How Would Government Healthcare Address This?
I have yet to hear back from Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s office regarding my inquiry about the meaning of “screening” when it comes to mental illness and addiction, with specific reference to an amendment to the healthcare “reform” bill in the House. Sometimes, though, when you’ve this sort of thought filed in the back of your mind, relevant examples emerge, as if of their own volition.
Such is the case with findings related to childhood depression:
Depression in children as young as 3 is real and not just a passing grumpy mood, according to provocative new research.
The study is billed as the first to show major depression can be chronic even in very young children, contrary to the stereotype of the happy-go-lucky preschooler.
What sort of preventative measures might be taken, in light of this information, were the government financially interested in controlling costs? The question drifts into creepy (even terrifying) ground pretty quickly:
Depression was most common in children whose mothers were also depressed or had other mood disorders, and among those who had experienced a traumatic event, such as the death of a parent or physical or sexual abuse.
If an event in a child’s life should trigger red flags in a screening process, a treacherous path exists for the government to assert its authority as implicit medical caregiver. Drugs. Institutional care. Restrictions and mandates on parents and family members.
There’s a risk of letting one’s imagination run too wild, here, but blending our culture’s increasing social liberalism with a clinical view of psychological and spiritual well-being and a government-directed healthcare system makes for a dangerous, dangerous cocktail.