Scientific American has this article about TeenScreen, a new “national mental health and suicide risk screening program…” for teenagers.
Past studies have revealed that parents do not know of suicide attempts 90 percent of the time. In fact, roughly one third to two thirds of suicidal teens do not reveal past attempts to anyone.
Teens with mental disorders are at even greater risk—roughly 90 percent of teens who died by suicide had a psychiatric illness at the time of their deaths, according to research by child psychologist David Shaffer at Columbia University. Nearly two thirds of youth who die by suicide exhibit psychiatric symptoms for more than a year beforehand, which makes this time a significant window for potential intervention.
Flynn is now executive director of TeenScreen, a national mental health and suicide risk screening program based on Shaffer’s research. In 2005 the program screened more than 55,000 teens at 460 sites in 42 states and they hope to have exceeded 500 sites by the end of 2006. “The idea is to identify risks early to prevent tragedies,” Flynn says. “It’s amazing when kids who are really struggling and don’t know why then learn what’s going on and that there are things that can help.”
Keep in mind that this screening program is not mandatory. Given this, I’m a bit surprised at the controversy that TeenScreen has caused. The article mentions a number of critics — including Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) — although none are directly quoted in any detail. It speaks volumes to note that some people are actually opposed to mental health screening. Yes, opposed to it. What good could possibly come from opposing something as potentially beneficial as a simple mental health screening? From my standpoint, the only thing one could possibly gain is denial. Although attitudes are changing, much of our society still ostracizes and stigmatizes people with mental/emotional problems. It’s a damn shame.
Of course there will always be a debate on the details of such screenings, and such debate is both necessary and critical to the program’s success; but forthright opposition to screening makes no sense to me. If a teen is feeling suicidal, then it is crucial that he or she receive treatment as soon as possible. Some people want to pretend that depression is something that happens only to weak people, the ones who take medications they don’t need and whine to psychiatrists. But this cultural construct is bullshit and it’s high time that our society recognizes mental illnesses as potentially affecting everyone, even those who routinely deny their own weaknesses.
Would you oppose a screening for diabetes? What about scoliosis screenings? Hearing and vision screenings? The only difference between these common screenings and mental health screening is the social stigma attached to mental illness. That’s it.
I fully understand the concerns about pharmaceutical companies pushing anti-depressants onto teens and pre-teen children. Anti-depressants are greatly abused in the United States and other Western countries, especially when it comes to children. But medication is not the only approach to healing emotional pain, and some treatment is better than no treatment, whether or not medication is a part of that treatment. Denying the problem will not make it go away.
Visit the TeenScreen website for more on the program.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 25, 2007 at 2:02 am
Concerned Mom
http://kenoshaparentsunion.org/TSQ&A/index.html
January 25, 2007 at 8:50 am
Josh
I followed the link and found a discussion on the topic, but I think the critics are looking for reasons to oppose it solely because they’re uncomfortable with the idea of their children being diagnosed with something that may reflect poorly on parents.
TeenScreen isn’t trying to “fix” anything, they’re simply trying to identify problems before they become deadly.
February 23, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Concerned Mom
What would you think of a diabetes screening for children that had 84% false-positives? (Meaning that 84% of the people screened were falsely identified and didn’t really have the disease?)
Then, with absolutely no objective testing done to show that an actual physical illness existed, treatment was started.
It’s with this view that some parents are objecting to “mental health screening.” The screening “tools” have an 84% false-positive rate. A recent study from Rochester, NY said that this screening should be considered only investigational in nature. The developer of TeenScreen says that the false-positive rate can overwhelm a school with the number of students identified.
Another study shows that 9 out of 10 of the children who see a psychiatrist will come out of the office with a prescription for drugs that the FDA has decided need a “Black Box Warning” for suicidiality.
Screening for mental health is decidely different from scoliosis, hearing vision or diabetes screening, where actual, objective medical testing (x-rays, blood tests, lab work, etc) can be done to determine the existence of disease or problem.
Then there are the issues on school liability. With schools moving into the realm of what has traditionally been the parents job, what are their liabilities?
A lawsuit already exists where a school screened a child without the parents express, written permission. The child came home from school diagnosed with 2 mental disorders. Based on two of her answers, she was told that she was suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. The OCD diagnosis arose because she answered “yes,” that she did find herself repeatedly doing something she had little or no control over, which according to her meant cleaning her room and doing her chores.
She was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder because she said she felt cut off from friends. She was given no opportunity to say why she felt this way which was because she wasn’t allowed to go out with her friends on school nights. Her parents explain that they don‘t believe children should be out on school nights and so they limit her social occasions to keep her out of trouble.
Also, since when does a screening for scoliosis or vision and hearing have to resort to offering the child “incentives” to bring back the permission form?
TeenScreen repeatedly uses movie and fast food coupons and lottery draws for mall gift certificates to entice the kids to bring back the consent forms from home. Several school have withheld report cards until the child has brought back the form. TeenScreen’s view on this? “Getting the kids to buy in is such an essential thing because for the most part, you’re distributing the consent forms to the kids to bring home to their parents and bring them back. So you have to get their buy in, you have to get them interested in it.”
TeenScreen’s PR company explains why this is important: “Marketing to young people has always been a sensitive topic. But as an audience of 40 million with annual buying power of $364 billion, teens and ‘tweens’ are important customers in the marketplace of products and ideas.”
Then of course, there is the matter of a 10 minute questionnaire being able to correctly identify a child with mental illness. A survey that asks questions such as:
(1) Have you often felt very nervous or uncomfortable when you have been with a group of children or young people – say, like in the lunchroom at school or at a party?
(2) Have you often felt very nervous when you’ve had to do things in front of people?
(3) Have you often worried alot before you were going to play a sport or game or do some other activity?
(4) Has there been a time when you had less energy then you usually do?
(5) Has there been a time when you felt you couldn’t do anything well or that you weren’t as good-looking or as smart as other people?
(6) Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren’t interested in anything?
Experts say there is no evidence to support that TeenScreen does anything other than guarantee that a large number of children will end up on drugs. In May 2004, after an in-depth investigation, the United States Preventive Services Task Force issued a report with findings that said:
(1) There is no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality; (2) There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk; and (3) There is insufficient evidence that treatment of those at high risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality.
Two years later, on June 16, 2006, Ned Calonge, the chairman of the Task Force, and the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, spoke to the Washington Post and said the same findings apply to screening today:
“The panel would reach the same conclusion today… Whether or not we like to admit it, there are no interventions that have no harms… There is weak evidence that screening can distinguish people who will commit suicide from those who will not… And screening inevitably leads to treating some people who do not need it. Such interventions have consequences beyond side effects from drugs or other treatments… Unnecessary care drives up the cost of insurance, causing some people to lose coverage altogether.”
Lastly, any scoliosis, vision, hearing or diabetes screening is not a secretive program. TeenScreen refuses to divulge where they are conducting the screenings, they do not allow parents to view the survey – citing proprietary privileges and copyright protection, and they do not divulge their funding or their sponsors – but their directors and their advisory board is rife with pharmaceutical connections.
So the idea that parents “oppose it solely because they’re uncomfortable with the idea of their children being diagnosed with something that may reflect poorly on” them is not even close to the issue.
There are ways to help our children but screening them for mental health is not one of them.
http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html
19,609 parents, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, social workers and nurses agree, Stop TeenScreen!