Comments on: NJ Informed Consent Bill Clears Some Hurdles

By: Atlex

Atlex — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:35:39 +0000

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.

By: Betsy

Betsy — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:12:51 +0000

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.

By: Margaret

Margaret — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:22:08 +0000

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.

By: Atlex

Atlex — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:58:05 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:16:03 +0000

Hey ED

This bill isnt controversial!!!… The drug Companiies are afraid of loosing their cash cow… NJ’s Children.

By: Laurie

Laurie — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:59:41 +0000

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.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:50:38 +0000

Ed, What happened to Rita’s posts?

By: Jack2

Jack2 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:49:40 +0000

Good luck Lisa. Your conviction to change things impresses me.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:07:33 +0000

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?

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:01:36 +0000

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