Texans for Safe Education

John Breeding, Ph.D., Director
5306 Fort Clark Drive
Austin, Texas 78745
(512) 799-3610

Letter to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) regarding their opposition to the Child Medication Safety Act

8-26-03

National Association of School Psychologists
4340 East West Highway, Suite 402
Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear People,

I am writing you as a graduate of the University of Texas School Psychology Program and as director of Texans For Safe Education, a citizens group expressly concerned with the ever-increasing role of psychiatry in the schools, especially psychiatric drugs.

I am saddened and appalled at the NASP position opposing passage of the Child Medication Safety Act (S1390), now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. How can you possibly be opposed to an affirmation of what is already the clear intent of federal law, which is that children may not be excluded from school because a parent disagrees with a treatment recommendation for their child.

Here is what you say:
"While NASP asserts that it is never right to coerce a student or family into using medications (See NASP Fact Sheet on Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Disorders: Roles for School Personnel), NASP shares the concern with our allied mental health organizations that such policies will be implemented conservatively, creating a "gag rule" on personnel and creating a chilling effect on the identification of students with mental health needs. While there is no data that this is truly a pervasive problem, there is hard data on the underidentification of students with untreated mental health needs. Further, this language singles out certain medications and perpetuates the stigma of mental health issues."

You say that it is never right to coerce a parent into drugging a child, and then you refuse to stand for that truth, justifying your cowardice and implicitly defending the right of the state to coerce parents. Your argument about a gag rule is completely misleading. The truth is that school employees will have absolutely no stops on the need and value to communicate with parents about their child's expressions of learning and behavior. In Texas, we just passed House Bill 1406 into law, which goes way further than the Child Medication Safety Act. Not only does it outlaw exclusion of a child because of a parent's refusal to consent to a psychiatric drug or evaluation, it also makes it unlawful for school employees to even recommend a drug or suggest a diagnosis.

In order to make this point crystal clear, we included in the new law (now in effect), the following two provisions, stating that the aforementioned prohibitions do not:

"prevent an appropriate referral under the child find system required under 20 U.S.C. Section 1412, as amended; or prohibit a school employee from discussing any aspect of a child's behavior or academic progress with the child's parent or another school district employee."

Are you not aware that there are many states around the nation who are pursuing and passing this type of legislation?

Perhaps even more astounding is your statement that there is no evidence that there is a problem, and that psychiatry is underutilized in the schools. Do you not know that there are about 8,000,000 school age children in the United States on psychiatric drugs today? That is about 15% of the children! And do you not know that none of the diagnoses for which these children are drugged has been validated by science as a real disease with an objective test by which a doctor can make a real differential diagnosis?

I wonder, too, if NASP will acknowledge the fact that it is not uncommon today for school employees to threaten parents who resist pressure to have their children labeled with psychiatric disease names and receive psychotropic drugs. These parents are being threatened with accusations of medical neglect and a call to Child Protective Services for an investigation. Are you not aware of this horrible draconian practice? Testimony in the last Texas legislative session on this issue led to passage of another new law, House Bill 320, which amends to family code to clarify that "consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to the child, or to consent to any other psychiatric or psychological treatment of the child, does not by itself constitute neglect of the child." You might also be interested to know that new law also revises the education code to state that "An employee of a school district may not use or threaten to use the refusal of a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of a child to administer or consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to the child, or to consent to any other psychiatric or psychological testing or treatment of the child."

In short, I am ashamed that my profession is attempting to stop a nationwide effort to defend the rights of parents to make treatment decisions for their children without pressure or coercion from the schools. As to your final statement about this law contributing to the stigma of mental illness, I am appalled at your blatant kowtowing to the psychiatric
practice of labeling and drugging children, and guilt-tripping parents. The fact is that parents who want to protect their children form labeling and drugs are being responsible, and it is our profession that is in disgrace when we refuse to be advocates for parental choice and for handling children without drugging them. I urge you to change your position on the Child Medication Safety Act, and support this little step defending parents against coercion.

Sincerely,
John Breeding, PhD

Addendum

Please read a letter describing the flaws in the scientific evidence that is used to support the belief that ADHD is a neurochemical disorder that is present from birth and that has nothing to do with inadequate nurturance during childhood, difficult family environments or oppressive and inhumane educational and community environments. It also describes the harm that is done by these beliefs and the treatment approaches based on them.

The letter, which is signed by 12 members of ICSPP who are also members of the American Psychological Association, is a reply to a letter of March 17, 2002 which was sent by Dr. Alice Rubenstein to Dr. Albert Galves, a member of The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP.) This letter is posted at DEBUNKING THE SCIENCE BEHIND ADHD AS A "BRAIN DISORDER" (www.academyanalyticarts.org/galveswalker.html) and is
located in the Topical Issues section.

Dr. Rubenstein is the Director of The Brochure Project, a joint effort of Division 29 (Psychotherapy) of the APA and Celltech Pharmaceuticals to publish and distribute brochures on Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

In a letter of February 16, 2002, Dr. Galves had expressed concerns about the following three statements that appear in the brochures:

"ADD/ADHD is generally considered a neuro-chemical disorder."

"Most people with ADD/ADHD are born with the disorder, though it may not be recognized until adulthood."

"ADHD is not caused by poor parenting, a difficult family environment, poor teaching or inadequate nutrition."

In her reply, Dr. Rubenstein included information and supporting references provided to her by Drs. Robert Resnick and Kallman Heller of Division 29.