Problems with Parity for Mental Health Treatment


1.  Check out the website at:


2.  Psychiatry differs from other medical specialties

Psychiatry is based upon subjective reporting and observation of inner experiences or behavior and lacks objectively verifiable tests such as blood tests, imaging studies, and biopsies.  While patients do experience real spiritual/emotional/mental/moral problems and exhibit maladaptive behaviors, manifestations that are considered a ³mental illness² cannot be defined as a disease in the absence of objective, reproducible somatic abnormalities.


A mental-health parity mandate will turn the current diagnostic standards for psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM­IV), into a standard for payment as well.  The DSM-IV remains consensus driven, unsupported by clear empirical data. Neither taxpayer-supported nor private insurers should be forced to cover conditions diagnosable only by consensus of by self-interested psychiatrists and their partners in the pharmaceutical industry. If insurance subscribers or clients believe mental health coverage or service to be of value, and are thus willing to pay for it, this will be offered in the free market on a contractual basis. All insurance subscribers should not be forced to pay for services that they do not consider to be of value.


The concept of ³biopsychiatry,² or more popularly ³chemical imbalance² is at present merely a theory. Based on this theory, billions of dollars are spent by both public and private entities specifically for psychoactive drugs. Careful post-marketing surveillance of the benefits and harms of such drugs is greatly needed and seriously lacking. Some reports suggest that drugs often cause more problems than they ameliorate, and may induce objective ailments, such as diabetes, which then must be treated. As drugs are either first or second line treatment protocol for most so-called ³mental illnesses,² a mental health treatment mandate can be anticipated to result in increased drug usage, with its attendant problems, and hence an increase in expenditures for both psychiatric and medical treatment.


3.  True parity for mental health issues must include the following "therapies" for emotional distresses: psychotherapy, peer support groups, counseling, acupuncture, yoga, Reiki, nutrition, exercise, meditation, etc.?  It is doubtful that any parity would cover these because they are mental health issues and not medical issues.


4.  E. Fuller Torrey against mental health parity

     Should there be a federal law (or state laws) requiring health insurance companies to pay for "therapy" for mere problems in living? In his interview on CBS television's 60 Minutes on April 21, 2002, psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., said no.


     He argued that so-called therapy for mere problems in living is not health care. He said "problems of living" are matters such as "why is your third wife divorcing you, or why were you passed over for office chief, or why won't your teenage daughter talk to you." He said "I'm not saying that these are not problems. They are problems. But I'm saying that I don't think that medical resources or medical insurance should be used to cover why your teenage daughter won't talk to you." State or federal laws requiring parity for mental health treatment would require medical insurance to pay for counseling or "psychotherapy" or other therapy such as (supposedly) antidepressant drugs for such problems.


5. No Parity for Involuntary "Treatment"

To:  Wisconsin Legislature


We, the undersigned, are opposed to parity in mental "health" treatment as proposed in Senate Bills 71 and 72.


Such parity will be used primarily to pay for forced "treatment" for those who are involuntarily committed under Wisconsin Chapter 51. Such forced "treatment" is violent, cruel and dangerous.


The money from such forced "treatment" will then be used by the already bloated, swollen county mental "health" systems. None of this money from parity will go to the clients.


Such treatment is not based on science, but on lobbying and public relations work of highly paid drug company spokespersons.


Citizens in Wisconsin have been injured and killed while undergoing forced "treatment" for mental "illness". These injuries and deaths have occurred with both inpatient and outpatient "treatment".


There is no public accountability in the public mental "health" systems in Wisconsin authorized by Chapter 51. They are shrouded in secrecy. Secrecy has no place in a democratically-run, public system.


Chapter 51 states that the state must offer a "full range" of services for mental "illness". A full range would require that clients have the opportuntity to choose from among several different types of treatment, with different philosophies. Wisconsin counties only offer one "treatment"----drugs. That's not a "range.


Many clients started out trying to get help voluntarily, but were frightened away by the system's bullying, threats, incompetence and intimidation.


There is no adequate grievance system that citizens or their families can use to protect them from such harm. Chapter 51 delineates a grievance procedure, but this procedure is useless, for several reasons.


The harm is claimed to be "part of the treatment".


One client was forced to pay rent while homeless. The landlord in question was a relative of a program staff person. The family was told that this was, "part of the treatment".


To read more about another family that tried filing a grievance, go to this Website:


Another client died of neuroleptic malignant syndrome in his hot, underventilated apartment. Staff people from his mental "health" program visited him there before he died, because they felt he smelled bad. They wanted to "help" him wash his clothes. But, these allegedly "trained" staff workers never noticed that it was too hot for the safety of someone taking neuroleptic drugs.


It is very clear that Wisconsin's county-run mental "health" systems are simply means of exploiting the "cash potential" of impoverished, homeless people. Especially the ones on SSI.


As one of many illustrations of this, a Dane County committee recently set a goal of having "fifty percent or more of all mentally 'ill' people working half-time or more making minimum wage or more" by a certain date.


The Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy (WCA) does not respond adequately or appropriately to clients or their families with grievances. Often, families are told that the person ("patient") has to call personally---even when they're incarcerated and have no way to make a telephone call. Sometimes, clients' lives may be in danger.


The WCA has no incentive to investigate complaints responsibly, or at all, as it receives a fixed block grant.


The mental "health" system in Wisconsin means good jobs for professionals and bureaucrats, and extra business for slumlords and irresponsible employers.


The mental "health" system administered by Wisconsin counties, as it is now, is similar to the parish system in Chales Dickens' _Oliver Twist_, where a lot of people are making money from the misery of impoverished children, but the children don't benefit from any of it.


In Wisconsin, it's homeless and impoverished people who become labeled with a diagnosis of "mental illness".


Senate Bill 72 provides for "diagnostic testing" to "exclude the existence of conditions other than" . . . mental "illness".


This type of language has no place in our statutes.


Any "diagnostic testing" should be conducted to verify the existence of a condition, not to "exclude the existence of conditions other than" that condition.


The use of this language shows clearly that "mental illness" is not a biological, physiological or "neurobiological" condition.


People experiencing extreme emotional, spiritual, financial and mental distress become diagnosed with "mental illness". The county mental "health" systems in Wisconsin use these people as a cash crop.


The Chapter 51, county-run system of mental "health" should be radically defunded as soon as possible. It should not be further enriched by parity payments for its dangerous, sadistic, ineffective forced mental "health treatment".


We therefore ask the Wisconsin legislature to vote against SB 71 and SB 72, and all other proposals for parity in payment for mental health "treatment".



The Undersigned




This is what's wrong with mental health parity


by Douglas A. Smith, M.D.


     A mental health parity law forcing health insurance companies to pay for mental health care would be wrong for several reasons.


     First, the concept of mental illness itself is flawed and misleading. As psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey wrote in his book The Death of Psychiatry in 1974: "The very term ['mental disease'] is nonsensical, a semantic mistake. The two words cannot go together except metaphorically; you can no more have a mental 'disease' than you can have a purple idea or a wise space."1 [Note from FFPS: This was back in 1974. E.F.Torrey is now the most vehement pro-force biomedical psychiatrist in the country.]


     Mental illnesses do not exist in the same sense that physical illnesses do. Physical illnesses have known physical causes. Mental illnesses do not.


     In his book Toxic Psychiatry, published in 1991, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., said "there is no evidence that any of the common psychological or psychiatric disorders have a genetic or biological component."2


     In their book Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs in 1999, Drs. Peter Breggin, M.D., and David Cohen, Ph.D., said: "...there's no substantial evidence that any psychiatric diagnoses have a physical basis."3


     In his book Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health, published in 1998, Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Michigan, said: "Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical, or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients."4


     In his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, published in 2000, Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at the Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, N.H., said: "First, no biological etiology has been proven for any psychiatric disorder (except Alzheimer's disease, which has a genetic component) in spite of decades of research. ... So don't accept the myth that we can make an 'accurate diagnosis.'"5 Alzheimer's is not generally considered a mental illness.


     No psychiatric problem falls within a reasonable definition of the word disease. In her book about fibromyalgia, Miryam Williamson said "A disease is a condition that has a known cause and can be identified by one or another set of laboratory tests."6


     By this definition, no mental illness can be called a "disease."


      As Harvard-trained psychiatrist Loren R. Mosher, M.D., said in 1998, "there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder."7


     In his book Prozac Backlash, published in 2000, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, said "In medicine, strict criteria exist for calling a condition a disease. In addition to a predictable cluster of symptoms, the cause of the symptoms or some understanding of their physiology must be established. ... Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that... We do not yet have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any psychiatric diagnosis. ... In recent decades, we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent though these attempts have been, not one has been proven.


     Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false. ... No claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation."8


    Or as Edward Drummond, M.D., said in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, published in 2000: "Psychiatric disorders are vastly different from physical disorders, however, because our understanding of how the normal brain works is incomplete. ... The treatment you receive depends on the orientation of your psychiatrist, not on a solid foundation of knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis of the disorder itself."9


     A similar observation was made by Columbia University psychiatry professor Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., in his book The New Psychiatry in 1985, an observation that remains true today: "It is generally unrecognized that psychiatrists are the only medical specialists who treat disorders that, by definition, have no definitively known causes or cures. ... A diagnosis should indicate the cause of a mental disorder, but as discussed later, since the etiologies of most mental disorders are unknown, current diagnostic systems can't reflect them."10


     In 1999 neurologist Fred A. Baughman, M.D., said: "The country's been led to believe that all painful emotions are a mental illness and the leadership of the APA [American Psychiatric Association] knows very well that they are representing it as a disease when there is no scientific data to confirm any mental illness."11


     Forty-one years ago in his classic book, The Myth of Mental Illness, psychiatry professor Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., said "It is customary to define psychiatry as a medical specialty concerned with the study, diagnosis, and treatment of mental illnesses. This is a worthless and misleading definition. Mental illness is a myth. Psychiatrists are not concerned with mental illnesses and their treatments. In actual practice they deal with personal, social, and ethical problems in living."12


     Should there be a federal law (or state laws) requiring health insurance companies to pay for "therapy" for mere problems in living? In his interview on CBS television's 60 Minutes on April 21, 2002, psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., said no.


     He argued that so-called therapy for mere problems in living is not health care. He said "problems of living" are matters such as "why is your third wife divorcing you, or why were you passed over for office chief, or why won't your teenage daughter talk to you." He said "I'm not saying that these are not problems. They are problems. But I'm saying that I don't think that medical resources or medical insurance should be used to cover why your teenage daughter won't talk to you." State or federal laws requiring parity for mental health treatment would require medical insurance to pay for counseling or "psychotherapy" or other therapy such as (supposedly) antidepressant drugs for such problems.


     In his June 19, 2002 article in The Hill advocating enactment of a federal mental health parity law, Senator Paul Wellstone said, "it is not the business of Congress to establish the specific definition of mental illness... Instead, we must rely on the scientific and medical standard on mental illness - the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) [published and revised every few years by the American Psychiatric Association] - to define what should be covered" by health insurance.


     In 1998, psychiatrist Loren Mosher, M.D., said the "DSM IV [fourth edition] is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document."13


     In 1996 psychiatrist David Kaiser, M.D., called the DSM "perhaps one of the greatest sophistries psychiatry has pulled off in its illustrious history of sophistries ... For those who do serious work with patients, this manual is useless."14


     A problem with requiring health insurance coverage for all diagnoses in the DSM was pointed out by Sydney Walker III, M.D., who is both a neurologist and a psychiatrist, in his book A Dose of Sanity, in 1996: The "DSM's ever-increasing list of conditions makes it easy for therapists to spot pathology where none exists."15


     In another book, The Hyperactivity Hoax, in 1998, Dr. Walker said: "The other major flaw of the DSM, related to the first, is that it labels virtually everything as some type of disorder. Thus a child who sees a DSM-oriented doctor is almost assured of a psychiatric label and a prescription, even if the child is perfectly fine. ... individual DSM labels include so many vague criteria that almost anyone can qualify. ... This willy-nilly labeling of virtually everyone as mentally ill is a serious danger to healthy children, because virtually all children have enough symptoms to get a DSM label and a drug."16 


     Anyone who thinks every so-called mental illness in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) should be covered by health insurance should take a look at the book. In it you will find such matters as inability to express oneself well in writing (disorder of written expression, diagnosis number 315.2) or lack of sexual desire (hypoactive sexual desire disorder) are - amazingly enough - considered to be mental disorders.


    If "therapy" for everything listed as a disorder in the DSM must, by law, be paid for by health insurance, there is almost no limit to what types of problems must be covered by health insurance, including those that are well within the range of normal human thinking and behavior or which are the normal emotional consequences of disappointments or frustrations of life - not true health problems.


     The simple truth about psychiatry said twenty years ago by Harvard Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz remains true today. He said psychiatry "is not a scientific discipline."17


     Current mental health treatment is not merely unscientific. It is harmful, partly because of its erroneous biological orientation and resulting reliance on psychiatric drugs and electric shock treatment, both of which are still being administered to unwilling as well as voluntary patients. 


     In the words of psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., in 2000:


   Nothing has harmed the quality of individual life in modern society more than the misbegotten belief that human suffering is driven by biological and genetic causes and can be rectified by taking drugs or undergoing electroshock therapy. ... If I wanted to ruin someone's life, I would convince the person that biological psychiatry is right - that relationships mean nothing, that choice is impossible, and that the mechanics of a broken brain reign over our emotions and conduct. If I wanted to impair an individual's capacity to create empathetic, loving relationships, I would prescribe psychiatric drugs, all of which blunt our highest psychological and spiritual functions.18


     He also said "All psychiatric drugs produce severe biochemical imbalances and related abnormalities by interfering with the normal brain function."19


     In a book published in 2001 he said: "If a drug has an effect on the brain, it is harming the brain. Science has not found or synthesized any psychoactive substances that improve normal brain function. Instead, all of them impair brain function."20


      Many commonly prescribed psychiatric drugs cause permanent brain damage. These include neuroleptics, often called major tranquilizers or antipsychotics, and antidepressants, both the tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor or SSRI types.


     In his book Prozac Backlash in 2000, psychiatrist Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., says these drugs "are toxic to the brain" and because of their "neurotoxicity" may be "damaging or destroying critical parts of the brain."

He says "The unfortunate irony is that drugs heavily promoted as correcting unproven biochemical imbalances may, in fact, be causing imbalances and brain damage"21


     He says "In recent years, the danger of long-term side effects has emerged in association with Prozac-type drugs, making it imperative to minimize one's exposure to them. Neurological disorders including disfiguring facial and whole body tics, indicating potential brain damage, are an increasing concern with patients on the drugs. ... With related drugs targeting serotonin, there is evidence that they may effect a 'chemical lobotomy' by destroying the nerve endings that they target in the brain."22


     A U.S. Court of Appeals judge reviewed the evidence and then reached this conclusion: "Unlike the temporary and predictable effects of bodily restraints, the permanent side effects of antipsychotic drugs induce conditions that cannot be corrected simply by cessation of the regimen. The permanency of these effects is analogous to that resulting from such radical surgical procedures as a pre-frontal lobotomy."23


     In his book Molecules of the Mind: The Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology, University of Maryland journalism professor Jon Franklin observed: "This era coincided with an increasing awareness that the neuroleptics not only did not cure schizophrenia - they actually caused damage to the brain.


    Suddenly, the psychiatrists who used them, already like their patients on the fringes of society, were suspected of Nazism and worse."24


     In his book Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D., alleges that by using drugs that cause brain damage, "Psychiatry has unleashed an epidemic of neurological disease on the world" one which "reaches 1 million to 2 million persons a year."25


     Neuroleptic drugs also cause thousands of deaths each year from neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Neurological injury and death inflicted by these drugs has not stopped the FDA from approving them nor psychiatrists from prescribing them, however.


     Psychiatrists have even supported the recent enactment of "outpatient commitment" laws in the U.S., the main purpose of which is to force people to take these harmful psychiatric drugs while living outside psychiatric institutions.


     Psychiatrists also play a central role in persuading U.S. courts to authorize forced administration of these harmful psychiatric drugs to hospitalized patients.


     The proposals for mandatory coverage of mental health treatment would force health insurers to pay for prescription of these harmful psychiatric drugs and for electric shock treatment, now often called electroconvulsive therapy or ECT.


     ECT is now used mostly for depression. According to Maurice Victor, M.D., Professor of Medicine and Neurology, Dartmouth Medical School, and Allan H. Ropper, M.D., Professor and Chairman of Neurology, Tufts University School of Medicine, in their textbook Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology, published in 2001: "The mechanism by which ECT produces it effects is not known."26


     But in truth, the way ECT produces its effects is known: It damages the patient's brain sufficiently to prevent him from remembering or appreciating whatever was upsetting him. It has been scientifically shown that ECT causes both temporary and permanent brain damage.


     Of course, these findings are vehemently denied by psychiatrists who administer ECT.


     Brain damage from ECT includes cerebral hemorrhages (abnormal bleeding), edema (excessive accumulation of fluid), cortical atrophy (shrinkage of the cerebral cortex, or outer layers of the brain), dilated perivascular spaces in the brain, fibrosis (thickening and scarring), gliosis (growth of abnormal tissue), and rarefied and partially destroyed brain tissue.


     The scientific evidence proving this is summarized in a book, Electroshock: Its Brain Disabling Effects, by psychiatrist Peter Breggin, M.D.27 This brain damage causes loss of memory and intelligence, some of which is temporary and some of which is permanent.


     The late Sidney Sament, M.D., a neurologist, described ECT this way: "Electroconvulsive therapy in effect may be defined as a controlled type of brain damage produced by electrical means. No doubt some psychiatric symptoms are eliminated ... but this is at the expense of brain damage."28


     We should not have laws mandating health insurance coverage for this cruel and harmful therapy.


     That these "therapies" are offered to gullible, ignorant, and trusting patients is bad enough, but mental health parity legislation would go a step further and force insurers to pay for involuntary mental health treatment.


     In the past, involuntary mental health treatment has often been imposed unnecessarily and without justification, and this problem continues today. This is a violation of human rights, and it will probably become more widespread if insurance coverage for involuntary mental health treatment is mandated by law.


     A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1992 found "that thousands of adolescents, children, and adults have been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment they didn't need; that hospitals hire bounty hunters to kidnap patients with mental health insurance; that patients are kept against their will until their insurance benefits run out; that psychiatrists are being pressured by the hospitals to increase profit; that hospitals 'infiltrate' schools by paying kickbacks to school counselors who deliver students; that bonuses are paid to hospital employees, including psychiatrists, for keeping the hospital beds filled; and that military dependents are being targeted for their generous mental health benefits."29


     According to an article in the August 3, 1992 Investor's Business Daily: "Last Thursday...eight major insurance companies sued NME [National Medical Enterprises] for alleged fraud involving hundreds of millions of dollars in psychiatric hospital claims.


     Their complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, accused the company of a 'massive' scheme to admit and treat thousands of patients regardless of their need for care. ...some institutions were paying 'bounty fees' for patient referrals or misdiagnosing patients to get maximum reimbursement."30 Time magazine later reported NME settled the case for a record $300 million.31


     An article in the September 15, 1992 New York Newsday about a similar suit filed in Dallas, Texas said: "Two of the country's largest insurance companies filed suit yesterday against a national chain of private psychiatric and substance abuse hospitals, charging it with illegally admitting patients who did not need treatment and then not releasing them until their insurance benefits ran out."32


     According to Edward Drummond, M.D., in his book The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, published in 2000: "Some psychiatric hospitals made a practice of admitting adolescents in distress, using the diagnosis of bipolar disorder inappropriately in order to increase their billing to insurance companies. This practice was so widespread that the federal government finally intervened, charging the hospitals with fraud and assessing fines of millions of dollars."33


     In other words, what is called mental health care is an attempt to deal with matters that are not true health problems with harmful treatments that are often imposed by force against innocent people.


     Under the Tenth Amendment, Congress has no constitutional authority to enact legislation requiring health insurers throughout the nation to provide equal coverage for mental health care. Even it did, however, it would be illogical, unwise, and wrong for Congress to do so.


     Congress should not promote psychiatry's unscientific, harmful, and unethical treatment with a mental health parity law.






1. E. Fuller Torrey, The Death of Psychiatry (Penguin Books, 1974), p. 36

2. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 291

3. Peter R. Breggin, M.D. & David Cohen, Ph.D., Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How and Why to Stop Taking Psychiatric Drugs (Perseus Books - Reading, Massachusetts - 1999), page 93

4. Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 125

5. Edward Drummond, M.D., The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), page 15-16.

6. Miryam Williamson, Fibromyalgia: A Comprehensive Approach, in an excerpt from the book appearing at, accessed 6/6/02

7. From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association, available on the internet at

8. Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), pages 192-193, page 196

9. Edward Drummond, M.D., The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), pages 8-9

10. Jerrold S. Maxmen, M.D., The New Psychiatry (Mentor, 1985) pages 19 & 36 - italics in original

11. Fred A. Baughman, M.D., quoted in Insight magazine, June 28, 1999, p. 13

12. Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct (Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1961), p. 296.

13. From a letter dated December 4, 1998 by Loren R. Mosher, M.D., a psychiatrist, resigning from the American Psychiatric Association, available on the internet at

14. David Kaiser, M.D., "Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry," Psychiatric Times, December 1996, available on the Internet at, accessed July 7, 2002.

15. Sydney Walker III, M.D., A Dose of Sanity (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996), p. 128

16. Sydney Walker III, M.D., The Hyperactivity Hoax (Springer 1998), pages 23-24 - italics in original

17. Alan Dershowitz quoted in "Clash of Testimony in Hinckley Trial Has Psychiatrists Worried Over Image", The New York Times, May 24, 1982, p. 11

18. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., in the foreword to Reality Therapy in Action by William Glasser, M.D. (Harper Collins, 2000), p. xi

19. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Reclaiming Our Children (Perseus Books, Cambridge, Mass., 2000), page 140

20. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., The Antidepressant Fact Book - What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Luvox (Perseus Publishing - Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000) p. 168

21. Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000) pages 49 & 94

22. Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), p. 8

23. Rennie v. Klein, 720 F.2d 266, 276 (3d Cir., 1983, quoted in Douglas S. Stransky, University of Miami Law Review, "Civil Commitment and the Right to Refuse Treatment..." Vol. 50:413, 434, note 135

24. Jon Franklin, Molecules of the Mind: The Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology (Dell Pub. Co., 1987) p. 103

25. Peter Breggin, M.D., Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain (Springer Pub. Co., New York, 1983), pages 109 & 108

26. Maurice Victor, M.D., and Allan H. Ropper, M.D., Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology - Seventh Edition (McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division, New York, 2001), page 1620

27. Peter R. Breggin, M.D., Electroshock: It's Brain Disabling Effects (Springer 1979)

28. Sidney Sament, M.D., Clinical Psychiatry News, March 1983, p. 4

29. quoted in: Lynn Payer, Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992, pp. 234-235

30. Christine Shenot, "Bleeder at National Medical Insurers Cry Of 'Fraud' Reopened A Big Wound", Investor's Business Daily, Monday, August 3, 1992, p. 1, quoted in "Unjustified Psychiatric Commitment in the U.S.A." by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.,, accessed 7/1/02

31. Time magazine, April 25, 1994, p. 24

32. Michael Unger, "Hospitals Called Cheats - Insurers say health-care chain pulled off nationwide scam", New York Newsday, Thursday, September 15, 1992, Business section, page 33, quoted in "Unjustified Psychiatric Commitment in the U.S.A." by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.,, accessed 7/1/02

33. Edward Drummond, M.D., The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), pages 13-14