10-year-old girl accused of causing infant's death due in court on manslaughter charge
The youngest person to be charged with homicide in Maine in at least 30 years was due to make her first appearance Monday in District Court.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Star Tribune.
#1 Oct 23, 2012
The 10 year old girl had a disorder the article stated. What was the disorder...a mental disorder from a industry that has no science. No evidence based medicine and no test for chemical imbalance of the brain and has history in drugging children and infants sincenthe Bush Sr presidency with other deaths and violence noted. Was the child on mind drugs? Most likely considering the crimes and attrocities of the Mental Health Industry in the past.
Again another childs life ruined by the mad men and women of the Mental Health Industry.
Death, violence, erratic behavior and suicide caused by mind drugs
Cartoon: Psychiatry / Court/ puppet
#2 Oct 23, 2012
Can there be justice with the horror story of the Mental Health Industry behind these deaths by mind drugs.
Here is the agenda of the Mental Health in the take over of the Judiciary Branch of government (by state) on the problem the industry caused in the USA.(Drug America) This is a similar takeover to what happen in the Public School System.
Mental Health Courts State Links
Mental Health Court by links
#3 Oct 23, 2012
Psychiatry: An industry of death
Psychiatry No Science
#4 Oct 23, 2012
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness
Every so often Al Frances says something that seems to surprise even him. Just now, for instance, in the predawn darkness of his comfortable, rambling home in Carmel, California, he has broken off his exercise routine to declare that “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.” Then an odd, reflective look crosses his face, as if he’s taking in the strangeness of this scene: Allen Frances, lead editor of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (universally known as the DSM-IV), the guy who wrote the book on mental illness, confessing that “these concepts are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the boundaries.” For the first time in two days, the conversation comes to an awkward halt.
Pasted from < http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv... ;
There are no genetic tests, no brain scans, blood tests, chemical imbalance tests or X-rays that can scientifically/medically prove that any psychiatric disorder is a medical condition.
#5 Oct 23, 2012
Why your kid is drugged in school
How it works:
The State Department of Education gets monies from the Federal Government (Disability) under a program called "IDEA" for each child diagnosed with a disability. A disability could be ADD/ADHD, Bi-polar disorder, Depression or any of the other mental diagnoses.
Who profits: The State Department of Education, the mental health and counseling Industry, the Pharmaceutical company and the money that is kicked back by lobbyists for politicians special interest and of course the legal profession.
All this at the cost of your child's Health and welfare.
----------IDEA" Final Regulation (part 1 of 2)
300.7 Child with a disability.
(1) As used in this part, the term child with a disability means a child evaluated in accordance with §§300.530-300.536 as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment including deafness, a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment including blindness, serious emotional disturbance (hereafter referred to as emotional disturbance), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services.(i) The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.(ii) The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance. 9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that-(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia; and (ii) Adversely affects a child's educational performance §300.24 Related services.(a) General. As used in this part, the term related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability.(9) Psychological services includes-(i) Administering psychological and educational tests, and other assessment procedures; (ii) Interpreting assessment results; (iii) Obtaining, integrating, and interpreting information about child behavior and conditions relating to learning; (iv) Consulting with other staff members in planning school programs to meet the special needs of children as indicated by psychological tests, interviews, and behavioral evaluations; (v) Planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for children and parents; and (vi) Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies.---------
#6 Oct 23, 2012
Psychiatric Diagnosis: Too Little Science, Too Many Conflicts of Interest [i]
Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.
There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, and it is tempting to believe that the mental health community knows how to help. It is widely believed, both by mental health professionals and the general population, that if only a person gets the right psychiatric diagnosis, the therapist will know what kind of measures will be the most helpful. Unfortunately, that is not usually the case, and getting a psychiatric diagnosis can often create more problems than it solves, including a lifetime of being labeled, difficulties with obtaining affordable (or any) health insurance (due to now having a pre-existing condition), loss of employment, loss of child custody, the overlooking of physical illnesses and injuries because of everything being attributed to psychological factors, and the loss of the right to make decisions about one’s medical and legal affairs. The creation and use of psychiatric diagnosis, unlike, for instance, psychiatric drugs, is not overseen by any regulatory body, and rarely does anyone raise the question of what role the assignment of a psychiatric label has played in creating problems for individuals.[ii]
The Problematic History
These serious limitations have not prevented the authors of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), sometimes known as “the therapist’s Bible,” from making expansive claims about their knowledge and authority and wielding enormous power to decide who will and will not be called mentally ill and what the varieties of alleged mental illness will be. The DSM’s current edition is called DSM-IV-TR, and it was preceded by the original DSM (in 1952), then DSM-II (1968), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (Third Edition Revised)(1987), DSM-IV (1994), and DSM-IV-TR (2000). The DSM-V is currently in preparation and slated for 2013 publication. Each time a new edition appears, the media ask whichever psychiatrist is the lead editor why a new edition was necessary, and like clockwork, each editor replies that it was because the previous edition really wasn’t scientific (Caplan, 1995). And each time a new edition appears, it contains many more categories than does the previous one. For instance, DSM-III-R contained 297 categories, and DSM-IV contained 374 (Caplan, 1995).
I served as an advisor to two of the DSM-IV committees, before resigning due to serious concerns after witnessing how fast and loose they play with the scientific research related to diagnosis (Caplan, 1995). The DSM is widely used, not only in the mental health system, but also in general medical practice, in schools, and in the courts. I have been involved since 1985 in trying to alert both therapists and the public to the manual’s unscientific nature and the dangers that believing in its objectivity poses. Since then, I have watched with interest a national trend toward gradually increasing openness to the idea that psychiatric diagnosis (A)is largely unscientific,(B)is highly subjective and political, and (C)can cause untold harm, ranging from the patients’ lowered self-confidence to loss of custody of children to loss of health insurance (because any psychiatric label can be considered evidence of a pre-existing condition) to loss of the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs.
More of this article:
#7 Oct 23, 2012
The (APA) DSM-V is the future version of the Mein Kampf.
Bombs and bullets will be replaced with mind drugs and psychotherapy (false memory) in future generations.
That's certainly what Aldus Huxley predicted with his fictional Soma and it came true
#8 Oct 23, 2012
Allen Frances: Is Government Intervention Needed to Prevent an Unsafe DSM 5?
#9 Oct 23, 2012
In the momentous article "Medical Science Under Dictator-ship," Dr. Leo Alexander, the chief U.S. medical consultant at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, examined "the process by which the German medical profession became a willing and unquestioning collaborator with the Nazis." He noted the early changes in medical attitudes that predisposed German physicians to first collect data on their patients to conduct what today we call "cost-effective analysis," and then to use the latter information as a vehicle to commit medical genocide under the auspices of the totalitarianism of National Socialism. Dr. Alexander warns us that "from small beginnings" the values of an entire society may be subverted, leading to the horrors of a police state. The "small beginnings" in Nazi Germany that Dr. Alexander referred to first led the physicians to collect data from their patients and then violate their patients' privacy and medical record confidentiality by supplying the information to the state.(6) Organizations with humanitarian-sounding names were set up in Nazi Germany to institute "health" programs, under deceptive, euphemistic terms. For example, questionnaires collected by a "Realm's Work Committee of Institutions for Cure and Care" gathered and reported information on patients who had been ill five years or more and who were unable to work. "On the basis of name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility, and so forth," decisions were ultimately made for the patient euthanasia program heralded by the Nazi government for the good of the state and the "health of the nation." The first steps taken toward barbarism were the result of the physicians' willingness to participate in patient data collection and the violation of medical privacy. "Corrosion," as Dr. Alexander wrote, "begins in microscopic proportions." German physicians were, more than any other profession, heavily represented in the Nazi Party, which they joined in droves. German psychiatrists were no exception, and they also enthusiastically supported Nazi Germany's gun control laws of 1938 that disarmed the civilian population and left a monopoly of force in the hands of the German military and the SS. The rest, as we say, is history.
AMA Becomes Political
As to the commitment of the AMA to weakening medical privacy and individual-based ethics in favor of population-based ethics and achieve a partnership with government, there is no longer any doubt.(7,8) In the case of the American Psychiatric Association, one only has to peruse its position statement on homicide prevention and gun control promulgated by its leadership as early as 1993: "In view of the need to reinforce individual and group sanctions against the use of violence as a social instrument, behavioral mode, or adaptorional [sic] pattern, as psychiatrists have done with drug abuse, suicidal actions, and antisocial behavior, the American Psychiatric Association recommends that strong controls be placed on the availability of all types of firearms to private citizens."(9) Why would the AMA and organized medicine become involved in this politically expedient but potentially explosive issue of gun control and condone the systematic violation of the privacy of vulnerable patients?
#10 Oct 23, 2012
George Bush Sr.
New World Order
#11 Oct 23, 2012
Why the Medical Privacy Act was inacted by Republican George Bush Jr in 2004 was to protect the Pharmacutical / Medical and mfg Industries against defective products, bad medical practice and procedures along with drugs and the side effects. Profits and political reasons . Difficult to see a pattern existing if the medical staff are handcuffed and confined to privacy from the News Media and parents can't find out about theirnover 18 year old child.
With the new Medical Records things can easily be hidden and comments can be reported to the medical profession for everyone to see except you without permission
#12 Oct 23, 2012
Obama’s Preemption Memo: Limiting Regulatory Preemption of State Common Law Claims By Matt Melamed, Public Justice Kazan-Wallace Fellow
On May 20, 2009, President Obama reversed one of the most nefarious practices of the Bush administration by issuing a memorandum (Preemption Memo) aimed at curbing federal preemption by regulatory fiat.
(The memorandum is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Pr ....)
With the Preemption Memo, the President made clear his intent to limit federal agencies’ efforts to preempt state law claims merely by declaring that they would conflict with federal regulatory purposes. This position represents a radical shift from that taken by the Bush administration, which aggressively encouraged federal agencies to seek to preempt state tort law in precisely that fashion. For the first time in a long time, consumer advocates have an ally in the executive branch.
The Bush Administration’s Stealth Tort Reform Effort
The Preemption Memo is described more fully below. But its importance can only be understood against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to implement stealth tort reform. Since 2005, seven federal agencies have issued over 60 proposed or final rules that were accompanied by introductory statements –commonly known as “preambles”– stating that the rule preempts state tort law on the ground that lawsuits involving the regulated matters would conflict with the agencies’ regulatory goals. See, e.g., Press Release, American Association for Justice, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority (Oct. 15, 2008), available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/h ....
The most notorious example of this practice is the preamble to a 2006 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling regulation, which states that the FDA’s approval of a prescription drug’s label “preempts conflicting or contrary State law,” including lawsuits seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable for failing adequately to warn of a drug’s dangers. 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934-35 (2006). This preemption preamble was particularly egregious because it represented a 180-degree reversal of the FDA’s prior views on the matter: before the Bush administration took power, the FDA enthusiastically endorsed tort litigation as complementing the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs.(As discussed below, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2006 labeling regulation’s preemptive preamble was not entitled to any deference.)
The intention behind this and other Bush-era preemption preambles is clear: by attempting to strip consumers of their rights to sue, the Bush administration was pandering to the business community, which seeks at all costs to immunize itself from tort liability. Indeed, Bush administration officials had an unusually close relationship with the industries they regulated. Again, the 2006 FDA labeling regulation is instructive. As first proposed, the preamble to the labeling regulation specifically stated that the FDA did not intend to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. See Press Release, American Association for Justice, supra. Less than six months before issuing the final regulation, FDA’s chief counsel met with legal representatives from the largest pharmaceutical companies. Id. After the meeting, the preamble was changed to state that FDA approval of a drug label preempted state common law failure-to-warn claims.
Add your comments below
|Judge delays sentencing in Logan kickback scheme||3 hr||Don||39|
|Texas Senate Democrats help 'open-carry' amendment||11 hr||Cowboy up||1|
|New Hampshire bill would protect people who rep...||12 hr||Chris L||2|
|Carson man convicted in ex-girlfriend's murder (Jul '09)||15 hr||bookerbjams||4|
|Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges||15 hr||Rick||32|
|Four arrested at Jackson Parish Hospital after ...||17 hr||Vanilla Iced||12|
|Texas looks to reform criminal justice system a...||17 hr||bouncing bob||2|
Find what you want!
Search Law Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC