Doyle Mills is an independent writer and researcher based in Clearwater, Florida. He is a parent and an outspoken critic of the TeenScreen program. Along with many others, he helped to prevent TeenScreen's implementation in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, two of Florida's most populated counties. He has published several articles critical of TeenScreen.

1. Apparently there is major objection amongst many groups and individuals regarding "Teen Screen" which is some sort of psychological psychiatric screening. How did this Teen Screen come about and whose idea is it/was it?

TeenScreen is a program aimed at locating, identifying and procuring new customers for the mental health industry. TeenScreen itself is a questionnaire, with invasive and probing questions which indoctrinate young people into a belief that all their feelings and behaviors are indications of a mental disorder. The child is convinced of it, the parent is convinced of it, and then the child becomes a customer of TeenScreen's local mental health "partner", which sells counseling or drugs and profits tens of thousands of dollars per child.

TeenScreen is a creation of psychiatrist, David Shaffer, a paid spokesman for pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly & Company and paid consultant for pharmaceutical companies Hoffman la Roche, Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline.

TeenScreen's main line of dissemination is NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, a group which receives millions of dollars in funding from pharmaceutical companies. See www.namipharma.org. TeenScreen director, Laurie Flynn was formerly the director of NAMI. Flynn was instrumental in the creation of what came to be known as President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. At the 2004 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's annual meeting, Flynn revealed her own covert role in getting a line inserted in President Bush's campaign speech that he would form a commission to look into mental health. Later Flynn (by her own admission), along with others, coerced the president into forming the commission and even stated that the choice of the commission's chairman was "not entirely by accident". Not surprisingly, the report of the NFC contained a recommendation for mental health screening and even mentioned TeenScreen by name. See www.teenscreentruth.com/New_Freedom_Commission.html.

2.What's wrong with trying to identify adolescents who might commit suicide or "act out" such as what occurred in Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado?

The Columbine tragedy proves that screening is a bad idea. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had in fact been screened. As a result of the screening they attended and graduated from an anger management class. At least one of them, maybe both, were taking a prescription antidepressant drug known to cause violence and suicide in young people. Practically one for one, the school shooters (Red Lake, Virginia Tech, Conyers, and on and on) had been taking psychiatric drugs before their rampage. Screening sounds very innocent, even helpful, but the reality is exactly the opposite. We do not need to keep on "trying" what has already proven to be a complete failure.

3. Schools routinely "screen" (and note I put "screen" in parentheses ) for vision, hearing and speech. What is wrong with using a standardized questionnaire for simple referral for additional evaluation and assessment?

Medical testing (such as vision, hearing, and speech) has scientific validity, and uses reliable, verifiable measurements of physical phenomena to determine the presence or absence of disease. TeenScreen's questionnaire is based on the non-scientific Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), recently exposed in the media for its completely subjective nature and for its creators' questionable ties to drug companies.

In genuine medical testing, the risks are low and the benefits are well-known. Psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman says, "The claim by the director of the TeenScreen Program that her program would significantly reduce suicides is unsupported by the data. Indeed, such screenings would probably cause more harm than good."

Thousands of formal mental patients now speak out against the treatments they received, claiming that their lives were ruined by years of false labels, mind-altering drugs, ECT, lobotomies, restraint, and incarceration. Try to find even one person speaking out vehemently against eyeglasses or speech therapy. There are no "hearing aid" survivor groups. TeenScreen cannot be compared to medical testing.

4. Schools are pretty much doing "kindergarten screening" with a wide variety of screening instruments such as the DIAL-III, the Denver and other screening tests. What makes Teen Screen so different?

If screening is being done without parental knowledge and consent, it is a criminal activity and must be stopped. The lack of full informed parental consent is one of TeenScreen's major failings as well.

5. Unfortunately anorexia nervosa, bulimia and other eating disorders are still with us. Should schools be "screening "for these things or is it a parental obligation to get their child to a psychologist?

Schools should teach. Parents should parent. Any medical, ethical, social, moral, or emotional issue is totally and unequivocally in the realm of a parent's responsibility and, more importantly, a parent's rights.

6. Records are kept on students from kindergarten to 12^th grade to see if they are making annual yearly progress. How is Teen Screen different?

Records for children are intended to be secure. However, once committed to paper or computer, nothing can ever be 100% secure. Normal school records are fairly harmless no matter who sees them. TeenScreen records on the other hand, contain unscientific evaluations which can be taken to mean that the child has a permanent, incurable mental disorder. These records can then be used against the person, as a child or adult, to take away his rights, limit his opportunities or just as a horrible embarrassment. As there is no scientific way to prove that anyone has a mental disorder, there is likewise no scientific way to disprove it. Once a person is diagnosed, he may never be able to escape that label. This is one important aspect parents are never made aware of prior to allowing TeenScreen access to their child.

7. Bottom line question- should or should not schools be responsible for the mental health and psychological well being of the students in their care?

No. Schools should teach. Schools are responsible for producing children who can read and write and who therefore had some hope of a better life and future. Too few schools remember how to do this and would rather chase the latest fad, like TeenScreen. If schools did their job, students would recognize their own abilities, and would attack life with verve and spirit. Very few, if any, would seek out psychological "help". Distractions and expensive, fraudulent programs like TeenScreen take away time and resources from what the schools should be doing.

Since the Elementary Educational Act of 1965 put psychologists in the schools, we've spent more and more money every year on various programs that were supposed to improve the "mental health" and "psychological well being" of students. Over the same period of time, education and test scores and literacy have gone down, down, down. How are students supposed to feel good about themselves if they can't read and have no hope of a successful future?

8. Let's face it. Adolescence was a difficult time for some of us and some of us could have used some counseling, mentoring or advising. How can schools best help students with emotional, growth, developmental, psychological problems?

Adolescence IS a hard time for everyone. Maybe it's supposed to be. That's how we learn. Psychological and psychiatric programs like TeenScreen want to label the normal pain and uncertainty of adolescence as a mental disorder for profit. When did adolescence become a disease or something unnatural or deadly that needs intervention if anyone is going to make it through? What a ridiculous concept. What teenagers need most is love, understanding and a clear understanding of the rules.

9. What's wrong with TeenScreen's consent policies; they claim to get parental consent before screening?

TeenScreen violates federal and many state laws every single time a child is screened. Not one single TeenScreen program provides the full informed consent required by law. Parents are not told what the purpose of screening is; they are not allowed to know what the questions are; they are not informed about what the potential outcomes are.

10. I understand there is a petition against TeenScreen. What is that all about, and have you signed it?

It was started by Theresa Rhoades, a parent in Indiana whose child was screened at school by TeenScreen without her knowledge or consent. The petition really sums up what is wrong with TeenScreen and anyone desiring to know the full story should read it at http://www.petitiononline.com/TScreen/petition.html, then sign it. Mrs. Rhoades also filed a lawsuit against the school and the counseling center that did the screening.

Absolutely I signed the petition. I'm number 246. As of the time of this interview, there are over 23,000 signatures and it is still growing. As more people find out what TeenScreen really is and the danger it presents to the youth of our country, the opposition grows.

Published September 27, 2007