Tenet, Community Health fight gets nasty

More over billing and corruption including incarceration. This is why the Mental Health Industry needs more checks and balances. Those falsely incarcerated by bogus diagnoses should sue the doctor and hospitals especially if they have been mind drugged by any toxics Pharmacutical mind drug.

Obama’s Preemption Memo: Limiting Regulatory Preemption of State Common Law Claims
By Matt Melamed, Public Justice Kazan-Wallace Fellow

On May 20, 2009, President Obama reversed one of the most nefarious practices of the Bush administration by issuing a memorandum (Preemption Memo) aimed at curbing federal preemption by regulatory fiat.(The memorandum is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Pr... .) With the Preemption Memo, the President made clear his intent to limit federal agencies’ efforts to preempt state law claims merely by declaring that they would conflict with federal regulatory purposes. This position represents a radical shift from that taken by the Bush administration, which aggressively encouraged federal agencies to seek to preempt state tort law in precisely that fashion. For the first time in a long time, consumer advocates have an ally in the executive branch.

The Bush Administration’s Stealth Tort Reform Effort

The Preemption Memo is described more fully below. But its importance can only be understood against the backdrop of the Bush administration’s attempt to utilize federal agencies to implement stealth tort reform. Since 2005, seven federal agencies have issued over 60 proposed or final rules that were accompanied by introductory statements – commonly known as “preambles”– stating that the rule preempts state tort law on the ground that lawsuits involving the regulated matters would conflict with the agencies’ regulatory goals. See, e.g., Press Release, American Association for Justice, FOIAs Reveal How Bush Administration Made Complete Immunity for Negligent Corporations a Top Priority (Oct. 15, 2008), available at http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/h... .

The most notorious example of this practice is the preamble to a 2006 United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling regulation, which states that the FDA’s approval of a prescription drug’s label “preempts conflicting or contrary State law,” including lawsuits seeking to hold drug manufacturers liable for failing adequately to warn of a drug’s dangers. 71 Fed. Reg. 3922, 3934-35 (2006). This preemption preamble was particularly egregious because it represented a 180-degree reversal of the FDA’s prior views on the matter: before the Bush administration took power, the FDA enthusiastically endorsed tort litigation as complementing the agency’s ability to ensure the safety of prescription drugs.(As discussed below, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009),the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2006 labeling regulation’s preemptive preamble was not entitled to any deference.)

The intention behind this and other Bush-era preemption preambles is clear: by attempting to strip consumers of their rights to sue, the Bush administration was pandering to the business community, which seeks at all costs to immunize itself from tort liability. Indeed, Bush administration officials had an unusually close relationship with the industries they regulated. Again, the 2006 FDA labeling regulation is instructive. As first proposed, the preamble to the labeling regulation specifically stated that the FDA did not intend to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. See Press Release, American Association for Justice, supra. Less than six months before issuing the final regulation, FDA’s chief counsel met with legal representatives from the largest pharmaceutical companies. Id. After the meeting, the preamble was changed to state that FDA approval of a drug label preempted state common law failure-to-warn claims.

http://www.publicjustice.net/Resources/Backgr...

There has been "No" biological defect found for any mental illness or any of the other made to order diagnoses by any neurological study.

Without a test for chemical imbalance the mental health (psychiatry) is limited in the ancillary tests of medicine like an EKG, EEG, blood work or other tests in the diagnoses of a patient. They aren't needed in Psychiatry.

The psychiatric diagnosis is made on the basis of behavior and hearsay.

If we respect metabolic changes based on daily dietary habits, weight gain / loss , terms of the survival of the organisms as a person age along with physical conditioning, physical illness, electrolyte level, gender differences , body temperature, I don't see how the Mental Health and Counseling Industry could conform to any consistency in data with consideration to the above to state a person has a mental disease or illness based on chemical imbalance.

APA lies to the American Public and puts the society in danger

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp...

The fraud in psychiatry has been going on for more then 40 years since H W Bush was CEO, Eli Lilly and before that time as VP under the Reagan Presidency.

There Are No "Chemical Imbalances"

Snip:

"The hypothetical disturbances of neurochemical function that are said to underlie "mental illness" are just that: hypothetical. No experiment has ever shown that anyone has an "imbalance" of any neurotransmitters or any other brain chemicals. Nor could any conceivable experiment demonstrate the existence of a "chemical imbalance," simply because no one, least of all the biopsychiatrists, has the slightest idea what a proper and healthy chemical "balance" would look like."

"...the views and beliefs of biopsychiatry have nothing to do with the answers to scientific questions in any case: the hunt for biological "causes" of "mental illness" is an entirely fallacious enterprise in the first place; the non- existence of data to support its assertions is quite beside the point."

"The latest edition of one pharmacology text has this to say about the status of depression as a disease: "Despite extensive efforts, attempts to document the metabolic changes in human subjects predicted by these [biological] hypotheses have not, on balance, provided consistent or compelling corroboration." This is a long-winded way of admitting that not even a scrap of evidence supports the idea that depression results from a "chemical imbalance." Yet patients are told every day - by their doctors, by the media, and by drug company advertising - that it is a proven scientific fact that depression has a known biochemical origin. It follows directly that millions of Americans are being lied to by their doctors; and people surely can't give informed consent for drug treatment when what they're being "informed" by is a fraud.... To sum up: there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that "mental illness" is biochemical in origin; in other words, things like "Unipolar Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Disorder" simply do not exist."

http://www.adhd-report.com/biopsychiatry/bio_...

Psychiatric Diagnosis: Too Little Science, Too Many Conflicts of Interest [i]

Paula J. Caplan, Ph.D.

Harvard University

Snip:

The Concerns

There is a lot of pain and suffering in the world, and it is tempting to believe that the mental health community knows how to help. It is widely believed, both by mental health professionals and the general population, that if only a person gets the right psychiatric diagnosis, the therapist will know what kind of measures will be the most helpful. Unfortunately, that is not usually the case, and getting a psychiatric diagnosis can often create more problems than it solves, including a lifetime of being labeled, difficulties with obtaining affordable (or any) health insurance (due to now having a pre-existing condition), loss of employment, loss of child custody, the overlooking of physical illnesses and injuries because of everything being attributed to psychological factors, and the loss of the right to make decisions about one’s medical and legal affairs. The creation and use of psychiatric diagnosis, unlike, for instance, psychiatric drugs, is not overseen by any regulatory body, and rarely does anyone raise the question of what role the assignment of a psychiatric label has played in creating problems for individuals.[ii]

The Problematic History

These serious limitations have not prevented the authors of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), sometimes known as “the therapist’s Bible,” from making expansive claims about their knowledge and authority and wielding enormous power to decide who will and will not be called mentally ill and what the varieties of alleged mental illness will be. The DSM’s current edition is called DSM-IV-TR, and it was preceded by the original DSM (in 1952), then DSM-II (1968), DSM-III (1980), DSM-III-R (Third Edition Revised)(1987), DSM-IV (1994), and DSM-IV-TR (2000). The DSM-V is currently in preparation and slated for 2013 publication. Each time a new edition appears, the media ask whichever psychiatrist is the lead editor why a new edition was necessary, and like clockwork, each editor replies that it was because the previous edition really wasn’t scientific (Caplan, 1995). And each time a new edition appears, it contains many more categories than does the previous one. For instance, DSM-III-R contained 297 categories, and DSM-IV contained 374 (Caplan, 1995).

I served as an advisor to two of the DSM-IV committees, before resigning due to serious concerns after witnessing how fast and loose they play with the scientific research related to diagnosis (Caplan, 1995). The DSM is widely used, not only in the mental health system, but also in general medical practice, in schools, and in the courts. I have been involved since 1985 in trying to alert both therapists and the public to the manual’s unscientific nature and the dangers that believing in its objectivity poses. Since then, I have watched with interest a national trend toward gradually increasing openness to the idea that psychiatric diagnosis (A)is largely unscientific,(B)is highly subjective and political, and (C)can cause untold harm, ranging from the patients’ lowered self-confidence to loss of custody of children to loss of health insurance (because any psychiatric label can be considered evidence of a pre-existing condition) to loss of the right to make decisions about their medical and legal affairs.

More of this article:

http://awpsych.org/index.php...