NJ Informed Consent Bill Clears Some Hurdles
16 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // March 4th, 2008 // 12:17 pm
A controversial New Jersey bill to require informed consent from a minor’s parent before a doc can write a prescription for any psychotropic that already carries a Black Box warning is picking up steam. An assembly committee yesterday passed the bill - which you can read here - unanimously and now a state senator is poised to introduce a companion version. A spokeswoman for Shirley Turner says the senator plans to ‘drop the bill’ this week.
This a turnabout from just three months ago, when the bill appeared to be dead after a year-long fight by a pair of New Jersey moms and their allies, who argue that informed consent is the only way to make sure info is passed from docs to patients. In particular, they’re concerned that side effects, such as suicidal behavior and thoughts, that are linked to antidepressants can be misconstrued as part of the illness. As a result, they maintain parents may not have sufficient info to recognize troubling signals.
The bill is likely to be opposed again by the New Jersey chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a non-profit advocacy group. Phil Lubitz, the advocacy director for the chapter, which has accepted funding from drugmakers that sell antidepressants and antipsychotics, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Wyeth and Johnson & Johnson, has yet to respond to a request for comment.
Rita
The times are a changing!! Bravo to all who worked so hard on this bill, stepped forward and spoke up on behalf of the children. If this bill goes through in New Jersey, eventually the impact would be felt worldwide.
It only makes sense to pass this bill. Any of those fighting against it is because they have a hand in Parma’s deep pocket.
Nathan
Rita,
It’s not clear to me the big pharma opposes this bill. I have not heard or seen any objections to this bill other than by NAMI (who have so far not provided any explanation to their objections). As I’ve pointed out previously, on the surface it appears to be a win-win proposition: Patients that are well-informed of the side effects are probably not going to sue pharma companies when those side effects happen. Whatever pharmaceutical companies loose in revenue, they will likely gain with lower defense costs and lawsuit payouts.
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
The American Academy of Pediatrics, a Psychiatrist W/A.P.A and a Nurse Practitioner spoke in opposition of the Bill.
The Pharmaceutical Industry, who were present, chose, not to take a position.
As far as Mr. Lubitz and NAMI,..one would think that Patient safety would be a concern for those they advocate for.
Rita
Nathan, in my view, Pharma has proven to provide false data, pay settlements with gag orders to avoid public awareness etc. Show me where pharma points in the direction of change where human life raises above profit in regards to children and off-label prescribing to date.
Yeah, Pharma is apposed, give them a some time to put something together as to why this bill shouldn’t be passed, then we’ll discuss it.
Rita
‘The Pharmaceutical Industry, who were present, chose, not to take a position.’
They were taking notes and trying to figure out how to save profit!
Nathan
Lisa,
Did the American Academy of Pediatrics give a reason for their objection?
Rita — I agree. Let’s discuss this when you have some sort of evidence in hand. For now all I see ranting against an industry that you don’t like.
Lisa Van S
They said the side effects are arbitrary, and the the
consent would take time and would be combersum
You can listen here, it was the last bill on the agenda, the hearing was long. Nathan, if you are a Parent, you may find some of their statements troubling
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?key=ACO&session=2008
Lisa Van S
Nathan & Rita,
Industry stated to Senator Joe Vitale that they are not opposing the bill,.. But then again, this is an issue between the Physician and Parent, isnt it?
Jack2
Good luck Lisa. Your conviction to change things impresses me.
Lisa Van S
Ed, What happened to Rita’s posts?
Laurie
Nathan, the pharmaceuticals have not opposed the bill, and since 2004 have come out and said to “not prescribe” these drugs to children in there “Dear healthcare provider” letters. The argument from the American Psychiatric Association was that “FDA warnings are arbitrary” and “there are other drugs with severe side effects that don’t have black box warnings”. ….a perfect example of why this bill is so important. So from their take on this, we shouldn’t warn for documented FDA warnings that we KNOW about since there are some drugs that don’t have warnings. The logic there escapes me!! It is a win win situation for parents and their children. For the life of me I can’t see how anyone could oppose this bill.
Lisa Van S
Hey ED
This bill isnt controversial!!!… The drug Companiies are afraid of loosing their cash cow… NJ’s Children.
Atlex
Lisa, this is hardly a cash cow for pharma companies. Look at the total sales to children vs. total sales of these products to adults. The sales to children are tiny relatively speaking. Please note, this is not an attempt to minimize any issue that you may be advocating for or against, just a recognition as to why pharma companies are not spending resources fighting against this.
Margaret
Child and Adolescent psychiatrists oppose this bill because it is discriminatory ie only psychotropics are targeted instead of ALL medications with black box warnings. In addition, another layer of paperwork is no substitute for a full discussion of the risks and benefits of these important and helpful medications and takes time away from this discussion. This is not to do with making money but with helping severely depressed children, who, if left untreated, have a higher risk of suicide. The black box warning has scared people who might benefit from use of these medications, and this makes a BALANCED DISCUSSION of the risks and benefits all the more necessary.
Betsy
Atlex,
You’d be surprised. Laurie has proof that in New Jersey alone there are approximately 100,000 children on these meds who are in the foster care system. That is children whose parents are seldom involved anymore in their health decisions, with foster parents taking care of them, whether or not they have been given any educated information about what symptoms are horrible side effects of the meds. You are right, though, the pharmas are making BIG bucks on adults, and adding the number of children to this $$$ bucket is completely unbelieveable, considering the risks for the children, don’t outweigh the benefits. The companies even say that there are NO REAL BEnEFITS for children on these meds. Sad.
Atlex
Betsy,
Please supply the evidence. I’m not convinced that 100K foster children in NJ are on antipsychotics. Based on numbers I found at the state website, there are only ~50K children in foster care in NJ. I doubt that all of those are on antipsychotics. Again, I’m in no way advocating for use of antipsychotics in young children, but it doesn’t do any good overselling the problem, either.