I don't really want to get into this debate beyond pointing out one very ironic thing. Originally this act was named the Melanie Blocker Stokes Act after a woman who was (wait for it) a pharmaceutical rep married to a physician. Well things didn't go too well after their baby was born and you can go to this link and read her story (http://www.melaniesbattle.org/story.html) -- I urge you to do so. This wasn't a woman who wasn't getting enough care. Far from it -- she was getting way, way too much care. I guess the proponents of the Melanie Blocker-Stokes Act kind of realized that pushing that name for the act was maybe calling attention to a few things they wanted to avoid so it's been pretty much dropped according to my understanding and now we just call it the Mothers' Act. But if you ever want to read a cautionary tale about "treating" postpartum depression, go to that link and if this act is passed there's going to be a lot more where that came from.

I think it's fine as long as it does what it says it's going to do, and not do. I'm speaking, of course, about Big Pharm touting the "One Less" vaccine for teenaged girls so they won't get cancer and never mentioning that the vaccine is designed for genital warts. Let's have the whole truth, or give us nothing.

I recently heard about a father getting severely depressed after the birth of his child. Didn't want to see the baby, hold it or anything for weeks and weeks. I looked it up and apparently men can suffer from the "baby blues" as well. No doubt it's different because there isn't the physical and hormonal element that the mother experiences but clearly something is going on, not sure where it comes from tho.

On SSRI Stories. there are 44 [forty-four] cases of mothers suffering from postpartum depression who took an SSRI or SNRI and then killed themselves and/or their child. These are all articles from the media. The true number of such cases is unknown.

Why is it always assumed that a diagnosis of postpartum blues/depression/psychosis will lead to drugs being imposed on the new mother? What I see here is a bill to educate women about the possibility of this illness and the possible treatment options. Just because treatment options may include medications shouldn't be a reason to deny disseminating this information. Let the mother make an informed decision about what treatment, if any, she pursues.

Gotta medicate those prenatal soccer moms.

"Let the mother make a choice".....RIGHT!!!! Check out SSRI stories and see how many suicides / homicides began with the "patient" making an informed decision of the dangers of that class of drugs.

This junk to be pushed is also for PREGNANT women. Check the current NEJM for what the antiepilepsy class of drugs does to the children of pregnant women who take them while little embry is in utero.

Check out who is funding EVERY group backing this piece of junk, and write to your Senator asap, especially if he/she is on the Senate HELP (?) Comittee. This committee includes one of my...previous personal heroes, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Check who takes pharma money.

The only thing that stopped this one last year was a hold by very conservate Sen. Coburn of OK, a doctor who does NOT FEEL CONGRESS SHOULD BE ABOUT MAKING MEDICINE.

This is an action item. The youtubes of wrecked or dead babies oughta convince you, if nothing else.

Traditional human communities did mothercraft better. Balinese culture for example gives expectant mothers high status, the mother has a lying-in period of one Balinese month (5 weeks) during which she is relieved of all housework and other duties, her sole job is bonding and caring for baby, she is not isolated socially at all but extended family and neighbours rally round. The baby is not to touch the ground for 3 to 6 months (get different accounts of these two dates) and so is well held which facilitates secure attachment. co-sleeping with infants so the 90 minute sleep cycle of mother and infant synchronise which is timed for the refeed in line with human milk's high glycemic index (other species with high GI milk and short space between feeds carry their young too - including all other primates). When involved in infant care father's hormones (in several species including humans) become more feminised so a fathering bonding instinct is similar to the maternal instinct that hormonally kicks in. a tribe can alleviate new parents of many chores and duties to care for young, a tribe also has multiple "parents" to share the load and occupy the new infant's siblings including fractious toddlers who may feel jilted by new arrival.

compare all this to modern urbanised society with nuclear families at best and single parents quite common, and single working parents - especially in countries like USA and Australia at bottom of the OECD for maternity leave entitlements - and recipe is for post-natal depression.

The Balinese say traditionally PND in their culture was rare, noting change with modernisation of their society unfortunately.

The "mothers act" would do far better to give 12 months paid maternity leave (sadly only rich Scandinavian countries seem able to give modern mothers something approaching what our ancient ancestors usually experienced).

Tony asked "Why is it always assumed that a diagnosis of postpartum blues/depression/psychosis will lead to drugs being imposed on the new mother?"

The answer is because it's a very reasonable assumption seeing as how drugs are presented as the solution for every other type of mental illness.

"Broadly speaking, the lack of such supposed benefits does not seem to have harmed society a bit, although there are obviously individual exceptions."

For a top ten mental health blogger that I respect, I would have thought that you'd be beter informed about perinatal mood and anxiety disorders. I would love to talk with in person so we could discuss these illneses in depth.

Over thousands of years, since postpartum deression was first recognized by Hippocrates as "puerperal psychosis", it's done quite a bit of harm. I'd be happy to share with you the research and commentary that have gone on throughout history. It's just that no one had put the name "postpartum depression" to it, and few knew what to do about it. Hippocrates thought that the mother's milk was seeping up into the brain.

Even in the last few decades, before the "phenomenon of advocacy" you mention, women's lives and families were destroyed. It has had a very dear impact.

I know this firsthand. My mother had postpartum depression with both myself and my brother. No one knew what it was then. The only thing she knew to do to make herself feel better was to drink. She became an alcoholic and ended up divorced and without custody of her children. And I also know it as the story of thousands of people I've spoken to. The fact that it has been brushed under the rug because it's an unspoken, shame-inducing illness doesn't mean the harm doesn't exist.

You might also look into the history of our nation's mental institutions, where many women were committed and NEVER let out because no one knew what was wrong with them and it was assumed that they had just "gone crazy". They died there. Can you imagine? Their lives were stolen away for a treatable and temporary illness.

Additionally, baby blues is NOT a psychiatric condition and has nothing at all to do with this bill or with perinatal mood and anxiety disorders. Baby blues is a normal hormonal adjustment period exerienced by the majority of women after childbirth, and it resolves itself completely naturally within the first 2-3 weeks after birth. Women with the baby blues don't require mental health screening or meds or anything else, except perhaps a little bit of rest.

Only approximately 15-20% of women experience an actual mood or anxiety disorder after birth. These women are so affected by their symptoms that it completely interrupts their ability to function daily as human beings and as mothers.

"I don't even have a guess as to what would result if, say, 1 million new moms (to pick a number) wound up taking anti-depressants and add-on antipsychotics while pregnant and/or breastfeeding."

Let's remember that many, many women with PPD choose not to take medication and pursue other treatments, like therapy, in order to continue breastfeeding. Many others choose to stop breastfeeding so that they can take medication. You might also ask yourself what the result is if a million women go untreated and their offspring are negatively affected, as plenty of valid research shows, by these illnesses.

I have not read the bill (and I don't intend to), but shouldn't docs (e.g., ob-gyn) be providing education to woman anyway? Why does there need to be a bill passed by congress? Shouldn't drug companies just educate the docs? Or is this a way for pharma companies to do that, but by spending tax money instead of their own?

I am so fed up with doctors and their chemical imbalances and their stupid pills. I had a terrible panic attack four or five months after my second pregancy. My doctor tricked me by telling me that Paxil was for anxiety attacks and she totally played down the fact that it was an antidepressant. I trusted her, so I took it. I became suicidal. I packed up my kids and moved thousands of miles away. It was all very sudden and I abandoned my apartment and all of my belongings. The Paxil made me crazy and more anxious than any anxiety attack ever could.

What I always wanted to say to her - Thanks, ya quack. You think you know everything, but turns out you don't know much. Ever think I could have had a panic attack because of my situation (which you knew about)? Maybe because of my background (which I know you suspected because of the badgering questions you asked me)? Let's drug all abused and battered people within an inch of their lives, huh doc? Maybe incapacitate or kill off a bunch of them that way so normal people won't have to be made uncomfortable by knowing the truth of why some people are the way they are.

Have you ever bought something and then found it at a better price shortly after the purchase? It is because you are actively looking for the item-price. In the same way, if I ask you to look for signs of depression you will find them, as you are looking for them. Are they really there? Maybe. Are they "normal" feelings? Probably.
Can Pharma Co. sell more product now that everyone is looking to "help" the depressed? Definitely Yes.
Are the chemicals-meds-drugs harmless? No, they can hurt as much as help, if they scientifically "help" more than harm.

It will be interesting to see if our nation's mental health system will be able to "(2) provide for the delivery of essential services to individuals with postpartum conditions and their families" when it comes to mental health care.

Can those who support the honorable intent of the act insure those suffering from PPD will receive anything resembling appropriate treatment? After all, the members of Presidents New Freedom Commission on Mental Health America's shared the "... united belief that America's mental health service delivery system is in shambles." What kinds of care and outcomes does a system in shambles naturally afford and consequently engender?

Very disappointed that you have promoted the idea that this bill will result in mandated screening for mothers. There is nothing in the bill to support this (which your article fails to mention). The bill requests funding for the research into the efficacy of screening.

There are many ways to support new mothers who may have mood disorders associated with pregnancy. Non pharmacological support. This bill WILL FUND ALL OF those services..... so badly needed in a country that poorly understands maternal mental health, is the last civilized nation to recognize these disorders and has a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries (which is NOT associated with psychopharmacological abuses).

As a clinical social worker who does not prescribe medication and recommends all the complementary and social support services available to mothers to help them in the postpartum, I see this legislation as opening the door for midwives, doulas, pre and postnatal education, even transportation and cleaning services etc... it specifically is very general on the kinds of services it will fund.. it does NOT FUND MEDICATION OR MANDATE SCREENING.. please read this bill more carefully. We will be failing women in this country AGAIN and making them MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to pharamacological interventions if we do not fund and support a WIDE ARRAY OF SOCIAL and COMPLEMENTARY SERVICES. Please support The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS ACT (By the way, Melanie's own mother is an ardent supporter of this bill).

Susan Stone

Firstly, are you a woman? No. Which means one thing. You haven't been through PPD yourself, right? Unless you've been through it yourself, you can't possibly know what it's like. Sure, mothers have been giving birth for all these years, but just because most women with PPD don’t speak up doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It's ludicrous for anyone to say it's a make-believe illness. It's particularly ludicrous that you're one of them, being that you are a blogger who has won awards for your reporting on mental illness, even voted as a top ten mental health blogger, and yet you know very little about PPD. Half of me thinks you are saying what you're saying to provoke responses. Me thinks you have succeeded because here are my 2 cents.....

One of the best things about this country is that we are all, each one of us, allowed to think whatever we want. However, don't do so in ignorance. READ THE BILL before anyone should spout their anti pharma claims. Nowhere in the bill does it say all mothers will be drugged. Nowhere in the bill does it say that all mothers must be put through screening. Part of the issue today surrounding perinatal mood disorders is the lack of research, education and public awareness on these very serious AND VERY REAL illnesses. That includes adequate training of medical health care providers on the proper diagnosis and offering the correct treatment options (and patients being properly informed so the decision THAT'S RIGHT FOR THEM can be made). Without the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mothers Act, progress that's already way too slow to begin with (if it weren't for the increased attention due to the Andrea Yates case, Brooke Shields' book and Tom Cruise's rantings earlier in the decade, it'd be even slower), these problems will continue to occur and mothers (pregnant and postpartum) will continue to pay the price!

Philip Dawdy responds: no disrespect ivy, but what i asked was a pretty innocent question and it's lovely to be slaughtered over it. as i made clear in my posting, i am not denying the existence of ppd, not at all, as i've seen it happen. i was merely pointing out that for a phenomenon of childbirth that is said to be so prevalent in this age it strikes me as interesting that it's difficult to find accounts of ppd in history before our current age.

to claim that i don't 'know' because i am a man and haven't been through ppd myself is silly. or should i just turn around and say you can't have an opinion about anti-depressants because you've never wound up suicidal on a dose change of prozac?

I see a trend here among the critic responses. Drugs are evil, and pharamaceutical companies are in league with doctors to enslave people. Really?? Such a black-and-white response threatens to cut off much needed help for millions of women.

No, we shouldn't have to legislate that doctor's provide all of these things. In an ideal world, doctors and nurses would be astute and open-minded to see all concerns with equal importance and seriousness. Since we live in a world with mental health stigma and a still growing understanding of pregnancy related mood disorders, such action IS needed.

I had postpartum depression and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, which feels a lot like bipolar disorder lined up with your menstrual cycle. This was no "baby blues", no "soccer mom affliction". Thas was hell, pure and simple. I am a mental health counselor, and was at the time of my depression. Depression is so powerful, it can even take a person who "ought to know better" completely by surprise.

To those of you who brush this off as something that millions of women have had for thousands of years without "arm waving" and attention, live through it and see your life fall apart. Then tell me if you don't think someone in a position of responsibility ought to reach out as a matter of practice. Please, before you judge this situation with such doubt, talk to a woman who has been saved by advocacy, therapy, and yes, medication.

It is not medication here that is at fault, ladies and gentlemen. It is a tool, no more offensive and dangerous than a hammer when used properly with a responsible physician. When manufactured with effectiveness and safety, a hammer can be an invaluable tool for millions of people. A hammer can kill a person when used by someone with malicious intent or carelessness. A hammer can also be used build a home for someone, fix a broken shelf, or hang a picture of a loved one.

In my humble opinion, it is the responsibility of the doctor to understand the medications they are giving, to choose wisely what to give, and to know their patient as thoroughly as possible before even offering medication. It is also the responsibility, as it is with any medication, for the patient to do as much self-education as possible before beginning a course of medication, asking questions, talking about choices, alternatives, etc.

Folks, the stigma is just so huge, THIS is why the education is really the most important part. The depressed person is hardly in a good position to advocate well for themselves. The disorder causes such mental confusion and shame, they are generally unlikely to be proactive. Or if they are, it is often after many months or years of suffering.

With much better education and screening, each mother who is spoken to has a moment where their own stigmatizing thoughts on mental illness can broken down. Whether she has symptoms or not, a woman who experiences the compassion and sincerity of a doctor checking for her WHOLE well being can pass on that compassion to others later in her life. And for the one in eight women who desperately need this attention, it is truly a godsend of relief.

Medication brought me quickly out of a hellhole, and I did a brief amount of therapy to help me up the hill of recovery. After that, I felt confident in my amount of professional knowledge on depression to help myself well enough. Some women don't choose medication but do other things. Again, a responsible doctor, nurse, or advocate will show her the choices that can benefit her well.

As a counselor, I see only women with mood disorders as a result of my experiences. I have helped several women with postpartum depression or other issues related to pregnancy and depression. It's real and they have been grateful for someone with such understanding. All of them have greatly benefited from medication, though it's true that not everyone responds well to all medications. Research shows that therapy combined wtih medication shows the overall best result. But really, a good female support network and the restoration of the woman's sense of control (however that is done) is the key.

I challenge those of you who oppose or question the need for this legislation to consider where your own opinion really comes from. It's convenient to say this is all about meds and that we'll all stand up against those mean pharm companies. Really, they provide a much needed service and they are a small part of the issue. Don't kill this off to spite the pharm companies.

First, I find it completely unnecessary to share the personal tragedies of your friends when there is always more to the store than just the drugs they were on and what it did to them. Have you ever had a bad reaction to a medication you took? An allergy drug? An antacid that did not work for you? Does tylenol help you? Does ibuprofen work better? Not all meds work for everyone. Tell me you don't take a headache medicine, or treat diabetes if you need to.

Second, walk a mile in my shoes. You ask about thousands of years of history of moms and "baby blues" (please educate yourself on the difference between baby blues and PPMD's) - and why now? Because moms are speaking out about an illness that has caused them shame and silence when the world tells them they are supposed to be happy. To be less than happy as a mom is to be less than a human being - that's what the world screams. WRONG. For someone who writes about mental illness, I would think you would know this. Are those with mental illness less than human? Neither is a mom who is legitimately and physically and mentally sick.

A comment above discussed how societies handle new moms and how that MUST prevent PPD - I can tell you that even if I had been in that society with all the help in the world, I STILL WOULD HAVE GOTTEN SICK. My body was broken and my chosen route of treatment saved my life, and I am not being overly dramatic when I say that. I am not a suicidal person by any means, but I can still picture those scissors on the counter.

That is my personal story - each woman chooses their own path to recovery, but education is key. And that education saves lives - mother's lives and baby's lives.

By the way, I took an anti-depressant through pregnancy - I am fine, my children are fine. They are smart, developing normally, healthy. Yelling "Fire" to the detriment of others when you are not educated and you have not walked in our shoes is dangerous. Do NOT criticize what you do not know and do not DENY this education to another woman like me out there who may be at risk for taking her own life because of an illness that is not her fault.

Take up Katherine's offer to talk with her about t his.

Philip Dawdy responds: no disrespect tara, but it's my website and i'll operate it as i see fit. the anecdotal tales of people i know around ppd were there to give some context for me even writing about the issue and to show that i am sympathetic to experiences on both sides of the issue. it was highly appropriate for me to include the stories.

let's not talk about the women who kill themselves and/or kids while UNtreated....it's not all about 'big pharma'
i expected more from you FS..

I'm baffled why you would make the statement you make in your last paragraph, a blogger who has won awards for your reporting on mental illness, even voted as a top ten mental health blogger....it gives the impression that you know very little about PPD. Here are my 2 cents and food for thought for you & your blog followers:

Unless you've been through it yourself, you can't possibly know what having PPD is like (scratch your head all you want). One of the best things about this country is that we are all, each one of us, allowed to think whatever we want. However, don't do so in ignorance. READ THE BILL before anyone should spout their anti pharma claims. Nowhere in the bill does it say all mothers will be drugged. Nowhere in the bill does it say that all mothers must be put through screening. Part of the issue today surrounding perinatal mood disorders is the lack of research, education and public awareness on these very serious AND VERY REAL illnesses. That includes adequate training of medical health care providers on the proper diagnosis and offering the correct treatment options (and patients being properly informed so the decision THAT'S RIGHT FOR THEM can be made). Without the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mothers Act, how many more centuries are we going to remain ignorant about perinatal mood disorders with mothers paying the price?! There has been more progress made since the turn of the century than the first documented cases in the days of Hippocrates, thanks for Brooke's book, Tom's rantings, passing of the and last but certainly not least media focus on the Andrea Yates case (that was one of many cases of a doctor prescribing an antidepressant without a mood stabilizer - an antidepressant by itself for postpartum psychosis can lead to disastrous consequences).

Philip Dawdy responds: oh it's another round of the 'you can't have an opinion cuz you're a man, you can't even ask a skeptical question' line of thought. please. or shall we just ban women from having opinions about men and issues we face in life? you would likely go nuts on me if i did that, so why are you imposing your prejudices on me?

as for the screening being mandatory or not, the bill doesn't say but my understanding is in nj that the screening is mandatory. maybe the national bill won't follow that same pattern. anyway, i'll be interested to see whatever studies get done on the nj screening, but i guess those will be down the road still.

We would be much better served as a society by taking care of our new parents (both men and women), providing them with sufficient paid parental leave, community and care, instead of isolation and judgment...oh and some drugs if they are having a hard time.

Your average new mom is alone at home with a newborn. Her husband is back at work in a week, if he takes any leave at all (Dads--you are entitled to FMLA--take it!). If she's lucky, she has a couple weeks of support from extended family. She's exhausted and overwhelmed, all while she's supposed to be the "happiest she's ever been in her life." If that's not a recipe for depression, I don't know what is.

OK, sure, medication may help some (and possibly hurt many more, but the mother's act won't "educate" about that), but medication will *not* fix what is at its core a problem with how we structure our society.

Tony--if you honestly think an implementation of this bill wouldn't be primarily about psych meds, you are sorely out of touch. Even without this bill, for US women lucky enough to have health coverage, meds are most often the only thing offered for any post-partum emotional problem, however major or minor.

I am due in June with our second child (this is my first pregnancy, my wife gave birth to our first), and the Mother's Act chills me to the bone.

Peace be with you

I don't know how people can believe this is not an attempt to increase ssri sales. With MAP (medication algorithm programs) across the country this will be just like teen screen. The real tragedy is that through the mother the babies will be exposed to these drugs before birth. Its genocide.

love eternal
tad

"i was merely pointing out that for a phenomenon of childbirth that is said to be so prevalent in this age it strikes me as interesting that it's difficult to find accounts of ppd in history before our current age."

Actually, Phillip, it isn't that difficult if you know where to look, which most people don't because PPD just hasn't been on their radar screen. It happened to be called melancholia back then:

Documentation of PPD can be traced to the writings of Hippocrates in the fourth century B.C.E. Hippocrates described melancholia as a state of "aversion to food, despondency, sleeplessness, irritability, and restlessness". Galen (131-201 C.E.) described melancholia as "fear and depression, discontent with life, and hatred of all people". Greco-Roman medicine recognized melancholia in the form of fear, suspicion, aggression, and suicidal thoughts. In 1436, the life story of a young mother was published and described how she felt "insane" and despaired of her life and survival after the birth of her first child.

In the 1800s, two French physicians became interested in postpartum depression. In 1838, Dr. J.E.D. Esquirol documented 90 women with emotional problems and divided their illnesses into three types: illnesses that occurred during pregnancy, those that occurred immediately after childbirth, and those that occurred 6 weeks or more after birth. Many of these women had suffered in silence, for fear of being stigmatized, misunderstood, or removed from their families.

In 1858, Dr. Louis Victor Marcé similarly observed 300 French women using the three categories established by Dr. Esquirol. He concluded that the types of emotional illnesses occurring in the postpartum time frame had unique characteristics of their own. He was convinced that there was an element in the body's physical mechanism causing postpartum illness, although he could not identify it. Marcé's conclusions have become important cornerstones of modern thinking on postpartum depression and the endocrine system.

Shall I go on?

Philip Dawdy responds: please do. in fact, here's what i'm really curious about: where's the data, studies, anecdotes to show what went on with new moms during the baby boom years of the 40s and 50s when we weren't screening for depression and when we weren't giving new moms anti-depressants? if what some MOTHERS act advocates claim is true about ppd and suicide, then i'd expect to see dead moms all over the place and at least some accounts of this to have trickled through to our time.

I see several mothers have come here to support the Mothers' Act. Not one of them has referred to the horrific tale of Melanie Blocker Stokes who within one month of her baby's birth sank into a deep, psychotic depression. Apparently then she got all the wonderful help screening and medicine can offer -- hospitalized three times in seven weeks, four combinations of different drugs including antipsychotics, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, finally topped off with a treatment of ECT. Yes this really helped her a lot because what did she do then? She jumped to her death from a twelfth story window. How can you read this story and not realize that Melanie didn't die from her postpartum depression/psychosis? She died from her treatment pure and simple. Just go in and look at the Physicians' Desk Reference at the side effects of those classes of drugs; read the stories of what ECT does to you. It's embarrassing and shocking that this piece of legislation promoting treatment is named after such a shocking demonstration of incompetence.

And for those of you who say it's safe to take antidepressants during pregnancy just because you think your kids are normal and doing fine, please read up a little more carefully on the birth defects from those who took Paxil. We do not know all the ways in which antidepressants affect fetal development or at what stage the effects may manifest themselves. It's an enormous risk to take drugs which cross the blood brain barrier during pregnancy. Sure, withdrawal has its own severely debilitating effects on the mother so it's a conundrum but taking an unknown risk with a developing life is a violation of that little being's rights and may impact the course of his/her entire development in ways that are ill understood to say nothing of what it's doing to the mother's ability to parent properly.

I think we all agree it is good and necessary to help mothers with PPD. The problem is who defines what "help" is? "Help" means different things to different people. If someone chooses to try a drug-medicine they have to be informed of the effectiveness and side-effects, not just handed a "magic" pill.

Tilting at Windmills,

You hit the nail on the head with this:"We would be much better served as a society by taking care of our new parents (both men and women), providing them with sufficient paid parental leave, community and care, instead of isolation and judgment...oh and some drugs if they are having a hard time."

I'm for social programs that help people like paid prenatal care, paid parental leave, government funded day care, public education programs about diet and exercise, and such.

I ardently oppose fiscally irresponsible, financially unaffordable increases in government power and decreases in personal liberty like the screening, monitoring, and "treating" that this bill pushes. Paid parental leave and daycare are many, many times cheaper and indisputably more effective at improving the quality of lives of mothers and children, and lets face it, we're all either one, the other or both.

Regarding your question posed to Katherine, it's called women suffering in silence and being misdiagnosed by doctors not knowing how to recognize & treat PPD. The reasons for keeping quiet have always been the same--i.e., many (like me) don’t even know what is happening to them in the first place; many go see their doctor about why they’re feeling the way they’re feeling, but are told that what they’re feeling (baby blues) is normal and should go away by itself; many are afraid of what their family/friends may think; many are afraid others will look down at them and call them weak/bad mothers; many may even fear that if they speak up, their children will be taken away.

More on this here:
http://ivysppdblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/pain-sadness-hiding-behind-smilesnever-assume-and-think-that-all-is-blissful-for-the-new-mom/

Go here for more on the historical trend away from social support in the latter half of the 20th century, which can account for growing cases of PPD:
http://ivysppdblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/the-importance-of-social-supporta-historical-perspective/

Ivy, great comments about why PPD has remained obscured in history. I felt all of those things myself. The shame and cognitive distortion is a tragic assault on a woman's judgment and brain. The insight on the historical aspects is wonderful, too. To that, I would add my thoughts on research.

An example - Research on women's addiction has only just emerged in the last few years, uncovering some significant differences in effective treatment needs. But that's because they probably only recently got approval or the idea to even research it at all. The lack of research doesn't discount the existance of women with addiction problems for the last many hundreds of years. Just the lack of properly focused research.

Same for PPD. Just because it hasn't been researched well for a long time doesn't mean it didn't exist. The term PMS wasn't even coined until the 1950's. How could anyone have a grasp on PMDD or PPD if that's all the farther they got at that time?

In light of some of your own comments, Philip, I would like to gently and calmly refer you to your own comment policy. Read the part about not deriding someone's disorder. Your question about the research in the 40's and 50's is fine and valid to wonder about. The "dead moms all over the place" part was completely unnecessary.

I made a comment earlier, and I've observed some coming through. At the beginning of this post, you stated that you were not denying postpartum depression. From the responses you have offered to those who enthusiastically support this act, it seems very much like you have changed your position.

Your latest response to Katherine shows you questioning the very existence of PPD. I'm really confused by this since you are an advocate for mental health.

Philip, I don't know very much about PPD but it's not implausible that it's been a hidden but serious health issue for a long time. Especially considering the history of medicine with regards to women's health.

What I found particularly odd about your post was your statement that "the lack of such supposed benefits does not seem to have harmed society a bit". One could say the same for advocacy towards practically any mental health issue. I don't "see dead moms all over the place", but neither does the average person see "dead schizophrenics" all over the place. This doesn't mean that schizophrenia is not a serious mental health issue that ought to be addressed. The fact that PPD hasn't doomed society doesn't mean that it isn't something that ought to be addressed, either. The human race has kept chugging despite being plagued both with mental disorders like major depression and its being treated with questionable drugs, and you [obviously, and rightly] think that these problems are worthy of our attention.

Even if PPD is not quite as prevalent or deadly as other disorders, it still warrants our attention in some way. Snakebites are relatively rare but we're still advised to watch out for rattlers in the grass when we go hiking. The question should not be whether or not PPD deserves attention-- it certainly does-- but whether this particular method of advocating for it is worth the potential risks.

Ivy, thanks for giving us links to your blog and I'm sorry you suffered so much after the birth of your daughter. I see you went on Paxil and attribute your recovery very much to that. Can you tell us if you're still on it and, if not, how it went when you came off? I wonder if you are aware that Brooke Shields in her book actually describes having adverse reactions to Paxil without even being aware that that's what she is describing. She thinks she's describing her postpartum depression but really it's a typical Paxil reaction. One was the manic suicidal reaction driving her car with her baby in the back after she came off Paxil too abruptly -- did anyone explain to her (or you) exactly how to come off Paxil and how very carefully you have to do it in order to avoid a suicidal reaction? Another time she described trying to memorize lines and how difficult she found it -- that's a common side effect -- impairment of short term memory. Sometimes I think we never heard the complete story from Brooke. She wrote her book before she had completely tapered off medication which fortunately she was able to do successfully. Not all people are so lucky. After her second child she came out and said that she would not be using antidepressants again and she had a reconciliation of sorts with Tom Cruise. Wonder if there's anything significant about that. Just asking you understand.

I've posted below a practical problem with this bill, aside from its inherent wrongness.

Here's the problem you can see from reading below. Screening is mandatory. If you get labeled mentally ill by the screening, a fee for services (disregarding the fact that the services are harmful in and of themselves) will be levied upon you. I don't think women will have a choice about whether or not to accept treatment. The diagnosis will have the force of law.

So what if you can't afford the "treatment?" Unfair financial burden and of course the child suffers to. Loss of custody of the child....even if you believe that post partum depression is a real live disease that urgently needs treatment, this bill doesn't, in any way provide for treatment. Instead it imposes a financial burden on mothers. How can that possibly help?

SEC. 202. CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

(2) The grant will be used to supplement and not supplant funds from other sources related to the treatment of postpartum conditions.

(3) The applicant will abide by any limitations deemed appropriate by the Secretary on any charges to individuals receiving services pursuant to the grant. As deemed appropriate by the Secretary, such limitations on charges may vary based on the financial circumstances of the individual receiving services.

(4) The grant will not be expended to make payment for services authorized under section 201(a) to the extent that payment has been made, or can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to such services--

(A) under any State compensation program, under an insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health benefits program; or

(B) by an entity that provides health services on a prepaid basis.

(5) The applicant will, at each site at which the applicant provides services under section 201(a), post a conspicuous notice informing individuals who receive the services of any Federal policies that apply to the applicant with respect to the imposition of charges on such individuals.

Sara,
Hope you don't mind, I've got another link to a previous post that goes into my Paxil weaning process and the vertigo I felt while doing so (don't want to take up too much space on this blog). The weaning process took about 7 months altogether. I couldn't get off of it faster because of what felt to me like vertigo (dizziness everytime I turned my head and often as I walked).
http://ivysppdblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/next-came-the-panic-attacks/
What treatment option to follow (meds/therapy, combo of both) is a personal decision. Problem is, patients need to be armed with the RIGHT INFO.

I am sure Philip didn't mean to say "dead moms" in a derogatory way. He was actually referring to the phenomena of "Hey, isn't this something new".

For example, I recently read an article on Google news that said there were three mass shootings from 1930 to 1970. There were 25 mass shootings from the year 2000 to 2009. So people are saying, "hey isn't this something new". Another good example of this are the school shootings. There were actually several school shootings from 1940 to 1990 but people hardly noticed because there were about two of them. Suddenly, we are having many mass school shootings so people are wondering if this is a new phenomena.

Since we didn't hear about the PPD moms in the 1950's and 1960's, we assumed there were none or very few of them. Today, we have had so many postpartum depression moms in Texas killing their kids and usually themselves that the Texas legislature has a bill pending where a woman can use a PPD defense if she harms her baby under the age of two years. I think the Texas legislature was willing to create this bill because it was a case literally of "dead moms". Suddenly we were seeing all these 'dead moms' in Texas that we had never seen before. Did these moms exist before the 1990's? Probably there were some tragic cases but not nearly the number we were suddenly witnessing.

I believe the reason there were so many more of these cases was mostly because these women were taking antidepressants which caused them to bcome manic, agitated, suicidal, etc. There may also be other reasons such as the stress of both parenting and working although working women began in earnest back in the 1970's and Texas did not see cases like this during those times. There were about fifteen really huge PPD cases in Texas from about 1993 to 2008.

One of the answers to this problem would be for doctors to explicitly demand that a new mom have someone to help her in the first 5 to 6 months after her baby is born.

When a baby dophin is born, female dolphins swim next to the mother in a protective way for many weeks. Maybe we could learn something from the dolphins.

I also think it would help our society if physicians and the medical community would explain to women [and to men also!] that alcohol is a depressant - a really heavy depressant. I don't think that most people are aware of this fact. Alcohol seems to ease anxiety but it leaves in its wake a terrible depression and, once a person becomes an alcoholic, that are at a very high risk for suicide. So doctors should explain to all their patients what alcohol actually does. I know that doctors are always telling their patients to stop smoking but when do we ever get any kind of biological explanations of slcohol's effects on the human body. Physicians should expecially warn pregnant women and new mothers - not so much because of the physical effects of alcohol but because of the emotional effects. Too many women turn to alcohol to relieve the anxiety and then they are caught in the trap of depression.

Sara (again),
In response to your earlier post about Melanie, you state some good points, but Melanie's own mom has been advocating for the bill for the past 8 years. Maybe it's the fault of the doctors who prescribed the WRONG meds that should be blamed. There are similarities between Melanie and Andrea in that they both had postpartum psychosis and were not given mood stabilizers. PPP patients being prescribed an antidepressant(s) but no mood stabilizers can lead to disastrous consequences (this is what I've read in a number of places). This is why education & public awareness are critical, and the focus of the bill. By the way, what treatment other than medication would people propose for PPP patients? I'm not "pro-meds"...merely asking a question cuz I'm curious.

Ivy, I admit to being astonished that you don't seem to think there's much wrong with the fact it took you a good 7 months of some pretty unpleasant symptoms to get off Paxil. Why do you think you should have had to put up with that? And were you warned that anything like that might happen when you were put on it?

As for Carol Blocker supporting the bill, to me, it's pure folly. I think she's been suckered into believing that her daughter died from mental illness when it's obvious the standard of care she received was abysmal as well as being inappropriately aggressive. Time would have been a better healer than what Melanie got. I can only believe that because her daughter was a pharma rep and her son in law a physician that pharma interests somehow influenced her thinking to the point that she lost all common sense about what really happened. Sorry but that's what I truly believe. I think the Mothers Act will only encourage current treatment paradigms and I think many of them are extremely dangerous. Andrea Yates is another one who was undone by her treatment going back all the way to her first treatment with Zoloft. That's what started her on the path to unraveling and the treatment she received in the last weeks of her children's lives was truly shocking in the cavalier way in which her doctor ignored the risks of withdrawal and placed her on massive doses of powerful psychotropic drugs. And please don't rely in some naive way on the assumption that if a patient is given a mood stabilizer everything will be fine and dandy. So called mood stabilizers are really anti-seizure drugs and have horrific side effects. I think many of you who are supporting the Mothers Act are doing so in a naive and idealistic fashion and have little understanding of how this is going to play out in clinical practice nor what a boost it's going to give to the pharmaceutical industry that frankly places little value on human lives.

Sara,
Actually, the vertigo wasn't that bad and a small price to pay, in my opinion, for how I felt before the Paxil kicked in and relieved me of my traumatizing PPD symptoms of insomnia and panic attacks (which made me feel like I would never be able to return to my old self, which has always resisted taking meds for any reason unless I absolutely had to (like prednisone to stop my allergic reaction that brought me to a hospital twice). I believe everyone has a right to decide what is right for themselves, again, as long as they are armed with the right info. And yes, my doctor did warn me it would take several months to get off the Paxil. I had my own complaints about my doctor (who didn't know me from a hole in the wall and made me feel like a number), but I can't say he didn't adequately warn me.

Sara,
Perhaps you're not aware that Brooke Shields wholly endorses the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. http://postpartumprogress.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/postpartum-depression-brooke-shields-speaks-in-support-of-the-melanie-blocker-stokes-mothers-act.html

Two things:
Ivy, by mood stabilizers do you mean Depakote (valproic acid)? As in "lowered IQ scores in children whose mothers took it in pregnancy." If so, I'd think a bit more about this course of action, especially considering we live in a society that neglects its new mothers. Do you not think it would serve us all better to have home visitors, housekeeping support, child allowances--the things other industrialized countries take as a matter of course--as a first line approach? Let's move to meds further down the line.

Sara,
Assuming you are correct in saying "Screening is mandatory. If you get labeled mentally ill by the screening, a fee for services...will be levied upon you." this will be a big, fat money maker for our cash-strapped local mental "health" centers.

I have seen PPD up close and personal but, since I do not have children have not experienced it myself (thank goodness). From what I'm reading here it's normal to go through a hormonal depressive dip immediately after childbirth. Well, you can see how easily this would be embroidered upon by those docs who just love to label, don't you? We'll create a whole new class of cripples for the middle class to live off.

PPD and the mothers and children affected by it certainly DO deserve attention. But this bill will only make things worse. Being labelled "mentally ill" NEVER makes things better. Being supported at a crucial time in your life usually helps. That should be our first line approach.

Oh, but that would take money out of Halliburton's pockets, wouldn't it? Can't have that. No, no. Much better to create a new group of cash cows. God save us all.

I'm the mother of 3 kids and have never had any post partum psychosis or depression. Though I did experience, as expected, the hormonal readjustment period.

The thought that I would have been forced to be monitored for depression just because I was a pregnant woman gives me reason to be skeptical.

I could go on and on, but what I see in this thread are women who have experience real, and unique outcomes, and for those who suffered and are suffering , I sure don't minimize your experience at all.

Lack of sleep, hormonal fluctuations, lack of support from extended family, short time off from work, and breast feeding is a lot to ask of a body and a person.

I feel fortunate that I didn't suffer any great change in my life when I had babies, because my story has a different ending--a child, who at age 17 became high need, and by 21 basically disabled from psych med drugging from a wrong dx based on drug treatment.

What I see here, in this thread are strong women, who have fought hard to make it, including myself.

I also appreciate Philip writing about this; he doesn't deserve to be attacked with the "you are a man and don't get it" comments. Give me a break on that one.

Ivy (again),
You seem to have great faith in being able to determine what's right and wrong in the treatment of PPD and PPP. Just who is going to be the arbiter of what's right and wrong? Who can tell? There is no substantive evidence whatsoever for what medications to give for what symptoms. It's all a shot in the dark and I guess some people imagine that they are lucky because they feel better, for awhile anyway, due to the stimulant or sedative effects of the medications; others lose their lives, kill their children, or wreck their marriages. If you are writing a book on these issues please address the issue of treatment gone awry. You sound like you yourself are a victim of some ill considered treatment. What was it like trying to raise a small child while coming off Paxil? And don't imagine for one minute that what you were experiencing was "relapse" -- give me a break -- it was withdrawal and drug rebound reactions. Please go to www.ssristories.com/index.php and read each and every one of those postpartum stories before you write any more of your book. I think there are close to 50 there and that's only the tip of an iceberg I can assure you. Go to the link I've cited and scroll down the Additional column until you get to the summaries that begin with Mother and then click on the blue link (in the What column) for the full story.

Apologies. The Postpartum stories are listed together under the Additional column starting with Postpartum, not Mother.

Sara,
To clarify, I never said my symptoms from weaning off Paxil were "relapse"....in fact, I do believe they were withdrawal symptoms.

Sherry,
All over my blog I try to reinforce the importance of social support so the mom can get the rest she needs 1-3 months after childbirth (in fact, I say that in my latest post).

Stephany,
It was my anger over his last paragraph that triggered my initial "man" statements. I tried to submit another comment to "wipe out" my first one. Didn't work, cuz that's not how blogs work, as I'm quickly learning (I've only been blogging 2 mos). I've already apologized to Philip. This is my first time on his site...do not know him...just saw that paragraph and saw RED.

It's true -- you were not describing your own withdrawal as "relapse" but you did describe Brooke Shield's this way on your blog: "Look what happened to Brooke Shields when she went off Paxil cold turkey. She suffered a major relapse." So to clarify -- what Brooke Shield's was experiencing was not relapse, it was withdrawal.

And regarding Brooke Shield's book Down Came the Rain I consider it little more than an exercise in stealth marketing for Paxil. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if GSK, the manufacturer of Paxil, was behind the book in some way, at the very least by encouraging her doctor to encourage her to write her story. You can bet they knew she was on it. It's a Paxil Product Manager's "wet dream" (as Philip might say) to have Brooke Shield's write the story of how Paxil "saved her life." This is more and more the kind of marketing that big pharma is engaging in -- testimonials by famous and glamorous people about the drugs they take. And of course it leads to skyrocketing sales for bogus indications. Every mother wants to be like Brooke Shields. I'm just telling you that there may be more to her story and her book than meets the eye.

Sara, I sure never aspired to be like Brooke Shields, --and remember she has been a professional spokeswoman since she did shampoo ads when she was a baby. Then jeans, and toothpaste if I remember right. It probably didn't concern her one bit if GSK DID pay her to completely write the book!

Marie Osmond also had a post partum break down and had a bad experience with Zoloft.

Well, I think it's only fair that if we have the MOTHERS Act then we need to have some sort of law to screen mental health professionals. There seem to be an unusually high percentage of mentally unstable folks working in mental health care. For example, my former psychiatrist could have benefited from Haldol injections PRN. Might have saved him some trips to jail. It's really the only compassionate thing to do. Imagine how many people we could save!

I am glad to have learned here that what I felt after giving birth to my first baby was a postpartum dip. I thought it was this overwhelming feeling that I had just signed on to a lifelong responsibility starting at a too-young age with never enough social or spousal support. But I overcame. No pills back in that day.

What bothers me is the number of well-meaning/naive/nefarious (don't know the groups, really - just know they take pharma money) who are gung ho for this thing. Anybody who takes the money should not be naive: There is a Big String attached. Please understand that. Pharm does not love you. They don't care about whatever research or hand-holding you hope to do. They just want your help in passing the thing so they can sell more drugs. It is, after all, for them, only and always about greed.

I have seen way too much death and destruction from psychotropics to ever be able to support something like this. Even Dr. NO, Senator Coburn, who blocked the bill last year, and I agree that the Halls of Congress are not where we should be making life/death prescription drug decisions on mothers and children. And we agree on nothing else from what I know.

If your struggling non-profit goes down the tubes if this doesn't pass and you don't get your pharma grant, take comfort. More lives will be saved than lost.

Great post Philip - I think you captured quite well how it seems that the bill has been sugar coated to the max by the pharma front groups. It's about as likely that more women won't wind up on drugs of some sort as a result of the potential law, as it is that Pfizer's sponsorship of lectures on perinatal mood disorders through Mental Health America which in turn compensates Katherine Stone to deliver the speeches is evidence of Pfizer's good will toward women and their unborn babies.

An alliance between pharma front groups and the government targeting new mothers disgusts me. I was screened and drugged as a new mom and nearly lost my life because of it. You don't have to waste any time trying to convince me that the meds are "life-saving" - and as for Susan Stone saying that she refers women to alternatives, my therapist who helped me through my time on Zoloft never once sugggested I get off. I wonder how many extra patients people can have and for how much longer, if those patients are seeking therapy for the effects of a drug? When I stopped taking Zoloft and as a result became normal instead of homicidal and psychotic and suicidal, all of the sudden I no longer needed my therapist either.

Everyone should watch this video to learn how serious this really is (it goes beyond birth defects): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGX_34TmT4w

Here is the Melanie Stokes memorial video too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qble_vQEC7M

Now as for the language of the bill, there is tons in there about screening, but much of the language from last year was removed. However that doesn't stop people from thinking up their own ideas about what the bill will do. Such as, the bill has a provision to create 12 months of maternity leave... really? I missed that the 10 or 20 times I read it. Oh and the bill will magically solve the country's problem with moms being depressed and committing suicide... yeah right... My favorite is Susan Stone's claim that it's really all about alternative treatments and reducing drug use. If that were true, it would have some sort of language pertaining to informed consent or medical testing to look for thyroid problems or other root causes, rather than focusing on psychological labels and "case management" and psych screening and "clinical research" and "inpatient treatment."

I will weigh in on the topic of the Mother's Act on this website because I know my comments will not be erased.

On another website promoting the Mother's Act, I pointed out that the Act only refers to postpartum depression and the real problem for many of us is with the cottage industry being created by the postpartum websites transforming the language into a whole list of pregnancy related perinatal mood and anxiety disorders.

Two posters above, Katherine and Susan Stone, are constantly promoting the idea that women suffer from many pregnancy related mood and anxiety disorders on their websites, Postpartum Progress and PerinatalPro. Susan Stone provides a link to her own counseling business. Katherine sells books and provides links to treatment providers as well as a link to Susan's site.

However, being that the top sponsors of the bill in Congress refer to these people as the biggest supporters of the Mother's Act, in only mentioning postpartum depression, the language of the bill seems misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst.

On the website where my comment was removed, I pointed out that Katherine Stone herself is a prime example of what will happen to thousands, if not millions, of women if the Mother's Act is passed.

On her website, I found a page titled "The Art of Medication," in which she explained that for a simple diagnosis of postpartum obsessive-compulsive disorder, she took 5 antidepressants and 2 atypical antipsychotics and told women to hang in there if one medication didn't work.

In my last article, I pointed out that the admission of needing so many drugs did not match what Katherine wrote in a Newsweek article in 2004, when she said that her OCD treatment consisted of an antidepressant and weekly therapy sessions.

After my article was published, she removed the list of drugs from the webpage and put in some line about how her doctor didn't know what he was doing.

Finally, in regard to Katherine, in going through Pfizer's 2008 grant report, I noticed a $20,000 grant to a Mental Health America group in Georgia to sponsor: "Project Healthy Moms: Education for Prevention/Treatment for Perinatal Depression Disorders."

Pfizer sells 3 antidepressants including Zoloft.

It also markets drugs now commonly called "mood stablizers," such as 2 anticonvulsants, including Neurontin, and the atypical antipsychotic Geodon.

All of these drugs are being prescribed for the perinatal mood and anxiety disorders that women will be diagnosed with if the Mother's Act is passed.

In doing more research on the Pfizer grant, I found a June 8, 2008 e-news newsletter put out by the Georgia group that advertised Katherine Stone as the speaker for the presentations sponsored by Pfizer.

However, the Georgia groups called the program: “Project Healthy Moms: What You Need To Know About Perinatal Mood Disorders.”

Without disclosing the large amount, e-news stated: “This special hour of learning is made possible by a grant from Pfizer.”

In e-news, Katherine was described as a “former postpartum OCD sufferer and author of Postpartum Progress, the most widely-read blog in the United States on postpartum mood disorders. (Postpartum Progress was named one of the top ten depression sites on the web in 2007)”.

E-news said attendees of Stone’s presentation would learn in part:

“One size does NOT fit all: Why postpartum depression is just part of a spectrum of mood disorders women may experience & what to look for”

The newsletter directed people to contact Katherine directly, giving her email address and phone number, to schedule speaking events.

I'm sorry but I have a problem with the fact that a top promoter of the Mother's Act got $20,000 from a drug maker who will benefit greatly from women deemed to be suffering from all these perinatal mood and anxiety disorders.

Evelyn Pringle

Melanie Blocker Stokes did receive the psychiatric industry/Ivy League shill version of medical treatment. The three treatment subspecialties of the American Psychiatric Association are psychophramacology, ECT (130 volt in power, one fifth second, electric shocks across the temples) and psychosurgery. These are each material in nature, and so Biopsychiatry makes a pretence, in this manner, of Neutonian scientificness. Nothing else has reached their official medical protocols and B-vitamins, Zinc, Magnesium, Essential Fats, Antioxidants and drugs not in their special-favored-status group have never yet made it into their "scientific" "evidience based" "medical" practice quidelines. (Objectively diagnosed and materially, physically treated, after a Journal printed, scientific double-blind test of the intervention: that's their con-job.)
One thing that is going missing from this dialoge is the valid medical consideration that babies tax their mothers' bodies' nutritional stores. By draining their brains/bodies of essential fats and so on the mothers mental/neurological/physical health can often be affected. That is the reality in medicine -- swept under the rug by these profiteers in misery -- that does truly need to be addressed in perinatal care -- in some different, non-fraudulent version of all this. This issue of Omega-3 fats, Zinc and so on is not refered, of course, when one looks to what is meant by treatment in this P.R. propaganda about the Melanie Blocker Stokes act -- and "postpartum depression," and "postpartum psychosis" -- which are transmogrified from real things to the DSM4 limbo version where they are, and will remain, ill defined, "disorders," "not fully understood yet", calling for more research, and treated with "psychiatric medications" and counciling.

Everything about this, and "mental disorders," (as found in the D.S.M. 4) comes from a group of P.R. spin templates of which we are now all familiar: e.g., while the exact nature of the disease/disorder is not known... it involves genetic predisposition... and is thought to involve neuroptransmitters - chemical messangers in the brain... further scientific research is underway! and better, new, patent drugs are on the horizon! Current treatments include these drugs here that affect neurotransmitters - and psychotherapy (uh, usually best used in conjunction with medication.)

Essential Fatty Acids, DHA and the Human Brain
Meharban Singh
(http://medind.nic.in/icb/t05/i3/icbt05i3p239.pdf)

"It is recommended that the pregnant and nursing woman should take at least 2.6 g of omega-3 fatty acids and 100-300 mg of DHA daily to look after the needs of her fetus and suckling infant. The follow-up studies have shown that infants of mothers supplemented with EFAs and DHA had higher mental processing scores, psychomotor development, eye-hand coordination and stereo acuity at 4 years of age. Intake of EFAs and DHA during preschool years may also have a beneficial role in the prevention of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and enhancing learning capability and academic performance."

Indian journal of pediatrics. 2005Pregnancy is a time of increased nutritional requirements

(www.jirehhealthhk.com/health_detail.php?id=7)

“The essential fatty acids (EFAs) and some of their derivatives are of utmost nutritional importance during pregnancy and lactation (8) . During the last trimester of pregnancy and the first months after birth, major developments in the growth and maturation of the infants central nervous system (CNS) and sensory apparatus, such as the eyes, take place.”

"Omega-3 and omega-6 fats are both important, but cannot be interchanged as they are not the same, very much like both vitamin C and E are important vitamins and antioxidants, without one being able to do the job of the other one. Only getting enough of one is better than not getting enough of either, but getting enough of both and in a balanced ratio is the best."

"The reason why DHA has been emphasized so much is very likely the general deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids in modern industrial diets and the general imbalance between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids. Ideally, it should be no more than 4-5:1, but research estimates that modern diets often contain in excess of 14:1 (24) ; other studies show that the ratio is in between 10:1 to 25:1 (22). Too little of either of these fatty acids can lead to impaired development and functioning of the childs central nervous system (18, 19, 21) with the suspected possibility of lowered IQ and decreased visual acuity (6) ."

"Animal studies show that severe EFA deficiency during pregnancy leads to more severe deficiencies in mental and sensory capability (20) . There also appears to be a connection between maternal omega-3 status and the length of gestation: The lower the serum levels of omega-3 fatty acids, the greater the chance of giving birth prematurely (22, 25) . Finally, women with postpartum depression lack omega-3 fatty acids compared to women who gave birth without any problems (16)."

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/index.php/2009/07/13/being-a-mom-is-not-a-medical-disorder/

TIME magazine corrects statement that Amy Philo had thoughts of harming baby before Zoloft and that is not true.

Time Magazine retracts false statement

http://uniteforlife.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/time-magazine-to-retract-false-statements-about-amy-philo-yes-thats-me/