Skip to main content

Tag: Informed Consent

Sandy Hook Promise at Odds with Constitution and Other Parents

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Sandy Hook Promise founder, Rob Cox, recently asked the question, “Did the law, and our Constitution, make this massacre easier to carry out?” His organization advocates for massive mental health screening for all children, according to the Burlington Free Press article, “Sandy Hook lessons yet to be learned, two years later“.

This is the same “mental health screening” that clearly failed Adam Lanza at Danbury Hospital, where he was screened by the Department of Psychiatry for harm to himself and others and released prior to the mass murder in Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut.

According to the Burlington Free Press Interview, “In asking these wrenching questions, Cox was essentially framing the mission of the organization he would help to forge during the coming weeks in Newtown, Sandy Hook Promise.”

This has prompted AbleChild cofounder, Patricia Weathers, to ask some pointed questions to the founder, Mr. Cox, who has garnered the attention and support of the mainstream media, politicians, and financial supporters.

“This stunning “anti-constitutional” mission of the Sandy Hook Promise should have us all alarmed,” says Patricia Weathers.

The question, Mr. Cox, why are you not asking for the medical and mental health records like AbleChild, or finding it a little “strange” to say the least that there are just too many discrepancies in the reporting?

Why does Sandy Hook Promise blame the Constitution and yet does not want access to all the data involved in the “treatment” that failed this young adult?

Cox seems to buy into the State’s “Lanza Narrative”  that he didn’t get mental health treatment or needed drugs instead of looking to facts within the police investigative report.  Is this why Cox hasn’t asked for the records to be opened or held the State of Connecticut and the Sandy Hook Commission accountable to the public?

My son was placed on psychiatric drugs with dangerous side effects and had a violent adverse event.  Being a mother who testified before the FDA and Congress with the hundreds of parents that have had children who have died as a result of antidepressants linked to violence and suicide, I know that parents who want answers DON’T STOP until all information is revealed and all questions are answered. These parents, despite their loss, fought through the bureaucratic rhetoric to get to the truth and based on this truth changed appropriate laws and worked to get a Black Box Warning on the drugs and TV Ads so that other children would not share the same fate. They were not pawns for one political group pushing an agenda. They saw through this and the pharmaceutical conflict of interest within the government.

Perhaps this is why the Sandy Hook Promise doesn’t have all the Sandy Hook victims’ families that lost a child on that horrifying day supporting their efforts.  A fact Cox admits in the article.

An organization like Sandy Hook Promise, that blame the Constitution and uses innocent victims to spread misinformation without having all the facts is reprehensible.  This organization, by pushing forced mental health treatment and gun control without public hearings is endangering our children and violating parental rights.  This flies against the very foundation of this Country.

Informed Consent Needs to Grow in Brooklyn

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Recently, it has come to AbleChild’s attention from a New York grandmother, who filed a report with AbleChild in September that a public school district in Brooklyn, NY does not feel that U.S. Law -Title 20 1232h, Protection of Pupil Rights (Hatch) Amendment applies to them. AbleChild has long endorsed this law and its complimentary supported amendment letter (Hatch) because both directly support informed consent rights regarding psychological testing in public schools throughout this nation.

Title 20 U.S. Code 1232h- Protection of Pupil Rights gives the power to the parent to refuse any survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning mental or psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, or their beliefs. This Right to Refuse applies to all subjective psychological evaluations, surveys and questionnaires that are used to diagnose our children with a mental health disorder.

“Both Title 20 and Hatch give parents not only the right to make critical decisions regarding their children within education, but provides for safeguards to ensure that a parent can raise their children in the way they believe is appropriate, label and drug free”, said Patricia Weathers, AbleChild Cofounder and mother of two boys. Weathers went further by stating that, “Schools should not be allowed to make decisions regarding mental health services, psychiatric diagnoses or psychiatric drug “treatment” for children. Schools should stick to education. Parents always have the right to refuse any and all of these and should not be told they are “non compliant”. Parents have the right to choose as part of informed consent.”

“This grandmother reached out to AbleChild because her request to her grandson’s school for an educational evaluation to determine if he was in need of special services was denied.  She was told that she was “non-compliant” when she refused the psychological portion of the evaluation on her grandson.  She tenaciously advocated for her grandson’s educational needs by printing out both Title 20 and The Hatch Amendment and submitting them to her grandson’s school. As per her account of the matter, “The school seemed unaware of the law and uninterested in learning about my right to refuse the psychological portion of the evaluation. I had to insist that both the law and the amendment letter that I filled out were submitted into my grandson’s file because the school psychologist didn’t think that I had the right to put anything into his school file.”

AbleChild questions whether the school district is actually ignorant of the law or is banking on an uneducated parent/caregiver who doesn’t question authority or know his or her rights. Either way, this incident demonstrates that much more awareness needs to be given at both the educational and parental level on informed consent regarding mental health and education.

For more information on AbleChild, to report your own experiences with these issues, support a parent’s right to choose and refuse, or join this organization, please visit www.ablechild.org.

Acknowledgement of Governor Rowland on Informed Consent

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Ablechild acknowledges the recent conviction of former Gov. John G. Rowland, but equally must acknowledge his courageous actions in 2001 when he championed and signed legislation (Public Act 01-124), An Act concerning recommendations for and refusal of the use of psychotropic drugs by children and utilization review determinations related to mental and nervous conditions, effective on October 1, 2001, the Governor signed the bill on June 28, 2001.

The Connecticut public act was the first of its kind throughout the country and spurred a 2003 federal bill, The Child Medication Safety Act 2003, to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school, and for other purposes.

Governor Rowland also was responsible for the 2003 administrative action that prohibited the prescribing of the antidepressant, Paxil, for a six-month review period, for use with foster care children. This followed the October, 2003, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issuance of a suicide warning on Paxil and other antidepressants causing suicidal ideation in children. Since then the FDA has placed “black box” warnings (the most serious drug warning) on all antidepressants due to the increased risk of suicidality in children.

Most importantly, Governor Rowland instructed Theodore S. Sergi, the Commissioner of Education to issue a letter to Ablechild on May 21, 2001 that states, “the State Department of education does not endorse any checklist nor recommend treatment of services for ADHD.”

Prior to Governor Rowland’s signature on this landmark legislation, workshops were held in New Haven, Connecticut, sponsored by Yale Child Study Center among other Yale divisions and Pfizer, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth-Lederle, entitled, “Workshop on Strategies for Drug Development and Trials in Children” May 19-21, 1997.

The Conference Workshop Summary, simply put:, “by overlooking pediatric markets and disease, the pharmaceutical industry is disregarding an important long-term source of revenue, missing opportunities for therapeutic cures and for creating long-term product loyalty. Most important however is that the therapeutic dividend of the Human Genome Project, which has fueled much of the pharmaceutical biotechnology boon since 1993, will not be realized in pediatric patients.”

“The sessions will be devoted to the new FDA regulations concerning drug testing in children. In addition, the workshop will address two issues traditionally seen as the major roadblocks to developing drugs for children identification of pediatric markets and therapeutic trials.”

Despite former Governor Rowland’s recent conviction, Ablechild cannot help but acknowledge his courage and commitment at a time when the well-being of so many of the state’s children hung in the balance and still does. We thank Governor Rowland for protecting informed consent when it comes to what the sponsors of the workshop term “roadblocks”- in more basic terms – “labeling and drugging” our children.

We wish him well through his journey in the Connecticut justice system; Ablechild has been there in defense of parents and children trapped within the powerful psychiatric and drug industry’s well-financed grip in all three branches of our government.

 

Yes, Senator Murphy, it is “Disgraceful”

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

Ablechild finds it interesting and disturbing that Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) felt compelled to chastise the handling of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 crash site, as reported by The Hill “Twitter Room” “all you need to know about the character of Ukrainian rebels is the disgraceful way they are handling crash site, bodies.”

Clearly there is much to be desired about what has, so far, transpired regarding the response to that horrific crash, but one also must wonder why Senator Murphy has not displayed the same concern about the handling of the investigation much closer to home – the mass killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

First, as many are aware, Ablechild believed that Adam Lanza’s toxicology, medical and mental health records were key to understanding the motive for the attack and sued the state for those records. Claiming that Ablechild was not a stake holder in the case, the request was denied. Despite hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on increased mental health services in Connecticut, there is no information publicly available that supports Adam Lanza’s lack of mental health services.

Given that Sen. Murphy believes that the investigation in the Ukraine is “disgraceful” because of the handling of the investigation, one might also find the state’s stonewalling on Lanza’s mental health records is equally “disgraceful.”

Additionally, since the release of the State Police investigation in December of 2013, information has been made public that raises interesting questions about the shooting incident. For example, how is it possible that the State Police report would list two different Garmin Nuvi models (200 or 550) being found either in Lanza’s Honda Civic parked in front of the school or found in Lanza’s bedroom closet? This is important information for which no clarification has been provided.

Furthermore, what about the envelope taken from the Lanza home which was addressed “for the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School?” Given that the DNA found on the envelope and affixed stamp is neither Adam or Nancy Lanza’s, but does match that of a convicted felon in New York, wouldn’t Senator Murphy be interested in this oddity?

More importantly, is it wrong to wonder why Sen. Murphy, or any other Connecticut legislator, aren’t interested in what was found in the envelope of a convicted felon that was addressed to “the young students of Sandy Hook Elementary School or how, for that matter, the DNA of a convicted felon in New York even ended up on this envelope?

More odd, why isn’t Sen. Murphy interested in the fact that this particular piece of physical evidence made it into the State Police report but was not mentioned by State’s Attorney, Stephen Sedensky? And, as a side note, is it possible that Sen. Murphy doesn’t find it even remotely odd that not one of the bullets reportedly fired from the Bushmaster Rifle match the barrel of that weapon?

Of course, Ablechild appreciates Sen. Murphy’s concern for the tragic situation in the Ukraine, but we can’t help but wonder why there are no “tweets” from the Senator about a flawed investigation in his own backyard.

 

Connecticut State in Mental Health Denial

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking, Sandy Hook.

The recent July 9th Ct. Mirror article, Children Stuck in Crisis, accomplishes the intended purpose of deceptively convincing the people of Connecticut that there’s a severe mental health services crisis in the state.

On the surface, the article’s author, Arielle Becker, provides a compelling scenario of the state’s youth failing to get the needed mental health care and forced to rely on emergency room services. The problem with the presentation is Becker’s failure to address a key piece of information in the reported mental-health-crisis-puzzle – the increased psychiatric drugging of Connecticut’s children.

The entire article focuses on the specific case of Peter, a 6 foot, 220 pound 13-year old, who apparently has been in the care of mental health professionals for many years of his young life. Peter is described as having “psychiatric issues and a developmental disorder that places him on the autism spectrum.”

Becker does not provide any details about Peter’s psychiatric history, including information such as when he first was diagnosed with a psychiatric mental disorder, the number of specific mental disorders he has been labeled with and, most importantly, which mind-altering psychiatric drugs he has been prescribed during his young life.

These are not unimportant questions, especially when one considers the known adverse reactions associated with most psychiatric drugs. For example, antidepressants carry the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Black box” warnings for increased risk of suicidality. Other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants include aggressive and abnormal behavior, hallucinations, mania and psychosis.

Other psychiatric chemical “treatments” include anti-anxiety and antipsychotic drugs, which also carry such adverse reactions as hostility, confusion, hallucinations, agitation, restlessness and tremors.

Becker, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this mental health services crisis explains that “some mental health care providers link it to an increase in the number of children with mental health needs…others see a greater willingness to recognize problems because awareness of mental illness has grown.”

What obviously is missing from the list of reasons for the “crisis” is the increased prescribing of dangerous psychiatric drugs. In fact, the only mention of any psychiatric drug “treatment” comes at the end of the article when Becker finally reveals that Peter was seen by psychiatrists at the Institute of Living and “his medication was changed.” That’s it. Pathetically, that is the extent of the conversation about psychiatric drugging.

But the lack of important information doesn’t end there. Becker also does not provide any information about all the previous failed attempts to “fix” Connecticut’s broken mental health system. For example, in 2008, lawmakers attempted mental health fixes through the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health – “Connecticut’s Mental Health and Transformation State Incentive Grant.”

This $13 million dollar “fix,” as explained by Project Director, Pat Rehmer, as “Transformation efforts and activities are broad based and far reaching as they have been implemented across multiple state agencies offering the state’s citizens an array of accessible services and supports that are culturally responsive, person and family-centered.”

Certainly sounds like this “fix” should have helped Peter but, alas, it is another costly, failed mental health Band aid. Not surprisingly, this “transformation” also did not address the ever-increasing use of psychiatric drugs for “treatment” of Connecticut’s children.

Is it any wonder, then, that the “crisis” not only exists, but is worsening? The people of Connecticut still are not getting accurate information, and it is these omissions that render this article irrelevant in the debate for increased mental health services.

Ignoring important information does not benefit those who are suffering, nor does it help those in a position to make the necessary, and deadly serious, changes that are needed.

 

 

Did Psychiatric Drugs Play a Role in Plaskon’s Violent Behavior?

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Violence.

The alleged “Prom day” killer, Christopher Plaskon, is a snap shot of the future result of Connecticut’s increased mental health services.  The 17 year-olds defense apparently will be that his “mental health” caused his murderous actions – not the dangerous psychiatric drugs he obviously has been taking for some time.

Early reports of Plaskon’s behavior included information that he had been taking drugs to treat the alleged ADHD.  What psychiatric drugs? When was the teenager first diagnosed? Had he been further diagnosed with additional “mental illnesses?”  Which diagnoses?  How many psychiatric drugs had the teenager been prescribed during his young life?  Had Plaskon been taking a “cocktail” of psychiatric drugs?  All of these questions are important to understanding Plaskon’s violent actions.   Here’s why.

The teenager is mentally ill. He suffers from one or more psychiatric disorders.   This is the mental health community’s mantra and “ace in the hole.”   Despite there being zero scientific or medical data to support even one psychiatric “disorder” being an abnormality of the brain (objective, confirmable abnormality), the mental health community’s psychiatric labeling goes unchecked, opening the flood gates for prescribing dangerous psychiatric drug “treatments.”

According to recent news reports, Plaskon is being “treated” with two mind-altering psychiatric drugs – an anti-anxiety drug and also an anti-psychotic.  How long has Plaskon been taking these drugs? Had the teenager been prescribed the mind-altering drugs prior to his murderous actions?

For the sake of argument, let’s assumed Plaskon was being “treated” with both the anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs prior to the stabbing.  Had he, like the Santa Barbara shooter, been prescribed the anti-anxiety drug, Xanax?  What are some of the known serious adverse reactions associated with anti-anxiety drugs like Xanaz?  Confusion, hallucinations, unusual thoughts or behavior, thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself, aggression, hostility and decreased inhibitions are some of the more serious adverse reactions associated with this class of drug.

What about the adverse reactions associated with anti-psychotic drugs?  Like so many of the psychiatric drug “treatments,” known adverse reactions associated with antipsychotic drugs include increased anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts, to name a few.

Given the known adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs, and withdrawal from them, it seems fair to suggest that it’s possible that Plaskon’s violent behavior may have been a result of one or more of the adverse reactions associated with these psychiatric drugs.

Will Plaskon’s psychiatric drug use even be made part of the trial? If history is any indication, probably not. The mental health community, which cannot prove even one of its alleged mental disorders is an abnormality of the brain and,  which, the state of Connecticut has warmly embraced will effectively and without scrutiny argue the worsening of Plaskon’s mental disorders.

As Ablechild’s mission is one of informed consent, we cannot help but wonder if Plaskon’s parents were made aware of the complete subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosing or, for that matter, advised of the possible known adverse reactions associated with any psychiatric drugs their son may have been prescribed.  This information can be easily verified by the informed consent document parents should sign when the diagnosis is made, like the one linked.

Because of the state’s ill-informed rush to institute costly, increased mental health services in Connecticut, and being fully aware that mental health “treatment” largely consists of prescribing psychiatric drugs, Ablechild believes that the state has an obligation to insure that parents and families are fully informed on both of these issues.

It’s one thing to tell consumers that the mental health increases are being instituted  to help those who are “suffering.” But without providing all the information about psychiatric diagnosing and the risks associated with psychiatric drugs, the state is nothing more than a shill for the mental health community and pharmaceutical industry.

 

 

 

Regardless of What NAMI Believes Inaccurate Information Harms Mentally Ill

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Lawmaking.

The author of the op-ed of May 6, 2014, “Mental health treatment is not perfect, but it can be life-saving,” still is disseminating false information about many things, including the cause of mental illnesses.

First, to be clear, in none of these op-ed exchanges has Ablechild ever suggested that anyone should not be entitled to seek treatment.   Quite the contrary.  But Ablechild believes that accurate information about the cause of mental illness is absolutely necessary for those who are suffering.  To continue to disseminate misinformation about the cause of mental illness is a disservice to those who are desperately looking to the medical and scientific community for help.

Again, specifically, the author states, “…there is ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease.”  Okay. Which mental illness has been proven to be a biological disease? Please, for the public’s sake, provide the verifiable, indisputable, scientific data for the mental illness that has a biological cause.

The author makes an inaccurate, blanket statement about “ample evidence,” yet fails to provide the supporting data for even one alleged mental disorder, leaving the reader to accept the inaccurate information on the author’s belief, and then places the burden of proof on the reader to do the confirming research.

This information is blatantly wrong. If there is “ample evidence from many research facilities that conduct brain research that mental illness is a biological disease,” then let’s have it. This should be easily documentable and, one would think, the author would be eager to provide such demonstrative, groundbreaking, data.

In fact, the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH, provides no definitive information about the cause of any mental disorder:

Depression: “Most likely, depression is caused by a combination of genetic, biological, environmental and psychological factors.”

Bipolar Disorder: “Scientists are studying the possible causes of bipolar disorder. Most scientists agree that there is no single cause.”

ADHD: “Scientists are not sure what causes ADHD.”

Schizophrenia: “Experts think schizophrenia is caused by several factors.”

Despite the author’s obvious lack of information about what the nation’s top mental health experts have to say about the cause of any mental illness, the author further attempts to support her inaccurate statement by using the State of Connecticut’s mental health parity standard stating the “state law acknowledged many years ago when it instituted parity for mental health treatment that mental illness is biological in nature.”

Like NAMI, the Connecticut legislature may believe that “mental illness is biological in nature,” but there is no scientific/medical evidence to prove this. Ablechild challenges the state to provide the conclusive and scientifically verifiable evidence that mental illness – any mental illness – has a biological cause.

In fact, if NAMI is testifying before the state about this inaccurate information – that mental illness is a biological disease – then it is no wonder that the state would pass mental health parity.  But inaccurate information is inaccurate information regardless of who utters it.

As to the author’s assertion that NAMI is not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, there is ample evidence to the contrary. An October 2009 article in the New York Times titled “Drug Makers Are Advocacy Group’s Biggest Donors,” reports that “a majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers…”

In fact, the New York Times obtained information from U.S. Senator Charles E. Grassley, which revealed that between 2006-2008 NAMI received $23 million from drug makers and the executive director of NAMI, Michael Fitzpatrick, said “for at least the years of 07, 08 and 09, the percentage of money from pharma has been higher than we have wanted it to be.”

Ablechild reiterates that there is no definitive scientific data to support that any mental disorder has a biological cause.  False statements, like these made by the author, must be addressed because the public, especially those suffering from emotional and behavioral problems, deserve the truth in order to make informed decisions.

In the meantime, Ablechild wants to thank the Connecticut Mirror for allowing this important debate on mental health, and we urge the public to support federal legislation, H.R.4518  which actually protects parents and families from psychiatric abuses.

 

Ablechild Warns of Clinical Trial “offers” to Low-Income Families

Written by Able Child on . Posted in Articles, Lawmaking.

PsychiatricDirectMarketClinicalTrails

Ablechild often is contacted by parents concerning a number of issues surrounding psychiatric diagnosing and psychiatric drugging of children, but the recent information forwarded to us is troubling.

A Connecticut mother, who receives state health benefits, was concerned about a recent letter she received from Acurian Health, a company that “specializes in matching people to clinical research studies,” and forwarded the correspondence to Ablechild.

The mother was concerned about the implications of offering money to low-income mothers willing to enroll their child in a pharmaceutical clinical trial. More than that, she had no idea how Acurian Health obtained her personal information in order to make the “offer.”

Ablechild was equally curious how Acurian obtained this mother’s information and contacted the Behavioral Health Partnership Oversight Council, inquiring whether the state was providing this information to third parties. Ablechild did not receive a reply.

The question is, of course, does Acurian Health have access to the state’s health data? Is it possible this mother unwittingly signed a waiver allowing her personal information to be shared?  The mother in question has no memory of providing authorization to release the data, but admitted that the waiver could have been in the “fine print.”

Nevertheless, Ablechild is providing this information to its members in an effort to make families aware of “offers” such as this from Acurian Health.  The “offer” is targeting children 7-17 years old who “have Depression or may be experiencing symptoms of Depression,” and the “offer” further explains qualified participants “may receive Depression medication approved for use in adults.”

The only antidepressant approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adolescents is Fluoxetine or Prozac.  All other antidepressants have not been approved for children and adolescents ages 8 and older.  The FDA conducted a study including 2,200 children treated with Serotonin Selective Reuptake Inhibitors, (SSRI) medications and 4 percent of those taking SSRI’s experienced suicidal thinking or behavior, including actual suicide attempts – twice the rate of those taking placebo, or sugar pills.

In response to this study, the FDA adopted “black box” warnings – the FDA’s most serious warnings – indicating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior.  However, there are many other known adverse reactions associated with antidepressants, including mania, psychosis and hallucinations to name a few.

Ablechild cannot help but wonder if these low-income families are being targeted and lured by the pathetic “$50 per visit” offer. We are alerting families to be aware of unknowingly providing authorization for release of personal information to third parties.  When applying for state health services, it is important to ask if personal information is shared with third parties and how you may opt out.

Ablechild, and the mother who provided this “offer,” is concerned that families going through tough financial times may be tempted to participate in clinical trials that admittedly will be using dangerous psychiatric drugs that are not approved for children and without informed consent.

When applying for state benefits, it’s important to know your rights and, specifically, to know if personal data will be provided to third parties.

 

 

Governor’s Newtown Panel Stymied by Lanza’s Missing Mental Health Records

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Sandy Hook.

Sandy Hook Advisory Committee Stymied by Lanza’s Missing
Mental Health Records

Say it isn’t so.  The Chairman of the Sandy Hook Advisory Committee, Scott Jackson, doesn’t have the medical/mental health records of Adam Lanza, which are necessary for his committee to make appropriate recommendations for changes to the State’s mental health system.

This is really old news to Ablechild.  Having spent nearly a year utilizing every legislative and legal avenue available to make public the toxicology, medical and mental health records of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, Ablechild was stymied by State officials at every step.

Yes, Ablechild is empathetic to the difficulties Jackson is having obtaining this important information, which is key to making – or not making – changes to the State’s mental health system.

Interestingly, Jackson has hired a law firm to comb through the thousands of pages released by the State Police. What law firm and at what cost to Connecticut taxpayers?  It only took Ablechild three days to review the redundant and heavily redacted documents within the State Police Report.  Nevertheless, Jackson apparently has read enough of the report to start asking questions.

According to Jackson, “one of the things that we really talked about quite a bit was that we need to understand the story of Adam Lanza and Nancy Lanza and we really don’t have it.” In particular, Jackson said “in order to understand how we got to where he was from a treatment standpoint, they’re going to need a little bit more.”

“A little bit more?”  With all due respect, the Committee needs more than a “little bit” of information.  Other than providing a few psychiatric diagnoses, and the mention of one psychiatric drug prescribed to Lanza, there are no specifics provided about the shooter’s mental health treatment.

In fact, it’s fair to say that more is known about the mental health records that were destroyed by Lanza’s primary psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Fox, than what mental health treatment Lanza received.  Worse still, the last five years of Lanza’s mental health services is nonexistent.

According to the data provided by both the State Attorney’s office and the State Police Report- literally thousands of pages – there is zero mention of any mental health services provided to Lanza after 2007. Why?

And, with what little information is provided, why are physician treatment “summaries” provided in the recently released State Police Report?  Wouldn’t the actual comments of those psychiatrists treating Lanza be of more help to the Committee than a detective’s summation?

Dr. Harold Schwartz, psychiatrist and member of the Committee, understands the importance of hearing directly from the “horse’s mouth.”  “It’s better,” said Schwartz, “than nothing to have these summaries, but these summaries are not by clinical people.”

Schwartz opines that it may be necessary to contact the shooter’s father, Peter Lanza, to obtain the necessary records.  Why?  Wouldn’t the investigative bodies already have requested and obtained these records?  If not, it seems odd that both investigations would conclude they were unable to find a motive for the attack without first having considered Lanza’s complete mental health treatment record.

Additionally, in May of 2013, Peter Lanza signed a PeterLanzaConsent PeterLanzaConsent form allowing the State Medical Examiner to make public his son’s toxicology report.  Why, then, has the full toxicology report been withheld?

Furthermore, it may serve the Advisory Committee members well to speak with Assistant Attorney General, Patrick B. Kwanashie, who explained during the Ablechild Freedom of Information hearing that the reason for withholding Lanza’s toxicology report was because it “would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Sounds like Kwanashie has the inside track on Lanza’s mental health records.  But if that avenue fails to produce results, given that it was his idea to set up the Advisory Committee, perhaps Governor Malloy could pull some strings with his own agencies.

The bottom line is that without reviewing Lanza’s complete mental health record, there is no way the Advisory Committee can, or should, make any decisions about instituting changes to the State’s mental health services.

 

Ablechild Supporters

Written by Sheila Matthews on . Posted in Lawmaking.

Dear Ablechild Supporters,

It has been an amazing year!  Your help has brought the mission of Informed Consent relating to psychiatric drugs to a new level.  In order to keep up the continued fight, we are in need of your generous donations.

We are one of the only organizations in the United States that has been on the front lines of this war against our basic parental rights.  One of the most fierce engagements we had was with the State of Connecticut over the disclosure of Adam Lanza’s mental health, special education, and toxicology report.  We appeared before the freedom of information commission and forced the State to admit the reason why they did not want to disclose the records.

Our website continues to receive increased traffic and the media often seeks us out for our opinion.  This upcoming legislative session in Connecticut and throughout the Country will be totally focused on mental health.  The multi-billion dollar mental health and drug industry will be setting the agenda, we cannot let this happen.  Their agenda has already been spelled out to massively screen ALL children within the public education system for mental illnesses.  As we know, there is no test.   It is totally subjective and will traffic children into an unmanageable whirlwind of drug use.  As we have witnessed time and again the deadly school shootings ending with the shooter’s suicide, we cannot stand by and allow this to happen.

Although the economy is in a deep recession, we cannot think of a better cause then to stop the violence these drugs are inducing into our society.  We urge you to support Ablechild and its continued mission of informed consent by making a year end contribution that is tax deductible.  Knowledge is power, share the information.

We wish you a healthy and happy New Year.

The Ablechild Team