[cont]

The basic problem here I think is that the discipline of psychiatry is still in its infancy, and the technology available for pinpointing the precise brain activity associated with particular mental illnesses doesn’t yet exist. Further, given that our understanding of brain function is still relatively unsophisticated, the medications available to target particular areas of it are correspondingly so. But instead of giving up, and using techniques such as cynicism and pseudo-phenomenology to analyse this stuff, we should be supporting psychiatrists to keep working and debating. It was after all less than 100 years ago that we used to chain schizophrenia patients to the wall and leave them there for their whole lives. Advances in psychiatry have given us reasons to stop doing this… but it’s still only just begun to unravel the complexity of what it’s dealing with.

Uncertainty is an intrinsic part of the human condition… so get used to it!

Sam Jandwich,
Yes society has moved on from the ignorance based physical cruelties in the past. Nowadays we have ignorance based experts ruining peoples' lives psychologically. Are these experts really learning ? Isn't this industry just another bandwagon ? I know several mental health professionals who really are in dire need of help from sane people. One of them, a Doctor is so utterly ignorant he is actually a danger to sane people as he has been given power over sane people by some ignorant bureaucrats.
Let parents live their lives & let them discipline their children. In other words the experts should stay out of sane peoples' lives & we'll have a better society.
If these experts really want to do good & be beneficial to our society they should talk to our Law & Policy makers. After all, most stress & subsequent mental illness stems from the yoke of authority.

I'm certainly not in favour of medicating en masse, and it does appear to be growing phenomenon in the West.

However, if a child is formally assessed and found to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of autism, for example, then it is imperative that this is recognised and that the child receives extra assistance and understanding in a school setting. (often children with high-functioning autism or Aspergers are very close to neuro-typical, except when greatly stressed as is likely to occur in a rigid institutionalised setting) Many diagnoses are for that reason - also for the implementation of early intervention procedures. Institutionalised schooling isn't formulated for children who may present as developmentally delayed or who display as behaviourally, socially or sensorially challenged.
Without a formal assessment and diagnosis, these children are often left to sink in the system, as aides are usually only provided upon formal diagnosis.

I applaud this article. It takes courage to make a stand against the status quo. What is at stake here is the future well-being of our children, and whether they even can be kids. To start off life with a psychiatric label that will stick for life is unspeakable, unconscionable and frightening. I have just been attending a 3 day conference in Perth run by the Richmond Fellowship. It included much discussion about psychiatric diagnosis, the methods, the treatments and the results. Most of the speakers were psychiatrists including some of the biggest international names in modern psychiatry, or those who have survived psychiatric treatment and want it all to change.

When hundreds of delegates almost booed the idea of this screening, and even the psychiatrists said it is at best risky and at worst dangerous, it makes it clear that the idea is not science or evidence based. The comments made at the conference, on and off the stage, supported the skepticism in this article. Early diagnoses were discussed as unworkable, unreliable and unwanted. Proper physical health checks were promoted. Hearing, eyes, blood; these things were considered required. The delegates I saw in the auditorium were cheering for children to be well treated as normal kids, with care and love, and against any labeling, coercion or drugging. It would very reassuring to Anthony that so many people who work in and around the current psychiatric system are speaking out against this controversial proposal.

A good article about a deeply concerning topic. I am steadfastly against what amounts to state interference with child rearing. To accept psychological/psychiatric evaluation of our children(our future!) when there is no guaranteed success from these psychiatric "treatments". It shocks me!
But it shocks me into action. I'll be discussing this with my pollies & everyone else. And I'll be supporting those that can recognise a conniving marketing exercise when they see it.
I've seen many tough children in my time but will give you one example as to why this is all claptrap: a young male I knew, who was quite wild and irreverent, yet good natured, was always getting into trouble at school and on the streets. It was suggested to his parents that he be placed into a "special needs" school - one where most of the teenagers were on some kind of drug/medication - but the parents refused to take this path, persevering instead through some "tough times" knowing that a loving, caring positive forward motion would eventually win. And it did. Now, that young man is a very successful businessman who can competently deal with very tough customers; he is very self confident and secure as he has a broad base of unfiltered(raw) experience from which to draw. He is kind & considerate and does not need or take drugs/medications to "correct the imbalance". The parents are very proud and are dead against psychiatric/psychological intervention as they too have seen negative results from this type of interference. I've seen far too many examples from both sides of this story which support my view to say to the "authorities": KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR KIDS. LOVE, NOT LABELS. SUPPORT AND HELP RESTORE PARENTAL/FAMILY RIGHTS.
(as a final point, if you look at almost all the stellar personalities who have dazzled us - take Walt Disney for example - you will find many were "difficult" and many would undoubtedly be straight jacketed by these proposals. Lets continue to be dazzled, not dazed. HANDS OFF OUR KIDS! ...and "Let 'em grow, let 'em grow, let 'em grow!)

People who are short or fat or are not appealing to the eye are a drag on our Tourism sector.

The best way to improve tourist dollars & the profits of the 2% decent money earners in our society is to breed such scum out of society.

Marginalising them although a useful ongoing strategy is not sufficient.

The new ability to label less than perfect citizens "mentally ill" offers a seamless way to delete sub humans & improve our economic posture.

After all of OUR marginalisation these sub humans are genuinely ready for the funny farm anyway so what's the diff?

Many thanks to the author for bringing this vital topic up.

Zeich Heil!

Junior O'Farrelly
President
NSW Chamber of Tourism, Commerce, Business, Banking, Insurance, Lewdly Profitable Unsustainable Property Developments(the LPUPD) and Corporate Mergers & Casinos.