WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments.

SOB

This could be the beginning of a new industry. It bares all the hallmarks of another government scam/scheme.

Can parents of young children please ensure that your child is not normal. A recent survey found that one in ten two year old's are normal. Have your child checked today before they start to show symptoms of normality.

They will all require therapy and continuous monitoring. Mum and dad will go away happy to know that Sam's thumb sucking has a name.

I thought it was bad enough when every second kid had an Asthma puffer and braces, now they'll be dragging their personal psychologist around with them.

What next? lawyers for littlies.

Teacher: Sally what's two plus two?

Sally: Just allow me to confer with my legal team.

Sounds like a good idea for me, especially if there are early intervention type treatments or therapeutics that could improve their life. There are also a lot of genetic disorders that are no immediately apparent at birth that should be screened for, once the technology is sufficiently advance. This is especially true for the ones that are treatable.

I dont see how they can even tell if theres a mental illness when a child hasnt even developed a personality yet.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

I dont see how they can even tell if theres a mental illness when a child hasnt even developed a personality yet. SOB

I think they are looking for personality disorders rather than developmental disorders. If your three year old is having a temper tanty, this is serious stuff and should be dealt with by a trained psychologist, in case they start developing peer friendships when they start school. We want to nip this in the bud at a young age.

Seriously, they think that babies sleeping with a night light on is unusual.

Does your two year old wet the bed? get them to the good psych tester now before it's too late.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/mental-illness-check-for-toddlers-20120609-20398.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/national/mental-illness-check-for-toddlers-20120609-20398.html

Mental illness check for toddlers

http://images.theage.com.au/2012/06/09/3363210/art353-golding-mental-illness-200x0.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB

wow... you just never really stop with the unsubstantiated, utter drivel, do you?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:

I dont see how they can even tell if theres a mental illness when a child hasnt even developed a personality yet. SOB

as written by someone who has never had a child. Only a childless person could make such a fundamentally failed observation!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB wow... you just never really stop with the unsubstantiated, utter drivel, do you?

Wanker

http://hyphenbird.hubpages.com/hub/Electric-Shock-Treatment-For-Mental-Illness-Therapy-Or-Torture

http://schizophreniatreatments.bravehost.com/history.html

http://www.sntp.net/darling.htm

And a myriad of textbooks check out barnes and noble. Look for history of psychiatry.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 7:05pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB wow... you just never really stop with the unsubstantiated, utter drivel, do you? Wanker http://hyphenbird.hubpages.com/hub/Electric-Shock-Treatment-For-Mental-Illness-Therapy-Or-Torture http://schizophreniatreatments.bravehost.com/history.html http://www.sntp.net/darling.htm And a myriad of textbooks check out barnes and noble. Look for history of psychiatry. SOB

not exactly a collection of reputable links. The history of psychiatry does involve a lot of perople including a numbr of germans. This is hardly the support for your (typically) idiotic assumption that it was Hitler who has driven psychiatry.

You might try REPUTABLE sources none of which were i nyour links and AMAZON is not a supplier of psychiatry information either unless you actually know what you are looking for and based on your amzing belif that children dont have a personaility, Id say Dr Seuss might be your limit.

Quote:

There is strong evidence that the Jonestown massacre (link 1 link 2 link 3) was actually a CIA funded operation used to determine the capabilities and limitations of the intentional mass control of people by manipulating their religious beliefs.

this is from borgs links..


says it all!

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 7:24pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 7:05pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB wow... you just never really stop with the unsubstantiated, utter drivel, do you? Wanker http://hyphenbird.hubpages.com/hub/Electric-Shock-Treatment-For-Mental-Illness-Therapy-Or-Torture http://schizophreniatreatments.bravehost.com/history.html http://www.sntp.net/darling.htm And a myriad of textbooks check out barnes and noble. Look for history of psychiatry. SOB not exactly a collection of reputable links. The history of psychiatry does involve a lot of perople including a numbr of germans. This is hardly the support for your (typically) idiotic assumption that it was Hitler who has driven psychiatry. You might try REPUTABLE sources none of which were i nyour links and AMAZON is not a supplier of psychiatry information either unless you actually know what you are looking for and based on your amzing belif that children dont have a personaility, Id say Dr Seuss might be your limit.

That was just a quick google because you arent worth any more than that. Go read some text books. I didnt say he "drove" psychiatry which is an absolutely stupid thing to say i said when I didnt. I said a lot of our mental health knowledge came from him (meaning his regime since most of the research was done BEFORE the war). There are jewish websites saying its unethical to even use their research.

This is another strawman since the topic and the point was that 3 is too young to assess a child for mental imbalance.

SOB

actually instead of picking @ me and maki8ng strawmen how about you enlighten us to the "truth" of it all? what is your opinion on the whole thing? As if i care but somebody might.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:29am:

actually instead of picking @ me and maki8ng strawmen how about you enlighten us to the "truth" of it all? what is your opinion on the whole thing? As if i care but somebody might. SOB

You want him to actually comment on the topic?

Don't hold your breath.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB

Well if a child does 
or is effected by Mental illness at this age, The only reason for it is HEALTH and the LIFE style we lead these DAYS. Life of stress, where if we had a more quite life style we wounldn't have stress in our lives.

a child of innocence

has contact/imaginary friends that this dear beloved one

will converse and interact with,angels and

mother earth based spirit beings,

these satanic freemasonic demons wish to curtail this

and announce as much as a disorder

the quota is 20 odd thousand for starters.

the agenda is being exposed

and i am that i am and do not consent to freemasonic

satanism

namaste

it_is_the_light wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

a child of innocence has contact/imaginary friends that this dear beloved one will converse and interact with,angels and mother earth based spirit beings, these satanic freemasonic demons wish to curtail this and announce as much as a disorder the quota is 20 odd thousand for starters. the agenda is being exposed and i am that i am and do not consent to freemasonic satanism namaste

Looks like we've got a spammer here , this makes no sense.

warrigal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:42am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB Well if a child does  or is effected by Mental illness at this age, The only reason for it is HEALTH and the LIFE style we lead these DAYS. Life of stress, where if we had a more quite life style we wounldn't have stress in our lives.

@ age 3? What stress does a child of 3 have now that they didnt have 50 years ago?

SOB

yes id warrigal i have been here much longer

than your ignorance,

i do observe.

there is little point of arguing with said ignorance

it is spherical and surrounds you and

you are welcome to it.freewill.

i do not judge you simply observe with forgiveness..

namaste

-:)

age 3? What stress does a child of 3 have now that they didnt have 50 years ago?

________

pornography blasted at these innocence sex everywhere

on TV/internet,

fast foods

flouride in water

toxins in food GM

vaccines ,nano tech

violent video games and so on

what planet are you on id borg not to notice this

and much more

namaste

Quote:

pornography blasted at these innocence sex everywhere on TV/internet,

lol. a 3 year old isnt going to understand anything with a sexual connotation from TV since there is no actual porn there. Same as 50 years ago really and no 3 year old is on the internet by themselves and knowing how to navigate. They arent on fb @ 3 either.

If all the toxins in the water caused mental illness then we would all be insane.

SOB

If all the toxins in the water caused mental illness then we would all be insane.

__________

you may speak for yourself of course,

do not take ungranted liberties i would suggest.

the aforementioned violence pornography is acceptable

norm is it not and allowed to increase in the frequency

of fear hatred self loathing..

if a 3 year old is displaying anything other than

what is socially acceptable they will be diagnosed

with a disorder,

to the tune of 20 odd thousand for starters..

i do not consent

namaste

lol. a 3 year old isnt going to understand anything with a sexual connotation from TV since there is no actual porn there.

__________

you may laugh idiotically at your ignorance yes

this is not within me

i do not consent

namaste

Extremely dumb idea, we can not properly diagnose adults when it comes to mental illness so what makes us think we will be able to do it right for children?
The best way to deal with something like this is to give every child access to a healthy diet and educate them on being active and doing brain stimulating activities.

If they put children on pharmaceutical psycho actives then they should be arrested for child abuse.

Mental illness is an ever widening spectrum as pharmaceuticals try and sell more drugs, they want to make grief a mental illness for satans sake.
Not to mention that the difference in symptoms between like 10 of the major mental illnesses are so minute that it is really like a pick of the hat what one they give you.

Quote:

You might try REPUTABLE sources

So we definitely should not be listening to doctors and psychiatrists

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:40pm:

Quote: There is strong evidence that the Jonestown massacre (link 1 link 2 link 3) was actually a CIA funded operation used to determine the capabilities and limitations of the intentional mass control of people by manipulating their religious beliefs. this is from borgs links.. says it all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

Exactly PP. Welcome back.

Leave the freaking kids to get on with having a childhood. They don't need to be questioned and poked or prodded, just teach them to read and write at school. It seems that every industry has infiltrated the schooling system. Get out and leave schools for kids and teachers only, everyone else not welcome.

There's always one program or another to back up the pharmaceutical companies.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 9:42am:

Exactly PP. Welcome back. Leave the freaking kids to get on with having a childhood. They don't need to be questioned and poked or prodded, just teach them to read and write at school. It seems that every industry has infiltrated the schooling system. Get out and leave schools for kids and teachers only, everyone else not welcome. There's always one program or another to back up the pharmaceutical companies.

Thank you.
Kids barely have a childhood anymore and this is just one more nail in the coffin; but that doesn't take away from the dangerous of it.
If they convince people to let children as young as 3 to take extremely dangerous medication then we deserve the consequences.
The schooling system is run like a religion, stuck in its ways and ignorant to the fact.
There is always one program and there's always a bunch of idiots to believe in it.

one only has to look at how these 'medical

professionals'

medicate children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD

with mind altering drugs,children do not need drugs.

you may address the issue with diet and cut out toxins

i would suggest do not feed children processed foods,

natural living foods fruit vegetables especially those

grown in mother earth at these times are very helpful

for humans,potatoes pumpkin turnips grown in the

ground and coded nutrience within the DNA of the food

which you absorb and this will heal/enhance your

nucleated DNA

namaste

Namaste i dont really understand your position here. Are you saying that children should or should not be subjected to this mental assessment as young as age 3? It looks like you do actually disagree with it but I am not sure.

SOB

I am pretty happy here your Poll gives a resounding NO answer here

warrigal wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

I am pretty happy here your Pole gives a resounding NO answer here

Yeah it does but its just us. A captive audience of ppl in this forum however varied we are in opinion. There should really be some kind of public polls done on this topic before they bring such a thing in but nope.

SOB

Just as we have a growing number of kids being tagged as having ADHD, and pumped
full of drugs, simply because they don't want to sit quietly with a book all day, I can see
a HEAP of kids who are simply 'different', those who won't blindly comply, and those who
are simply stubborn or taciturn being labelled and hassled right throughout their childhood
and school years. The potential for stigmatism and bullying would be greatly increased.

I'm very concerned about any child that young being prescribed any form of anti-psychotic drug.

It also has the potential to return and bite them later in life ('Sorry, but you were diagnosed
as being 'anti-authority' when you were three, so you are not eligible for this job' etc).

Sorry, but I'm 100% opposed to this.

Kat wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:38am:

Just as we have a growing number of kids being tagged as having ADHD, and pumped full of drugs, simply because they don't want to sit quietly with a book all day, I can see a HEAP of kids who are simply 'different', those who won't blindly comply, and those who are simply stubborn or taciturn being labelled and hassled right throughout their childhood and school years. The potential for stigmatism and bullying would be greatly increased. I'm very concerned about any child that young being prescribed any form of anti-psychotic drug. It also has the potential to return and bite them later in life ('Sorry, but you were diagnosed as being 'anti-authority' when you were three, so you are not eligible for this job' etc). Sorry, but I'm 100% opposed to this.

I agree with your concern about ADHD etc which is usually misdiagnosed and is nothing more than an over-active imaginative kid. I know I have a grandson whose energy level could power a suburb! But he has no deficits - just a lot of energy. Often the medication is just a substitute for effective parenting. yes, we'd all like quieter and less energetic kids. Its easier. But that's not what parenting is about.

However I still see the potential merits as long as it is about identifying serious mental problems - not just inattention or over-activity.

My three year old's too noisy. My three year old's too quiet. They're both mentally ill, nurse! take them to the treatment room.

My three year old cries a lot. Must be depressed, nurse! give him the blue pills.

My three year old laughs a lot. Life's not a joke, nurse! put him in the padded cell.

It could work out for the better, hopefully the generation that follows will have a fear of psychologists.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:51am:

warrigal wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 8:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB Well if a child does  or is effected by Mental illness at this age, The only reason for it is HEALTH and the LIFE style we lead these DAYS. Life of stress, where if we had a more quite life style we wounldn't have stress in our lives. @ age 3? What stress does a child of 3 have now that they didnt have 50 years ago? SOB

Growing up with no male role model. 

Being a boy in a society where masculine traits are regarded as "mental illness" ie AD(H)D.

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 8:51am: warrigal wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 8:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB Well if a child does  or is effected by Mental illness at this age, The only reason for it is HEALTH and the LIFE style we lead these DAYS. Life of stress, where if we had a more quite life style we wounldn't have stress in our lives. @ age 3? What stress does a child of 3 have now that they didnt have 50 years ago? SOB Growing up with no male role model.  Being a boy in a society where masculine traits are regarded as "mental illness" ie AD(H)D.

ADHD is a masculine trait? Why do girls get it too?

50 years ago lots of children had only 1 parent. they just werent legally divorced with a piece of paper.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:17pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 8:51am: warrigal wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 8:42am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB Well if a child does  or is effected by Mental illness at this age, The only reason for it is HEALTH and the LIFE style we lead these DAYS. Life of stress, where if we had a more quite life style we wounldn't have stress in our lives. @ age 3? What stress does a child of 3 have now that they didnt have 50 years ago? SOB Growing up with no male role model.  Being a boy in a society where masculine traits are regarded as "mental illness" ie AD(H)D. ADHD is a masculine trait? Why do girls get it too? 50 years ago lots of children had only 1 parent. they just werent legally divorced with a piece of paper. SOB

*SIGH*


Quote:

It only has been fairly recently that researchers have investigated gender differences among individuals with Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Below is a summary of differences typically found between males and females with ADHD. Prevalence and Behavioral Differences: ADHD is much more common among males than females. It is estimated that boys are two to three times more likely to have ADHD than girls. They are up to nine times more likely than girls to be referred for evaluation and treatment. The difference in referral rates between ADHD boys and girls is likely due to ADHD boys having more behavior problems than ADHD girls. Studies have found that ADHD girls tend to have more internalizing behaviors such as anxiety, social withdrawal, and depression. Most girls diagnosed with ADHD, tend to cluster in the inattentive subtype. Because they are not a behavior problem, their difficulties are often overlooked. Boys diagnosed with ADHD are usually clinic-referred because of oppositional, aggressive, and conduct behaviors. They tend to be very disruptive in the classroom, drawing the attention of their teachers.

http://cpancf.com/articles_files/art_57attached_file.asp

aggression = masculine
aggression = disorder

Therefore:

masculine = disorder. 

Or is it just a coincidence?


Quote:

50 years ago lots of children had only 1 parent. they just werent legally divorced with a piece of paper.

Maybe so - But today lots and lots have only once parent.  You don't think that has repercussions?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/adf83e78b3114cabca2570ec001b0dc4!OpenDocument

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES AS A PROPORTION OF ALL FAMILIES WITH DEPENDANTS(a

---

then why do girls get it?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:42pm:

then why do girls get it? SOB

You're trying my patience already with this obstinate idiocy borg.

Girls "get it" at a much lower rate than boys, becasue they have a much lower representation of masculine traits tnat are likly to gte them referred, such as aggression.  I didn't say there has never been an aggressive girl, the proportion of agrresive boys is far greater than the rate of aggressive girls. 

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:46pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:42pm: then why do girls get it? SOB You're trying my patience already with this obstinate idiocy borg. Girls "get it" at a much lower rate than boys, becasue they have a much lower representation of masculine traits tnat are likly to gte them referred, such as aggression.  I didn't say there has never been an aggressive girl, the proportion of agrresive boys is far greater than the rate of aggressive girls.

If it was a masculine trait then the girls wouldn't get it would they?

Awww sorry about the patience perhaps you have a touch of ADHD? Take a pill or better still have some sugar.

SOB

Unbelievable.

*shakes head*

Borg, you do know that women have testosterone and men have estrogen.

You don't?

Oh ok than.

your whole argument is that its "masculine traits" that are being diagnosed as "bad". This is bullsh1t of course. If it were true then why are girls diagnosed with it @ all? you seem to have some problems mate. did you get fooled by a drag queen into thinking "her" child was yours or something?

SOB

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213055636/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg

Are women that play mens sport androgynous?

Are men that play womens sport androgynous?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Sounds like a good idea for me, especially if there are early intervention type treatments or therapeutics that could improve their life. There are also a lot of genetic disorders that are no immediately apparent at birth that should be screened for, once the technology is sufficiently advance. This is especially true for the ones that are treatable.

I agree 100%.
My wife had a child in her care whom she identified as being in her opinion, autistic.
She spoke to the parents, and asked if they had sought any medical advice about their child's behavioural issues.
They told her they had, as their best friend was also a highly respected paediatrician, and he had said it was nothing to worry about, probably just a stage he was going through.
These people were for want of a better word, yuppies, with social aspirations that did not include having a child with any imperfections, as they saw it, so denial was the primary driver of their opinions.
My wife however had to consider the welfare of their child, as well as all the others he was interacting with, so she called in a professional, to observe the group this child was in.
All he was told was that she believed one of the children in the group may have developmental issues.

TWO minutes, he watched them, and said, that child is autistic.
Parents called in, forced to address the issue, child gets treatment, his developmental potential increase dramatically, because he receives treatment at an early age.

I understand why people get suspicious of quackery, where every misbehaving child is assigned a label to absolve the parents of any responsibility for raising a little poo of a kid, but the truth is that most professionals do not do that, and will just try and get treatment for the kids who treatment will help.
I cannot see any down side to that.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 3:17pm: Sounds like a good idea for me, especially if there are early intervention type treatments or therapeutics that could improve their life. There are also a lot of genetic disorders that are no immediately apparent at birth that should be screened for, once the technology is sufficiently advance. This is especially true for the ones that are treatable. I agree 100%. My wife had a child in her care whom she identified as being in her opinion, autistic. She spoke to the parents, and asked if they had sought any medical advice about their child's behavioural issues. They told her they had, as their best friend was also a highly respected paediatrician, and he had said it was nothing to worry about, probably just a stage he was going through. These people were for want of a better word, yuppies, with social aspirations that did not include having a child with any imperfections, as they saw it, so denial was the primary driver of their opinions. My wife however had to consider the welfare of their child, as well as all the others he was interacting with, so she called in a professional, to observe the group this child was in. All he was told was that she believed one of the children in the group may have developmental issues. TWO minutes, he watched them, and said, that child is autistic. Parents called in, forced to address the issue, child gets treatment, his developmental potential increase dramatically, because he receives treatment at an early age. I understand why people get suspicious of quackery, where every misbehaving child is assigned a label to absolve the parents of any responsibility for raising a little poo of a kid, but the truth is that most professionals do not do that, and will just try and get treatment for the kids who treatment will help. I cannot see any down side to that.

its  GOOD EXAMPLE. childhood mental problems do exist and sometimes the ONLY cures exists as preschoolers or preteens. early intervention is the best cure.

I acknowledge some of the concenrs about over-diagnosis or misdiagnosis but that same probem ovvers in every area of medical care.

On the TV they are talking about night lights and bedwetting though.

SOB

Yes, bedwetting and nightlights. I don't think they are going to be looking for a more sinister diagnosis. I still say it's a rort. There will be hundreds of misdiagnosis causing parents unnecessary anxiety.

Gee! my five year old still wets the bed, I wish someone would have intervened when he was three.

My eight year old still has a night light. Big freaking deal, let him have it until he's 25, who cares?

They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid.

Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal.

What's their game?

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:21pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game?

What abnormal things?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB

THEY ARE SELLING PILLS...

These people take money to assasinate peoples character (mummy and daddys all over the shop love this bit!!) and sell pills!

IT'S A WIN WIN WIN FOR THE CABAL!!!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

Yes, bedwetting and nightlights. I don't think they are going to be looking for a more sinister diagnosis. I still say it's a rort. There will be hundreds of misdiagnosis causing parents unnecessary anxiety. Gee! my five year old still wets the bed, I wish someone would have intervened when he was three. My eight year old still has a night light. Big freaking deal, let him have it until he's 25, who cares? They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid.

to be fair, bedwetting can be an indicator of serious problems. In the vast majority of cases, bedwetting means nothing other than developmental delay (if that). but it CAN also be a sign of serious internal malfunction. for example, did you know that EVERY SINGLE MALE SOCIOPATH was an adult bedwetter?

It's not the bedwetting but rather what it MIGHT indicate. After all is there any parent still onthe planet that is unaware that a traumatised kid is likely to wet the bed????

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB

people like you.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:13pm:

Yes, bedwetting and nightlights. I don't think they are going to be looking for a more sinister diagnosis. I still say it's a rort. There will be hundreds of misdiagnosis causing parents unnecessary anxiety. Gee! my five year old still wets the bed, I wish someone would have intervened when he was three. My eight year old still has a night light. Big freaking deal, let him have it until he's 25, who cares? They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid.

iGNORANT MUMMIES AND DADDIES WHO ENGAGE IN CHARACTER ASSASINATION GENERALLY GET HURT!

  ::) ::)

9-11 happened: the arrogant get dominated by the arrogant!

THE BABY BOOMER GENERATION STOPPED LAUGHING ABOUT THE MIGHT OF 'THE BOMB' AFTER 9-11  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

  :-[ :-[

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:23pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB

Homosexuality for example. ;)

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB Homosexuality for example. ;)

I doubt very much they are teaching 3 year olds homosexuality or even assessing them for it.

SOB

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB Homosexuality for example. ;)

IT'S A CHOICE!

IT'S LEARNED BEHAVIOUR SO HOW DOES ONE CHECK FOR THAT WHEN IT HASN'T BEEN LEARNT AT THREE YEARS OLD???

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB Homosexuality for example. ;)

So says the pedo priests and your good self, so that must be right.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB Homosexuality for example. ;) I doubt very much they are teaching 3 year olds homosexuality or even assessing them for it. SOB

so?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:36pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:21pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 4:13pm: They are trying to make normal things abnormal, it's stupid. Yes, you're right.  However, "they" are also trying to make abnormal things normal. What's their game? What abnormal things? SOB Homosexuality for example. ;) So says the pedo priests and your good self, so that must be right.

WTF?

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:16am:

warrigal wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 10:13am: I am pretty happy here your Pole gives a resounding NO answer here Yeah it does but its just us. A captive audience of ppl in this forum however varied we are in opinion. There should really be some kind of public polls done on this topic before they bring such a thing in but nope. SOB

I found and joined this forum because of this issue, so your #s have grown by one at least. :D

Wouldn't it be nice if we had access to the questions? To the other points to be assessed? Is the fact the child doesn't sit still included? The fact the child seems lethargic?
If the assessment is done on a "cranky" day, the result is going to be vastly different to a really happy day?
How about if you ask a child this age "are you afraid of the dark?" in their little mind they think "oh I should be afraid of the dark?"

At present it is voluntary and I hope parents refuse but how long before it is compulsory? How long before Drs are asked why they aren't submitting enough assessments?

I haven't looked around the forum yet. Has anyone raised the topic that WA is considering granting 12 yos the right of "informed consent" for psychotropics. In other words if a psych convinces the child that they will "feel better" by popping this pill, the parents will have no say. Then of course if the parent doesn't follow the treatment plan DOCS could take the child. I have done a lot of research on anti depressants and am quite well educated and I do not believe that I could make an "informed decision".

Sorry I strayed from topic I think the whole idea would be laughable if it was not so horrendous.

No No No No No

We should organise rallies and marches over this one!

Just because a 12yo has the right to consent to medication does not mean parents are going to loose control. If a child needs psychiatric medication this would also be grounds for granting the parents more rights, not less. The new changes would only come into effect in a situation where a legally sane child disagrees with his or her parents over medication. I would be inclined to side with the child. Just because someone is a parent does not mean they aren't an idiot and there are plenty of parents around who would deny their child necessary medication on some kind of ideological ground.

Welcome to OzPolitic Lin.

Lin wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 5:52pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 10:16am: warrigal wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 10:13am: I am pretty happy here your Pole gives a resounding NO answer here Yeah it does but its just us. A captive audience of ppl in this forum however varied we are in opinion. There should really be some kind of public polls done on this topic before they bring such a thing in but nope. SOB I found and joined this forum because of this issue, so your #s have grown by one at least. :D Wouldn't it be nice if we had access to the questions? To the other points to be assessed? Is the fact the child doesn't sit still included? The fact the child seems lethargic? If the assessment is done on a "cranky" day, the result is going to be vastly different to a really happy day? How about if you ask a child this age "are you afraid of the dark?" in their little mind they think "oh I should be afraid of the dark?" At present it is voluntary and I hope parents refuse but how long before it is compulsory? How long before Drs are asked why they aren't submitting enough assessments? I haven't looked around the forum yet. Has anyone raised the topic that WA is considering granting 12 yos the right of "informed consent" for psychotropics. In other words if a psych convinces the child that they will "feel better" by popping this pill, the parents will have no say. Then of course if the parent doesn't follow the treatment plan DOCS could take the child. I have done a lot of research on anti depressants and am quite well educated and I do not believe that I could make an "informed decision". Sorry I strayed from topic I think the whole idea would be laughable if it was not so horrendous. No No No No No We should organise rallies and marches over this one!

Q: Mike Tyson ruined peoples day on which medically prescribed drug???

Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about.  If a parent is worried about any aspect of their childs health, mental or physical, of course they should check it out. 

This thread seems to imply it's some sort of nefarious scheme where every kid in the country is put through a battery of tests, before being force fed mind altering drugs.

Quote:

I haven't looked around the forum yet. Has anyone raised the topic that WA is considering granting 12 yos the right of "informed consent" for psychotropics. In other words if a psych convinces the child that they will "feel better" by popping this pill, the parents will have no say. Then of course if the parent doesn't follow the treatment plan DOCS could take the child. I have done a lot of research on anti depressants and am quite well educated and I do not believe that I could make an "informed decision".

Perhaps you should start a thread on this.

SOB

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:07pm:

Just because a 12yo has the right to consent to medication does not mean parents are going to loose control. If a child needs psychiatric medication this would also be grounds for granting the parents more rights, not less. Could you explain your basis for that thought? The new changes would only come into effect in a situation where a legally sane child disagrees with his or her parents over medication. A legally sane child? Wouldn't the fact that a mental health issue has (supposedly) been identified negate that? I would be inclined to side with the child. Please do some research into the brain and brain chemicals and come back and tell me how any of them can be measured in a living brain? Also research puberty? Research just why doctors are told start low, go slow AIM high when they are dealing with drugs that are so potent? Or research the suicide rates years on from these drugs, which are tested only for months?  Just because someone is a parent does not mean they aren't an idiot and there are plenty of parents around who would deny their child necessary medication on some kind of ideological ground. I totally agree that is why in the first place where there is disagreement things should go before a panel or court i.e. denying your child a blood transfusion should be a no no, denying the use of brain drugs should be considered in consideration of the developing brain, alternative treatment, lifestyle changes... not popping a pill! Welcome to OzPolitic Lin.

Thanks for the welcome.

Quote:

A legally sane child? Wouldn't the fact that a mental health issue has (supposedly) been identified negate that?

In many cases yes. But there are plenty of mental illnesses that do not impair judgement.


Quote:

Please do some research into the brain and brain chemicals and come back and tell me how any of them can be measured in a living brain?

No thanks.


Quote:

I totally agree that is why in the first place where there is disagreement things should go before a panel or court i.e. denying your child a blood transfusion should be a no no, denying the use of brain drugs should be considered in consideration of the developing brain, alternative treatment, lifestyle changes... not popping a pill!

Sometimes a pill is the best option. I can't imagine a child in this scenario denying the parent's request to get a second opinion on treatment options.

... wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:17pm:

Personally, I can't see what all the fuss is about.  If a parent is worried about any aspect of their childs health, mental or physical, of course they should check it out.  This thread seems to imply it's some sort of nefarious scheme where every kid in the country is put through a battery of tests, before being force fed mind altering drugs.

There's always the possiblity of oversubscription you bet!!!

Welcome Lin, I'm with you, it's a con.

Let the littlies wet the bed and have the night light on.

Isn't there old deaf people you can start an industry with. The National Hearing Clinic where all over 50's can have a free hearing test. We promise we'll only convince 80% of clients that they need a hearing aid. So it's been done.

The government are so rich they can't find enough ways to waste money.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:28pm:

Quote: A legally sane child? Wouldn't the fact that a mental health issue has (supposedly) been identified negate that? In many cases yes. But there are plenty of mental illnesses that do not impair judgement. Name them please? [quote]Please do some research into the brain and brain chemicals and come back and tell me how any of them can be measured in a living brain?

No thanks. Ah so you are willing to express an opinion but not willing to follow up?


Quote:

I totally agree that is why in the first place where there is disagreement things should go before a panel or court i.e. denying your child a blood transfusion should be a no no, denying the use of brain drugs should be considered in consideration of the developing brain, alternative treatment, lifestyle changes... not popping a pill!

Sometimes a pill is the best option. when?
I can't imagine a child in this scenario denying the parent's request to get a second opinion on treatment options.[/quote] so you can't imagine a child thinking "oh that sounds good, let's try it?" or "Hey I could get this stuff and sell it to that junkie at school?"

I am a maybe vote.

On one side their are huge advantages for problem children to have these issues picked up as early as possible and treated.

On the other the danger of incorrect diagnosis and over medication is extreeme.

I would vote yes if I felt any system could be trusted.

Lin wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:58pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 6:28pm: Quote: A legally sane child? Wouldn't the fact that a mental health issue has (supposedly) been identified negate that? In many cases yes. But there are plenty of mental illnesses that do not impair judgement. Name them please? [quote]Please do some research into the brain and brain chemicals and come back and tell me how any of them can be measured in a living brain? No thanks. Ah so you are willing to express an opinion but not willing to follow up? [quote]I totally agree that is why in the first place where there is disagreement things should go before a panel or court i.e. denying your child a blood transfusion should be a no no, denying the use of brain drugs should be considered in consideration of the developing brain, alternative treatment, lifestyle changes... not popping a pill!

Sometimes a pill is the best option. when?
I can't imagine a child in this scenario denying the parent's request to get a second opinion on treatment options.[/quote] so you can't imagine a child thinking "oh that sounds good, let's try it?" or "Hey I could get this stuff and sell it to that junkie at school?"
[/quote]

you really think a 12yo is going to get unsupervised acces to psychotropics??

Quote:

Sometimes a pill is the best option. when?

Ask your psychiatrist.


Quote:

so you can't imagine a child thinking "oh that sounds good, let's try it?" or "Hey I could get this stuff and sell it to that junkie at school?"

Sure, but the law is not going to change whether a child thinks that. It will only come into play where parents attempt to deny or force feed a child medication. As far as I know it does not force the exclusion of the parents from the whole process. It is only a way of creating a default ruling when there is a disagreement.

Expert warns against child mental health checks

One of the most influential psychiatrists in the United States says the Federal Government's program to screen three-year-olds for mental health problems is "ridiculous" and potentially dangerous.

Australian preschoolers are set to be screened for early signs of mental illness as part of the Government-funded Healthy Kids Check, which would be voluntary for families.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) supports the initiative but says the evaluations must focus on broad-based problems rather than individual things like fear of the dark or fear of monsters.

The Healthy Kids Check will be predominately conducted by GPs who will refer children with troubling behaviour to psychologists and paediatricians.

The program will cost $11 million over five years and is expected to identify about 27,000 children who would benefit from extra support.

But Professor Allen Frances, an Emeritus Professor at the Duke University, has raised concerns about the scheme.

Professor Frances was the chairman of the American Psychiatric committee that produced the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which psychiatrists around the world call their bible.

He is highly critical of the latest edition of the manual and warns that if it is issued unamended it will "medicalise normality".

"My experience is that the hardest diagnoses in our field are in the youngest children," he said.

"Kids have developmental changes that are dramatic in a very short period of time. So, I would be the most cautious in doing anything psychiatrically with very young children.

"Parallel to that, the most adventurous of all the diagnosticians in psychiatry, are the child psychiatrists."
'Unintended consequences'

Psychiatrists supporting the program say early identification of mental illness is essential to properly treating it before it becomes extreme, but Professor Frances says that is not practical given the current knowledge base.

"There's absolutely no evidence at all that we can predict accurately who will go on to have a mental disorder," he said.

"There can be lots of unintended negative consequences to labelling children who essentially are normal and will grow out of whatever problem they have at that moment.

"I just got an email this morning from a mother in America whose child had been diagnosed as autistic. And the description in the report did not resemble her child at all.

"A label like 'autism' can be obviously devastating, but even less severe labels can have a dramatic effect on expectations, on the way the child feels about himself, his role in the family. I would be very cautious about labels, especially in young children, especially because they're so likely to be wrong."

Professor Frances says there are many individual differences between children, and, except in very clear-cut cases, diagnoses are likely to be wrong.

"It's ridiculous to be doing it with three-year-olds," he said.

"But even with older children you have to be very, very cautious in making diagnoses in kids who are undergoing developmental challenges, [and] have different [rates] of growth."

He says the biggest single problem in the field is the push to medicalise behaviour to ensure medical treatment is funded.

"I think that the first six sessions or so, first six visits with a physician or psychologist shouldn't require a diagnosis," he said.

"I think that requiring a diagnosis from the very start leads to over-diagnosis and that diagnostic inflation leads to way too much treatment."

And he says although drugs can be very helpful for those who need them, they are unnecessary and, in some cases, dangerous for those who do not.

"There are all sorts of short-term side effects in terms of problems with sleep and eating," Professor Frances said.

"Some of the kids are going to have problems that may be worsened by stimulant drugs and the long-term effects are largely unknown."

Professor Frances is critical of the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and says the manual is expanding the boundaries of psychiatry at the expense of the shrinking realm of normal.

He is calling for psychiatrists to relinquish their monopoly on defining disease in the manual.

"Psychiatric diagnosis is too important to be left with any small group or one profession," he said.

"And policy decisions, in Australia for instance, for the whole country may be determined by what's in the manual, what's not in the Manual.

"I don't think decisions this important should be made quickly or be made by just a small panel of experts. Experts are important in decision-making, but inherently have their own biases and their own pet ways of looking at things.

"I think you need a wider purview, you need experts from the all the mental health disciplines. From health economics, from public policy, from primary care. The decisions shouldn't be made based on the narrow conception of how this particular expert would treat his next patient."

Professor Allen Frances is in Perth for the Asia Pacific Conference on Mental Health.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/expert-warns-against-child-mental-health-checks/4064474

the clue to how 'invasive' this might be is the cost of $2M/yr. how much screening do you think that will make? remember it is a govt project so that will perhaps hire a staff of 3 for the entire nation.

no cause for alarm folks...

Everyone who has offered a negative opinion about the principle of screening young children for mental disorders has done so from a purely subjective, and frightfully uninformed position.

It is perfectly valid to voice concerns about the manner in which such a program should be provided, and what safeguards may be desirable to prevent misdiagnosis and or the provision of unnecessary treatments, but to dismiss it out of hand as either a new world order conspiracy, or of having no worth, because young children could not benefit from early intervention treatments for some problems, without any reason for doing so, is what should be unsupportable.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:44pm:

Everyone who has offered a negative opinion about the principle of screening young children for mental disorders has done so from a purely subjective, and frightfully uninformed position.

Typical of the arrogant rantings found on this forum.

Did you even bother to read the ABC article?



Quote:

But Professor Allen Frances, an Emeritus Professor at the Duke University, has raised concerns about the scheme. Professor Frances was the chairman of the American Psychiatric committee that produced the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which psychiatrists around the world call their bible.

falah wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 10:53pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 10:44pm: Everyone who has offered a negative opinion about the principle of screening young children for mental disorders has done so from a purely subjective, and frightfully uninformed position. Typical of the arrogant rantings found on this forum. Did you even bother to read the ABC article? Quote: But Professor Allen Frances, an Emeritus Professor at the Duke University, has raised concerns about the scheme. Professor Frances was the chairman of the American Psychiatric committee that produced the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which psychiatrists around the world call their bible.

Did you even bother to read the ABC article?-Falah

Yes I did.
It came across as a Psychiatrist warning that we should not trust the opinion of Psychiatrists.
That alone, is a little strange.
However, as I already said, I also have some idea about the types of issues that are of concern, and the fact that people here are basing their views on silly stories they see on current affairs, or news shows, with absolutely zero understanding of developmental issues which can be identified in very young children, and how such children may benefit greatly, from early diagnosis and treatment, is pure, uninformed opinion.

They are welcome to hold those opinions, but the statistical significance of how many may share such views only highlights the need for professionals to be consulted, rather than a layperson deciding that any child may, or may not, benefit from professional assistance.
Any parent, is obviously free to get second or third opinions, if they are not comfortable with an individual diagnosis, and ridiculous assumptions that whole streams of healthy children will be misdiagnosed through incompetence or bizarre conspiracy beliefs, is entirely fictional.

Instead of judging our opinions how about explaining these views you have? what developmental issues? What early diagnosis and how?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 7:05pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 10th, 2012 at 2:03pm: WTH? As young as 3? How the heck can they tell @ that age if a child has a mental illness? That is ridiculous. Hate to be a godwin but hitler did this kind of crap. A lot of our mental health knowledge comes from his experiments. SOB wow... you just never really stop with the unsubstantiated, utter drivel, do you? Wanker http://hyphenbird.hubpages.com/hub/Electric-Shock-Treatment-For-Mental-Illness-Therapy-Or-Torture http://schizophreniatreatments.bravehost.com/history.html http://www.sntp.net/darling.htm And a myriad of textbooks check out barnes and noble. Look for history of psychiatry. SOB

Hitler's final solution also came from his work on mental illness. The first people to face mass execution by the Nazis were the mentally ill.


Quote:

Nazi Persecution of the Mentally and Physically Disabled ...The idea of killing the incurably ill was posed well before 1939. In the 1920s, debate on this issue centered on a book coauthored by Alfred Hoche, a noted psychiatrist, and Karl Binding, a prominent scholar of criminal law. They argued that economic savings justified the killing of "useless lives" ("idiots" and "congenitally crippled"). Economic deprivation during World War I provided the context for this idea. During the war, patients in asylums had ranked low on the list for rationing of food and medical supplies, and as a result, many died from starvation or disease. More generally, the war undermined the value attached to individual life and, combined with Germany's humiliating defeat, led many nationalists to consider ways to regenerate the nation as a whole at the expense of individual rights. In 1935 Hitler stated privately that "in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it" because "such a problem would be more easily solved" during wartime... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

Quote:

Wouldn't it be nice if we had access to the questions? To the other points to be assessed? Is the fact the child doesn't sit still included? The fact the child seems lethargic?

I fail to see How a LETHARGIC CHILD or even a Adult with same systems. HOW is This mental illness.

They would be better off putting the money into checking developmental and social skills - rather than mental illness. Once a child is tagged as being mentally ill - it will be hard to shake it off. It's like pointing the bone and the child will always believe its different.

More ignorant idiocy?
In what way is providing a program to diagnose and treat children with mental illness like NAZI final solution?

Warrigal, Lethargy is not a mental illness, Lethargy, can be, along with other things, symptoms, and identifying these are ways that the medical profession diagnose and identify illness.
I despair for the general lack of understanding which the ignorant hold on to so they can champion an errant opinion.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

More ignorant idiocy? In what way is providing a program to diagnose and treat children with mental illness like NAZI final solution? Warrigal, Lethargy is not a mental illness, Lethargy, can be, along with other things, symptoms, and identifying these are ways that the medical profession diagnose and identify illness. I despair for the general lack of understanding which the ignorant hold on to so they can champion an errant opinion.

It is funny you say that because the actual professionals in this instance also have very little understanding about ideas they champion so ignorantly.
I have no doubt that soon enough we will be force feeding drugs to 3 year olds, money always wins.
So let their kids get ruined, just make sure your friends and family are not so unlucky to be deceived.

Open up junior…..here comes the Ritalin…

mozzaok wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 9:16am:

More ignorant idiocy? In what way is providing a program to diagnose and treat children with mental illness like NAZI final solution? Warrigal, Lethargy is not a mental illness, Lethargy, can be, along with other things, symptoms, and identifying these are ways that the medical profession diagnose and identify illness. I despair for the general lack of understanding which the ignorant hold on to so they can champion an errant opinion.

imo lethargy in a 3 year old is a symptom of something physical not mental.

SOB

Dear Kuffer Abu, have you seen what kaffir falah has posted. I think he has been turned to the dark side, (shudder the thought).

He has quoted the Americans as though those habitual liars are telling the truth.

He uses harem universities as a source of knowledge. The devil must then have entered him, (didn't he have 70 pebbles) accepting the Jewish virtual library, a true den of iniquity, as a haven for history.

But worst of all he wraps it all up by saying the “B” word is “””GOSPELL”””!



“One of the most influential psychiatrists in the United States says the Federal Government's program to screen three-year-olds for mental health problems is "ridiculous" and potentially dangerous.”

“But Professor Allen Frances, an Emeritus Professor at the Duke University, has raised concerns about the scheme.”

“Professor Frances was the chairman of the American Psychiatric committee that produced the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which psychiatrists around the world call their bible.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html



It was touch and go there for a Mo,damn near suffered apoplexy I broke into a sweat, but don’t panic Kuffer Abu he quoted Hitler, so he must be better.


We will put it down to a "temporal derangement".



“Hitler's final solution also came from his work on mental illness. The first people to face mass execution by the Nazis were the mentally ill.”



Kaffir Falah must have read about this new form of diagnosis for mental illness created by the true believers.

By AL ARABIYA

A Turkish school principal has suggested that newborns with “violent” genes should be “eliminated” because they pose a harmful future threat to the country, Turkish media reported earlier in 2012.

Elementary school principal Mustafa Aydın proposed that the genetic codes of newborns should be compared with those of criminals in Turkey, adding that criminals’ blood samples should be collected from the country’s police stations.

“Children should be analyzed immediately after birth. If they are to become harmful to this country, to this nation, then they should be eliminated before they can walk,” Aydın said during a meeting organized by the police department in the eastern province of Erzurum, the Hurriyet Daily News reported in February.
The meeting’s topic was violence among children and ways to prevent it, the newspaper said.

“Most children in my neighborhood are thieves,” he said. “I walked in the streets around my home, children are sitting around in condemned buildings ... keeping stray dogs as pets. I asked authorities to demolish those buildings but they did not.”


http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/04/218511.html

Of course lethargy can be caused by a disease and any doctor would first test for that. How thoroughly though? If you do a search for disease list lethargy the list is quite short and does not include the common intestinal worm. If you search instead for worms lethargy you will find it is a symptom. Whens' the last time your Dr mentioned worms?

Lethargy is also considered a key symptom of depression and bipolar. The treatment for which are powerful drugs and the catch cry our doctors are fed by Big pharma reps is "start low, go slow, aim high"
I've been involved in getting an ADHD child off Ritalin with a group approach that involved counselling, sport sport and more sport, teacher involvement, diet changes and a supportive Dr.
Anyone who supports this is burying their head in the sand about misdiagnosis. "First do NO harm" not as little harm as possible NO harm.
Does anyone know where a copy of the assessment questions and considerations can be obtained?

Quote:

Does anyone know where a copy of the assessment questions and considerations can be obtained?

Well. i cant imagine them being released to the public.

If its been discussed in parliament it should be in hansard though. Doubt there would be many details though.

SOB

Just found this dang can't post a link ok go to the family assistance office site and check out Healthy start for school.

So there is pressure on parents - no family tax benefit part A if your child does not have the Healthy kids check.

That hasn't received much publicity has it?

Lin wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Just found this dang can't post a link ok go to the family assistance office site and check out Healthy start for school. So there is pressure on parents - no family tax benefit part A if your child does not have the Healthy kids check. That hasn't received much publicity has it?

Geez that isnt good news is it. So its not "mandatory" unless they have a means of forcing you.

SOB

Oh and I did find a template just search for Healthy kids check shire GPs.
Nothing too threatening about it perhaps?
Except immunisation? So is this opening the door to pressure more on that also?
If I had known 20 years ago that the vaccines being pumped into my baby contained mercury and aluminium there is no way I would have consented.
I happen also not to agree with fluoride but I have exercised my choice, I distill my water and use a non fluoride toothpaste which is becoming increasingly difficult to source.
I seriously believe that we need basic laws but do we really need pressure to conform? How far does it go?

Lin wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

Oh and I did find a template just search for Healthy kids check shire GPs. Nothing too threatening about it perhaps? Except immunisation? So is this opening the door to pressure more on that also? If I had known 20 years ago that the vaccines being pumped into my baby contained mercury and aluminium there is no way I would have consented. I happen also not to agree with fluoride but I have exercised my choice, I distill my water and use a non fluoride toothpaste which is becoming increasingly difficult to source. I seriously believe that we need basic laws but do we really need pressure to conform? How far does it go?

Judge ordered parents to vaccinate baby
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/judge-ordered-parents-to-vaccinate-baby-20120518-1yunx.html

Lin wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

Just found this dang can't post a link ok go to the family assistance office site and check out Healthy start for school. So there is pressure on parents - no family tax benefit part A if your child does not have the Healthy kids check. That hasn't received much publicity has it?

:D :D -->>copy and paste the url... it's not that hard!!

New members cannot post links, or URLs (I think).

Try PMing me with it.

Its just medical and phychiatric doctors trying to lord it over the rest of us, thats why this is coming out, as a proposal and this is why they beleive this is the problem with kids of today.

got to be something wrong with them. too much adhd in the past.

freediver wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

New members cannot post links, or URLs (I think). Try PMing me with it.

You cant PM either

Quote:

That hasn't received much publicity has it?

Nope and the whole thing seems to have gone quiet now.

SOB

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 5:39pm:

Lin wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm: Just found this dang can't post a link ok go to the family assistance office site and check out Healthy start for school. So there is pressure on parents - no family tax benefit part A if your child does not have the Healthy kids check. That hasn't received much publicity has it? :D :D -->>copy and paste the url... it's not that hard!!

Not anything new.
In 2010 Gillard linked the end of year supplemental payment for low income families of $700 odd dollars, who had 4 year olds, to them having a health check done on the child.
This was done to benefit kids at the age they are preparing to start education, being assessed for any problems which could act to limit them from being able to get the most from their education potentials.
Previously undiagnosed sight, hearing, and learning difficulties, being the most prevalent problems addressed.    

Some people objected, in the same way they did about the intervention programs for aboriginals.
The same answer was relevant, Those looking after their kids responsibly had nothing to worry about.
It is a good idea, because it benefits kids, who are unlucky enough to be born poor, and sees that they get the chance to have a decent medical done.                      

mozzaok wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 10:24pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 5:39pm: Lin wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:36pm: Just found this dang can't post a link ok go to the family assistance office site and check out Healthy start for school. So there is pressure on parents - no family tax benefit part A if your child does not have the Healthy kids check. That hasn't received much publicity has it? :D :D -->>copy and paste the url... it's not that hard!! Not anything new. In 2010 Gillard linked the end of year supplemental payment for low income families of $700 odd dollars, who had 4 year olds, to them having a health check done on the child. This was done to benefit kids at the age they are preparing to start education, being assessed for any problems which could act to limit them from being able to get the most from their education potentials. Previously undiagnosed sight, hearing, and learning difficulties, being the most prevalent problems addressed.     Some people objected, in the same way they did about the intervention programs for aboriginals. The same answer was relevant, Those looking after their kids responsibly had nothing to worry about. It is a good idea, because it benefits kids, who are unlucky enough to be born poor, and sees that they get the chance to have a decent medical done.

This is psychiatric though not physical health checks. Psychiatry isnt so advanced. Some may not want the mental health crowd getting near their child.

SOB