I think it's because we liberals are more often enjoined to assist the public in gaining access to mental health care, which keeps us very busy, and blinds us I guess to the other side. I really think I am the only liberal in a room of civil rights activists who realizes that people have both the right to access treatment, and the right to refuse treatment. In my experience that second issue just doesn't come up under ADA provisions; fighting for the right to mental health treatment predominates, and necessarily holds our attention.

It would help get the word out if FOX wasn't the only outlet reporting the other side, with its zero credibility in lefty circles. What's needed is thoughtful, rational and objective reporting by non-ideological sources, once they get the liberal ear liberals listen.

Remember the NAMI questionairre during the primary, 'twas Hillary Clinton with the skeptical remarks pertaining to mental health and pharmaceuticals:

All patients should have access to effective treatments recommended by their prescribing physician without the fear that government-sponsored or private insurance will deny these life-saving medicines. That said, we do need to have a better understanding of the best pharmaceutical treatment options for all patients, which is why I have proposed establishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute. A public-private partnership, this institute would develop and guide research priorities so that doctors, nurses, and other health professionals know what drugs, devices, surgeries, and treatments work best.

I am no fan of the "private" part of the partnership, but the statement suggests she knows what's going on in mental health is hinky.

Well, I was raised to think that conservatism meant keeping your nose out of people's business while liberalism meant sticking your nose into it.

As such, of COURSE liberals wouldn't think about the right to refuse treatment - everyone has to be fixed and made better, whether they want to be fixed / made better or not, while conservatives tended to say that you can do any damn fool thing you want to do as long as you're willing to accept the consequences.

A lot of that has changed, but I remember a time in America when that was true.

I agree with Puckett. Under Obama the government is only going to get bigger and bigger and this does not necessarily include better.

The same holds for the FDA. I imagine it will receive more money now but will remain beholden to you know who. Obama is for the Mother's Act where all pregnant woman wil be "screened" for postpartum depression and using the false/negatives these tests produce, will be treated usually with antidpressants.

In the meantime, the media which was always liberal, has gone pretty far left. The only blanaced media anymore [with a few exceptions] is Fox News where, especially with Hannity & Colmbs" a person can get both sides of the story.

The only Senator who seems interested in "Conflict of Interest" with the medical community and Pharma is a Republican, Charles Grassley. And I say this as a former Democrat.

Too bad President Bush went nuts on us. I wonder what he was taking.

If you want to know about the inside workings of the FDA and learn why just changing who is running it will not solve one problem, go to the Pharmalot blog and read the comments by former fda reviewer!

Puckett, wikipedia needs you!

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1] Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.

[Liberals] are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] free markets,[2] and a transparent system of government.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

And so on. Sara, two things: Government is big, no administration shrinks government. What "small government" amounts to is the conversion of government functions to the private sector (Blackwater, Halliburton, Faith-based organizations) and thereby removing accountability from its mission.

Second, you are mistaken to believe George Bush "went nuts" if by that you mean he went off his game plan sometime during the last 8 years. On the contrary, the Bush administration has more than achieved its goals, excepting its attempt to privatize social security; which you surely recall as his predominant first term initiative, and which the American public protested en masse.

The Bush administration was selected for the purpose of dismantling protective organizations like the FDA, FEMA, HHS, EPA etc., and when not possible to place their administration into the hands of lobbyists, cronies and incompetents to serve the needs of private business and other supporters of right-wing ideology. These changes will be hard to undo, and Obama will make 10,000 policy decisions during his first year in office. As citizens we might help share the burden by understanding the underlying issues, and I welcome you to join me in doing so.

flawedplan, I do agree with you ideologically speaking and politically, but I still gotta say wtf about ironies pertaining to psych meds reporting in the media. I feel like I am drowning in liberals, and I wish more of us would get our head out of our ass.

The republicans are for restricting the rights of individuals, the democrats for restricting the rights of business. To associate one of these parties with liberalism or conservatism is bs these days.

That said, it sickens me that Obama is for the Mother's Act and mandatory screening of low ranking military. Still, he's got potential, particularly with the backlash against biopsych we're seeing.