Fern5827
October 6th 03, 01:50 PM
Subject: Re: Anti-Med couple denied foster care application
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 10/3/2003 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >
Hi, Tracey and thank you first for STEPPING UP AND TRYING TO HELP CHILDREN.
I have never questioned the necessity for some FOSTER CARE.
And thanks to the usually good folk who take on this task.
However, The *Child Abuse Industry* has good bedfellows with the
*PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY.*
Can you imagine being a 5 yo child, ripped from your family's arms. Worse yet,
being placed in a GROUP HOME?
I can testify to the ANGST the teen suffered in being placed in A GROUP HOME,
where this sensitive, intelligent child questioned me and said, "Why can't I be
placed with FAMILY?"
CPS acts a STATE SANCTIONED ABUSER IN SUCH CASES.
Thanks for your testimony. Addtl facts to follow.
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com
Great site for folks in the individual states to find *New Members* and
Contacts.
Tracy related her story as a potential FP:
>Subject: Anti-Med couple denied foster care application
>From: (Tracy Sherwood)
>Date: 10/3/2003 3:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dear All,
>
>My husband and I applied to take in a Foster Child in our beautiful
>Leona Valley Home in 1999. Our combined incomes far exceeded the
>minimum and I was a professional tutor, able and willing to help a
>struggling foster child. We lived on an acre of land with gentle
>horses and a sweet yellow Lab that loves children. We also had my 14
>year old son who was also a tutor and had received his high school
>dimploma at age thirteen. My husband worked for Shell Oil and taught
>our visiting students to make and repair things in the barn. We both
>had clean records of any and every kind. I was told by the social
>worker who visited our home and filled out our application, that
>everything looked perfect except for one thing: She didn't know if
>they would be able to find a foster child who was not being prescribed
>psychotropic medication for learning or behavioral disabilities and
>said I would have a better chance if I omitted that requirement from
>my application. I refused, because I feel it is not the correct
>solution and is in fact dangerous to give children such medications. I
>leaned more in the directory of nutrition and giving the child respect
>with responsibilities. I was dismayed that she would say it would be
>difficult to find a drug-free child amongst the hundreds in our
>community.
>
>Soon after, I received a letter saying that my husband and I were
>disapproved as foster parentswith no explanation. The agency would not
>return my calls. I should have been in disbelief, but I wasn't. I had
>done my homework over the past many years. The foster care system
>receives funding from special interest groups for putting these
>children on drugs. Please read the following letter from a
>psychiatrist. It is his 1998 letter of resignation from the American
>Psychiatric Association. His letter tells it all. It's time our
>citizens stand up for and protect our children - and all children.
>Read on...
>
>December 4, 1998
>
>Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President American Psychiatric Association
>1400 K Street N. W. Washington, D.C. 20005
>
>Dear Rod: After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture
>of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of
>resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major
>reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from
>the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the
>organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.
>
>APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent
>society. Yet, it helps wage war on "drugs". "Dual Diagnosis" clients
>are a major problem for the field but not because of the "good" drugs
>we prescribe. "Bad" ones are those that are obtained mostly without a
>prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist
>organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a
>profit--directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me. At this
>point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely
>bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without
>the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops,
>journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational
>grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company
>promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and
>autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with
>the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would
>observe how the drug company exhibits and industry sponsored symposia
>draw crowds with their various enticements while the serious
>scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects
>their influence as well; i.e., the most important part of a resident
>curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e.,
>prescription writing.
>
>These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be
>complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do
>we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts, rather
>we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem
>is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a
>neurotransmitter, whatever its configuration. So, our guild
>organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel
>vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we
>have come to define as patients. We condone and promote the widespread
>overuse and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long
>term effects: tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious
>withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who
>treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank you very much. It
>saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to
>being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it
>represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the
>current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric
>leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a
>matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house
>connection, money.
>
>In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I
>don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an
>organization) such that the two organizations have adopted similar
>public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing
>itself the champion of their clients the APA is supporting
>non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via
>legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring. NAMI, with
>tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy
>commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights
>of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this
>fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller
>Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the
>NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of
>medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is
>speaking what APA agrees with but can't explicitly espouse. He is
>allowed to be a foil; after all he is no longer a member of APA.
>(Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience
>between APA, NAMI and the drug companies (who gleefully support both
>groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I
>want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.
>
>Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and
>practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal
>responsibility. We are just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain
>pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin
>with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain
>pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent
>example). So, to be consistent with this brain disease view all the
>major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our
>neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them I believe they
>would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals.
>However, consistency would demand our giving over biologic brain
>diseases to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the
>brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are
>dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of
>intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to
>continue to support by my membership.
>
>I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being
>systemically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must
>give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It
>must mean at least in part that they view psychiatry as being very
>limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed
>toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric
>practitioners will have no real relationships--so vital to the healing
>process--with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their
>sole role will be that of prescription writers: ciphers in the guise
>of being "helpers".
>
>Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM-IV is
>the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in
>general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific
>document. To its credit it says so--although its brief apologia is
>rarely noted. DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making best
>seller-its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines
>practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the
>way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research
>projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact
>accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't,
>because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric
>diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions
>for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an
>organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into
>a theoretical hoax.Is psychiatry a hoax-- as practiced today?
>Unforunately, the answer is mostly yes.
>
>What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after
>experiencing three decades of its history?
>
>1. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances
>without the members permission.
>2. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it
>is-that is, be honest.
>3. Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align
>itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups,
>i. e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.
>4. Talk to the membership. I can't be alone in my views.
>
>We seem to have forgotten a basic principle: the need to be
>patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember
>Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are
>your patient's employee. In the end they will determine whether or not
>psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.
>
>
>Sincerely, Loren R. Mosher M.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: (Fern5827)
Date: 10/3/2003 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: >
Hi, Tracey and thank you first for STEPPING UP AND TRYING TO HELP CHILDREN.
I have never questioned the necessity for some FOSTER CARE.
And thanks to the usually good folk who take on this task.
However, The *Child Abuse Industry* has good bedfellows with the
*PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY.*
Can you imagine being a 5 yo child, ripped from your family's arms. Worse yet,
being placed in a GROUP HOME?
I can testify to the ANGST the teen suffered in being placed in A GROUP HOME,
where this sensitive, intelligent child questioned me and said, "Why can't I be
placed with FAMILY?"
CPS acts a STATE SANCTIONED ABUSER IN SUCH CASES.
Thanks for your testimony. Addtl facts to follow.
http://www.familyrightsassociation.com
Great site for folks in the individual states to find *New Members* and
Contacts.
Tracy related her story as a potential FP:
>Subject: Anti-Med couple denied foster care application
>From: (Tracy Sherwood)
>Date: 10/3/2003 3:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Dear All,
>
>My husband and I applied to take in a Foster Child in our beautiful
>Leona Valley Home in 1999. Our combined incomes far exceeded the
>minimum and I was a professional tutor, able and willing to help a
>struggling foster child. We lived on an acre of land with gentle
>horses and a sweet yellow Lab that loves children. We also had my 14
>year old son who was also a tutor and had received his high school
>dimploma at age thirteen. My husband worked for Shell Oil and taught
>our visiting students to make and repair things in the barn. We both
>had clean records of any and every kind. I was told by the social
>worker who visited our home and filled out our application, that
>everything looked perfect except for one thing: She didn't know if
>they would be able to find a foster child who was not being prescribed
>psychotropic medication for learning or behavioral disabilities and
>said I would have a better chance if I omitted that requirement from
>my application. I refused, because I feel it is not the correct
>solution and is in fact dangerous to give children such medications. I
>leaned more in the directory of nutrition and giving the child respect
>with responsibilities. I was dismayed that she would say it would be
>difficult to find a drug-free child amongst the hundreds in our
>community.
>
>Soon after, I received a letter saying that my husband and I were
>disapproved as foster parentswith no explanation. The agency would not
>return my calls. I should have been in disbelief, but I wasn't. I had
>done my homework over the past many years. The foster care system
>receives funding from special interest groups for putting these
>children on drugs. Please read the following letter from a
>psychiatrist. It is his 1998 letter of resignation from the American
>Psychiatric Association. His letter tells it all. It's time our
>citizens stand up for and protect our children - and all children.
>Read on...
>
>December 4, 1998
>
>Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President American Psychiatric Association
>1400 K Street N. W. Washington, D.C. 20005
>
>Dear Rod: After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture
>of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of
>resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major
>reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from
>the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the
>organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.
>
>APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent
>society. Yet, it helps wage war on "drugs". "Dual Diagnosis" clients
>are a major problem for the field but not because of the "good" drugs
>we prescribe. "Bad" ones are those that are obtained mostly without a
>prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist
>organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a
>profit--directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me. At this
>point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely
>bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without
>the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops,
>journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational
>grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company
>promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and
>autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with
>the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would
>observe how the drug company exhibits and industry sponsored symposia
>draw crowds with their various enticements while the serious
>scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects
>their influence as well; i.e., the most important part of a resident
>curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e.,
>prescription writing.
>
>These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be
>complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do
>we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts, rather
>we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem
>is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a
>neurotransmitter, whatever its configuration. So, our guild
>organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel
>vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we
>have come to define as patients. We condone and promote the widespread
>overuse and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long
>term effects: tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious
>withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who
>treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank you very much. It
>saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to
>being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it
>represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the
>current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric
>leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a
>matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house
>connection, money.
>
>In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I
>don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an
>organization) such that the two organizations have adopted similar
>public belief systems about the nature of madness. While professing
>itself the champion of their clients the APA is supporting
>non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via
>legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring. NAMI, with
>tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy
>commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights
>of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this
>fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller
>Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the
>NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of
>medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is
>speaking what APA agrees with but can't explicitly espouse. He is
>allowed to be a foil; after all he is no longer a member of APA.
>(Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience
>between APA, NAMI and the drug companies (who gleefully support both
>groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I
>want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.
>
>Biologically based brain diseases are convenient for families and
>practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal
>responsibility. We are just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain
>pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin
>with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain
>pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent
>example). So, to be consistent with this brain disease view all the
>major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our
>neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them I believe they
>would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals.
>However, consistency would demand our giving over biologic brain
>diseases to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the
>brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are
>dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of
>intellectual/scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to
>continue to support by my membership.
>
>I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being
>systemically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must
>give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It
>must mean at least in part that they view psychiatry as being very
>limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed
>toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric
>practitioners will have no real relationships--so vital to the healing
>process--with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their
>sole role will be that of prescription writers: ciphers in the guise
>of being "helpers".
>
>Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM-IV is
>the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in
>general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific
>document. To its credit it says so--although its brief apologia is
>rarely noted. DSM-IV has become a bible and a money making best
>seller-its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines
>practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the
>way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research
>projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact
>accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't,
>because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric
>diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions
>for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an
>organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into
>a theoretical hoax.Is psychiatry a hoax-- as practiced today?
>Unforunately, the answer is mostly yes.
>
>What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after
>experiencing three decades of its history?
>
>1. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances
>without the members permission.
>2. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it
>is-that is, be honest.
>3. Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align
>itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups,
>i. e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.
>4. Talk to the membership. I can't be alone in my views.
>
>We seem to have forgotten a basic principle: the need to be
>patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember
>Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are
>your patient's employee. In the end they will determine whether or not
>psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.
>
>
>Sincerely, Loren R. Mosher M.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>