Depression screenings should not be a tool for pharmaceuti cal companies' profit

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:12:56 -0500

[sSRI-Research] Depression screenings should not be a tool

for pharmaceuti cal companies' profit motive.

 

 

 

The Minnesota Daily

 

February 2, 2006

 

EDITORIAL

 

Marketing depression and turning a profit

Depression screenings should not be a tool for pharmaceutical

companies' profit motive.

 

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/02/02/66940/

 

Pharmaceutical companies attempting to market depression to sell their

products often craft many of the Web sites that provide depression

screenings. Professionals are taking advantage of youths, and the

federal government is paying for them to do so.

In the past year, the Bush administration-sponsored TeenScreen has

been under much scrutiny and lawsuits because of its testing and

diagnosing of students without seeking parental permission. Moreover,

the test has a disorder label for the most ordinary of behaviors,

having technical terms for simple laziness and arguing with parents,

both qualities that most children and young adults have experienced at

some point. The federal government funds programs such as TeenScreen,

making the services of these companies not free, as they marketed

because money is channeled from federal tax dollars. Nearly a $1

billion goes toward programs like TeenScreen and others through the

Center for Mental Health Service. This accepting of " gifts " is a

widespread health concern many health institutions and universities

are forced to reckon with: Are they to accept money and freebees from

pharmaceutical companies while continuing to appear uninfluenced, or

should they reject any freebies they are offered?

 

Boynton Health Service chooses to dissociate itself from

pharmaceutical companies. The provider goes as far as rejecting mugs,

pins and other trinkets. To maintain an objective position, health

institutions and universities must separate from pharmaceutical companies.

 

Practice can be influenced by how much a pharmaceutical company

contributes. In fact, many colleges are dealing with this very issue.

Of 170 screened students in Nashville, Tenn., a screening that was

co-sponsored by pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, 96 of 170 students

went to speak to a therapist after the screening.

 

Pharmaceutical companies, as part of a public relations or marketing

campaign, sponsor specific screenings. Students should be very

cautious of these screenings because these companies have other

incentives at stake when providing such services.

 

 

--

© Copyright 2005 The Minnesota Daily