Amendment Puts Gaping Hole In Proposed Law

The touted Gabriel Myer’s bill is again in the news, this time the bill is being shown in a bad light. An amendment has been stapled onto it, an amendment that would dampen it’s effect.

The Miami Herald covered the story with an article, Amendment to bill targeting foster kid’s medication draws fire.

Psychiatric Solutions, which operates 13 residential treatment programs in Florida, including three in Broward County, proposed an amendment to state Sen. Ronda Storms’ bill that will allow the company, and others like it, to administer mental-health drugs to young foster children for three days without the consent of a parent or judge. The legislation was prompted by the 2009 death of a 7-year-old Margate foster child, Gabriel Myers.

Psychiatric Solutions is a private company that runs mental health facilities. There have been many questions raised about Psychiatric Solutions ability to provide for the patients under it’s care, and a few of these facilities, in a number of different states, have been found guilty of human rights violations in the treatment of their patients.

Psychiatric Solution’s is known to contribute much money to the campaigns of those politicians the company favors.

Senator Storms says she is not amending the bill because of Psychiatric Solution’s lobbying efforts, but rather because of the importance of getting this bill through despite opposition.

But the bill, as amended by Storms on Tuesday, makes exceptions: Doctors may begin the use of psychiatric drugs, without consent or a court order, if a child is in a mental hospital, a crisis stabilization unit, a residential treatment center or therapeutic group home. In such settings, DCF must seek a court order to administer the drugs within three days of beginning the medication.

The law as it is now written allows for no such 3 day suspension of consent.

It may look good on paper, but you’re drafting an amendment that would essentially counteract the effects of the very law you are proposing.

Critics of the amendment note that children in such institutional settings are the most at risk of being inappropriately medicated.

Emphasis added.

Obviously this loophole in any law that is enacted is going to mean more over drugging of foster children in the state of Florida.

I think it’s time we drop the name of Gabriel Myers from the proposed law. If this bill becomes law, it will almost certainly have its own share of casualties.

2 Responses

  1. I agree this would be a bad amendment. Besides, what is the point in drugging for three days? If a child is really mentally ill, that would not help.

    • It’s a bad amendment because Psychiatric Solutions, a private company that takes over state institutions, must be pulling strings here. I see the Senator behind this bill pulled in two different directions. I find it difficult to believe that it isn’t because Psychiatric Solutions matters to her political survival. The company might have monetary hooks in her, and she is responding to those hooks. If she didn’t, it could mean less financial backing for her political campaigns. The suspicion here is that maybe she supports Psychiatric Solutions for state budgetary reasons while she supports this bill for health reasons. I’m thinking the two reasons are at odds, and she is undoubtedly bending to the will of influence peddlers.

      The assumption is that if the kid gets sent to the bug house (i.e. mental hospital, crisis stabilation unit, residential treatment center) the kid must be bonkers. The kid is bugging someone, sure, but that doesn’t mean the kid is bonkers, and so the assumption can be false. The second assumption is that psychiatric drugs are the best and only way to deal with kids that are bonkers (perhaps ‘in crisis’ is a better way of putting it). You don’t know until you try other approaches, but this is a way of not trying them, and another false assumption. A possible 3rd assumption is that psychiatric drugs don’t make kids bonkers. I have seen evidence that this is a false assumption as well.

      The kid could, sure, pursue a career in ‘mental illness’, but I’m thinking maybe that isn’t the best course of action to take. Once there were practically zilch ‘psychotic’ or ‘bipolar’ adolescents. Now they are popping up everywhere. I have a notion that this circumstance has something to do with a lack of control exhibited by practitioners of psychiatry. That, on the one hand, coupled with unscrupulous advertising and miseducation campaigns conducted by drug companies intent on manipulating the market and maximizing profits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: