Depression happens and sometimes pharmacological intervention is necessary. I for one find it a huge leap forward in caring for women at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives. You say how difficult the trials of motherhood are but you seem to completely deny that depression is a real dangerous and in some cases deadly disease.

Posted by McBloggy on March 5, 2008 at 5:02 PM

I understand your concern. But I believe there is a line that has been blurred by the pharmaceutical industry between the normal adversities of life (in which overcoming them makes us stronger and consequentially healthier) and actual mental illness.

The turmoil of a new baby, and yes, even a certain amount of depression is to be expected as normal. I had nine. The last thing the average, overwhelmed new mom needs is pharmacological intervention.

When people need help, they should have it. But don't be fooled. They are not out to find and serve the 1 in a thousand who might be truly mentally unstable. They are looking (and seeking legislation to secure) the potential market base of the 80 percent; the mole hills they see as potentially profitable mountains.

Posted by Rhonda on March 6, 2008 at 10:08 AM

"It's safe to say that "baby blues" is considered normal, and can usually be resolved with someone else cleaning the toilet, and a trip to the hair salon."

"Postpartum depression, I dare say is a normal part of life as well"

You claim that Dick Durbin is telling your doctor/midwife how to practice medicine, but where's your MD? I've read your name enough times to know that it isn't there.

Once more you seemed determined to disregard the mental health community and write off serious illness. Depression is a disease. Dangerous, deadly, but treatable.

You seem have a very negative view of the world. I think perhaps you're seeing monsters that aren't there. Try to have faith that sometimes people try to look out for one another.

And next time you want to talk about the pharmaceutical industry and its many faults (and I do agree they are there). Just talk about that. Don't try to poison a different issue because you don't have the energy to research and write about what you really want to discuss.

Posted by McBloggy on March 6, 2008 at 10:58 AM

You seem have a very negative view of the world. I think perhaps you're seeing monsters that aren't there. Try to have faith that sometimes people try to look out for one another.

Actually, I see a monstrous government sticking its head into where it doesn't belong. I don't believe we need the government to look out for us. That's not where I put my faith.

And next time you want to talk about the pharmaceutical industry and its many faults (and I do agree they are there). Just talk about that.

Pardon me, but I do believe it was you who brought in the pharmaceuticals. And rightly so, as one always seems to lead to the other.

Don't try to poison a different issue because you don't have the energy to research and write about what you really want to discuss.

For the record, I have numerous articles published, weekly columns written, and radio interviews on the abuses of power within the pharmaceutical industry and its marketing practices within the poor and captive populations, and its impact on the family. But that was not the subject of this post.

Points in the post you missed:

Government has no business mandating mental health issues; they are too subjective to legislate.

The common trials of life and the hardships one goes through, is not a disease in need of treatment.

Motherhood is hard. New moms need help, support and stability. They need what tax money can't buy.

I count among my friends several mental health professionals. They are without a doubt some of the most caring, giving people I have ever known. I believe they truly are in the field to help people.

I say, lets stop screening (sifting) the healthy population, and put the money where it is needed most; the group homes, the community outreaches, the local mental health centers that carry too much on too little.

Posted by Rhonda on March 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Thank God I was surrounded by friends and medical professionals who recognized the severity of my post-partum depression and helped me deal with it in the best way for me and my baby  and yes, that did include pharmaceuticals,which were instrumental in preventing me from throwing my child out the window. Because that is what post-partum depression does to you. If I had been surrounded by ignorant people like this, I would have gone to jail (or been buried alongside my child) with great hair and a house with a clean toilet. Brilliant. Very insightful and enlightened.

Posted by chocoholic on March 7, 2008 at 11:46 AM

Chocoholic,

I am thrilled you received the help you needed. As you said, you were surrounded by friends and professionals who recognized the severity of your depression. That means you fall into the 10- 20 percent of people who truly need help. (The bill's stats not mine.)

But I think you made a critical point. The medical profession and your friends did act, and you got the help you needed. That's the way it should be. They didnt need a new law to see you were in trouble.

In no way did say I that people should not get help when they need it.

I'm glad you are doing well.

Posted by Rhonda on March 7, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Rhonda,

You say you are glad that chocoholic received help, but you are willing to let women without the same support network slip through the cracks. Sometimes people don't live near family and close friends and a huge percentage of people in this country and this state are under insured. They don't have adequate health care and you would deny them the chance to receive screening that could save not only their lives, but the lives of their children? Seriously?

And let me just say you are taking an awfully sweet tone with a woman you would have us believe could easily turn into an "emotionless killing zombie." Let me just say that your post about the NIU tragedy was embarrassing to the community and so offensive it is amazing to me that the News Gazette Community Newspapers would pay you for your "contribution" to their weeklies.

Posted by McBloggy on March 7, 2008 at 4:48 PM

Rhonda,

Sorry it took me so long to respond.

I'm glad you don't think you need the government to look after you. Of course, that isn't the case for everyone. Taking away their resources because you have faith in God and a distrust of the government is not what I would call a legitimate argument.

Yes, I brought up pharmaceuticals. I brought it up because this is a continuation of other posts you have been putting up suggesting anti-depressants, the pharmaceutical companies, and the mental health community are disregarding the safety and wellbeing of the country in return for profits.

You have accused anti-depressants of mass murder (not the murderers themselves mind you) you have said that the mere act of screening mothers for postpartum depression is a "giant leap into an Orwellian state." The thing you forget to mention is the improved quality of life for the people who take these medications. You have insinuated that those I love and care for could become "emotionless killing zombies." Excuse me if I am so angry I can hardly see strait.

I see your blog/column/perspective as just another pundit that takes a tiny bit of information and twists it into something it isn't. The massacres at Virginia Tech, NIU and other places are horrifying, but to take one fact in the case (pretty misrepresented at that considering that the medications the man responsible for the NIU shootings may well have prevented a similar event from happening up to that point) and say anti-depressants are the cause is irresponsible. These are complicated issues you either don't have an appreciation for or you are willingly trying to misrepresent the facts.

As for what you think I missed.

The government is trying to mandate mental health issues in the interest of saving lives. Over the past few years we have seen a horrifying number of mothers kill their children while suffering from the very mental health issues you think are "The common trials of life and the hardships one goes through."

I agree with you that new moms need help support and stability, but as I can't be there for each and every one of them I'm glad our state wants to be. As for funding issues I'm surprised you would want to give money to a "monstrous government sticking it's head where it doesn't belong."

Posted by McBloggy on March 9, 2008 at 1:21 PM

I got help because I had friends, family and, most importantly, insurance. I can't really believe that people lacking a support network and/or money deserve any less. Again, the law is not implying that every mother should receive intravenous antidepressants immediately after birth. It's saying that the less fortunate ones do not deserve to fall between the cracks, and if doctors do not routinely ask questions to ensure the health and safety of their patients, then they should. Not that they should treat them if they don't need it, and not that the the patients would be forced to accept treatment they don't want...simply that the doctors should ask about post-partum depression the same way they would about unusual post-partum pain or bleeding. Yes, pain or bleeding is "normal" at that time, too, but past a certain threshold it could indicate a serious problem. Likewise, a certain amount of emotional upheaval is probably "normal" but past a certain threshold, it's a problem. I'm not sure why screening people for a potentially fatal condition that affects 10-20 % of women (i.e. one or two out of every TEN) would be Orwellian. I think it would be responsible medicine.

Posted by chocoholic on March 9, 2008 at 8:28 PM

I have agree more with Rhonda here. Why do we continue to the government should regulate everything? Once they mandate this test, what's next for them to mandate? What happens when they start defining what is depression? In addition, how much is this going to increase everyone's insurance cost?

Chocoholic, would you please provide the source for you 10-20%? Even if the number is that high are you also claiming that these 10-20% don't have family and a support network? The answer is obviously NO, and in all likelihood the huge majority of that % does have a support network.

This is just another instance of the government inserting itself to control our lives under the pretense of helping us. It is like the old story of boiling a frog. It is the gradual control of the government and the reduction of our freedoms.

Posted by ljarratt on March 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM

ljarratt,

I think you might want to go back and read the post and comments again. The 10-20% figure came from Rhonda's post. And no one suggested that everyone in that figure are without a support system, but some aren't. But there are so many women without support networks, and without the insurance coverage they need to receive proper care so why not try to step up and make sure people aren't falling through the cracks?

Posted by McBloggy on March 11, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Can I just add that I typed that last comment with a very wiggly baby on my lap. Grammar is just too much to ask in moments like that. :)

Posted by McBloggy on March 11, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Clarification; the 10 to 20 percent statistic came from the language of the bill.

Posted by Rhonda on March 12, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Glad to know you're still out there.

Posted by McBloggy on March 12, 2008 at 11:02 AM

"The Mother's Act" cosponsored by are very own Barack Obama is another piece of frighteningly misnamed legislation. Anyone who denounces the governments never ending thirst for control over our lives is seen as uncaring and unconcerned for the welfare of new mothers. Simply put - whenever government expands liberty contracts and it doesn't matter if it's for something as benevolent sounding as The Mother's Act.

I'm posting a link for a video called Selling Sickness.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4091993063843224700

Pallas

Posted by pallas on March 13, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Why is postpartum depression screening so scary? Why is it social responsibility issues always carry the stigma of endangering liberty? I think the practice of torturing prisoners and allowing phone lines to be tapped without warrants are real issues that concern liberty. A piece of legislation designed to improve the quality of life of the citizens of Illinois is something I think our Barack Obama can be proud of.

Posted by McBloggy on March 13, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Great - let's screen all the new moms and put them on antidepressants for a normal response to life experience. Then when baby number 2 is born with antidepressant-related birth defects we can add another drug to the mix. With all due respect, I believe McBloggy could benifit from some comprehensive research.

Posted by steppedback on March 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Aaaargh. No one said to put them all on antidepressants. Doctors screen for things all the time. My doctor screens for diabetes, but doesn't give me insulin because I'm not diabetic. Women have pap smears and mammograms because there is a risk, but not all women get chemo. "Screening" and "treating" are not the same thing.

Posted by chocoholic on March 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM

I came across the following while doing some checking this afternoon. Take a look if you are interested and sign the petition if you are against this type of intervention.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-the-dangerous-and-invasive-mothers-act

Posted by pallas on March 14, 2008 at 6:31 PM

The debate going on here about whether or not they'd all be put on antidepressants or not is completely irrelevant. This sort of ignorance turns us into "issues voters" looking to elect our pet candidates so that we can use the force of the government to FUND and support our chosen causes. Any government action requires force. If it didn't taxes would be voluntary and they'd be called donations. The real issue here concerns the role of the federal government. According to the constitution, the government's role is to protect our liberties and provide a strong national defense. Everything else falls to the states. That is why it is important to oppose and defeat this bill. There are plenty of ways to care for people without involving the government. In fact, that has the opposite effect. Getting the government out of health care and promoting health FREEDOM would go a long way.

Posted by pallas on March 14, 2008 at 7:15 PM

steppedback: I did not say put them all on anti-depressants and I'm pretty sure you're the only one who did. Look up postpartum depression on mayo's website, on webmd, on any medical site and see what the treatment is. Anti-depressants are only one of the treatment options available.

pallas: This freedom you're speaking of is about money. If the government steps out of the loop and big business is allowed to control access to health care it might give you a break on your taxes but it could literally be the death of millions of people in this country.

I think access to affordable health care should be a right to everyone in this country and around the world. Why are our citizens forced to choosing between groceries and going to the doctor?

Posted by McBloggy on March 15, 2008 at 3:41 PM

pallas: I did go watch those clips, but that is one isolated case. My OB would never ever do that. She was caught in a perfect storm and while it rips my heart out I can't look to that as cause to take screening from other mothers.

I think the lack of information about postpartum depression is the very thing that put that woman in the position she was in. A big part of what this bill will do is provide education to women (and the doctors that have to give it to them). Understanding what it is and what it isn't is vital to treating this very real disease.

Shortly after giving birth I had incredibly vivid dreams (that I had trouble believing were dreams). I kept dreaming that my husband was trying to kill me and our newborn daughter. They were terrifying dreams and I could not calm down and still felt a little frightened around him. Now he is the most gentle person on the planet and I knew that but still I was anxious.

We went to my doctor and spent an hour talking to him about the dreams and everything that was going on with me. We decided together that it was most likely a lack of sleep and a bit of new baby nerves causing the dreams. He didn't give me any medications. He gave me strict instructions to rest and let someone else help with the baby. I did and the dreams stopped. No medication and there was never any push for any. If all doctors took more time to listen to their patients I don't think the number of drugs prescribed would continue.

And one point (made in a gentle tone because I know this is emotional for everyone myself included). You say that this debate of medication is irrelevant but that's very much what those clips were about.

There is a danger in promoting a distrust of the medical community. Distrust breeds fear and fear can kill. Education is the answer here and that's why I support this bill.

Posted by McBloggy on March 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM

McBloggy the freedom I'm speaking about has nothing to do with big business. It's important to understand that government health care spending is the real cause of America's health care crisis. Did you know that government already pays for nearly half of all medical care in this country. This makes government the primary determiner of health care prices. Bureaucrats decide what the government will pay for any given procedure. Lobbyists influence the prices the bureaucrats set. Insurance companies then follow the government's lead in terms of they will pay.

Health care costs are soaring because the prices are set by bureaucrats and lobbyists, instead of by free market competition.

To better understand how damaging this is just look at what's happened to the cost and quality of Lasik eye surgery, which isn't funded by the government, or insurance.

According to the federal government's Bureau of Labor Statistics the price of Lasik surgery has dropped from $2,100 in 1999 to $1,626 in 2004! The quality has also improved dramatically, even though the cost has fallen.

The same could be true for all health care procedures if prices were set by free market competition, instead of by bureaucrats and lobbyists.

But the problem gets even worse. Government tax polices have created incentives that tie most people's health insurance policies to their employer. This means "your"insurance companies work for your boss, and not for you. Losing your job could mean a catastrophic loss of medical care.

America's health care crisis is entirely the creation of the politicians in Congress. And now they want to use the crisis they've created to grab still more power and money, at a time when the government is facing a looming bankruptcy.

Here are some things that would help...

A 100%refund from your taxes of every dollar you spend on medical care, including insurance premiums.

Make it easier for your employer to deposit the money it now gives to the health insurance companies into a Health Saving Account that would belong to you.

This money would come to you tax free--you could use it to fund your health care and your insurance premiums

This means your health insurance would belong to you, not your employer. You would have the money to pay small medical expenses with your Health Savings Account, which would allow you to reduce your insurance premiums by buying a Major Medical Plan, instead of a CADILLAC PLAN

You would also earn interest on the money in your Health Savings Account, tax free--you would get the interest instead of the insurance companies getting it (collecting interest on premiums is how the insurance companies make their money--these profits could be yours instead)

Plus, you would become your doctor's customer. This would place the consumer in charge, creating competition that would lower prices and imporve quality.

Although, I see your point about the clips revolving around medication, my point still stands. It is not the role of the federal government to screen people. McBloggy, I agree that education is the issue but we need to be educated as to the role of the federal government. The welfare state has created a nation of ignorant sheep. Edward R. Murrow said, "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."

Posted by pallas on March 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM

pallas: I agree with a lot of what you said and I think a plan like might even help my family. Then again, it might not.

While I agree that the health care system in this country is unbelievably flawed I don't think that jumping to a free market system is in the best interest of the country.

While this might help the wealthy and even the middle class it will almost immediately cut out the lower class and anyone living below the poverty line. Without public health care programs many of the working poor and senior citizens will be unable to afford any health care at all.

This country is so wealthy and prosperous it doesn't make sense to be having this problem. Viagra is selling off the shelves but there aren't enough of the flu vaccine? We can spend billions of dollars on a war, but not on simple preventative medicine? I just don't understand what's going on here.

Yes, we need change, but it needs to be a change that benefits us all. Every citizen matters no matter where they are on the socio-economic scale.

Posted by McBloggy on March 15, 2008 at 7:19 PM

McBloggy:

FACT: The Centers for Disease Control is the government agency that determines how much flu vaccine is manufactured, not the free market.

FACT: Our elected government officials determined that we should spend billions on this war. The Democrats recently adopted budget gives the president all he/she needs for his foreign policy so one wonders how serious they ever were about ending the war.

FACT: Our elected officials promoted the formation of group health insurance 60 years ago which has destroyed the patient/doctor free-market consumer relationship and put us in the situation we are in today.

Why should we give any government agency the right to tell us to do anything regarding the screening or treatment of our own bodies or those of our children?

By ending our empire and bringing our troops home from around the world we can continue to take care of people we have taught to be dependent. But working families will benefit most from the above outlined program. If you study the free market it will teach you that it really is the humanitarian way. Socialism never works and destroys people.

I'll leave you with this consider. supporting a welfare state is expensive as well. More than half of our budget goes to mandatory entitlements. The total cost of government now eats up more than half of our national income, as calculated by Americans for Tax Reform, and government is growing at an unprecedented rate. Our current financial situation is completely untenable, and the worst part is, as government is becoming more and more voracious, the economy is shrinking.

Posted by pallas on March 17, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Okay, I think we can both agree that we have very different ideas about how the government should work. I don't think either of us are going to change our minds. So, I'm sure I'll see you again on another post. Until then, have a great day.

Posted by McBloggy on March 17, 2008 at 5:07 PM

I wonder if Rhonda is as paranoid about medication, such as for blood pressure, as she is with medication for mental issues?? Would she feel that the government was stepping into her business if they wanted to do blood pressure screening? After all, people don't always realize there's a problem there until someone takes it! The same can be said about mothers with postpartum depression. Uninformed, as Rhonda wants them to stay, for fear they may be given medication, could end up harming their baby, not realizing what she is going through is not "normal." (or else they've read Rhonda's articles and think they would be horrible to get help because of her stigma) How are the ones that "really need it" going to get treatment if they don't realize that it's beyond the baby blues? Why do you have such a stigma about medication for depression, Rhonda? Why is an imbalance there different than blood pressure medication, or insulin?

Posted by scrapbookingmomma on April 3, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Rhonda, please learn how to cite your sources correctly prior to using others words.

Posted by agraham on April 8, 2008 at 9:01 PM

How many kids have ADHD now? Everyone if you took them to a doctor. I'm sorry but my wife isn't getting this check up unless we thinks it's necessary. The Government needs to stay out of my business. I know 100s of moms, none had PPD. But they all have to be screened? I guarantee a couple would have been diagnosed with it and put on some kind of prescription that would be completely necessary.

When will you frickin people realize, less government good, more government bad. Stay out of my life Dick. Stay out of my life Barrack.

Posted by Kducey on April 30, 2008 at 6:49 AM

McBloggy,

Do you really believe that mass diagnosis and over medicating of patients wouldn't happen if that had to screen every new mother? Yeah right, your doctor did the right thing with you because he/she had the time. If he or she were mandated to screen everyone, he or she wouldn't have had the time to correctly view your situation and you would have been placed on unnecesary meds. You would have lost your time with that doctor because the doctor was screening perfectly heathly new mothers. Great idea Dick.

I lived in a socialized heath care system. The system was abused by patients and doctors. My friend almost lost his jaw due to an abcess because the doctor said he was fine and prescribed 800mg of Ibuprofen for 3 weeks. The doc didn't have time to access his situation because everyone with the sniffles who was trying to get out of work was lined up outside his door.

Posted by Kducey on April 30, 2008 at 6:57 AM

"While this might help the wealthy and even the middle class it will almost immediately cut out the lower class and anyone living below the poverty line. Without public health care programs many of the working poor and senior citizens will be unable to afford any health care at all."

They get free care now anyways. I work with the most poverty sticken group in our society. They get all the free health care they need, trust me.

Posted by Kducey on April 30, 2008 at 7:01 AM

So Senators Durbin and Obama are co-sponsoring the "Mothers Act", which will make grants available to provide education concerning postpartum depression to new mothers, screen them for such conditions and provide essential services to those mothers and their families in need of treatment. No doubt the law is being proposed in response to several recent incidents of mothers suffering from acute mental illness, killing their children and themselves. Surely our government, with its wisdom and resources, must be able to do something to prevent these horrible tragedies!

Lets consider what would have to be done to prevent these tragedies from occurring. First, it is necessary to identify those future mothers who will become severely mentally ill and harm their children; in the science of prediction, they are called "true positives". And, fortunately, there will be very few of them; according to the bill itself, postpartum psychosis strikes only 1/1000 new mothers. But our screening instruments, paper and pencil measures of mood and thought processes, perhaps followed up by interviews, are very crude and imprecise. In order to make sure we identify all true positives and provide them with appropriate treatment we have to set the threshold for being classified as positive, i.e., a new mother who will beomce severely mentally ill and act destructively, very low. (To find a needle in a haystack, you have to look at a lot of hay). As a result many mothers will be labelled as postive when in fact they will not become mentally ill and harm their children; these are called "false positives". And there will be many of them. And all new mothers, both true and false positives, will have to be offerred treatment. And they will have to accept the treatment. And the treatment will have to be effective. Only if all these conditions are met can we be sure that all true positives, mothers who will become severely mentally ill and harm their children, will be prevented from doing so.

In order to make sure no new mother becomes mentally ill and acts destructivley we would have to do what I have described above. These measures would be extremely expensive, and I would argue, unworkable except on a small scale. There is much that is tragic in this world that the Federal Government can do little about.

I would suggest Senators Durbin and Obama direct their efforts towards something more practical, more "doable", such as proposing legislation to limit financial settlements in medical malpractice lawsuits. If the medical profession was less driven by the need to avoid lawsuits health care would be less expensive and more affordable for everyone. And doctors would have more time to talk to mothers to be and get a sense of how they are coping, including whether or not they are depressed and in need of some help.

Posted by PaulTRielPhD on April 30, 2008 at 10:59 PM

Thank you Paul! Furthermore Mothers who fall into the false positive category and refuse treatment(medication) could lose custody of their own child. That just what we need, more children in orphanges and foster care. The state does such a good job with those kids already.

Posted by Kducey on May 2, 2008 at 6:40 AM