American Psychiatric Association pushes for electroshock therapy for children and teens

Thursday, May 12, 2016 by: Julie Wilson staff writer

.
www.naturalnews.com...
.

(NaturalNews) The American Psychiatric Association is pressuring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to permit the use of electroshock therapy (ECT) on children and adolescents resistant to current therapies and drugs. The treatment, an archaic technique invented in the 1930s, sends jolts of electricity into the brain, inducing a seizure. It's associated with numerous side-effects, including short and long-term memory loss, cognitive problems, unwanted personality changes, manic symptoms, prolonged seizures, heart problems and death.
.
. . .
.
"ECT is a degrading, damaging, memory robbing procedure that should have been outlawed years ago," said Lee Spiller, Executive Director of Citizens Commission on Human Rights. "Shock machines are one of a number of devices that were on the market prior to today's laws. They were essentially grandfathered in."
.
. . .
.

Rather than curb this epidemic, the APA wants to subject children and teenagers to more harmful treatments, including electroconvulsive therapy, which has the ability to permanently damage one's cognitive abilities. The Dallas Morning News reported that the treatments cost $4,000, 99 percent of which is paid for by insurance.
.
. . .
.

.

GRRRRRR.

I realize that things have purportedly been improved since ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST.
.
And, I am not an MD.
.
However, I do know a few things about the brain.
.
It IS a very sensitive organ. And I think that using electroshock is still like swinging a woodsman's axe to kill a mosquito.
.
NO THANKS. Not on my kids, if I had any. Though, if I had kids, I'd prevent attachment disorder in the first place, so they wouldn't have such problems. Sheesh.
.
And, COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY has been proven in repeated research studies to OUTPERFORM meds--and all other treatments hands down:
.
A) No side effects
B) Lifetime effectiveness
C) More effective than meds.
.
Trouble is, it requires a skilled therapist to lead the person by the hand through all the HARD WORK.
.
And pill-pushing MD's are not all that eager, imho, to do that kind of hard work. They'd rather see a patient for 10 minutes, dispense drugs, bill medicare and move on to the next patient/victim.
.
Sigh.
.
I can logically ascribe this to the general globalist conspiracy to take control of our kids as well as to lobotomize kids to prevent critical thinking and challenging of tyrannical authority. That seems rather logical, to me.
.
I understand that different people will have different views on this.
.

You know, if naturalnews could be even remotely honest it might be worth taking seriously.

However, if ECT devices are recategorized to a Class II, opponents fear that the treatment could be used on a much larger population, which now may include children, because the devices would be eligible for "off-label" use. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

I'm adding this link to The Daily Journal of The United States Government,
just in case someone were to question Natural News.

Federal Register

Looks to be true, sadly following our Ritalin Nation.

a reply to: burntheships

You missed the point, the lie is not in the reclassification, it's in the taking irrational fears and then stating it as a fact... especially in the headline.

Completely unethical.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I do not consider the source near as flaky as you seem to.

However, as I've repeatedly noted. as WWII proved . . . flaky sources can be the only sources providing advanced and absolutely factual information--particularly ahead of time.

Write them off wholesale, if you wish. Just please be aware that when you do so as a matter of habit, you are opening yourself up to a much greater risk of a false negative error.

Wasn't this like, outlawed in the 70's as Abuse against Children?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Why wouldn't you? Naturalnews has repeatedly, and I mean in nearly every single article it writes, it will take a fear and assumption and state it as fact. It makes twists which are clear to critical thinkers.

There's no question about it, naturalnews is not a source to be trusted.

If they have the truth on their side, they should stick to it, there's no need for them to lie.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I don't consider it unethical at all . . .

The government has been a brazen poster boy for PUSHING unethical, unfitting and improper treatments on millions of victims.

IN this case, I don't think the headline could have been too shrill.

It is an outrageous plan.

If you are trying to assert that MORE children would NOT be afflicted with such treatments--then I would have to wonder if we are on the same planet with the same dictionary.

en.wikipedia.org...

Medical torture describes the involvement of, or sometimes instigation by, medical personnel in acts of torture, either to judge what victims can endure, to apply treatments which will enhance torture, or as torturers in their own right.

Medical torture overlaps with medical interrogation if it involves the use of professional medical expertise to facilitate interrogation or corporal punishment,

in the conduct of torturous human experimentation or in providing professional medical sanction and approval for the torture of prisoners. Medical torture also covers torturous scientific (or pseudo-scientific) experimentation upon unwilling human subjects.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I haven't personally caught them in a lie.

Those claiming that they lie as often as not are mostly on opposite sides of OPINIONS.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You're telling me that lying is not unethical?

Do I need to point out exactly where this lie is. Do you not catch it?

OMG, you really can't catch it after I already pointed it out... one second.


This is the title,

American Psychiatric Association pushes for electroshock therapy for children and teens

That is in no way a fact. It's a lie. The only time this is said is as an assumption, a fear by proponents, which is made very clear in the article itself... in fact I quoted this exact bit.

However, if ECT devices are recategorized to a Class II, opponents fear that the treatment could be used on a much larger population, which now may include children, because the devices would be eligible for "off-label" use. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

Do you see that right there? That's an irrational assumption out of fear.

The next line jumps further to an assumption of fact.

If the FDA grants the APA's request, children unresponsive to psychiatric drugs will be subjected to the harsh and arguably inhumane treatment. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

This isn't a report by someone who is concerned about anything other than clickbait generating more revenue via ads.

There's no opinion that this is a lie, it's a very easy to see lie, mixed with emotional appeals.

I will challenge you to show me where any credible source provides evidence that this reclassification will lead to children getting ECT treatment.

a reply to: awareness10

I don't recall the timing. Sounds about right.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

No. I'm NOT saying lying is ethical. Sheesh.

I'm suggesting that you might call something a lie that I might call a difference of opinion.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I haven't personally caught them in a lie.

Those claiming that they lie as often as not are mostly on opposite sides of OPINIONS.

You mean apart from the fact that it's not about anyone under the age of 18, but NN has decided it is, just get get hits and cause fear?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Why the lies?

Here's the paper for the proposed changes..

www.gpo.gov...

They make it very clear, numerous times, that it's for 18 years and over.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Here ( as far as I can see ATM ) is a link to the
USFDA PDF on the subject.
psychiatry.org...

I dont see anything limiting this to 18 and over?
In fact, it does have language about use on children.

Page 1

The APA recommends that a class II designation also be given for catatonia,
manic episodes (in bipolar disorder), schizophrenia, and schizoaffective
disorder and that the patient population in each of these
illnesses be limited to individuals with treatment-resistant
psychiatric disorders and/or patients with
life-threatening conditions related to their underlying
psychiatric condition. We also recommend that
the class II designation include ECT treatment for
children and adolescents meeting the criteria for
treatment resistance and in need of a potentially
life-saving intervention for the conditions previously
indicated and for MDE associated with major depressive
disorder or bipolar disorder.

As always, expecially after the Non Affordable Care Act, read every thing
including fine print.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: BO XIAN
[snip]
This is the title,

American Psychiatric Association pushes for electroshock therapy for children and teens

That is in no way a fact. It's a lie. The only time this is said is as an assumption, a fear by proponents, which is made very clear in the article itself... in fact I quoted this exact bit.

Soooo, your claim is that the APA has NOT supported electroshock for younger folks? Last I checked, 18 was a teen. Some folks still consider 18 a child.

However, if ECT devices are recategorized to a Class II, opponents fear that the treatment could be used on a much larger population, which now may include children, because the devices would be eligible for "off-label" use. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

Do you see that right there? That's an irrational assumption out of fear.

Uhhhhhhhhh noooo.

imho, given the pattern of the governmental abuses of a LONG list of 'treatments' such concerns are a minimum of alert wisdom and wariness.

Of course those who think that the FDA et al ONLY have the consumer's BEST interests at heart and in their only focus . . . welllll . . . I'm sure there are several bridges folks would like to sell.

The next line jumps further to an assumption of fact.

If the FDA grants the APA's request, children unresponsive to psychiatric drugs will be subjected to the harsh and arguably inhumane treatment. Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

Welllllllll, It is CERTAINLY A VERY REASONABLE and exceedingly logical assumption--based on a LONG history of such patterns on the part of the medical rule makers and gate-keepers. Are you that UNAWARE of such a history? Sheesh.
.

The "unresponsive to psychiatric drugs" rationalization is VERY STANDARD IN THE FIELD. It's used as justification for all manner of things--some of them clearly outrageous. That's just the facts, the history of such things. Odd you seem unaware of such a history.

This isn't a report by someone who is concerned about anything other than clickbait generating more revenue via ads.

WOW, TALK ABOUT A BRAZEN ASSUMPTION and mind-reading of a whole organization!!!! Sheesh.

There's no opinion that this is a lie, it's a very easy to see lie, mixed with emotional appeals.

Says you. I disagree.

I will challenge you to show me where any credible source provides evidence that this reclassification will lead to children getting ECT treatment.

I think someone already posted a link to a government doc that documented 18 year olds . . . Many folks consider 18 year olds children. Certainly they are teens.

AND, more worrisome is the creep that such regulations seem to 'enjoy.' First it's 18 year olds. After a few years, it's 16 year olds. After a few years, it's 12 year olds.

NO THANKS.

I'm glad someone is blowing the whistle at this point.

edit on 14/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: fits w tags

edit on 14/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: (no reason given)

a reply to: burntheships

I'll star your post and admit to being in the wrong here. The article really should do better providing sources, it's poorly written.

There are very extreme cases that must meet stringent criteria in order for anyone, adult or child to get ECT. Here's more from your source on that:

Children and adolescents are treated infrequently with ECT. When a decision is made to use ECT in a child or adolescent, it is virtually always related to significant functional disability with a lack of response to other treatments and/or the existence of severe and potentially life-threatening symptoms such as inadequate oral intake due to catatonia, significant suicide risk, or extreme and repeated self-injury.34 Having access to a rapid and effective treatment such as ECT is especially meaningful in children and adolescents because suicide is a leading cause of death in this age group; it is the third leading cause of death in children ages 10 to 14 and the second leading cause in children ages 15 to 18.3

a reply to: BO XIAN

I suppose using your logic we can state that children are sent to war and allowed to vote, and that the age in which these things are allowed will keep dropping as the years roll on, except they never do.

Please, you surely know what a slippery slope fallacy is. Don't be so overly emotional, it stunts logic.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Ok, great that you read the source, while I do not agree
with your attack method first, I would hope that you may have
an insight into exactly how this kind of backwards advancing
is accomplished in this country now.

Who reads The Federal Register?

Then if they did, are they going to send in a rebuttal or
an address of concerns? If not, this goes ahead.

And I would also kindly suggest you read up on treatment resistance.
I am not a mental health professional, so I can not elaborate
much on that but I imagine the criteria for it would be far
less than anyone would imagine.