences the political conversation with her simplistic and shortsighted soundbites?

This and older posts on Palingates may be read together by clicking on this link.

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Sarah Palin's defective governing


Ten girls who were heavily sedated while living at a care home during the 1970s and 1980s went on to have children with a range of birth defects, an investigation revealed.

As teenagers at the Church of England-run Kendall House home in Gravesend, Kent, the ten were restrained with huge doses of tranquillisers and other drugs, according to BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

It is feared hundreds of other girls who were in UK care homes during the same period and suffered the same mistreatment may also be at risk of having children with birth defects. (Daily Mail, UK)

The lawsuit PsychRights vs Sarah Palin concerns the forceful drugging of young people in care and in state institutions in Alaska.

Doesn't Alaska have a higher than average incidence of birth defects?

I wonder if this practice of controlling young people's behaviour through drugs adds to the problem of toxic waste dumping, which is already considered a contributing factor to the high numbers of babies born with defects in Alaska.

I suppose it's just another level in the game Sarah Palin plays with people's lives...

Wednesday, 1 April 2009

PsychRights v Sarah Palin


On March 6 I wrote about a 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. Things have moved on.


Here's the latest:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 31, 2009

CONTACT: Jim Gottstein 907-274-7686 jim.gottstein@psychrights.org

Alaska Admits It Is Incapable of Protecting Children and Youth in Its Care from Harmful Psychiatric Drugging

Today, responding to the State of Alaska’s admission in PsychRights v. Alaska that it was incapable of protecting the children and youth in its care from improper and harmful psychiatric drugging, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights®) told the court it must step in.

PsychRights v. Alaska was filed last Fall to halt the State of Alaska’s practice of administering and paying for psychiatric drugs being given children and youth without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs. In trying to get PsychRights v. Alaska “thrown out of court” the State admitted it was incapable of protecting the children and youth in its care as follows:

A reading of the Complaint makes obvious that the true subject of plaintiff’s grievances is not the Department, but prescribers of psychotropic pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical companies which produce and market them, and the overall culture of pediatric psychiatry. The implication that the Department possesses meaningful authority and control over these matters-or is in any realistic position to administer the relief requested even if the court were to order it-is a fiction.

“The point is the State has the responsibility to properly care for the children and youth in its care regardless of the ‘culture of pediatric psychiatry,’” according Mr. Gottstein. Today’s court filing tells the court, “It is shameful the State is abdicating its responsibility when it should be working to correct the problem.”

In the absence of the State being willing to address the problem without court intervention, the lawsuit seeks to solve it by obtaining a court order prohibiting the psychiatric drugging of children and youth by the State unless and until

(i) evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted,

(ii) rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks,

(iii) the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed of the risks and potential benefits, and

(iv) close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place.

Practically every day brings revelations that pediatric psychopharmacology is the result of illegal drug company actions to improperly influence psychiatrists to prescribe extremely harmful drugs to children and youth, in spite of there being no real evidence of their efficacy. “Rather than meeting its mandate to properly care for and protect these children and youth from harm, the actions of the State are reprehensible,” Mr. Gottstein declared, adding “The State is also trying to hide its complicity by stopping the discovery process.”

The defendants in the lawsuit are the State of Alaska, its Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), and responsible officials, Sarah Palin, Governor, William Hogan, Commissioner of DHSS, Tammy Sandoval, Director of the Office of Children’s Services (OCS), Steve McComb, Director of the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Melissa Stone, Director of the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH), Ron Adler, CEO of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), and William Streur Deputy Commissioner and Director of Medicaid. All of the substantive filings in the lawsuit are available on the Internet at right here.


I obtained this information from Beyond Meds and they include numerous contacts so people can take action. It is vital that the people involved are aware of the importance of this precedent-setting lawsuit and respond in a more co-operative fashion.

Sarah Palin at (907)465-3500 Office of the Governor or
sarah.palin@alaska.gov

Department of Human and Health Services Commissioner:
William Hogan at (907)269-7800 or william.hogan@alaska.gov

The other defendents worth contacting are:

Tammy Sandoval, Director of the Office of Children’s Services (907)269-3440
or tammy.sandoval@alaska.gov

Melissa Stone, Director of the Division of Behavioral Health (907)269-3410
or melissa.stone@alaska.gov

Ron Adler, CEO of the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (907)269-7100 or ronald.adler@alaska.gov

Steve McComb, Director, Alaska Division of Juvenile Justice (907) 465-2212
or DJJ@health.state.ak.us

PsychRights website
.

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?
.

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)
.