“Depression” Screening

Psychiatrists and psychologists advise that the worsening state of our youth provides justification for “mandatory, universal behavioral” or “mental illness” screening. With this license to inspect every child from preschool to college and university, they fraudulently claim they can identify those “at risk” of becoming unstable, anti-social and even violent.

Beverly Eakman warns, “The term ‘screening’ takes on new meaning as children, and by extension, their families, today are assessed for supposed ‘markers’ of psychological disorders … with the results of such analyses going into cross-referenced electronic transfer systems.” In other words, the child once “assessed” by the mental health industry will have this information permanently in his school and medical records.

The TeenScreen ® program in the United States claims that identifying and “treating” “at risk” children can prevent suicide. Yet a 2003 Nevada report noted that 31% of the students that had been screened “are in therapy; 9% are seeing a psychiatrist and are on … medication, and 1% have already made suicide attempts.” Panama, Guam and Canada also deliver TeenScreen.

The program’s “health” survey asks students questions such as, “Has there been a time when nothing was fun for you and you just weren’t interested in anything?” and “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?” With enough checks against the questions, the next questionnaire, called the “Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children” (DISC), purportedly checks for 18 psychiatric disorders. The child is then referred to a psychologist or psychiatrist and, usually, prescribed drugs.

Joseph Glenmullen of Harvard Medical School says the questionnaires used to diagnose depression “may look scientific,” but “when one examines the questions asked and the scales used, they are utterly subjective measures.”

Dr. Julian Whitaker, a respected U.S. physician and founder of the Whitaker Wellness Center, tells this story: “I took one [depression] test, entitled the Zung Assessment Tool, at the Prozac website. You respond to 20 phrases with one of the following: not often, sometimes, often, or all the time. Phrases include, ‘I feel downhearted, blue, and sad.’ ‘I have trouble sleeping through the night.’ ‘I eat as much as I used to,’ ‘I have trouble with constipation.’ ‘My mind is as clear as it used to be.’ ‘I am more irritable than usual.’ ‘I find it easy to make decisions.’ (As you see, some of these questions are confusing, if not irrational.)

“I selected ‘sometimes’ for every phrase, as a normal, healthy person would. My score was 50, and I was advised to show this test to my doctor and ‘ask him or her to evaluate you for depression.’”

Not surprising, obtaining parental consent through the schools has been a problem. One newsletter reports, “As many of our community partners know, getting signed consent forms back to participate in a TeenScreen program is no simple task. We urge sites to be creative regarding this first step of the program—for example, coming up with unique incentives that appeal to the students, such as movie rentals or fast food coupons.” Other incentives include $5 cash, gift certificates, food vouchers, a pizza party, pens and offering extra school credit to students who return the forms signed by their parents by the end of the school week.

“Depression screening” in the general community has influenced the 60 million prescriptions for antidepressants written in the United States—about 10% of the American population, including 1.5 million children. England’s “Defeat Depression Campaign” resulted in the “prescribing of antidepressants by general practitioners rising substantially.” As later discussed, these drugs cause or increase violent and suicidal behavior. The “TeenScreen” and other “depression screening” programs are thereby potential causes of greatly increased youth suicides when drugs are prescribed to supposedly “at risk” children.

In 2001, a Minnesota bill which would have mandated mental health screening in public schools was defeated. Discussing his testimony against the bill, psychologist Bill Harley stated, “I asked the members how they would feel about a legislature-wide screening (of politicians) for mental health disorders along with early intervention. Those doing the screening would be paid by the legislature to provide extensive therapy, if a potential problem were found to exist in any of them. And, of course, the results of the screening would be available to a host of individuals, along with the therapeutic plan and their willingness to cooperate with that plan.

“Then, I mentioned that I could easily identify in every legislator an emotional predisposition that could possibly create problems for them in the future, and design a lengthy treatment plan as an early intervention. … Screening and early intervention sounds like a great idea until you turn out to be the one being screened. Then the problems with that approach become much easier to see.”

Next

Back to Contents