New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Are Foster Children Overmedicated? Government Seeks Improved Guidelines

WhistleBlower

Council Member
Are Foster Children Overmedicated? Government Seeks Improved Guidelines

By Martha Rosenberg (about the author)



opednews.com

It is no secret that foster children can be dangerously overmedicated. Three years ago, Mirko and Regina Ceska of Crawfordville, FLA told former Gov. Charlie Crist their two adopted 12-year-olds had been prescribed 11 pills a day, including the powerful antipsychotic Seroquel, reported the Tampa Bay Times.

"These girls were overdosed and would fall asleep right in front of us several times a day," Mirko Ceska told Crist at an "Explore Adoption Day'' event. "It seems to be a prerequisite for foster children to be on medication," said Ceska, calling the pills "chemical restraint."

The couple's remarks came on the heels of the suicide of Gabriel Myers, a 7-year-old in Florida foster care who was prescribed psychiatric drugs, including Symbyax, not approved for children because of links to suicidal thinking. More than 15 percent of 20,000 foster care children in Florida are medicated, says the Times and doctors and case managers treating medicated 6- and 7-year-olds "routinely failed to complete legally required treatment plans, share information or properly document the prescribing of powerful psychiatric drugs."

Now, less than a year after passage of the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (which requires state child welfare agencies to adopt "protocols for the appropriate use and monitoring of psychotropic medications" for children) three government agencies--the Administration for Children and Families, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration--are convening a meeting with hundreds of state officials to address medication guidelines on August 27 and 28.

"This is an urgent issue, and child-centered organizations and individuals need to let state and federal administrators, Congress and state legislators know that it needs immediate action," says Edward Opton, a psychologist and lawyer involved in child welfare issues. "The medical literature shows no studies of the long-term effects of antipsychotic drugs on children, including drugs for so-called conduct disorder, the condition for which they are most frequently prescribed to children. There are no data on drugged vs. undrugged children with respect to completion of school, employment, early pregnancy, imprisonment, or subjective quality of life as evaluated by the children or by anyone else."


Both private and public youth facilities have been plagued with scandals. One large provider, Universal Health Services Inc., known as the "Standard Oil of mental illness," recently agreed to pay $6.85 million to the U.S. and the state of Virginia to settle allegations that its Keystone Marion Youth Center provided "substandard psychiatric counseling and treatment to adolescents in violation of Medicaid requirements, falsified records and submitted false claims to the Medicaid program." It chose to close the youth center.

awww.opednews.com_populum_uploaded_pills_1353_20120623_105.jpg

Are Youth Centers Overusing Expensive Pills? by Martha Rosenberg

There were two suicides in the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice's system of eight facilities between September 2008 and September 2009 and a follow-up report disclosed that a full 98 percent of the children are on psychoactive drugs.

Like the elderly in state care, children in state care prove tempting targets for both disreputable operators and Big Pharma because they do not make their own medication decisions, they are covered by public funds and the designation of behavioral problems in such settings is seldom questioned. Profit schemes often involve expensive antipsychotics like Seroquel, Zyprexa, Risperdal and Geodon whose safety and efficacy are in dispute, especially in children and the elderly.

In 2007, Bristol-Myers Squibb settled a federal suit for $515 million charging that it illegally hawked the antipsychotic Abilify to children and the elderly, bilking taxpayers. The next year, the state of Texas charged Janssen with defrauding the state of millions with "a sophisticated and fraudulent marketing scheme," to "secure a spot for the drug, Risperdal, on the state's Medicaid preferred drug list and on controversial medical protocols that determine which drugs are given to adults and children in state custody." Soon after, Idaho, Washington, Montana, Connecticut, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Arkansas and Texas took Big Pharma to court over the antipsychotic spree.

When, during the same time period, the state of Florida began requiring doctors to get approval for high priced antipsychotics before giving them to kids under age six on Medicaid, more evidence of overmedication emerged: prescriptions for the pills dropped from 3,167 in 2007 to 844 in 2008, reported the Tampa Bay Times. END

Martha Rosenberg's top selling health policy book, Born with a Junk Food Deficiency, was released in April by Prometheus Books.


Martha Rosenberg is a health reporter and commentator whose work has appeared in Consumers Digest, the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, New Orleans Times-Picayune, Los Angeles Times, Providence Journal and Newsday. She serves (more...)
 
Very big problem. There are good foster homes and then there are people who foster for the money. What can be done about it? I don't know...but I do know that it's not just the foster kids that are overdrugged. I've wondered about the causes of ADHD and the whole family of autistic disorders--Asperger's, etc. These are problems that were unheard of not so many years ago. I don't ever remember an ADHD classmate when I was a child. Working in the medical field, I do know how commonly these drugs ARE prescribed. Definitely needs more investigation and a good topic to bring up.....

By the way, in my experience, there are more of these drugs prescribed to Medicaid kids than private sector. Wonder why....
 
probably because the parents with private insurance are better informed and don't just do what the doctor says just because the doctor said to do it.

an article i saw a few months ago outlined scandalous overmedication of foster children in either oklahoma or nebraska where they were just doping the kids into oblivion so they'd be easier to handle.
 
in his book, the medical heretic/how to stay healthy in spite of your doctor, dr. robert mendelsohn predicted that the psychiatric establishment was going to invent all sorts of mental illnesses just so they could treat them with fancy new drugs, which is exactly what they've done.

inappropriate behavior in children is now being treated with chemicals as if it were a mental illness, rather than with time-honored behavioral modification techniques. in state-subsidized for profit orphanages, keeping the kids heavily doped is extremely profitable in payroll savings on top of the subsidies.

it would be an interesting study to determine when the most commonly diagnosed children's mental illnesses were defined and when the most commonly prescribed drug for those disorders was invented and who owns the copyright on the definition and the patents on the drugs.
 
I didn't read you whole TP, it is too late and I'm a bit tired.

On Slate. the site many of us came from. there was on the Faith Based forum within it, a 'converstation' that went on for over a year about vaccines. the main converstaion was between two men, my computer crashed because of it lol, but, anyway one man worked for Big Pharma, now at one point he told me what his job was, it was about then that I realised he only knew what he 'needed to know' withi the company he worked for, anyway he injected both orphans and prisoners and so did studies ..Orphans ???? :) yeh! They are not over medicated they are guinea pigs, sadly Slate has now been wiped I should really have gone back and saved the whole converstaion but ,,,,,,,I didn't.

I knew that orphans where used but ,there it was from the horses mouth.

The other thing, and this may sound odd. I saw in a converstaion on here recently someone say, they were happy about homosexual couples being able to marry but they didn't agree with them having chldren........................... I have had lots of animals in my time and I have a thing about them being together, in packs in their own little natural groups as much as possible .........I have found that a group of males always look after the babies .always. within birds especially, but in dogs and guinea pigs all sorts when they have a secure society ................ an odd observation maybe, but it was a conversation I saw and has lingered in my mind, that it was wrong to think homosexuals shouldn't have children because naturally they are the very ones who should be looking after those that we can not, when they want to that is :)
 
A couple of thoughts. First, I am very good friends with a gay man who has been in a long, long term relationship. He and his significant other have been allowed to have foster children--the last being a pair of sisters. They dearly loved these kids, but legalities did not permit them to adopt (that one I have never been able to figure out, since they WERE allowed to foster them). Regardless of their homosexuality they were ideal parents.

Secondly, I think that there is a definite connection with today's lifestyles and problems such as ADHD in kids For one thing, so many kids today spend way too much time in daycares because both parents are working. On top of this, parents, teachers and caretakers are afraid to punish their children for inappropriate behavior because of the fear of being reported for child abuse. Not knowing how to disclipline correctly, they don't discipline at all. I am not suggesting abusing children to modify inappropriate behavior, I'm talking about common sense. Do any of you remember getting a whack on the bottom? I do, and I had very loving, caring parents who had an abundance of common sense.

Children who have no rules that are consistently enforced and have no one who cares enough to see that they ARE enforced seem to be the ones that have the most psychological problems. Just my opinion, of course, but that is what I have observed.
 
the cartoon culture has often been blamed for desensitizing children to violence and even encouraging it, with people like matt groening taking it an extreme with itchy and scratchy and krustie the klown and sideshow bob.

couple that with the toxic food they're eating, add in the dysfunctional parents and teachers and top it off with government officials disregarding old law in favor of new and you have to wonder why we don't have complete chaos in our streets yet.

one reason i'm proud to cite is the influence of the 'woodstock notion' on the state of protest in america. there is a universal commitment among my peers coming down from our elders and manifesting in our kids and grandkids to completely non-violent dissent. none of the violent acts of civil disobedience that have occurred at any of the american occupy locations were sanctioned by the general assembly, planned or executed by any of them.
 
I think the food issue is a very valid one. And the prevalence of the amount of junk food we have today would certainly correlate in timing with ever increasing rates of psychological problems in kids. One thing I found very interesting. A couple of months ago there was all the hoopla about "pink slime" added to our ground beef. This was basically beef byproducts normally tossed or used in pet foods, but was found that if it was treated with ammonia it made a good filler for hamburger and other processed meats. They have been feeding this to us for years without our knowledge, and it was a staple in meat used in school lunches. The thing is...children with ADHD and the autism spectrum of diseases have higher than normal levels of ammonia in their blood. Is this just a coincidence? Something to think about anyway.

I don't think that cartoon culture is so much the culprit. My friends and myself as children definitely knew it was a cartoon, and just because the violence was hilarious to us, we knew it was not real....we didn't go around hitting each other on the heads with hammers, etc, because the cartoons showed it. Kids are smarter that they are given credit for in many instances. However, more reality based movies, TV shows, etc., might influence them to a greater extent. I dunno.

I've wondered, too, about the use of birth control pills. Was there something in them that might effect a later pregnancy? It's just that things like ADHD didn't seem to be around before we had them.

Anyway, I think there needs to be some deep investigating of the whole issue. I would much rather see money spent on this than on things like "people who believe in heaven are more violent than nonbelievers" which was a news story that came out today. Wonder how many millions they got to study this....
 
a lot of valid points there. there were a lot of radical changes in food and medicine in the 50's, 60's and 70's that could be impacting us now with chemically-induced behavioral changes.

also, i think TV news reporting, particularly live footage of active war zones desensitizes people to death and violence much more than cartoons, though i did get more than my fair share of nose pinching and fists hammering on my head a la three stooges style.

i think most telling is the prophetic observation made by justice louis brandeis in his dissent opinion to the landmark olmsted v. us (1928) decision: (this isn't exact but close enough) in a government of laws, the government, as the omnipresent teacher, must scrupulously uphold the law, for if it fails to do so, the people will follow their example. . .it can only lead to anarchy.
 
the cartoon culture has often been blamed for desensitizing children to violence and even encouraging it, with people like matt groening taking it an extreme with itchy and scratchy and krustie the klown and sideshow bob.

I don't understand satire either.
 
WhistleBlower, no I didn't read your article because I went down that road about 10 years ago. Two of my granddaughters were in foster care and I had no where to keep them because a different daughter and her 2 sons were already living with me. I wound up buying another house and then took them in.

While all of this was going on I did a great deal of research on the foster care system and it really turned my stomach. Without going over the whole thing again, I will tell you a couple of things.

For one thing it's a business that is quite lucrative for a number of the states. At the time it was reported that some 85% of kids that were put into foster care were also put on drugs. This allowed a lot more of them to be categorized as 'special needs' which provided even more dollars. Oh, and more kids die while in foster care than the ones who die from living with abusive parents.

One of the things that particularly stuck in my craw (heaven knows there were many), was the web sites where kids pictures and descriptions were put up like puppies for potential adoptions. In some cases there were parents who were frantically trying to get their kids back had not even lost their parental rights yet. Yet their kids were up there with the rest of the 'puppies'.

While there are some kids who desperately need help and are helped, there are far too many who are nothing more than a commodity. Once I really dug deep there was no way that I could let it all go. It cost me a lot of $thousands to fight the system but as we speak, the youngest of those is living with me and is 16 now. (driving me nuts btw, she IS 16)
 
WhistleBlower, no I didn't read your article because I went down that road about 10 years ago. Two of my granddaughters were in foster care and I had no where to keep them because a different daughter and her 2 sons were already living with me. I wound up buying another house and then took them in.

While all of this was going on I did a great deal of research on the foster care system and it really turned my stomach. Without going over the whole thing again, I will tell you a couple of things.

For one thing it's a business that is quite lucrative for a number of the states. At the time it was reported that some 85% of kids that were put into foster care were also put on drugs. This allowed a lot more of them to be categorized as 'special needs' which provided even more dollars. Oh, and more kids die while in foster care than the ones who die from living with abusive parents.

One of the things that particularly stuck in my craw (heaven knows there were many), was the web sites where kids pictures and descriptions were put up like puppies for potential adoptions. In some cases there were parents who were frantically trying to get their kids back had not even lost their parental rights yet. Yet their kids were up there with the rest of the 'puppies'.

While there are some kids who desperately need help and are helped, there are far too many who are nothing more than a commodity. Once I really dug deep there was no way that I could let it all go. It cost me a lot of $thousands to fight the system but as we speak, the youngest of those is living with me and is 16 now. (driving me nuts btw, she IS 16)


if people realized that they were viewed as nothing but property by the people who think they're in charge, they probably wouldn't be so willing to go along with the program. a meme that i saw yesterday declared that a diagnosis of cancer makes you worth a minimum of $300,000 to the cancer industry.
 
so THAT'S why they delibrately infected my grandmother with cancer!!! lol

i get it now. you're really twelve years old and don't have the mental capacity to post anything but absurd, disruptive, wisecracks.

carry on, young boy, perhaps others are entertained by your antics.
 
well thank you very much for your permission little fella. ive been lying awake nights wondering if you would allow me to continue here!! lol. and congratulations on your failed ignore campaign and inability to resist falling into the name calling trap! lol
 
look youngster: you're rude, obnoxious and rarely post anything of any value to a real conversation. forget a debate, your whole reality is to be disruptive. you're one of the people who approach these forums as if it were an everquest or world of warfare interactive RPG room. very annoying to people having intelligent conversations as themselves about real life circumstances to have whack jobs flitting in and out saying whatever is fun to them in the moment.

if that's what gives you your jollies and occupies your time, more power to you. the other grown-ups around here seem to be able to stumble their way around you disruptive children. i'm sure i will, too.

there will be occasion that i'll feel the need to respond to something you or one of the other disruptive douche nozzles has posted, but for the most part, nah. you're children playing children's games that are of no value to me.
 
Back
Top