NEWS: Bush Signs Legislation Prohibiting Forced Medication of Children

I read the originating post AND the news article. The news article reads like propaganda to me.

CCHR has an 'agenda.' Part of that agenda is to emasculate psychiatry at any cost.

Another 'peculiarity' was that it appears the Compton, CA. NAACP co-sponsored the initiative with CCHR.

Two organizations that are agenda driven is different from some President acting 'for the good of the nation.' (throw in some celeb$ too)

Add to this, how will schools (from the news article) deal with the 2% of the students that are in need?

What happens when the parents (there are a lot of parents that buy any anti-thing) refuse to let their child be medicated yet scream that the public school system educate their child?

Where is the seperation of church and state Americans clammor for?

CCHR= Church of Scientology.

Makes me wonder and makes me suspicious.

Does anybody have any more links? I Googled my fingers off but couldn't find one reference except the Church of Scientology.

Originally posted by curme
Does anybody have any more links? I Googled my fingers off but couldn't find one reference except the Church of Scientology.

I found this from SFgate it's from an AP story:

Also Friday, Bush signed a bill updating special education requirements. It eases pressure on teachers while increasing enforcement of high standards for the disabled.

The measure is the first major revision to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in seven years. The law promises a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to more than 6.7 million children with special needs.

A key provision aims to boost discipline, giving schools more freedom to remove disruptive children if their behavior is not a result of their disability.

It doesn't say anything about this issue though. The Bill that was passed and signed on Friday can be found - here

I looked for this particular section of the bill and couldn't find it.

B.

sfgate.com

Here's another site heralding this legislation. I know nothing about this group, but I will say that their assertions about drugging kids in foster care is an absolute truth and that it is a crime.

www.ablechild.org...

[edit on 04/12/5 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Let me throw a wet blanket on this party-

Other than some celebs and a Church with an agenda what does this do for the other kids in schools? You know, the 98%.

Now, some kid has a learning problem and the school has accept him/her. Have any of you in the current blanket party ever been to a 4th grade class where there is one or more little monsters?

Try it some time as a substitute teacher. Now imagine that/those same little monsters with no medication. The existing requirements were meant to help the 98%. This legislation removes one more tool from schools. No discipline now no medication- what next?

Those little monsters as you call them are KIDS with a problem. Kids should be helped, and NOT by giving them drugs so they are calm and they shut up. Because like that you create BIG monsters. It is probably not easy as a teacher to have such a kid in your class, I fully agree. But when you have such a kid in the room, than it is your job and duty to try to help it, to find out wtf is wrong with the kid in question. And if you feel you are not able to help, then you call in professional help. But drugging and leaving it alone with his/her problems? NO!

Calibre I agree fully with what you posted.

My point (apparently missed) was that schools MUST take kids (children) with problems because, well that is the law. Now, with this type of legislation (from what little I gather from the story) schools now can NOT mandate treatment that may be sorely needed.

I am NOT a teacher- I sub every time I feel like the school board needs my opinion on something. I sub first- just to get my mind right. Any person that has ever substitute taught 4th graders when one or a few are jumping out of their skins can and will tell you that parents for the most part will NOT do anything unless made to.

These children with problems do grow into adults with problems- because their parents either didn't care, had some psycho or religious rationale or were troublesome themselves. It is not poor people, it is anyone.

Schools can not discipline children. Schools now can not mandate medical or psychiatric care. So what is a school to do?

By law schools have to accept whatever child the American government dictates. If this new law dictates that schools cannot require help HELP for the children now - who suffers?

The school and every other child suffers while mom and pop make their 'statement.' This is unfair to the rest of the children and to the school.

Hopefully this is a little clearer, sorry if you took my other post as some type of denigration to troubled youth. It wasn't meant that way. Monsters- well probably a bad choice of words in a forum. So I'll change monsters to children with special needs or children in need of special care. The result is the same. Every child deserves the right to an education without being made to suffer through dysfunctional classmates.

Dysfunctional children need help.

Originally posted by mockan
Hmm. This doesn't pass the smell test. Forced medication of children in
the US has been a given for decades. The critics of the programs have
been correct that the drugs were killing the children, destroying their minds,
leading to killing like at Columbine, suicides, children that hate and
grow into adults with no other interest than to destroy the government
that ruined their lives..

And now a President signs legislation prohibiting forced drugging of
children?

I wouldn't be too hasty thinking Bush actually did something a sane
person would do. I would want to know more of the facts.

There may be other legislation either on the books or to be passed that
negate the forced drugging at schools, to replace it with forced drugging
through other organizations.

Id actually like to be optomistic on this one, and I am. two orgs i have general suspicions of have actually done something good imo. Of course Bush would want to stop schools (schools) from having this control over children. Besides a decrease in the use of psycho drugs should lower their cost, im hoping.

if dysfunctional children really are that bad, then they should have their own class or something. and as far as im aware, school has not been the place de-programming occurs.

neither is this an attack on psychiatrics. it might be viewed so by exteremists on both sides, but the point is that schools really shouldnt have the right to tell parents how to raise their kids. it takes 2 parents to raise a child, not a village.

Someone has just posted this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is about kids in state care being given experimental drugs to fight HIV. I think it is somewhat related to this thread. What Grady was saying about children in care being given medication kind of goes with this.

.
.
.
This legislation looks to be mainly self-defense � legal positioning to avoid liability.

� I forgot about this part of the issue� Following the Merck/Vioxx fiasco, several prescription medications are coming under heavy scrutiny � and the lawsuits are looming, especially for children�s drugs. The Net is full of current information, but here�s an old article I found in my files while looking for something else.

December 16, 2003. ��British drug regulators told doctors to stop writing prescriptions for all but one of a newer generation of antidepressant drugs to treat depressed children under 18. � after reviewing 11 studies of the drugs in treating depressed children and adolescents, the regulators concluded that for most of the medications, the potential for harmful side effects - including suicidal thoughts and behavior, as well as hostility - was greater than the evidence for their effectiveness.�

Still free online at:
www.antidepressantsfacts.com...

�Sorry if someone else already covered this � just realized the implications, pulled the link and quote, and came here with this thread in mind � didn�t review all the posts.

-Sofi

IMO - This legislation does nothing to address the rapidly spreading underlying epidemics that create these "problems" in children - it just positions to protect government and industry from liability.
.
.
.

Thanks, soficrow...that was the "missing link" I was seeking. The Powers the Be are much more likely to worry about protecting themselves than about protecting children.

It felt like I was trying to put a spare peg in a round hole...

I suppse what will happen is that parents will be encouraged to medicate their "unruly" kids, but not actually forced to do so. If they fail to comply, other methods exist for removing the "problem" children.

.
.
.
You're welcome Azeari.

And thank you for this important post. ...Things are starting to get VERY interesting in our world.


.