PsychRights Launches Pro Bono Recruitment Effort

August 18, 2008

Dan Hazen
(315) 528-3385
dan@psychrights.orgJim Gottstein
(907) 274-7686

PsychRights Launches Pro Bono Recruitment Effort

As part of their Joint Task Force on Mental Legal Advocacy & Activism, the Law Project for Psychiatric Rights (PsychRights) today announced the launch of its effort to recruit pro bono attorneys to help defend New York citizens facing the horror of forced psychiatric drugging in the community.

PsychRights’ President, Jim Gottstein, said, “People think forced drugging makes the community safer, but the opposite is true. It is well established that psychiatric drugs forced on people increase rather than decrease violence. The idea that forced community psychiatric drugging makes people safer is a fraud perpetrated on the public by organizations like the Treatment Advocacy Center.”

The scientific evidence on this, the ineffectiveness of these drugs for most and extreme harm to all caused by these drugs, along with a legal analysis, has been put together for attorneys in Memorandum (Preliminary) Forced Psychiatric Drugging in the Community –Pro Bono Opportunity of Great Significance. Dan Hazen, PsychRights’ Northeast Coordinator said, “We hope members of the New York bar will read the memorandum and decide this is an issue deserving of pro bono services.” Attorneys interested in signing on or desiring more information may contact either Mr. Hazen or Mr. Gottstein at the contacts above or below.

Mr. Gottstein stated, “If nothing else, attorneys should be offended by the sham nature of the legal proceedings in which New York citizens are ordered by the courts to take these very debilitating, largely ineffective, and extremely harmful drugs.”

The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights is a public interest law firm devoted to the defense of people facing the horrors of unwarranted forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock. PsychRights is further dedicated to exposing the truth about psychiatric interventions and the courts being misled into ordering people subjected to these brain and body damaging drugs against their will. Extensive information about these dangers, and about the tragic damage caused by electroshock, is available on the PsychRights web site

Rep. Walorski: Court Ruling is a Victory for Parental Rights

Indiana General Assembly

House of Representatives

News Release

State Rep. Jackie Walorski

Room 401-8, Statehouse

Indianapolis, IN  46204


STATEHOUSE (Aug. 7, 2008) — The cause of parental rights and personal liberty won a victory Tuesday (August 5) as a federal court affirmed the right of Hoosier parents to sue a school system for subjecting their daughter to mental health testing without their consent.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana ruled that a lawsuit filed on behalf of Chelsea Rhoades and her parents, Teresa and Michael, may proceed to trial. The family charges that the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corp. violated the family’s rights when school officials subjected Chelsea, a student at Penn High School in Mishawaka, to the TeenScreen examination without parental consent.

“I am elated that the federal court is allowing the family the opportunity to pursue this lawsuit,” said state Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Jimtown) “This kind of testing without parental consent led me to go on a petition drive that collected more than 12,000 names and eventually resulted in a state law requiring written parental approval before screenings such as this.

“The court, through its ruling, reaffirms parents’ right to control their children’s mental and physical health and wellbeing,” Rep. Walorski said, “and it sends a message to schools and agencies that they should be very, very careful about interfering with parental prerogatives.”

In December 2004, representatives of Madison Mental Health tested Chelsea and other Penn High School students using the TeenScreen, which asks questions that can be answered with only a “Yes” or a “No.” According to the lawsuit, Chelsea was diagnosed as possibly suffering from two mental health disorders. Several other students also were similarly diagnosed, the lawsuit said. Chelsea’s diagnosis turned out to be incorrect.

The Rhoades family is being assisted in the lawsuit by The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that provides legal services to people whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.

Mr. and Mrs. Rhoades said they had no knowledge of the testing until after the fact, and they sued in federal court, charging that their constitutional rights to family integrity and privacy were violated. School officials sought to have the suit dismissed.

“There are boundaries to keep schools and other agencies from interfering in the parent-child relationship,” Rep. Walorski said. “Those boundaries should not be ignored or taken lightly, and this case shines a light on that issue.”

Pharma Funding Controversy Hones In on psychiatry

Vermont AG Calls Heavy Weight of Drug Money Towards Psychiatrists “Troubling”

The psychiatric watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, says the July 2008 Vermont Attorney General report revealing psychiatrists again top the list of doctors receiving Pharma payments, coupled with recent investigations into Pharma funds influencing psychiatric drug studies, prescribing patterns and the creation of new mental “disorders,” merits a federal investigation for conflicts of interest that is long overdue. The organization created a new website containing recent reports, disclosures, documents and videos exposing the major conflicts of interest between psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical industry called (“psychiatry & pharma – the unholy alliance”).

The July 8, 2008 Vermont Attorney General report on pharmaceutical marketing disclosures revealed that $3 million was spent on drug promotions in Vermont in 2007, with 11 psychiatrists receiving 20% of the total amount, $630,000, a 25% increase from what psychiatrists were paid in 2006. The report also reveals that 7 of the top 10 drugs that companies paid prescribing fees for were psychiatric drugs. An article in the Vermont Rutland Herald, quoted Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell, “It is particularly troubling that the industry is paying large sums of money to influence prescribing practices involving psychiatric drugs.” This is the second consecutive year in which Vermont psychiatrists have topped the list. The only other state that requires pharmaceutical companies to disclose payments to doctors, Minnesota, had identical results; psychiatrists received the most pharma funding over all other doctors.

On the federal level, Senate investigators uncovered three industry-shaping psychiatrists who failed to report a combined total of about $7.9 million, two of which were psychiatrists attributed with fuelling widespread child psychiatric drugging. First was Maria DelBello, a child psychiatrist at the Cincinnati Children’s hospital, who failed to report being paid $180,000 from AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. According to the New York Times, “Dr. DelBello’s studies of Seroquel in children have helped to fuel the widespread pediatric use of antipsychotic medicines. Those studies were inconclusive, but she has described them as demonstrating that Seroquel is effective in some children.” Second is Dr. Joseph Biederman, a child psychiatrist who also fueled an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic drugs in children, who failed to report $1.6 million in consulting fees he earned from drug makers between 2000 and 2007. The third is Alan Schatzberg, who failed to report over $6 million in pharmaceutical stocks and income. Schatzberg is not only chairman of the psychiatry department at Stanford University, but President Elect of the APA, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), also known as the “billing bible” of mental disorders for which the drugs are being prescribed.

Unlike medical diseases, which are discovered through verifiable physical conditions or abnormalities, DSM disorders are invented by codifying key behaviors and repackaging them as diseases, literally voting them into existence by a show of hands from DSM task members. The influence of pharmaceutical funding over these task members in “creating” the disorders was exposed in a 2006 study — 56% of those participating in revising the 1994 DSM had undisclosed financial ties to drug companies. Researchers also found that 100% of the psychiatrists on panels overseeing so-called “mood disorders” (which includes the lucrative “bipolar disorder”) were financially involved with drug companies that manufacture the drugs prescribed for these conditions, the sales of which are around $40 billion a year worldwide. About 30% of the APA income comes from pharmaceutical industry advertising, which has earned over $10 million a year from conflicts within the APA and the pharmaceutical industry. The Washington Post reported that “Last year’s meeting of the American Psychiatric Association…reflects the extent of corporate sponsorships…. Some instructors were sponsored by at least a dozen companies.”

With pharmaceutical conflicts of interest garnering increasing scrutiny, both in the press and in federal investigations, the DSM is increasingly coming under fire. A New York Times article, “Psychiatry Handbook Linked to Drug Industry” reported in March this year that “More than half of the task force members who will oversee the next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s most important diagnostic handbook have ties to the drug industry.” These ties have created a skyrocketing prescribing rate for psychiatric diagnoses, including a sevenfold increase in “bipolar” diagnoses in the past 13 years, according to a 2007 study.

With federal investigations currently focused on pharmaceutical funds influencing drug approval, drug safety and prescribing habits, CCHR says that psychiatrists creating mental disorders or approving them into psychiatry’s billing bible, the DSM, must be fully investigated for being funded by the drug companies that rely on new mental “disorders” to sell more drugs.

Learn more about the unholy alliance between psychiatry and pharma by visiting


The psychiatric watchdog, Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), says the recent capture (7/21/2008) of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic will bring to justice a psychiatrist whose genocide of thousands was reminiscent of Nazi psychiatric crime during World War II, and that few people are aware that the “ethnic cleansing” ridding a geographical area of racially “inferior” people – carried out in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and later in Kosovo, was based on the same psychiatric-inspired racial hygiene programs that led to the Nazi Holocaust.

In 1992, CCHR formally submitted to the World Psychiatric Association, the World Federation for Mental Health and the Mental Health Division of the World Health Organization information concerning the psychiatric atrocities committed in the region formerly called Yugoslavia.

CCHR presented the same information about psychiatry’s role in initiating and conducting the ethnic cleansing atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

On September 1, 1999, members of the Council of Europe signed a Resolution, “Human suffering and degradation following ethnic cleansing”, that recognized the two psychiatrists as “the architects of the ethnic cleansing campaign” in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia.

The Hague Tribunal indicted Karadzic in absentia in 1995 for genocide over the 43-month siege of Sarajevo that claimed 12,000 lives and orchestrating the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims. Dr. Edward Klain, a psychiatrist and advisor to the Serbian Military who features in a CCHR documentary, Psychiatry: An Industry of Death, detailed how in Nazi Germany it was “technically very difficult” to exterminate six million Jews. Concentration camps and gas chambers need to be established. In Bosnia, hatred and crimes against inhumanity were incited through propaganda: “Serbs would massacre, for example, one hundred to two hundred people. Or rape one hundred women, or one hundred girls, so that they would be terrorized so that they flee. Then you get an ethnically pure land”, Klain said.

CCHR’s evidence showed that Karadzic had trained under former Social Democratic Party (SDP) founder, psychiatrist Jovan Raskovic. Before his death in 1992, Raskovic told Belgrade television and Vjeskik newspaper that he and his party had “lit the fuse of Serbian nationalism” with Freudian principles about inferiority and superiority. Raskovic was talking about his and Karadzic’s propagation that Croats were “fixated on the castration complex”, a Freudian principle, while Muslims were domineering. Serbs, they said, possessed “the qualities of authority” and were destined leaders, while Croats and Muslims were the lesser races that needed to be eliminated. The psychiatrist pushed his Freudian-based theories on the races of Yugoslavia in his book Luda Zemla (A Mad Country) and as part of a media campaign in which he was hailed as the greatest psychiatrist and scientist of his era.

“I feel responsible because I made the preparations for this war, even if not the military preparations. If I hadn’t created this emotional strain in the Serbian people, nothing would have happened”, Raskovic stated.

Other evidence presented to the Hague Tribunal and Council of Europe was that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, who also flamed the conflict against ethnic minorities, had been a patient of Karadzic’s for 25 years. Together, he and Karadzic established the ethnic cleansing program and allowed the mass torture, rape and extermination of the innocent.

CCHR said justice can be served now that the architect of the Bosnian ethnic cleansing has been captured, unlike in Nazi Germany where dozens of psychiatrists responsible for sterilization and genocidal crimes escaped trial and returned to practice in Germany and other countries around the world. Like Karadzic in Bosnia, Ernst Rudin was a psychiatrist who played a major role in setting the stage for the Holocaust. Rudin was president of the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations and world leader of the eugenics movement which sought to remove “inferior” individuals from society by segregation, sterilization, or death in order to create a “better” race. In 1933 Rudin was chosen by Hitler’s Reich Ministry to lead Germany’s racial purity program. Rudin would later publicly praise Hitler for making his “more than thirty-year-old dream a reality” by imposing “racial hygiene” upon the German people.

CCHR president, Jan Eastgate said, “Responsibility exists on all levels, and while the atrocities of ethnic cleansing and genocide are usually what capture our attention, it is important to recognize the ideology that spawns them and to hold those responsible for this to account.”


This week, the “MOTHERS Act” — federal bill requiring mental health screening for pregnant women and new mothers which frequently leads to psychiatric drugging — was defeated as part of an omnibus package proposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Although the defeat of the MOTHERS Act is a victory for those who oppose it, the controversy over the purpose of the bill and those who back it continues to mount. In an article featuring an exclusive interview with one of the bill’s leading opponents, Mrs. Amy Philo, founder of UNITE (United Non-profits and Individuals for Truth and Ethics), describes in graphic detail her personal experience of becoming violent and suicidal from the antidepressants prescribed to her following the birth of her son and her battle against the vested interests that continue to promote this treatment for new mothers.




Mrs. Philo is not alone in her opposition to a bill which calls for mental health screening designed to get more women on drugs. Grounds for concern regarding the dangers of antidepressants are overwhelming; Between 2002 and 2008, there were more than 64 studies and international drug regulatory warnings on the dangers of antidepressant drugs ranging from from suicidal and homicidal ideation to premature births, spontaneous abortions and birth defects.

In fact according to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System, over 700 adverse reactions concerning pregnant women taking newer Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants were reported between 2004 and 2007. Even more alarming is the FDA’s admission that only 1 – 10% of adverse drug reactions are ever reported, so the actual reports are assuredly in the thousands.

 Read more about the controversy over this bill in “Life With Big Brother – Government to Test Moms for Baby Blues?” Click Here. 

 To find out more about the Mothers Act visit 



To find out more about psychiatric drugs visit