What TeenScreen Doesn't Want You to Know

[Guest guest]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0606/S00217.htm

What TeenScreen Doesn't Want You to Know

Friday, 16 June 2006, 7:11 pm

Opinion: Guest Opinion

Is your child being " mentally screened " at school without your knowledge or

permission? TeenScreen, usurping parental rights.

What TeenScreen Doesn't Want You to Know about Parental Consent

By

Teen Screen, a program advertised as a " free " psychiatric " service " to prevent

suicide, has caused an uprising all across the US. Citing the dangers of

psychiatric drugs and important issues of parental rights, individuals and

determined groups have spoken out against TeenScreen as a harmful factor in the

attempts to care for the problems of children and teens.

TeenScreen's aim is to locate more children that can be identified as mentally

ill and routed into “mental health” treatment. Many of these would be " treated "

with psychiatric drugs, ignoring the fact that many of these very same drugs

carry FDA-mandated Black Box warning labels because they are known to cause

violence and suicide.

THE DANGER OF DRUGS

Internationally, more than 19 warnings have been issued on the dangers of

psychiatric drugs since October 2004. The U.S. F.D.A., the European Medicines

Agency Scientific Committee, the British Medical Journal, the National Center on

Addiction and Substance Abuse, Norwegian researchers, the Pediatric Advisory

Committee, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, etc. have all

contributed to the awareness campaign. Through scientific research, the

destructive nature of psychiatric drugs has been brought to light.

At least eight of the last 13 U.S. school shootings were committed by teens

taking prescribed psychiatric drugs known to cause violent and suicidal

behavior. A prime example is Columbine High School, where 18-year-old

and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold killed 13 and wounded 23 others. was

taking an antidepressant drug known to cause violent behavior. Klebold’s family

has never revealed whether he was also taking medication. Privacy laws prevent

that information from being disclosed without their permission.

ADVERTISEMENT

The adverse effects of the drugs are known. It's unfortunate that the warnings

had to come so late for many. Perhaps ' parents would have made

different decisions if they were given the full truth about the dangers of these

drugs.

HOW TEENSCREEN WORKS

The biggest threat that TeenScreen poses may not be the drugs at all. How does

it affect a young person to be told by an " authority " that he or she has a

permanent, incurable brain disorder? After a child takes the TeenScreen survey,

a mental health " professional " reviews his answers and speaks to the child. In

this conversation, the " professional " can make disturbing statements to the

child. He may tell the child, without any brain tests, that his brain is

abnormal, that he has a permanent and potentially disabling disease, that he is

" damaged goods " . The child will then be sent on his way with the new " knowledge "

that he is not a normal, healthy teenager as he thought in the morning but

rather that he has a " mental disorder " that can ruin his life. The child hears

this news alone, without parental involvement or knowledge. Often, the parents

do not even know that their child was taking a test.

In a lawsuit filed in September 2005, Chelsea of Indiana alleged that she

took the TeenScreen test and was told that she had two mental disorders,

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder. The lawsuit alleges

that the examination itself and the ensuing diagnosis caused both Chelsea and

her parents severe emotional harm. Chelsea's parents were not made aware of the

test in advance and gave no permission for their daughter to participate.

TEENSCREEN PLAYING THE NUMBERS GAME ON PARENTAL CONSENT

Some TeenScreen sites use " passive consent " , in which each and every parent is

assumed to have consented, unless they specifically state otherwise in writing.

This is done by sending a letter or printing a notice in a newsletter, informing

parents of the upcoming TeenScreen, giving very little information about it, and

providing a form for the parents to sign if they will not allow their child to

be screened. Of course there is never any certainty that the parents actually

see the letter or notice and it is also possible that the letter rejecting

TeenScreen may be lost in transit back to the school. McGuire,

TeenScreen’s Director, states: " Unless we hear from you that we can't screen

your child we assume we have your permission and we're gonna’ screen them. " For

any parent that did not see the notice and did not know that their child would

be participating in a TeenScreen test, this is clearly " no consent " , not

" Passive Consent " . When parents find out, many are outraged by the violation of

their rights.

TeenScreen's website states that all TeenScreen sites must obtain parental

permission before offering screening to youth. Yet, passive consent, in which

many parents will have no knowledge of the event and thus will not have given

permission, is acceptable to TeenScreen. Passive consent is a way to increase

the number of children that are screened. In response to the wave of protests

from parents and organized groups, TeenScreen has changed the wording on their

website several times to attempt to distance themselves from passive screening.

At the time of this writing, the website claims that TeenScreen " strongly

advises " the use of active parental consent but passive consent (which can mean

“no consent”) is still in use.

The actual number of passive versus active sites is difficult to determine.

Various percentages have been reported by TeenScreen, with numbers sometimes

swinging wildly from one day to the next. In September 2005, The British Medical

Journal published an article by freelance Journalist, Jeanne Lenzer, in which it

was stated that 15 to 20% of TeenScreen sites use passive consent. According to

Ms. Lenzer, Laurie Flynn, TeenScreen’s Executive Director, was asked to confirm

the information. As of Monday September 26th, Ms. Flynn did not object to the

number of 15-20%. Then on Tuesday September 27th, she wanted to change the

number to 4%, quite a shift for one day. TeenScreen’s own website has been

playing with the numbers as well. In September 2005, the website reported that

85% of sites used active consent, In October this was altered to 98.4%, then

later to 98.2%. The next update was January 2006, when the percentage was

removed altogether. MacGuire once reported that 25% of their sites use

passive screening.

Evidently it’s quite a secret about how many students are taken into the

TeenScreen program by way of passive consent. One thing that is known is that

passive screening increases the number of children screened dramatically. In an

email from a Florida school official, he stated that the use of passive

screening could increase their participation rate from 50% to 95%. The

Philadelphia Enquirer reported that in one school using active consent, only

4.2% of parents allowed their children to be screened.

With no reliable numbers available, one can only make guesses and calculations

as to how many children are screened every year without their parents being

informed. In a simple example, let's take 4 schools. One school (25%) uses

passive consent and the other three schools (75%) use active consent. If each

school has 1000 students, the single passive-consent school could screen as many

as 950 children. All three of the active-consent schools combined could screen

as few as 126 children (4.2%, as in the one school district reported by the

Philadelphia Enquirer). And of the 950 screened using only passive consent, not

one child will have a written consent from his or her parents.

THE FOUR LEVELS OF PARENTAL CONSENT

1. No consent

2. Passive consent

3. Active parental consent

4. Full informed consent

" No consent " is just what it sounds like, simply screening children with no

parental consent at all. Supposedly, no TeenScreen sites operate on a

“no-consent” basis but, in practice, many children are screened without the

parent providing consent or even knowing about the screening. Without the

parent's consent or prior knowledge, their children are asked introverting

questions such as: " Has there been a time when nothing was fun to you and you

just weren't interested in anything? " , " Have you often felt nervous when you've

had to do things in front of people? " or " Are you still thinking of killing

yourself? "

Then, still without parental knowledge, the child is sent to a " clinician " who

decides which label to use. It could be " Panic disorder " , " Active suicide

ideation " or " Social Phobia " , all of which are simply lists of behaviors voted

into existence as " mental disorders " by psychiatrists. The child is then told to

seek help from " mental health " workers. No minister, priest, rabbi, medical

doctor, nutritionist, allergist or any other alternative help is recommended to

the child.

And finally, at the complete whim of the " mental health " practitioner, the child

may be deemed a danger to himself and others and forcibly held in a psychiatric

institution for up to 72 hours for observation. The first time the parent hears

about the screening could be from a policeman calling to say that their

14-year-old is locked in the back seat, behind a metal grate and locked in by

unbreakable glass on the way to involuntary commitment in the psych ward. Then

of course the parent or insurance company will get the bill.

There is a law that is supposed to protect and help parents, the Protection of

Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). This federal law states that prior, written

parental consent must be obtained before a child can be given a survey, analysis

or evaluation. " Passive consent " is an illegal, deceptive method used by Teen

Screen to bypass the requirement for parental consent and increase the number of

children screened.

“Active consent” describes those schools and school districts that require a

written consent to be given prior to screening. This method may be preferable to

“no consent” or “passive consent” but is still sorely lacking when it comes to

protecting parental rights.

There are many troubles with TeenScreen’s “active consent”. One consideration is

the matter of whether or not the parent actually saw or signed the consent. With

TeenScreen sites offering free pizza coupons, movie tickets, or $50 mall gift

certificates for returning consent slips, how many teens have arrived at school

the day of the TeenScreen test without having the form signed and simply signed

it themselves?

Even more important is the matter of what information is given to the parents.

There are federal and state laws requiring “informed consent”, meaning that

before someone agrees to participate in any medical procedure or experiment,

they must be informed of and must understand the medical facts and the risks

involved.

“Full informed consent” for TeenScreen would be a consent given only after

having received and understood all the pertinent data involved.

This would include:

-The purpose of screening (TeenScreen sells their service as suicide prevention

but no study has even shown a reduction in suicide or proven even one prevented

suicide.)

-Who is performing the screening (The screening may be performed by employees or

agents of a for-profit “mental health” treatment facility but this may not

divulged to parents.)

-That the screening has an 84% rate of false-positives (meaning that as many as

84% of students can be falsely identified as “mentally ill”)

-The screening questions (TeenScreen will not reveal the questions to parents)

-The potentially bad effect of presenting suicide as something to be considered

-A full understanding of the basic foundation of psychiatry's " diagnoses " , since

there are no scientific tests that show whether a person has or does not have a

mental disorder

-The fact that Psychiatry's " Diagnostic Statistical Manual " has over 300

behaviors that have just been voted on, according to whim, not tests or real

facts

-The fact that the child may be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder with no

objective medical testing, a label which can remain with that child for the rest

of his life

-That some career paths may be closed to the child because of the diagnosis

and/or psychiatric treatment

-That the parents may lose their parental rights or even be criminally charged

with neglect if they refuse to accept the diagnosis and give the child

psychiatric treatment

-A full understanding of the dangers and effects of the drugs that may be given

to children for these " mental disorders " including deaths, violence and suicide

NO TeenScreen sites use full informed consent.

THE FOLLY OF TEEN " ASSENT "

According to the FAQ page on TeenScreen's web site, youth must provide written

“assent” to participate in the TeenScreen program.

However, as stated in the Rhoades family’s lawsuit in Indiana, a teenager has no

legal standing to make such a statement, “Any execution of the assent form by

Chelsea was not knowing, effective, or valid consent to the administration of

the TeenScreen test upon Chelsea because she did not have the legal capacity to

consent and she was not aware of the purpose of the assent, the nature of the

test to be given, or the purpose for which the test was being given.”

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Communicate.

Call your local school board or high school today. Find out if they have used or

are even considering TeenScreen. If they are, make a formal, written request for

records and find out if they are providing full informed consent in accordance

with the law. Demand that your rights be protected. Write letters to the school

and the school board, show up at meetings and speak up for parental rights,

inform and organize your friends to do the same. Demand full informed consent,

always. It is the only way to protect the rights of parents.

It is TeenScreen's responsibility to protect parental rights yet they are not

doing it. The government makes laws to protect the public from having their

rights trampled but so far laws have had little effect on TeenScreen's

operation. Only a concerted, grass-roots effort can restore and protect parental

rights. Your voice is needed. Now.

*************

Bio: is a 72-year-old grandmother living in New Hampshire. She

attained a BA in English Literature with a minor in History in 1954 from

Millsap’s College in , Mississippi and was involved in education for over

20 years.

Email: marycollins_16_2 @ rushpost.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made

available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights,

democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This

constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in

Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is

distributed without profit.