Should there be mandatory mental health screening?

[garbage]

It'd be information, a tool like any other. It could eventually reduce stigma associated with mental illness, as it may reveal that lots of people with diagnosed mental illnesses do just fine and contribute to society and all that jazz; but it would more than likely just plain be misused.

 

[valaki]

No. Not mandatory.

 

[danseen]

No.

I think it encouraging it isn't a bad starting point.

Question: Say these "mandatory" tests reveal that X person, who happens to be functional, has Y problem, how are you going to resolve that? Will the state determine his fate? What if Y problem is only mild or a propensity for?

NO. Talk about a slippery slope...

Why not?

 

[danseen]

No. I can see no benefit and a lot of possible negatives.

Such as?

 

[danseen]

No.
Here's why:

(1) What is the purpose of the screenings?
(2) Who will write the assessments?
(3) Who will evaluate them?
(4) What will the compulsory treatment options be for people with: (a) issue "A", (b) issue "B", (c) both issues "A" and "B"?
(5) What is the desired outcome for anyone with a confirmed issue(s) after receiving a compulsory treatment option(s)?
(6) What are the criteria for defining recovery in (5) above?
(7) Is recovery partial or total in remediation? If partial, who decides what level of remission has been achieved?
(8) What are the opportunities for those with partial remission achievements of varying percentages of recovery?
(9) How often must recovery be re-evaluated?
(10) What if there is a relapse or new ailment of any kind for those who have been diagnosed with something, and/or undergone an approved treatment?
(11) WHO WILL PAY?
(12) How will the criteria for all aspects of this program be re-calibrated over time as political ideologies sway the masses?

This conceptual program is a FAIL of the highest order, IMHO.



-Halla74

er...the psychiatric profession, based on research as with any science.

 

[Halla74]

er...the psychiatric profession, based on research as with any science.

You ONLY answered question #2 - and incompletely at that.

And as far as "based on research as with any science" - research paid for by corporations and/or government agencies is hardly without bias - and is not science, it's statistical bullshit with a marginal bit of poorly performed research on human studies, the results of which are intended to give credibility to the study, and thus the agenda (profit based, or ideologically based on policy) of the sponsors.

Try replying line by line to my questions.



-Halla74

 

[danseen]

er.. not everybody must accommodate you. Learn some social skills whilst you at it...

Whilst psychiatry is largely fraudulent, it does have some uses.

 

[Halla74]

er.. not everybody must accommodate you.

Nice try at sidestepping the fact that you aren't capable of answering intelligently.

Learn some social skills whilst you at it...

Why don't you learn how to write while you're at it?

Whilst psychiatry is largely fraudulent, it does have some uses.

This makes no sense whatsoever; it's a completely useless statement.
It's amusing how you can't provide a list of uses for mandatory mental health screening.

You might want to crawl back under the bridge, for goats might cross it soon...

 

[danseen]

eh? you demanded i answer your questions, I don't have to. lol.. nobody HAS to do anything. You claim wisdom, so prove it.

 

[Halla74]

eh? you demanded i answer your questions...

No, I asked you try answering them line by line instead of the half-assed drivel you typically reply with. You might want to learn to read one day; it might help you become a better smartass - but I doubt it.

You claim wisdom, so prove it.

My last fart had more wisdom in it than anything you've written.

And now you can eat your own words:

I don't have to. lol.. nobody HAS to do anything.

You're replies are boring me. I'm going to go do something more worthwhile than bicker with you - like take a shit.

 

[danseen]

lol.. nice lies, but yeah i didn't want to answer your questions since i didn't have to. hmmm..and you don't profess wisdom, ok..

 

[Little_Sticks]

Hallas questions represent metaphysical problems in support of mental health screenings. If you're in support of mental health screenings and you don't answer those questions, it weakens your position.

But if you'd rather read something, this is much more to the point
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy

Since the 1960s there have been many challenges to the concept of mental illness itself. Thomas Szasz wrote The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) which said that mental illnesses are not real in the sense that cancers are real. Except for a few identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, there are "neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings" for verifying or falsifying psychiatric diagnoses. There are no objective methods for detecting the presence or absence of mental disease. Szasz argued that mental illness was a myth used to disguise moral conflicts. He has said "serious persons ought not to take psychiatry seriously -- except as a threat to reason, responsibility and liberty".

For many years, marginalized psychiatrists (such as Peter Breggin, Paula Caplan, Thomas Szasz) and outside critics (such as Stuart A. Kirk) have "been accusing psychiatry of engaging in the systematic medicalization of normality". More recently these concerns have come from insiders who have worked for and promoted the APA (e.g., Robert Spitzer, Allen Frances).[132] In 2013, Allen Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests".

According to Kittrie, a number of phenomena considered "deviant", such as alcoholism, drug addiction and mental illness, were originally considered as moral, then legal, and now medical problems.[135]:1[136] As a result of these perceptions, peculiar deviants were subjected to moral, then legal, and now medical modes of social control.[135]:1 Similarly, Conrad and Schneider concluded their review of the medicalization of deviance by supposing that three major paradigms may be identified that have reigned over deviance designations in different historical periods: deviance as sin; deviance as crime; and deviance as sickness.

In some instances psychiatrists have been involved in the suppression of individual rights by states wherein the definitions of mental disease had been expanded to include political disobedience.[140]:6 Nowadays, in many countries, political prisoners are sometimes confined to mental institutions and abused therein.[141]:3 Psychiatry possesses a built-in capacity for abuse which is greater than in other areas of medicine.[142]:65 The diagnosis of mental disease can serve as proxy for the designation of social dissidents, allowing the state to hold persons against their will and to insist upon therapies that work in favour of ideological conformity and in the broader interests of society.

There is currently no consensus on the effectiveness of ECT. A meta-analysis done in 2003 concluded that ECT is "an effective short-term treatment for depression, and is probably more effective than drug therapy."[149] Other studies say that ECT is an effective tool for certain illnesses at certain stages,[citation needed] and some physicians claim that ECT can save lives.[150] On the other hand, a 2010 literature review concluded that ECT had minimal benefits for people with depression and schizophrenia.[151] The authors said "given the strong evidence of persistent and, for some, permanent brain dysfunction, primarily evidenced in the form of retrograde and anterograde amnesia, and the evidence of a slight but significant increased risk of death, the cost-benefit analysis for ECT is so poor that its use cannot be scientifically justified".[152]
The most common side effects include headache, muscle soreness, confusion, and temporary loss of recent memory.

However, the close relationship between those prescribing psychiatric medication and pharmaceutical companies, and the risk of a conflict of interest,[155] is also a source of concern.[157][158] The costs of developing new drugs are immense, and it is not surprising that the marketing of these drugs is ruthless.[156] For example, pharmaceutical company funds have contributed more than $1.7 million to the annual conference of the American Psychiatric Association.[157] This marketing by the pharmaceutical industry has a profound influence on practicing psychiatrists, which has an impact on prescription.[155] Child psychiatry is one of the area's in which prescription has grown massively. In the past, it was rare, but nowadays child psychiatrists on a regular basis prescribe psychotropic drugs for children, for instance ritalin.[156]

Prisoners in psychiatric hospitals have been the subjects of experiments involving new medications. Vladimir Khailo of the USSR was an individual exposed to such treatment in the 1980s.[162] However, the involuntary treatment of prisoners by use of psychiatric drugs is not limited to Khailo. In July 2012, reporters learned that "mind altering drugs" have also been injected into prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.[163]

These are real problems, especially when psychiatry presents itself to be some kind of science.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Why not?

The OP hasn't supported, via responses or fleshed out the idea. Until he/she does I can only discuss the matter in the broadest of terms. The topic reduces to "What is the role of government" and in that regards I do not see the offsetting positive value.

What exactly are your thoughts on the subject? Have you formed an opinion and could you share that with me?

 

[prplchknz]

The OP hasn't supported, via responses or fleshed out the idea. Until he/she does I can only discuss the matter in the broadest of terms. The topic reduces to "What is the role of government" and in that regards I do not see the offsetting positive value.

What exactly are your thoughts on the subject? Have you formed an opinion and could you share that with me?

my thoughts are i've already failed but if you want to give everyone a diagnosis and class people based on there capabilities and give them such jobs and then develop kids in jars well the point is that is what we should do. if you're ok with some good and some bad in life and variety then we shouldn't.

 

[cafe]

Such as?

I only speak from knowledge of how things are in the US. First, we can't even manage to get all of our citizens access to something like treatment for hypertension. Second, we stigmatize people for all kinds of crazy stuff. We've already got states trying to force drug testing on people for unemployment and welfare benefits, despite pretty strong evidence that it is not in any way beneficial or cost-effective. Third, mental health screening methods are the next best thing to arbitrary because they are so subjective.

Now, I would not have a problem with testing individuals whose mental health has the potential to impact public safety, just like I think it's fine that my husband is subjected to random drug tests because he drives a semi, but testing everyone? It's a violation of a patient's right to privacy, which has been an accepted practice that goes back to the Hippocratic oath. There is no valid need for the information since most mentally ill people pose no public safety risk.

And there is something . . . ironic or something . . . about you telling Halla to get social skills.

 

[skylights]

I am in favor of leaving mental health diagnosis and treatment planning to medical professionals. As in, to be identified by your Primary Care Provider (doctor, PA, NP) and referred out to a psychiatrist or psychologist.

Though, I am also in favor of all people having a psychotherapist, I think it'd do us all a world of good. But I don't even adhere to that in my own life.

So, you know, ideals and reality.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

My vote is "yes, but only for political candidates".

 

[danseen]

I only speak from knowledge of how things are in the US. First, we can't even manage to get all of our citizens access to something like treatment for hypertension. Second, we stigmatize people for all kinds of crazy stuff. We've already got states trying to force drug testing on people for unemployment and welfare benefits, despite pretty strong evidence that it is not in any way beneficial or cost-effective. Third, mental health screening methods are the next best thing to arbitrary because they are so subjective.

Now, I would not have a problem with testing individuals whose mental health has the potential to impact public safety, just like I think it's fine that my husband is subjected to random drug tests because he drives a semi, but testing everyone? It's a violation of a patient's right to privacy, which has been an accepted practice that goes back to the Hippocratic oath. There is no valid need for the information since most mentally ill people pose no public safety risk.

And there is something . . . ironic or something . . . about you telling Halla to get social skills.

I have them, he doesn't.

However, as mental health is a subjective, and there are no objective tests to determine who is healthy or not, then it lends to this not being a good idea. Determining who is mentally healthy or not is just an arbitrary whim anyhow.

 

[danseen]

No.
Here's why:

(1) What is the purpose of the screenings?

Social betterment.

(2) Who will write the assessments?

A panel of psychiatrists

(3) Who will evaluate them?

The same panel

(4) What will the compulsory treatment options be for people with: (a) issue "A", (b) issue "B", (c) both issues "A" and "B"?

Per standard options.

(5) What is the desired outcome for anyone with a confirmed issue(s) after receiving a compulsory treatment option(s)?

Per standard treatments

(6) What are the criteria for defining recovery in (5) above?

Psychiatric canon.

(7) Is recovery partial or total in remediation? If partial, who decides what level of remission has been achieved?
(8) What are the opportunities for those with partial remission achievements of varying percentages of recovery?
(9) How often must recovery be re-evaluated?
(10) What if there is a relapse or new ailment of any kind for those who have been diagnosed with something, and/or undergone an approved treatment?
(11) WHO WILL PAY?
(12) How will the criteria for all aspects of this program be re-calibrated over time as political ideologies sway the masses?

This conceptual program is a FAIL of the highest order, IMHO.



-Halla74

Again, per standard psychiatric canon.

 

[cafe]

I have them, he doesn't.

In a parallel universe where every day is opposite day.