Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mothers Act Promotes Pregnancy as Cottage Industry Written by Pringle Monday, 09 February 2009 http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/15/1/The MOTHERS Act - Trolling For Mental Patients at a Maternity Ward Near You Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/431459297.html http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/13/9/Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/14/9/RECENT UNITE BLOG ENTRIESYou may want to read the rest of these articles directly from the blog site due to the formatting in email getting messed up. http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/Recent Posts Dirul Update The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Failure To Warn February 22, 2009 Dirul Update Enne Currie finally found out the whereabouts of her son when someone in court blurted it out! A copy of the Declaration she filed with the court can be downloaded from the Box.net file sharing widget on this site. It is called Declaration One. 0 Comments Filed under Enne Currie, legal kidnapping Tags: Conservatorship, Dirul February 22, 2009 The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey Postpartum Depression Law—An Opportunity to Join Forces G. Zampardi, Ph.D. and countless others The New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Screening Law can be considered a fortunate mistake. The word “mistake†might be considered negative and offensive or insensitive but it is purposely chosen in order to unite it with another expression: “The only true mistakes are the ones we do not learn from.†The New Jersey PPD Law is so markedly defective and inadequate that it can awaken awareness and recognition of very basic, fundamental issues about codes of ethics, legal issues, particularly confidentiality, privacy, patient protection, and full informed consent. It is almost as if an ethics professor had given his class a group assignment to write a law that seems initially to be ostensibly appealing but violates every major legal and ethical precept. Freud, among others, gained enormous insights into normality and normal development by studying pathology and the breakdown of processes and systems. The ethics professor hopes that students, in attempting to compose the worst possible law, will appreciate law and order by studying violations of law and by studying disorder. A fortunate element in this situation is a renewed opportunity to unite various forces to rectify serious errors in the New Jersey PPD Law. What are at stake are not only the rights and lives of citizens but also the long-range legal/ethical consequences upon the professions of medicine, of psychology, and of all other mental health professions. There is a threat of erosion, corrosion, and corruption of our basic ethical principles and, ultimately, of the services provided to all potential clients. The upcoming national Mothers Act (a virtual replica of the New Jersey PPD Law), if enacted, can be likened to an epidemic and plague of all the undesirable, destructive features of the New Jersey PPD Law. Let us learn from the New Jersey PPD Law mistakes and not repeat them and magnify them in the national Mothers Act. Even if the Mothers Act is defeated, there exist serious, ongoing defects in the New Jersey PPD Law which must be addressed and rectified. Both the New Jersey PPD Law and the Mothers Act contain the following legal/ethical violations: 1) Failure to provide full informed consent (i.e., consent should be express, written, voluntary, informed). 2) Failure to provide adequate privacy and protection of client communications. 3) Failure to adhere to legal/ethical principles with resultant erosion of the quality of client services (e.g., federal mandates and ethical requirements for proper informed consent; full information about risks and benefits of the PPD screening process; need to provide an explicit option to decline services; need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services). There is a prayer entitled “Don’t Quit.†A line in this prayer is: “Success is failure turned inside out.†Let us turn this New Jersey mistake, this New Jersey failure, into a success. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act Tags: Dr. Zampardi, mothers act, New Jersey PPD Law February 22, 2009 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 by Pringle http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/Psychiatric-Drugging-One.htmlFebruary 19, 2009. Washington, DC: Last September, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights filed what is sure to become a landmark case against the State of Alaska aimed at stopping the over-prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children covered by public health care programs in that state. Child Drugs “The massive over-drugging of America’s youth is an unfolding national horror,†says attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the Law Project. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop Alaska from authorizing or paying for psychotropic drugs prescribed to children in foster care or children covered by Medicaid “without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs.†Specifically, the complaint is asking for a court order prohibiting the State from giving or paying for these drugs unless and until: (i) evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted, (ii) rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks, (iii) the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed, and (iv) close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place. “The corrupt influence of the pharmaceutical industry in illegally promoting much of this drugging has been well established,†Mr Gottstein says, “yet the state continues to inflict great harm on the children it has taken away from their families by giving them these drugs.†“It is absurd to think all these children have a mental illness,†he adds. “They are being drugged because they are upset and bothering people…because decisions to administer medication to children are not made by the children themselves, the administration of psychotropic drugs is involuntary.†Under the Alaska Constitution, he says, involuntary administration of such drugs infringes upon fundamental rights and the state must have a compelling state interest in doing so. They must be in the best interest of the children and there must be no less intrusive alternatives, the lawsuit notes. Governor Palin is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because she is ultimately responsible for the protection of children as Governor of Alaska. “I doubt anyone on the Governor’s staff has even let her know about the problem despite my trying to bring it to her attention ever since she took office,†Mr Gottstein notes. In fact, as far back as March 14, 2007, he emailed Governor Palin about children in custody in other states dying from the administration of psychotropic drugs, and stated: “The massive over-drugging of America’s children and youth is a titanic health catastrophe caused by the government’s failure to protect its most precious citizens, who rely on the adults in their lives to shield them from harm, not inflict it upon them. Perhaps the worst of all is the State inflicting this harm on children and youth it has taken from their homes “for their own good.†Mr Gottstein concluded by asking her to, “Please correct this situation.†On February 4, 2008, he wrote to Governor Palin again, in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, and sent copies to the Attorney General and others, conveying scientific evidence regarding the harm being done by the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children, and stated in part: “Children and youth are virtually always forced to take these drugs because, with rare exception, it is not their choice. PsychRights believes the children and youth, themselves, have the legal right to not be subject to such harmful treatment at the hands of the State of Alaska. “We are therefore evaluating what legal remedies might be available to them. However, instead of going down that route, it would be my great preference to be able to work together to solve this problem. It is for this reason that I am reaching out to you again on this issue.†“Fewer than ten percent of psychotropic drugs are FDA-approved for any psychiatric use in children and youth,†the lawsuit alleges. In the February 2009 New York Review, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr Marcia Angell, wrote: “Although it is illegal to promote drugs for use in children if the FDA has not approved them for that use, the law is frequently circumvented by disguising marketing as education or research. Eli Lilly recently agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle civil and criminal charges of marketing the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the FDA (known as “off-label†uses). Zyprexa, which has serious side effects, is one of the drugs frequently used off-label to treat children diagnosed with bipolar disorder.†She went on to state: “Unlike migraines or shyness, hypertension or high cholesterol can be defined by an objective measurement-a blood pressure or cholesterol level. One can dispute the threshold chosen as abnormal, but the measurement is easily verifiable. The fact that psychiatric conditions are not objectively verifiable underscores the necessity for both diagnosis and treatment to be as impartial as possible. That is why conflicts of interest are more serious in this field than in most others.†Mr Gottstein’s complaint lays out the evidence of harm to children caused by psychiatric drugs as documented by a program titled, “Critical Risk Rx, A Critical Curriculum on Psychotropic Medications,†designed by a team led by Dr Cohen, a Professor at Florida International University. The purpose of the “Critical Think Rx†program is to promote critical thinking skills about psychiatric medication issues related to the authorization of the administration of psychotropic drugs to young patients. The program was developed under a grant from the Attorneys General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program through the multi-state settlement with Pfizer of consumer fraud claims regarding the off-label promotion of Neurontin, one of the anti-seizure drugs marketed as a mood stabilizer. Critical Think Rx is funded at the Florida International University, and is the only project targeting non-medically trained professionals in child welfare and mental health. All investigators and consultants involved in the program have agreed to forego pharmaceutical industry funding for the duration of the project in order to maintain complete independence. The “best practices†recommended in the lawsuit were assembled by the Critical Think team and have been proven effective, Mr Gottstein advises. Part 2 Next week: The Major Turning Point: the Death of Riley Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. This report was written as part of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Roundup series and sponsored by the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm. 0 Comments Filed under child endangerment, drugging children Tags: Pringle February 10, 2009 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Congress: You Keep Your Bill, We’l… - Customized by amyphilo t-shirts made by zazzleView more People Health Cultures T-Shirts All proceeds from the sale of this shirt will go to fund the giant black hole that is the UNITE budget related to fighting The MOTHERS Act. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act February 10, 2009 Failure To Warn http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/failure-to-warn-glaxo-paxil-pregnancies/ 0 Comments Filed under Uncategorized February 9, 2009 SSRI birth Defects: Why Weren’t Warnings Issued Sooner? http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11869/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-12.html February 6, 2009. By Lucy Valley Home, AK: When (not her real name) gave birth to her now 5-year old son, he had a lung and heart deformity. had taken the anti depressant Zoloft, albeit briefly, during her pregnancy, and given all she’s subsequently read, now wonders if her son’s birth defects are SSRI-related birth defects. When ’s son was born, he wasn’t breathing. The medical staff had to resuscitate him and place him in an incubator. He was then diagnosed with pectus excavatum. “It’s a lung and heart ‘deformity’ I guess you would call it,†said. “It’s supposed to be hereditary but no one in our family has this. My son also has breathing problems, and some type of brain damage which had to be in uterus and caused oral and verbal apraxia.†Apraxia is an impairment of the nerves or nervous system that affects a person’s ability to plan, execute and sequence motor movements. Verbal apraxia affects the programming of the articulators and rapid sequences of muscle movements for speech sounds. Oral apraxia involves nonspeech movements e.g., blowing, puckering, licking food from the lips – those kinds of things. “My son didn’t talk until much later than is considered normal,†said . “When he was 2 he just mumbled. And there were other things like he couldn’t put his tongue in his cheek, for example. He went to speech therapy for 2 years; that helped.†So far, has yet to receive any kind of diagnosis for her son, beyond those given when he was born, making treatment difficult. “He’s been tested for Autism, and the results were negative, but he does have behavioural problems, like anxiety and disruptive behaviour,†she said. “They think he has sensory processing disorder - but they haven’t given him a diagnosis of that. At one point they thought he had ADHD, and wanted to give him drugs for that but I refused.†Not surprisingly, has been doing a lot of reading, prompted in part by a need to try and understand what’s happening to her son, and in part by an ad she saw on television some time ago, describing SSRI birth defects. “I saw a TV commercial and it got me thinking. I never thought that Zoloft may have played a role in his health problems, because my doctor said it was okay to take it,†said.†I’ve read a lot, and I try to help my son. I love him, and I will do what I can for him. I wonder what the outcome would have been if I hadn’t taken Zoloft. As a parent, I want to know why this has happened – what caused it – because it would provide some kind of closure.†SSRIs–also known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors–are a class of antidepressant. Until about 2005 there were no real warnings of the possibility of birth defects connected with the use of these drugs during pregnancy. All that changed, however, in 2005, when the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy. SSRI Birth Defects ’s son was born in 2004, before any of the public warnings were issued, together with the studies showing the link between birth defects and SSRI use in pregnancy. To say that the situation and her son are in is frustrating would be an understatement. Had known in advance of the possible consequences, she would not have taken an SSRI during her pregnancy. Worse, is not the only mother with questions. There are many women with similar stories to tell. Chief among the many questions they would like answered is why weren’t the warnings issued sooner? 2 Comments Filed under Baum Hedlund, MGH, Stokes, PPD, Paxil in pregnancy, Pregnancy, antidepressants, birth defects, child endangerment, lawsuits, mothers act January 28, 2009 MOTHERS Act Information Check out this blog containing extremely relevant information on The MOTHERS Act! http://mothersact.wordpress.com/ First watch the short video at the top of the blog. If you click it twice, you will be taken to YouTube where you can rate it, comment on it, post it on your website, help get the word out, etc. Then read the information on this bill, and send a quick email to your elected officials (Congressman and Senator) using the TAKE ACTION links. The points are simple: The Mothers Act is a bill which will increase mental health screening of pregnant women and new mothers, despite the fact that the widely accepted treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is antidepressant drugs — documented by the U.S. FDA to cause worsening depression, mania, psychosis, suicidal and homicidal ideation and birth defects. There is no language in the bill that would assure mothers are given non-drug options or accurate information about the subjectivity of the diagnoses (a checklist of questions) or the documented risks of psychiatric drugs. This violates informed consent and puts new mothers and their infants at risk. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act January 28, 2009 Doctor Tells Pregnant Mother Effexor is Safe For Pregnancy, Baby Born With Birth Defects http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11773/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11.html?ref=newsletter_bca_paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11 SSRI Birth Defects†The Only High Risk Factor I had Was Being on Effexor†January 15, 2009. By Lucy Regina, SA : Pam was told by both her family doctor and her obstetrician that the antidepressant she was taking, namely effexor, was safe for her to continue taking through her pregnancy. But within hours of her son being born, he had been admitted to the natal intensive care unit, suffering from seizures and breathing difficulties. “My son had a smooth delivery but within 5 hours of being born he began to have agitation seizures and trouble breathing,†Pam said. “I was told he was showing withdrawal symptoms. He was put into neo natal intensive care for 10 days. He was suffering from tremors and having difficulty getting enough oxygen. They had him on different stabilizing medications and oxygen and continued to monitor him, and he had another seizure 5 days later. He came home 10 days later. Shortly after we brought our son home we noticed early symptoms of cerebral palsy – he was not able to raise his head, and there were other tell-tale signs. A year later he was actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He’s now three-and-a- half and he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t hold a crayon to draw, or speak properly. The only high risk factor I had was being on the effexor.†Pam was taking half the regular daily maintenance dose of effexor (also called venlafaxine) during her pregnancy. “I was told the risks were minimal - that the baby may have short term effects like tremors and withdrawal symptoms,†Pam said. “Since his birth, I’ve done a lot of reading and it seems that seizures do occur, although it’s rare. But I was never told that.†SSRI Birth Defects Pam was pregnant and saw a specialist in 2004, and gave birth in April 2005. But it wasn’t until December 2005 that the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants during pregnancy. Most recently, a study published in the November 2008 issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported a 3 times greater risk for heart defects in babies born to mothers taking either Prozac (fluoxetine) or Paxil. While the potential for infant heart defects are the primary cause of concern with SSRI use during pregnancy, they are not the only potential birth defect. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who took SSRI antidepressants in their third trimester delivered babies who were 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), or developing a lung disorder, than babies not exposed to SSRIs. And there are also reports of abdominal birth defects, cranial birth defects, club foot, neural tube defects, and Anal Atresia, a congenital malformation of the anus. “I’m sure that effexor is something pregnant ladies should not be on unless it’s really, really necessary,†Pam said. “I’m kind of angry that I wasn’t warned that the risks were in fact higher than I was led to believe: I would have stopped using the antidepressant. I really think more women need to know about this. I don’t know how many women may be affected – but even the woman in the hospital bed next to me, when I had my son, was on an antidepressant.†Sincerely,Amy Philo214-705-0169 home817-793-8028 cell Sign the petition against The MOTHERS Act! www.uniteforlife.org"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Luther King, Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mothers Act Promotes Pregnancy as Cottage Industry Written by Pringle Monday, 09 February 2009 http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/15/1/The MOTHERS Act - Trolling For Mental Patients at a Maternity Ward Near You Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/431459297.html http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/13/9/Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/14/9/RECENT UNITE BLOG ENTRIESYou may want to read the rest of these articles directly from the blog site due to the formatting in email getting messed up. http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/Recent Posts Dirul Update The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Failure To Warn February 22, 2009 Dirul Update Enne Currie finally found out the whereabouts of her son when someone in court blurted it out! A copy of the Declaration she filed with the court can be downloaded from the Box.net file sharing widget on this site. It is called Declaration One. 0 Comments Filed under Enne Currie, legal kidnapping Tags: Conservatorship, Dirul February 22, 2009 The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey Postpartum Depression Law—An Opportunity to Join Forces G. Zampardi, Ph.D. and countless others The New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Screening Law can be considered a fortunate mistake. The word “mistake†might be considered negative and offensive or insensitive but it is purposely chosen in order to unite it with another expression: “The only true mistakes are the ones we do not learn from.†The New Jersey PPD Law is so markedly defective and inadequate that it can awaken awareness and recognition of very basic, fundamental issues about codes of ethics, legal issues, particularly confidentiality, privacy, patient protection, and full informed consent. It is almost as if an ethics professor had given his class a group assignment to write a law that seems initially to be ostensibly appealing but violates every major legal and ethical precept. Freud, among others, gained enormous insights into normality and normal development by studying pathology and the breakdown of processes and systems. The ethics professor hopes that students, in attempting to compose the worst possible law, will appreciate law and order by studying violations of law and by studying disorder. A fortunate element in this situation is a renewed opportunity to unite various forces to rectify serious errors in the New Jersey PPD Law. What are at stake are not only the rights and lives of citizens but also the long-range legal/ethical consequences upon the professions of medicine, of psychology, and of all other mental health professions. There is a threat of erosion, corrosion, and corruption of our basic ethical principles and, ultimately, of the services provided to all potential clients. The upcoming national Mothers Act (a virtual replica of the New Jersey PPD Law), if enacted, can be likened to an epidemic and plague of all the undesirable, destructive features of the New Jersey PPD Law. Let us learn from the New Jersey PPD Law mistakes and not repeat them and magnify them in the national Mothers Act. Even if the Mothers Act is defeated, there exist serious, ongoing defects in the New Jersey PPD Law which must be addressed and rectified. Both the New Jersey PPD Law and the Mothers Act contain the following legal/ethical violations: 1) Failure to provide full informed consent (i.e., consent should be express, written, voluntary, informed). 2) Failure to provide adequate privacy and protection of client communications. 3) Failure to adhere to legal/ethical principles with resultant erosion of the quality of client services (e.g., federal mandates and ethical requirements for proper informed consent; full information about risks and benefits of the PPD screening process; need to provide an explicit option to decline services; need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services). There is a prayer entitled “Don’t Quit.†A line in this prayer is: “Success is failure turned inside out.†Let us turn this New Jersey mistake, this New Jersey failure, into a success. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act Tags: Dr. Zampardi, mothers act, New Jersey PPD Law February 22, 2009 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 by Pringle http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/Psychiatric-Drugging-One.htmlFebruary 19, 2009. Washington, DC: Last September, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights filed what is sure to become a landmark case against the State of Alaska aimed at stopping the over-prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children covered by public health care programs in that state. Child Drugs “The massive over-drugging of America’s youth is an unfolding national horror,†says attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the Law Project. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop Alaska from authorizing or paying for psychotropic drugs prescribed to children in foster care or children covered by Medicaid “without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs.†Specifically, the complaint is asking for a court order prohibiting the State from giving or paying for these drugs unless and until: (i) evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted, (ii) rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks, (iii) the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed, and (iv) close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place. “The corrupt influence of the pharmaceutical industry in illegally promoting much of this drugging has been well established,†Mr Gottstein says, “yet the state continues to inflict great harm on the children it has taken away from their families by giving them these drugs.†“It is absurd to think all these children have a mental illness,†he adds. “They are being drugged because they are upset and bothering people…because decisions to administer medication to children are not made by the children themselves, the administration of psychotropic drugs is involuntary.†Under the Alaska Constitution, he says, involuntary administration of such drugs infringes upon fundamental rights and the state must have a compelling state interest in doing so. They must be in the best interest of the children and there must be no less intrusive alternatives, the lawsuit notes. Governor Palin is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because she is ultimately responsible for the protection of children as Governor of Alaska. “I doubt anyone on the Governor’s staff has even let her know about the problem despite my trying to bring it to her attention ever since she took office,†Mr Gottstein notes. In fact, as far back as March 14, 2007, he emailed Governor Palin about children in custody in other states dying from the administration of psychotropic drugs, and stated: “The massive over-drugging of America’s children and youth is a titanic health catastrophe caused by the government’s failure to protect its most precious citizens, who rely on the adults in their lives to shield them from harm, not inflict it upon them. Perhaps the worst of all is the State inflicting this harm on children and youth it has taken from their homes “for their own good.†Mr Gottstein concluded by asking her to, “Please correct this situation.†On February 4, 2008, he wrote to Governor Palin again, in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, and sent copies to the Attorney General and others, conveying scientific evidence regarding the harm being done by the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children, and stated in part: “Children and youth are virtually always forced to take these drugs because, with rare exception, it is not their choice. PsychRights believes the children and youth, themselves, have the legal right to not be subject to such harmful treatment at the hands of the State of Alaska. “We are therefore evaluating what legal remedies might be available to them. However, instead of going down that route, it would be my great preference to be able to work together to solve this problem. It is for this reason that I am reaching out to you again on this issue.†“Fewer than ten percent of psychotropic drugs are FDA-approved for any psychiatric use in children and youth,†the lawsuit alleges. In the February 2009 New York Review, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr Marcia Angell, wrote: “Although it is illegal to promote drugs for use in children if the FDA has not approved them for that use, the law is frequently circumvented by disguising marketing as education or research. Eli Lilly recently agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle civil and criminal charges of marketing the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the FDA (known as “off-label†uses). Zyprexa, which has serious side effects, is one of the drugs frequently used off-label to treat children diagnosed with bipolar disorder.†She went on to state: “Unlike migraines or shyness, hypertension or high cholesterol can be defined by an objective measurement-a blood pressure or cholesterol level. One can dispute the threshold chosen as abnormal, but the measurement is easily verifiable. The fact that psychiatric conditions are not objectively verifiable underscores the necessity for both diagnosis and treatment to be as impartial as possible. That is why conflicts of interest are more serious in this field than in most others.†Mr Gottstein’s complaint lays out the evidence of harm to children caused by psychiatric drugs as documented by a program titled, “Critical Risk Rx, A Critical Curriculum on Psychotropic Medications,†designed by a team led by Dr Cohen, a Professor at Florida International University. The purpose of the “Critical Think Rx†program is to promote critical thinking skills about psychiatric medication issues related to the authorization of the administration of psychotropic drugs to young patients. The program was developed under a grant from the Attorneys General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program through the multi-state settlement with Pfizer of consumer fraud claims regarding the off-label promotion of Neurontin, one of the anti-seizure drugs marketed as a mood stabilizer. Critical Think Rx is funded at the Florida International University, and is the only project targeting non-medically trained professionals in child welfare and mental health. All investigators and consultants involved in the program have agreed to forego pharmaceutical industry funding for the duration of the project in order to maintain complete independence. The “best practices†recommended in the lawsuit were assembled by the Critical Think team and have been proven effective, Mr Gottstein advises. Part 2 Next week: The Major Turning Point: the Death of Riley Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. This report was written as part of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Roundup series and sponsored by the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm. 0 Comments Filed under child endangerment, drugging children Tags: Pringle February 10, 2009 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Congress: You Keep Your Bill, We’l… - Customized by amyphilo t-shirts made by zazzleView more People Health Cultures T-Shirts All proceeds from the sale of this shirt will go to fund the giant black hole that is the UNITE budget related to fighting The MOTHERS Act. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act February 10, 2009 Failure To Warn http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/failure-to-warn-glaxo-paxil-pregnancies/ 0 Comments Filed under Uncategorized February 9, 2009 SSRI birth Defects: Why Weren’t Warnings Issued Sooner? http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11869/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-12.html February 6, 2009. By Lucy Valley Home, AK: When (not her real name) gave birth to her now 5-year old son, he had a lung and heart deformity. had taken the anti depressant Zoloft, albeit briefly, during her pregnancy, and given all she’s subsequently read, now wonders if her son’s birth defects are SSRI-related birth defects. When ’s son was born, he wasn’t breathing. The medical staff had to resuscitate him and place him in an incubator. He was then diagnosed with pectus excavatum. “It’s a lung and heart ‘deformity’ I guess you would call it,†said. “It’s supposed to be hereditary but no one in our family has this. My son also has breathing problems, and some type of brain damage which had to be in uterus and caused oral and verbal apraxia.†Apraxia is an impairment of the nerves or nervous system that affects a person’s ability to plan, execute and sequence motor movements. Verbal apraxia affects the programming of the articulators and rapid sequences of muscle movements for speech sounds. Oral apraxia involves nonspeech movements e.g., blowing, puckering, licking food from the lips – those kinds of things. “My son didn’t talk until much later than is considered normal,†said . “When he was 2 he just mumbled. And there were other things like he couldn’t put his tongue in his cheek, for example. He went to speech therapy for 2 years; that helped.†So far, has yet to receive any kind of diagnosis for her son, beyond those given when he was born, making treatment difficult. “He’s been tested for Autism, and the results were negative, but he does have behavioural problems, like anxiety and disruptive behaviour,†she said. “They think he has sensory processing disorder - but they haven’t given him a diagnosis of that. At one point they thought he had ADHD, and wanted to give him drugs for that but I refused.†Not surprisingly, has been doing a lot of reading, prompted in part by a need to try and understand what’s happening to her son, and in part by an ad she saw on television some time ago, describing SSRI birth defects. “I saw a TV commercial and it got me thinking. I never thought that Zoloft may have played a role in his health problems, because my doctor said it was okay to take it,†said.†I’ve read a lot, and I try to help my son. I love him, and I will do what I can for him. I wonder what the outcome would have been if I hadn’t taken Zoloft. As a parent, I want to know why this has happened – what caused it – because it would provide some kind of closure.†SSRIs–also known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors–are a class of antidepressant. Until about 2005 there were no real warnings of the possibility of birth defects connected with the use of these drugs during pregnancy. All that changed, however, in 2005, when the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy. SSRI Birth Defects ’s son was born in 2004, before any of the public warnings were issued, together with the studies showing the link between birth defects and SSRI use in pregnancy. To say that the situation and her son are in is frustrating would be an understatement. Had known in advance of the possible consequences, she would not have taken an SSRI during her pregnancy. Worse, is not the only mother with questions. There are many women with similar stories to tell. Chief among the many questions they would like answered is why weren’t the warnings issued sooner? 2 Comments Filed under Baum Hedlund, MGH, Stokes, PPD, Paxil in pregnancy, Pregnancy, antidepressants, birth defects, child endangerment, lawsuits, mothers act January 28, 2009 MOTHERS Act Information Check out this blog containing extremely relevant information on The MOTHERS Act! http://mothersact.wordpress.com/ First watch the short video at the top of the blog. If you click it twice, you will be taken to YouTube where you can rate it, comment on it, post it on your website, help get the word out, etc. Then read the information on this bill, and send a quick email to your elected officials (Congressman and Senator) using the TAKE ACTION links. The points are simple: The Mothers Act is a bill which will increase mental health screening of pregnant women and new mothers, despite the fact that the widely accepted treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is antidepressant drugs — documented by the U.S. FDA to cause worsening depression, mania, psychosis, suicidal and homicidal ideation and birth defects. There is no language in the bill that would assure mothers are given non-drug options or accurate information about the subjectivity of the diagnoses (a checklist of questions) or the documented risks of psychiatric drugs. This violates informed consent and puts new mothers and their infants at risk. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act January 28, 2009 Doctor Tells Pregnant Mother Effexor is Safe For Pregnancy, Baby Born With Birth Defects http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11773/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11.html?ref=newsletter_bca_paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11 SSRI Birth Defects†The Only High Risk Factor I had Was Being on Effexor†January 15, 2009. By Lucy Regina, SA : Pam was told by both her family doctor and her obstetrician that the antidepressant she was taking, namely effexor, was safe for her to continue taking through her pregnancy. But within hours of her son being born, he had been admitted to the natal intensive care unit, suffering from seizures and breathing difficulties. “My son had a smooth delivery but within 5 hours of being born he began to have agitation seizures and trouble breathing,†Pam said. “I was told he was showing withdrawal symptoms. He was put into neo natal intensive care for 10 days. He was suffering from tremors and having difficulty getting enough oxygen. They had him on different stabilizing medications and oxygen and continued to monitor him, and he had another seizure 5 days later. He came home 10 days later. Shortly after we brought our son home we noticed early symptoms of cerebral palsy – he was not able to raise his head, and there were other tell-tale signs. A year later he was actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He’s now three-and-a- half and he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t hold a crayon to draw, or speak properly. The only high risk factor I had was being on the effexor.†Pam was taking half the regular daily maintenance dose of effexor (also called venlafaxine) during her pregnancy. “I was told the risks were minimal - that the baby may have short term effects like tremors and withdrawal symptoms,†Pam said. “Since his birth, I’ve done a lot of reading and it seems that seizures do occur, although it’s rare. But I was never told that.†SSRI Birth Defects Pam was pregnant and saw a specialist in 2004, and gave birth in April 2005. But it wasn’t until December 2005 that the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants during pregnancy. Most recently, a study published in the November 2008 issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported a 3 times greater risk for heart defects in babies born to mothers taking either Prozac (fluoxetine) or Paxil. While the potential for infant heart defects are the primary cause of concern with SSRI use during pregnancy, they are not the only potential birth defect. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who took SSRI antidepressants in their third trimester delivered babies who were 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), or developing a lung disorder, than babies not exposed to SSRIs. And there are also reports of abdominal birth defects, cranial birth defects, club foot, neural tube defects, and Anal Atresia, a congenital malformation of the anus. “I’m sure that effexor is something pregnant ladies should not be on unless it’s really, really necessary,†Pam said. “I’m kind of angry that I wasn’t warned that the risks were in fact higher than I was led to believe: I would have stopped using the antidepressant. I really think more women need to know about this. I don’t know how many women may be affected – but even the woman in the hospital bed next to me, when I had my son, was on an antidepressant.†Sincerely,Amy Philo214-705-0169 home817-793-8028 cell Sign the petition against The MOTHERS Act! www.uniteforlife.org"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Luther King, Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mothers Act Promotes Pregnancy as Cottage Industry Written by Pringle Monday, 09 February 2009 http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/15/1/The MOTHERS Act - Trolling For Mental Patients at a Maternity Ward Near You Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/431459297.html http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/13/9/Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/14/9/RECENT UNITE BLOG ENTRIESYou may want to read the rest of these articles directly from the blog site due to the formatting in email getting messed up. http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/Recent Posts Dirul Update The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Failure To Warn February 22, 2009 Dirul Update Enne Currie finally found out the whereabouts of her son when someone in court blurted it out! A copy of the Declaration she filed with the court can be downloaded from the Box.net file sharing widget on this site. It is called Declaration One. 0 Comments Filed under Enne Currie, legal kidnapping Tags: Conservatorship, Dirul February 22, 2009 The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey Postpartum Depression Law—An Opportunity to Join Forces G. Zampardi, Ph.D. and countless others The New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Screening Law can be considered a fortunate mistake. The word “mistake†might be considered negative and offensive or insensitive but it is purposely chosen in order to unite it with another expression: “The only true mistakes are the ones we do not learn from.†The New Jersey PPD Law is so markedly defective and inadequate that it can awaken awareness and recognition of very basic, fundamental issues about codes of ethics, legal issues, particularly confidentiality, privacy, patient protection, and full informed consent. It is almost as if an ethics professor had given his class a group assignment to write a law that seems initially to be ostensibly appealing but violates every major legal and ethical precept. Freud, among others, gained enormous insights into normality and normal development by studying pathology and the breakdown of processes and systems. The ethics professor hopes that students, in attempting to compose the worst possible law, will appreciate law and order by studying violations of law and by studying disorder. A fortunate element in this situation is a renewed opportunity to unite various forces to rectify serious errors in the New Jersey PPD Law. What are at stake are not only the rights and lives of citizens but also the long-range legal/ethical consequences upon the professions of medicine, of psychology, and of all other mental health professions. There is a threat of erosion, corrosion, and corruption of our basic ethical principles and, ultimately, of the services provided to all potential clients. The upcoming national Mothers Act (a virtual replica of the New Jersey PPD Law), if enacted, can be likened to an epidemic and plague of all the undesirable, destructive features of the New Jersey PPD Law. Let us learn from the New Jersey PPD Law mistakes and not repeat them and magnify them in the national Mothers Act. Even if the Mothers Act is defeated, there exist serious, ongoing defects in the New Jersey PPD Law which must be addressed and rectified. Both the New Jersey PPD Law and the Mothers Act contain the following legal/ethical violations: 1) Failure to provide full informed consent (i.e., consent should be express, written, voluntary, informed). 2) Failure to provide adequate privacy and protection of client communications. 3) Failure to adhere to legal/ethical principles with resultant erosion of the quality of client services (e.g., federal mandates and ethical requirements for proper informed consent; full information about risks and benefits of the PPD screening process; need to provide an explicit option to decline services; need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services). There is a prayer entitled “Don’t Quit.†A line in this prayer is: “Success is failure turned inside out.†Let us turn this New Jersey mistake, this New Jersey failure, into a success. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act Tags: Dr. Zampardi, mothers act, New Jersey PPD Law February 22, 2009 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 by Pringle http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/Psychiatric-Drugging-One.htmlFebruary 19, 2009. Washington, DC: Last September, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights filed what is sure to become a landmark case against the State of Alaska aimed at stopping the over-prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children covered by public health care programs in that state. Child Drugs “The massive over-drugging of America’s youth is an unfolding national horror,†says attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the Law Project. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop Alaska from authorizing or paying for psychotropic drugs prescribed to children in foster care or children covered by Medicaid “without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs.†Specifically, the complaint is asking for a court order prohibiting the State from giving or paying for these drugs unless and until: (i) evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted, (ii) rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks, (iii) the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed, and (iv) close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place. “The corrupt influence of the pharmaceutical industry in illegally promoting much of this drugging has been well established,†Mr Gottstein says, “yet the state continues to inflict great harm on the children it has taken away from their families by giving them these drugs.†“It is absurd to think all these children have a mental illness,†he adds. “They are being drugged because they are upset and bothering people…because decisions to administer medication to children are not made by the children themselves, the administration of psychotropic drugs is involuntary.†Under the Alaska Constitution, he says, involuntary administration of such drugs infringes upon fundamental rights and the state must have a compelling state interest in doing so. They must be in the best interest of the children and there must be no less intrusive alternatives, the lawsuit notes. Governor Palin is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because she is ultimately responsible for the protection of children as Governor of Alaska. “I doubt anyone on the Governor’s staff has even let her know about the problem despite my trying to bring it to her attention ever since she took office,†Mr Gottstein notes. In fact, as far back as March 14, 2007, he emailed Governor Palin about children in custody in other states dying from the administration of psychotropic drugs, and stated: “The massive over-drugging of America’s children and youth is a titanic health catastrophe caused by the government’s failure to protect its most precious citizens, who rely on the adults in their lives to shield them from harm, not inflict it upon them. Perhaps the worst of all is the State inflicting this harm on children and youth it has taken from their homes “for their own good.†Mr Gottstein concluded by asking her to, “Please correct this situation.†On February 4, 2008, he wrote to Governor Palin again, in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, and sent copies to the Attorney General and others, conveying scientific evidence regarding the harm being done by the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children, and stated in part: “Children and youth are virtually always forced to take these drugs because, with rare exception, it is not their choice. PsychRights believes the children and youth, themselves, have the legal right to not be subject to such harmful treatment at the hands of the State of Alaska. “We are therefore evaluating what legal remedies might be available to them. However, instead of going down that route, it would be my great preference to be able to work together to solve this problem. It is for this reason that I am reaching out to you again on this issue.†“Fewer than ten percent of psychotropic drugs are FDA-approved for any psychiatric use in children and youth,†the lawsuit alleges. In the February 2009 New York Review, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr Marcia Angell, wrote: “Although it is illegal to promote drugs for use in children if the FDA has not approved them for that use, the law is frequently circumvented by disguising marketing as education or research. Eli Lilly recently agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle civil and criminal charges of marketing the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the FDA (known as “off-label†uses). Zyprexa, which has serious side effects, is one of the drugs frequently used off-label to treat children diagnosed with bipolar disorder.†She went on to state: “Unlike migraines or shyness, hypertension or high cholesterol can be defined by an objective measurement-a blood pressure or cholesterol level. One can dispute the threshold chosen as abnormal, but the measurement is easily verifiable. The fact that psychiatric conditions are not objectively verifiable underscores the necessity for both diagnosis and treatment to be as impartial as possible. That is why conflicts of interest are more serious in this field than in most others.†Mr Gottstein’s complaint lays out the evidence of harm to children caused by psychiatric drugs as documented by a program titled, “Critical Risk Rx, A Critical Curriculum on Psychotropic Medications,†designed by a team led by Dr Cohen, a Professor at Florida International University. The purpose of the “Critical Think Rx†program is to promote critical thinking skills about psychiatric medication issues related to the authorization of the administration of psychotropic drugs to young patients. The program was developed under a grant from the Attorneys General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program through the multi-state settlement with Pfizer of consumer fraud claims regarding the off-label promotion of Neurontin, one of the anti-seizure drugs marketed as a mood stabilizer. Critical Think Rx is funded at the Florida International University, and is the only project targeting non-medically trained professionals in child welfare and mental health. All investigators and consultants involved in the program have agreed to forego pharmaceutical industry funding for the duration of the project in order to maintain complete independence. The “best practices†recommended in the lawsuit were assembled by the Critical Think team and have been proven effective, Mr Gottstein advises. Part 2 Next week: The Major Turning Point: the Death of Riley Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. This report was written as part of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Roundup series and sponsored by the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm. 0 Comments Filed under child endangerment, drugging children Tags: Pringle February 10, 2009 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Congress: You Keep Your Bill, We’l… - Customized by amyphilo t-shirts made by zazzleView more People Health Cultures T-Shirts All proceeds from the sale of this shirt will go to fund the giant black hole that is the UNITE budget related to fighting The MOTHERS Act. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act February 10, 2009 Failure To Warn http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/failure-to-warn-glaxo-paxil-pregnancies/ 0 Comments Filed under Uncategorized February 9, 2009 SSRI birth Defects: Why Weren’t Warnings Issued Sooner? http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11869/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-12.html February 6, 2009. By Lucy Valley Home, AK: When (not her real name) gave birth to her now 5-year old son, he had a lung and heart deformity. had taken the anti depressant Zoloft, albeit briefly, during her pregnancy, and given all she’s subsequently read, now wonders if her son’s birth defects are SSRI-related birth defects. When ’s son was born, he wasn’t breathing. The medical staff had to resuscitate him and place him in an incubator. He was then diagnosed with pectus excavatum. “It’s a lung and heart ‘deformity’ I guess you would call it,†said. “It’s supposed to be hereditary but no one in our family has this. My son also has breathing problems, and some type of brain damage which had to be in uterus and caused oral and verbal apraxia.†Apraxia is an impairment of the nerves or nervous system that affects a person’s ability to plan, execute and sequence motor movements. Verbal apraxia affects the programming of the articulators and rapid sequences of muscle movements for speech sounds. Oral apraxia involves nonspeech movements e.g., blowing, puckering, licking food from the lips – those kinds of things. “My son didn’t talk until much later than is considered normal,†said . “When he was 2 he just mumbled. And there were other things like he couldn’t put his tongue in his cheek, for example. He went to speech therapy for 2 years; that helped.†So far, has yet to receive any kind of diagnosis for her son, beyond those given when he was born, making treatment difficult. “He’s been tested for Autism, and the results were negative, but he does have behavioural problems, like anxiety and disruptive behaviour,†she said. “They think he has sensory processing disorder - but they haven’t given him a diagnosis of that. At one point they thought he had ADHD, and wanted to give him drugs for that but I refused.†Not surprisingly, has been doing a lot of reading, prompted in part by a need to try and understand what’s happening to her son, and in part by an ad she saw on television some time ago, describing SSRI birth defects. “I saw a TV commercial and it got me thinking. I never thought that Zoloft may have played a role in his health problems, because my doctor said it was okay to take it,†said.†I’ve read a lot, and I try to help my son. I love him, and I will do what I can for him. I wonder what the outcome would have been if I hadn’t taken Zoloft. As a parent, I want to know why this has happened – what caused it – because it would provide some kind of closure.†SSRIs–also known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors–are a class of antidepressant. Until about 2005 there were no real warnings of the possibility of birth defects connected with the use of these drugs during pregnancy. All that changed, however, in 2005, when the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy. SSRI Birth Defects ’s son was born in 2004, before any of the public warnings were issued, together with the studies showing the link between birth defects and SSRI use in pregnancy. To say that the situation and her son are in is frustrating would be an understatement. Had known in advance of the possible consequences, she would not have taken an SSRI during her pregnancy. Worse, is not the only mother with questions. There are many women with similar stories to tell. Chief among the many questions they would like answered is why weren’t the warnings issued sooner? 2 Comments Filed under Baum Hedlund, MGH, Stokes, PPD, Paxil in pregnancy, Pregnancy, antidepressants, birth defects, child endangerment, lawsuits, mothers act January 28, 2009 MOTHERS Act Information Check out this blog containing extremely relevant information on The MOTHERS Act! http://mothersact.wordpress.com/ First watch the short video at the top of the blog. If you click it twice, you will be taken to YouTube where you can rate it, comment on it, post it on your website, help get the word out, etc. Then read the information on this bill, and send a quick email to your elected officials (Congressman and Senator) using the TAKE ACTION links. The points are simple: The Mothers Act is a bill which will increase mental health screening of pregnant women and new mothers, despite the fact that the widely accepted treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is antidepressant drugs — documented by the U.S. FDA to cause worsening depression, mania, psychosis, suicidal and homicidal ideation and birth defects. There is no language in the bill that would assure mothers are given non-drug options or accurate information about the subjectivity of the diagnoses (a checklist of questions) or the documented risks of psychiatric drugs. This violates informed consent and puts new mothers and their infants at risk. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act January 28, 2009 Doctor Tells Pregnant Mother Effexor is Safe For Pregnancy, Baby Born With Birth Defects http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11773/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11.html?ref=newsletter_bca_paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11 SSRI Birth Defects†The Only High Risk Factor I had Was Being on Effexor†January 15, 2009. By Lucy Regina, SA : Pam was told by both her family doctor and her obstetrician that the antidepressant she was taking, namely effexor, was safe for her to continue taking through her pregnancy. But within hours of her son being born, he had been admitted to the natal intensive care unit, suffering from seizures and breathing difficulties. “My son had a smooth delivery but within 5 hours of being born he began to have agitation seizures and trouble breathing,†Pam said. “I was told he was showing withdrawal symptoms. He was put into neo natal intensive care for 10 days. He was suffering from tremors and having difficulty getting enough oxygen. They had him on different stabilizing medications and oxygen and continued to monitor him, and he had another seizure 5 days later. He came home 10 days later. Shortly after we brought our son home we noticed early symptoms of cerebral palsy – he was not able to raise his head, and there were other tell-tale signs. A year later he was actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He’s now three-and-a- half and he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t hold a crayon to draw, or speak properly. The only high risk factor I had was being on the effexor.†Pam was taking half the regular daily maintenance dose of effexor (also called venlafaxine) during her pregnancy. “I was told the risks were minimal - that the baby may have short term effects like tremors and withdrawal symptoms,†Pam said. “Since his birth, I’ve done a lot of reading and it seems that seizures do occur, although it’s rare. But I was never told that.†SSRI Birth Defects Pam was pregnant and saw a specialist in 2004, and gave birth in April 2005. But it wasn’t until December 2005 that the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants during pregnancy. Most recently, a study published in the November 2008 issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported a 3 times greater risk for heart defects in babies born to mothers taking either Prozac (fluoxetine) or Paxil. While the potential for infant heart defects are the primary cause of concern with SSRI use during pregnancy, they are not the only potential birth defect. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who took SSRI antidepressants in their third trimester delivered babies who were 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), or developing a lung disorder, than babies not exposed to SSRIs. And there are also reports of abdominal birth defects, cranial birth defects, club foot, neural tube defects, and Anal Atresia, a congenital malformation of the anus. “I’m sure that effexor is something pregnant ladies should not be on unless it’s really, really necessary,†Pam said. “I’m kind of angry that I wasn’t warned that the risks were in fact higher than I was led to believe: I would have stopped using the antidepressant. I really think more women need to know about this. I don’t know how many women may be affected – but even the woman in the hospital bed next to me, when I had my son, was on an antidepressant.†Sincerely,Amy Philo214-705-0169 home817-793-8028 cell Sign the petition against The MOTHERS Act! www.uniteforlife.org"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Luther King, Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Mothers Act Promotes Pregnancy as Cottage Industry Written by Pringle Monday, 09 February 2009 http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/15/1/The MOTHERS Act - Trolling For Mental Patients at a Maternity Ward Near You Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/431459297.html http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/13/9/Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son Written by Amy Philo Wednesday, 28 January 2009 Prayer for Relief: California Mother Seeks Whereabouts of Mental Patient Son http://www.uniteforlife.org/content/view/14/9/RECENT UNITE BLOG ENTRIESYou may want to read the rest of these articles directly from the blog site due to the formatting in email getting messed up. http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/Recent Posts Dirul Update The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Failure To Warn February 22, 2009 Dirul Update Enne Currie finally found out the whereabouts of her son when someone in court blurted it out! A copy of the Declaration she filed with the court can be downloaded from the Box.net file sharing widget on this site. It is called Declaration One. 0 Comments Filed under Enne Currie, legal kidnapping Tags: Conservatorship, Dirul February 22, 2009 The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey PPD Law The Fortunate Mistake: The New Jersey Postpartum Depression Law—An Opportunity to Join Forces G. Zampardi, Ph.D. and countless others The New Jersey Postpartum Depression (PPD) Screening Law can be considered a fortunate mistake. The word “mistake†might be considered negative and offensive or insensitive but it is purposely chosen in order to unite it with another expression: “The only true mistakes are the ones we do not learn from.†The New Jersey PPD Law is so markedly defective and inadequate that it can awaken awareness and recognition of very basic, fundamental issues about codes of ethics, legal issues, particularly confidentiality, privacy, patient protection, and full informed consent. It is almost as if an ethics professor had given his class a group assignment to write a law that seems initially to be ostensibly appealing but violates every major legal and ethical precept. Freud, among others, gained enormous insights into normality and normal development by studying pathology and the breakdown of processes and systems. The ethics professor hopes that students, in attempting to compose the worst possible law, will appreciate law and order by studying violations of law and by studying disorder. A fortunate element in this situation is a renewed opportunity to unite various forces to rectify serious errors in the New Jersey PPD Law. What are at stake are not only the rights and lives of citizens but also the long-range legal/ethical consequences upon the professions of medicine, of psychology, and of all other mental health professions. There is a threat of erosion, corrosion, and corruption of our basic ethical principles and, ultimately, of the services provided to all potential clients. The upcoming national Mothers Act (a virtual replica of the New Jersey PPD Law), if enacted, can be likened to an epidemic and plague of all the undesirable, destructive features of the New Jersey PPD Law. Let us learn from the New Jersey PPD Law mistakes and not repeat them and magnify them in the national Mothers Act. Even if the Mothers Act is defeated, there exist serious, ongoing defects in the New Jersey PPD Law which must be addressed and rectified. Both the New Jersey PPD Law and the Mothers Act contain the following legal/ethical violations: 1) Failure to provide full informed consent (i.e., consent should be express, written, voluntary, informed). 2) Failure to provide adequate privacy and protection of client communications. 3) Failure to adhere to legal/ethical principles with resultant erosion of the quality of client services (e.g., federal mandates and ethical requirements for proper informed consent; full information about risks and benefits of the PPD screening process; need to provide an explicit option to decline services; need to provide information on alternatives to prevailing services). There is a prayer entitled “Don’t Quit.†A line in this prayer is: “Success is failure turned inside out.†Let us turn this New Jersey mistake, this New Jersey failure, into a success. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act Tags: Dr. Zampardi, mothers act, New Jersey PPD Law February 22, 2009 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 Psychiatric Drugging of Children Intolerable–Part 1 by Pringle http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/features/Psychiatric-Drugging-One.htmlFebruary 19, 2009. Washington, DC: Last September, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights filed what is sure to become a landmark case against the State of Alaska aimed at stopping the over-prescribing of psychiatric drugs to children covered by public health care programs in that state. Child Drugs “The massive over-drugging of America’s youth is an unfolding national horror,†says attorney Jim Gottstein, the leader of the Law Project. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop Alaska from authorizing or paying for psychotropic drugs prescribed to children in foster care or children covered by Medicaid “without safeguards being in place to make sure proper decision making occurs.†Specifically, the complaint is asking for a court order prohibiting the State from giving or paying for these drugs unless and until: (i) evidence-based psychosocial interventions have been exhausted, (ii) rationally anticipated benefits of psychotropic drug treatment outweigh the risks, (iii) the person or entity authorizing administration of the drug(s) is fully informed, and (iv) close monitoring of, and appropriate means of responding to, treatment emergent effects are in place. “The corrupt influence of the pharmaceutical industry in illegally promoting much of this drugging has been well established,†Mr Gottstein says, “yet the state continues to inflict great harm on the children it has taken away from their families by giving them these drugs.†“It is absurd to think all these children have a mental illness,†he adds. “They are being drugged because they are upset and bothering people…because decisions to administer medication to children are not made by the children themselves, the administration of psychotropic drugs is involuntary.†Under the Alaska Constitution, he says, involuntary administration of such drugs infringes upon fundamental rights and the state must have a compelling state interest in doing so. They must be in the best interest of the children and there must be no less intrusive alternatives, the lawsuit notes. Governor Palin is named as a defendant in the lawsuit because she is ultimately responsible for the protection of children as Governor of Alaska. “I doubt anyone on the Governor’s staff has even let her know about the problem despite my trying to bring it to her attention ever since she took office,†Mr Gottstein notes. In fact, as far back as March 14, 2007, he emailed Governor Palin about children in custody in other states dying from the administration of psychotropic drugs, and stated: “The massive over-drugging of America’s children and youth is a titanic health catastrophe caused by the government’s failure to protect its most precious citizens, who rely on the adults in their lives to shield them from harm, not inflict it upon them. Perhaps the worst of all is the State inflicting this harm on children and youth it has taken from their homes “for their own good.†Mr Gottstein concluded by asking her to, “Please correct this situation.†On February 4, 2008, he wrote to Governor Palin again, in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit, and sent copies to the Attorney General and others, conveying scientific evidence regarding the harm being done by the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children, and stated in part: “Children and youth are virtually always forced to take these drugs because, with rare exception, it is not their choice. PsychRights believes the children and youth, themselves, have the legal right to not be subject to such harmful treatment at the hands of the State of Alaska. “We are therefore evaluating what legal remedies might be available to them. However, instead of going down that route, it would be my great preference to be able to work together to solve this problem. It is for this reason that I am reaching out to you again on this issue.†“Fewer than ten percent of psychotropic drugs are FDA-approved for any psychiatric use in children and youth,†the lawsuit alleges. In the February 2009 New York Review, former New England Journal of Medicine editor and Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr Marcia Angell, wrote: “Although it is illegal to promote drugs for use in children if the FDA has not approved them for that use, the law is frequently circumvented by disguising marketing as education or research. Eli Lilly recently agreed to pay $1.4 billion to settle civil and criminal charges of marketing the anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the FDA (known as “off-label†uses). Zyprexa, which has serious side effects, is one of the drugs frequently used off-label to treat children diagnosed with bipolar disorder.†She went on to state: “Unlike migraines or shyness, hypertension or high cholesterol can be defined by an objective measurement-a blood pressure or cholesterol level. One can dispute the threshold chosen as abnormal, but the measurement is easily verifiable. The fact that psychiatric conditions are not objectively verifiable underscores the necessity for both diagnosis and treatment to be as impartial as possible. That is why conflicts of interest are more serious in this field than in most others.†Mr Gottstein’s complaint lays out the evidence of harm to children caused by psychiatric drugs as documented by a program titled, “Critical Risk Rx, A Critical Curriculum on Psychotropic Medications,†designed by a team led by Dr Cohen, a Professor at Florida International University. The purpose of the “Critical Think Rx†program is to promote critical thinking skills about psychiatric medication issues related to the authorization of the administration of psychotropic drugs to young patients. The program was developed under a grant from the Attorneys General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program through the multi-state settlement with Pfizer of consumer fraud claims regarding the off-label promotion of Neurontin, one of the anti-seizure drugs marketed as a mood stabilizer. Critical Think Rx is funded at the Florida International University, and is the only project targeting non-medically trained professionals in child welfare and mental health. All investigators and consultants involved in the program have agreed to forego pharmaceutical industry funding for the duration of the project in order to maintain complete independence. The “best practices†recommended in the lawsuit were assembled by the Critical Think team and have been proven effective, Mr Gottstein advises. Part 2 Next week: The Major Turning Point: the Death of Riley Pringle is a columnist for Scoop Independent News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America. This report was written as part of the Pharmaceutical Litigation Roundup series and sponsored by the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman law firm. 0 Comments Filed under child endangerment, drugging children Tags: Pringle February 10, 2009 Congress: You Keep Your Bill T-shirt Congress: You Keep Your Bill, We’l… - Customized by amyphilo t-shirts made by zazzleView more People Health Cultures T-Shirts All proceeds from the sale of this shirt will go to fund the giant black hole that is the UNITE budget related to fighting The MOTHERS Act. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act February 10, 2009 Failure To Warn http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/06/failure-to-warn-glaxo-paxil-pregnancies/ 0 Comments Filed under Uncategorized February 9, 2009 SSRI birth Defects: Why Weren’t Warnings Issued Sooner? http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11869/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-12.html February 6, 2009. By Lucy Valley Home, AK: When (not her real name) gave birth to her now 5-year old son, he had a lung and heart deformity. had taken the anti depressant Zoloft, albeit briefly, during her pregnancy, and given all she’s subsequently read, now wonders if her son’s birth defects are SSRI-related birth defects. When ’s son was born, he wasn’t breathing. The medical staff had to resuscitate him and place him in an incubator. He was then diagnosed with pectus excavatum. “It’s a lung and heart ‘deformity’ I guess you would call it,†said. “It’s supposed to be hereditary but no one in our family has this. My son also has breathing problems, and some type of brain damage which had to be in uterus and caused oral and verbal apraxia.†Apraxia is an impairment of the nerves or nervous system that affects a person’s ability to plan, execute and sequence motor movements. Verbal apraxia affects the programming of the articulators and rapid sequences of muscle movements for speech sounds. Oral apraxia involves nonspeech movements e.g., blowing, puckering, licking food from the lips – those kinds of things. “My son didn’t talk until much later than is considered normal,†said . “When he was 2 he just mumbled. And there were other things like he couldn’t put his tongue in his cheek, for example. He went to speech therapy for 2 years; that helped.†So far, has yet to receive any kind of diagnosis for her son, beyond those given when he was born, making treatment difficult. “He’s been tested for Autism, and the results were negative, but he does have behavioural problems, like anxiety and disruptive behaviour,†she said. “They think he has sensory processing disorder - but they haven’t given him a diagnosis of that. At one point they thought he had ADHD, and wanted to give him drugs for that but I refused.†Not surprisingly, has been doing a lot of reading, prompted in part by a need to try and understand what’s happening to her son, and in part by an ad she saw on television some time ago, describing SSRI birth defects. “I saw a TV commercial and it got me thinking. I never thought that Zoloft may have played a role in his health problems, because my doctor said it was okay to take it,†said.†I’ve read a lot, and I try to help my son. I love him, and I will do what I can for him. I wonder what the outcome would have been if I hadn’t taken Zoloft. As a parent, I want to know why this has happened – what caused it – because it would provide some kind of closure.†SSRIs–also known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors–are a class of antidepressant. Until about 2005 there were no real warnings of the possibility of birth defects connected with the use of these drugs during pregnancy. All that changed, however, in 2005, when the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking SSRI antidepressants during pregnancy. SSRI Birth Defects ’s son was born in 2004, before any of the public warnings were issued, together with the studies showing the link between birth defects and SSRI use in pregnancy. To say that the situation and her son are in is frustrating would be an understatement. Had known in advance of the possible consequences, she would not have taken an SSRI during her pregnancy. Worse, is not the only mother with questions. There are many women with similar stories to tell. Chief among the many questions they would like answered is why weren’t the warnings issued sooner? 2 Comments Filed under Baum Hedlund, MGH, Stokes, PPD, Paxil in pregnancy, Pregnancy, antidepressants, birth defects, child endangerment, lawsuits, mothers act January 28, 2009 MOTHERS Act Information Check out this blog containing extremely relevant information on The MOTHERS Act! http://mothersact.wordpress.com/ First watch the short video at the top of the blog. If you click it twice, you will be taken to YouTube where you can rate it, comment on it, post it on your website, help get the word out, etc. Then read the information on this bill, and send a quick email to your elected officials (Congressman and Senator) using the TAKE ACTION links. The points are simple: The Mothers Act is a bill which will increase mental health screening of pregnant women and new mothers, despite the fact that the widely accepted treatment for women diagnosed with postpartum depression is antidepressant drugs — documented by the U.S. FDA to cause worsening depression, mania, psychosis, suicidal and homicidal ideation and birth defects. There is no language in the bill that would assure mothers are given non-drug options or accurate information about the subjectivity of the diagnoses (a checklist of questions) or the documented risks of psychiatric drugs. This violates informed consent and puts new mothers and their infants at risk. 0 Comments Filed under mothers act January 28, 2009 Doctor Tells Pregnant Mother Effexor is Safe For Pregnancy, Baby Born With Birth Defects http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/11773/paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11.html?ref=newsletter_bca_paxil-defects-birth-side-effects-11 SSRI Birth Defects†The Only High Risk Factor I had Was Being on Effexor†January 15, 2009. By Lucy Regina, SA : Pam was told by both her family doctor and her obstetrician that the antidepressant she was taking, namely effexor, was safe for her to continue taking through her pregnancy. But within hours of her son being born, he had been admitted to the natal intensive care unit, suffering from seizures and breathing difficulties. “My son had a smooth delivery but within 5 hours of being born he began to have agitation seizures and trouble breathing,†Pam said. “I was told he was showing withdrawal symptoms. He was put into neo natal intensive care for 10 days. He was suffering from tremors and having difficulty getting enough oxygen. They had him on different stabilizing medications and oxygen and continued to monitor him, and he had another seizure 5 days later. He came home 10 days later. Shortly after we brought our son home we noticed early symptoms of cerebral palsy – he was not able to raise his head, and there were other tell-tale signs. A year later he was actually diagnosed with cerebral palsy. He’s now three-and-a- half and he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t hold a crayon to draw, or speak properly. The only high risk factor I had was being on the effexor.†Pam was taking half the regular daily maintenance dose of effexor (also called venlafaxine) during her pregnancy. “I was told the risks were minimal - that the baby may have short term effects like tremors and withdrawal symptoms,†Pam said. “Since his birth, I’ve done a lot of reading and it seems that seizures do occur, although it’s rare. But I was never told that.†SSRI Birth Defects Pam was pregnant and saw a specialist in 2004, and gave birth in April 2005. But it wasn’t until December 2005 that the first public warnings emerged from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) about the potential for serious heart defects in babies born to women taking selective serotonin uptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants during pregnancy. Most recently, a study published in the November 2008 issue of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported a 3 times greater risk for heart defects in babies born to mothers taking either Prozac (fluoxetine) or Paxil. While the potential for infant heart defects are the primary cause of concern with SSRI use during pregnancy, they are not the only potential birth defect. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who took SSRI antidepressants in their third trimester delivered babies who were 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), or developing a lung disorder, than babies not exposed to SSRIs. And there are also reports of abdominal birth defects, cranial birth defects, club foot, neural tube defects, and Anal Atresia, a congenital malformation of the anus. “I’m sure that effexor is something pregnant ladies should not be on unless it’s really, really necessary,†Pam said. “I’m kind of angry that I wasn’t warned that the risks were in fact higher than I was led to believe: I would have stopped using the antidepressant. I really think more women need to know about this. I don’t know how many women may be affected – but even the woman in the hospital bed next to me, when I had my son, was on an antidepressant.†Sincerely,Amy Philo214-705-0169 home817-793-8028 cell Sign the petition against The MOTHERS Act! www.uniteforlife.org"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." - Luther King, Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.