If inclusion into a group is based on a standard that society has already decided is exclusive due to race, religion, or gender, that standard is more easily recognized as prejudiced. It has already been discovered how when you separate people due to these categorizations, that can be used in exclusive ways with the goal of oppression.
It's easy to claim that there are too many variables within every individual to claim that anyone is "normal" beyond the statistics which typically make overly ambitious claims.
What we have done in the name of progress has led to what we call landfills which we use to flatten the earth with the indisposable remains of what we needlessly consume.
Our attitudes due to, and the result of, attempting to hide the indisposable remains of our needless physical consumption are similar to how we attempt to dispose of the results of our needless and ugly attitudes rather than revise them.
NIMH will study this:
Intervention Helps Reduce Risky Sexual Behavior Among Homeless HIV-positive Adults
The degree of success for programs that evolve from such studies need to be weighed along with the stereotypes they encourage. The significance for the study says:
In the United States, HIV infection is more commonly found among populations with significant life stressors, such as homelessness and drug use.
When the population of the homeless is no longer blamed and is instead provided ways to reduce their stressors, studies for how to make them safer from HIV won't need to be questioned as to their negative motives or results. Otherwise the studies need to be defined as how to prevent homeless people from socially infecting society with their reckless unhealthy habits.
This study by NIH is entitled:
The question I have for such a study are, " Will the results of this study result in African American parents of adolescents being less impoverished, becoming more like parents of other races, fewer African American births, or will the study instead mainly do more to encourage more negative stereotypes for the African American community.
Attitudes toward the mentally ill are clearly shown in the treatment they receive.
This describes the criteria for admissions into mental institutions:
"The case records of all patients admitted involuntarily to the psychiatric unit of a teaching general hospital between May 1, 1985, and Apr. 30, 1986, were examined to assess the criteria used for admission in relation to several patient characteristics. Of the 55 patients 42 were admitted under the terms of form 1 (application for psychiatric assessment) and 13 under the terms of form 3 (certificate of involuntary admission). All of the former patients and 70% of the latter were admitted under the criteria for dangerousness; however, one-third of these patients had failed to show any evidence of violent or suicidal behaviour. Most of the patients admitted because of their dangerousness had a nonpsychotic disorder, whereas 83% of those admitted because of lack of competence had a psychotic disorder. These findings are discussed in relation to the criteria for involuntary admission in the 1980 Mental Health Act of Ontario. The difficulties encountered in the admission process by physicians appear to be the result of a lack of clinical considerations and a predominant emphasis on dangerousness."
The U.S. mental health industry is also mainly defined as based on the claim that consumers are dangerous when the dangerous label is really for the protecting the mental health industry from legal suits by the family's of consumers. This further encourages the definition of consumers as violent for purposes of crowd control and behavior modifications being justified based on the claim that they are used on people with dangerous behaviors.
This would tie into how the "new" ABA is being introduced using statewide PBS programs. Once these programs relate to more people, it will seem more acceptable to the public that the guidelines will be adjusted to meet the growing concerns of the public who are afraid of the growing population which the programs are designed to treat.
At The Kansas Institute for Positive Behavior Support (KIPBS) at the University of Kansas says this about how PBS may be used in relation to PCP (Person Centered Planning):
"The goal of PBS is to improve quality of life, not only for a child or
adult with a disability, but for all of the individuals within a social
network. PBS is now used in many different situations and contexts and
with different types of problem behavior such as aggression, property
destruction, and self injury. Children with and without disabilities
can benefit from the PBS process across home, school, and community
settings."
Back in 2003 the DDSN in South Carolina described here how they would like to implement ABA programs with disabled people using A PBS model by first educating their staff for using the programs.
Are the pressures on children the payment for progress or are we failing to revise how older people behave which affects children's behavior?
These are some guidelines for how anti-psychotic medication is best used for children in the state of Florida.
The Daytona Beach News Journal writes here:
"The number of children in the Florida Medicaid program prescribed the powerful drugs has nearly doubled from 9,364 kids in 2000 to 18,137 in 2006, the Daytona Beach News-Journal reported in January.
Among those children, the most common primary diagnosis was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) — an ailment not approved for treatment with antipsychotics by the Food and Drug Administration or by experts on the disease. "
Another article desribes this:
"While doctors are free to prescribe any FDA-approved drug they see fit, some panel members raised concerns that doctors are going too far, and on far too little data supporting their safety in children.
AUTISM, ADHD TREATMENT
Children and teens now make up nearly 25 percent of all patients who fill a prescription for Risperdal.
Last year, nearly 400,000 children and teens used the drug, and almost 240,000 were aged 12 or younger. For those under age 17, the most common diagnoses were autism and ADHD."
"Results In the United States, the estimated number of office-based visits by youth that included antipsychotic treatment increased from approximately 201 000 in 1993 to 1 224 000 in 2002. From 2000 to 2002, the number of visits that included antipsychotic treatment was significantly higher for male youth (1913 visits per 100 000 population) than for female youth (739 visits per 100 000 population), and for white non-Hispanic youth (1515 visits per 100 000 population) than for youth of other racial or ethnic groups (426 visits per 100 000 population). Overall, 9.2% of mental health visits and 18.3% of visits to psychiatrists included antipsychotic treatment. From 2000 to 2002, 92.3% of visits with prescription of an antipsychotic included a second-generation medication. Mental health visits with prescription of an antipsychotic included patients with diagnoses of disruptive behavior disorders (37.8%), mood disorders (31.8%), pervasive developmental disorders or mental retardation (17.3%), and psychotic disorders (14.2%)."
This is describes how : Comparison of Schizophrenia Drugs Often Favors Firm Funding Study
"In fact, when psychiatrist John Davis analyzed every publicly available trial funded by the pharmaceutical industry pitting five new antipsychotic drugs against one another, nine in 10 showed that the best drug was the one made by the company funding the study.
On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better antipsychotic drug," Davis and others wrote in the American Journal of Psychiatry."
Such studies make up the bulk of the evidence that American doctors rely on to prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic medications each year. Davis pointed out the potential biases in design and interpretation that produced such contradictory results. Other experts note that industry studies invariably seek to boost the image of expensive drugs that are still under patent. Moreover, they say, the trials are relatively brief and test drugs on patients with simpler problems than doctors typically encounter in daily practice."
AND:
"Reliance on industry-sponsored studies is not limited to psychiatry, but experts say the problem is exacerbated in areas of medicine where the goal of trials is not to demonstrate cures but to measure symptomatic relief, which allows more latitude in how the results are interpreted and marketed."
Behavior modifications now often include what are called chemical restraints which come in the form of psychotropic medication. Unfortunately, much behavior being seen as uncontrollable is allowing for new methods of monopoly-based quick fixes which have in the past created worse problems and solved nothing for many people.
I wonder how much can we can identify these "symptoms" of behavior as needing to be treated by the loudest most powerful corporate voice without analyzing and treating the corperataions unethical behavior. By not doing this we suggest that might is right and that only the most vulnerable members of society (whom we consider them or "those people") carry the weight of having their behaviors adjusted.
Comments