Mother's Act=Violation of Informed Consent

[thanka2]

This may only matter to US folks and I'm really late on learning about this. I wish I could say I can't believe that a bill that violates womens' rights like this one passed in the US but unfortunately, I'm not surprised. Boo. Guess I'm staying in HK for any subsequent pregnancies--as long as they don't adopt the same stance.

Mother's Act from CCHR

The Bill

Another Article on the Mother's Act

 

[monte]

Hmm. I think I'm a bit torn on this one. I did have my first baby in the US and I was a bit surprised at how everyone seemed so concerned about my mental state as a new mom--our pediatrician, the midwives, etc. But it actually made me feel cared for, and it never felt invasive. Plus, they were able to hear my feelings of confusion and sometimes being overwhelmed as just normal new mom feelings rather than diagnosing something right away. So I think they did their job well. On the other hand, I have friends for whom drugs really helped and made a huge difference for them with post-natal depression and another friend who I am still convinced needed help, whether just counseling or drugs I don't know, but she wouldn't respond to my urgings and it didn't seem that any medical professionals were picking up on her cues. So maybe this act would have helped her? I think I need to read more about what this will actually enforce. It is certainly concerning that the lead sponsor is from the same state as lots of pharmaceutical firms ...

 

[Shenzhennifer]

I`m just curious what the big deal is. If I got free education, screenings for post-natal depression, attention paid to me by doctors, nurses, etc, I would consider that a good thing.
I think it`s good practice and common sense to be wary of prescriptions. Many doctors everywhere rely heavily on drug treatment at any sign of anything. This is not a new thing. If someone is suspicious about being prescribed a drug, WHY WOULD THEY TAKE IT? Especially a `cocktail` of this and that, as in this Melanie Stokes case. I mean, come on, no one is force feeding drugs. Are they doing daily or weekly urine tests to enure the drug and proper dosage is being taken?
A woman jumped off a building in my complex a month or two ago, and took along for the ride her 2 month old baby. It would have been nice for her to have been educated, assessed and forcefed drugs(ok not that far but...). Maybe her innocent beautiful baby could have been spared.
In the end, laws are interpreted by and put forth by practitioners. It`s too hard to tell what will become of this law in practice and with what consistency it will be followed.

 

[thanka2]

I`m just curious what the big deal is. If I got free education, screenings for post-natal depression, attention paid to me by doctors, nurses, etc, I would consider that a good thing.
I think it`s good practice and common sense to be wary of prescriptions. Many doctors everywhere rely heavily on drug treatment at any sign of anything. This is not a new thing. If someone is suspicious about being prescribed a drug, WHY WOULD THEY TAKE IT? Especially a `cocktail` of this and that, as in this Melanie Stokes case. I mean, come on, no one is force feeding drugs. Are they doing daily or weekly urine tests to enure the drug and proper dosage is being taken?
A woman jumped off a building in my complex a month or two ago, and took along for the ride her 2 month old baby. It would have been nice for her to have been educated, assessed and forcefed drugs(ok not that far but...). Maybe her innocent beautiful baby could have been spared.
In the end, laws are interpreted by and put forth by practitioners. It`s too hard to tell what will become of this law in practice and with what consistency it will be followed.

It's more than that. Read the link of the experiences of some of the women. This can be taken as far as to prescribe meds for women and then lock them up if they don't take them. Drugging women is not always the answer. They want to do screenings on pregnant women and get them on meds as soon as possible which in many cases has caused birth defects in the baby. On the outside, this bill seems like a "help the women" sort of thing but it has been pushed really hard by the Big Pharma lobby in the states because they stand to gain tons of business from putting more and more women on meds who may be better served by other treatment. While, at the same time a lot of the drugs on the market are actually not really that safe and cause hallucinations worst than the post-partum depression itself. Also, the doctors are not required to talk about the many cases where the medications caused serious adverse effects. Actually, it is common practice in the States for doctors to throw anti-depressants at any and everyone without fully reviewing their case (I've had this experience personally) and the results can be brutal. This bill gives sweeping powers to hospitals and doctors to declare women "unfit" because they suffer from depression and give them an ultimatum--either take this cocktail or we'll take you away from your kids which is a very draconian practice. That is the issue with this bill. Actually, before this bill, we still had education and screenings for depression but this takes it to the next level. Also, unless you've experienced this type of depression (especially post-partum depression) it's hard to really relate to the mindframe that a woman is in--she is "not in her right mind" but that still doesn't mean people have the right to lock her up and throw away the key. And that is what has happened to the lady this bill was named after.

 

[thanka2]

Hmm. I think I'm a bit torn on this one. I did have my first baby in the US and I was a bit surprised at how everyone seemed so concerned about my mental state as a new mom--our pediatrician, the midwives, etc. But it actually made me feel cared for, and it never felt invasive. Plus, they were able to hear my feelings of confusion and sometimes being overwhelmed as just normal new mom feelings rather than diagnosing something right away. So I think they did their job well. On the other hand, I have friends for whom drugs really helped and made a huge difference for them with post-natal depression and another friend who I am still convinced needed help, whether just counseling or drugs I don't know, but she wouldn't respond to my urgings and it didn't seem that any medical professionals were picking up on her cues. So maybe this act would have helped her? I think I need to read more about what this will actually enforce. It is certainly concerning that the lead sponsor is from the same state as lots of pharmaceutical firms ...

I think you have to read the contents of the bill (or at least the summary) to realize that this bill (which is law now) does not address whether it is good for some women to take drugs or not. I don't think that's the issue at hand. For some women it is the solution but it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Some women react horribly to drugs and if taken why pregnant they carry a significant risk of harming the baby--and even if the baby is not "harmed" on the outside who knows what the psychotropic concoction in the drug could be doing to the baby's brain chemistry--something we may not fully realize until years later.

No, this law's main issue is that it serves the interest of Big Pharma above the health of women, throws cocktails of drugs at women without having to fully disclose the risks in a relevant manner and gives doctors sweeping authority over womens' personal health--it attacks informed consent at a time of vulnerability for women (in pregnancy and after the birth of a child). Please take time to read some of the testimonies of women who have been adversely affected (locked up) because of this bill. This bill is a big step backward in treating mental illness. Thirty-forty years ago in the States, we locked people up and threw away the key for things as minor as epilepsy and deafness (I have a great aunt who was treated for her muteness with electroshock therapy! This was standard practice! Mental institutions were a place of horror and agony for the people who got thrown in there--worse than prison because at least in prison they don't experiment on you without your consent!) So, this bill is taking us back to the days when doctors could decide who was fit and unfit to be a mother and then treat that woman in whatever way they saw fit. It's quite shocking. So, yes, I agree that drugs have their place but that place should be determined ultimately by the patient--unless we women are going to eventually become "wards of the State" (what many people in mental institutions were declared back in the day).

 

[Shenzhennifer]

I`m still skeptical.
I see the United States as generally lazy in implementing social programs. I mean, just look at the state of the place, particularly in the cities.
Many laws are passed without anything happening at all. Often they are mere strategic moves by the policitions and their supporters.
Horror stories and other isolated incidents abound everywhere, but I can`t really see a strong implementation of such a drastic law as is described by its counter interpreters.
It`s common that doctors throw prescriptions around like they`re going out of style. When I was 17 I saw a doctor because I was depressed (my father passed away 2 months prior among other things) and he tossed me prozac so fast I got a black eye.
Anyway...my point is, all our cultures love drugs. But I cannot see the big U-S of A pulling a stunt like what is theorized (and read between the lines of a bill using some isolated incidents to back themselves up with). There would be too big a backlash. They ain`t China.

 

[capital]

I read the bill and I do noo see the concern. I didn't see anything about forcibly confining people or lack of informed consent.
Where I work we routinely assess women for PPD at their home visit after they have a baby. we use the same screening tool they talk about in the bill at the first immunization appointment, which is a SCREENING tool, not a diapnostic tool, and if they score high we let moms know what resources are available. No one is forced to go to counselling or to see a dr. If you chose to go to your dr, they cannot force you to take medications if you dont' want to. Your right to refuse medical care is there except in cases where you are a danger to others or to your self you can be forced into hosptial, but this had to do with the mental health act, not with PPD specifically, and would apply to anyone who is a danger , and I think it is only for 2 weeks, but I am not sure on that. The doctor and pharmacist should provide you with info on side effects, they are supposed to fir any medication you take, for any diagnosis.

This is what we do in the proviince in canada where I live, the bill didn't look that different that what we provide here, free education on PPD from prenatal to postnatal, screening and free help for it. Certainly confidentiality, informed consent and right to access and decline health care are there for us, though there are also specific laws for those things, so maybe that is where it is different?