Judge in Bailey Case to Convene Meeting

The Blogmeister cannot really disagree with the thought here, but it seems like a bit of grandstanding by the Judge in this case.  It is really her responsibility to get this done?  On the other hand, no one else it talking about this, so maybe it is appropriate for her get the ball rolling.  However, it doesn’t really address the issues that led to the death of TaJanay Bailey.

Dateline Indianapolis.  In a story in the Indianapolis Star, Judge Marilyn Moores is reported as wanting to convene a meeting to discuss “communication gaps” between police and Department of Child Services staff in the TaJanay Bailey case.  Apparently, she wants a free flow of information between the two departments.  

“Police currently have no way of knowing whether children at homes where they respond to calls are involved with the Department of Child Services and need special attention.”

In the aftermath of the 3-year-old’s Nov. 27 death, officials have learned of two instances when an exchange of information between agencies might have resulted in her removal from the home where prosecutors say she was tortured and killed. 

Um yeah, not really.  What really would have helped is if a DCS Supervisor who never met the child or the family, would have listened to the people directly involved with the case and not “minimized” their concerns…but thats another issue for another time. 

 Similarly, DCS Director James W. Payne said that if his agency had known about the Nov. 10 case, that information might have changed the agency’s stance about leaving TaJanay and her 6-month-old half brother, Lawrence Green Jr., with the couple.

Might?  Come’on Mr. Payne, you know your person (the supervisor) screwed up. Please stop trying to dilute the blame.  There was more than enough reason to remove the child even without knowing the police were called twice.

Moores thinks part of the solution may be close at hand. By using a mechanism that already exists in the county’s emergency response computer system, she said, it could be possible to alert police when a family has an open child welfare case.

The system used by the Metropolitan Emergency Communications Agency allows for special messages to be stored by address and called up whenever authorities are sent there.

That is used now to alert police or fire units about hazards at certain addresses, Moores said, so why not allow DCS to store messages in the computer asking officers to contact a family’s case manager after any police run to the home?

Moores learned about the possibility Friday from her nephew, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer, the judge said. In her mind, she said, only the logistics remain to be worked out.

Yeah, sounds simple, no so much.  First, there are questions about the family’s confidentiality, which the Blogmeister believes is protected by the Indiana Code.  There would need to be changes there first.  Second, what about “informal” cases, where the family has voluntarily agreed to engage in services and have not been ordered by a court?  Would their confidentiality be jeopardized as well?  Wouldn’t that cause more people not to voluntarily seek services?  Third, ever try to call a DCS caseworker?  Unless you like talking to voice-mail and waiting 2 weeks for a callback, don’t bother.  So, it’s a tad bit more involved than simple “logistics”.  Besides, this was a very minor wrinkle in an already screwed up case. 

So Friday afternoon, Moores fired off an e-mail inviting key police and DCS officials to meet with her Monday. Within an hour, several told the judge they would be there or send representatives.

…

It will be a big job, though Moores said the system might be used only for high-risk cases.

Which apparently TanJanay’s wouldn’t have been classified as, since she was back at home and DCS wanted to terminate the case.

DCS spokeswoman Susan Tielking applauds any move to improve communications.

Of course she does, it takes the focus off the supervisor at DCS who is really responsible for this. 

Tielking said she expects the agency’s review of TaJanay’s case to lead to a call for better information-sharing, both inside and outside the child welfare system.

And not address any of the real issues…that one person in a position of authority can think they know best, despite what at least three other people are telling them, and cause harm to a child.

Payne added that [Carl] Brizzi [Marion County Prosecutor] appears to be correct about the agency’s failure to make a report to police after the May 2006 incident in which a doctor found TaJanay had been abused.

Hmm, another mistake, imagine that. 

The Blogmeister really, really, really does not enjoy pointing these things out.  DCS just makes it so easy.  Please, everyone address the problems and stop skirting around them with side issues.  Long story short, the Supervisor messed up.  Send a message to other employees of DCS…you screw up and a kid gets killed, your fired.  FSSA does that with people who steal a few thousand dollars, isn’t this a little inconsistent…Steal, your gone, make a bad call instead of playing it safe and protecting the child, you keep your job, your insurance, and we’ll protect you, by the way, take a few days off too.

Marketing and Big Pharma

Last night I had finished all the posting work for the blog and decided to do some web surfing.  It dawned on me I hadn’t done much of that since installing the RSS feed software.  So there I went.

However, I was drawn to a memory I had earlier in the day when I was posting this about Eli Lilly hiring a firm to do “damage control” [my phrase] for the drug Zyprexia.  I remember the story quoted a Psychiatrist who ran a blog.  I decided to check it out. 

I don’t know about anyone else, but things tend to trend for me.  What I mean is certain topics come up in different situations a few times over a few days.  This was one of those occasions.  As I looked through Dr. Carlat’s blog I was struck by the number of unflattering posts about the marketing practices of the major pharmaceutical companies.  What was strange, in a Jungian synchronicity way, was I remembered reading a post on Dr. Mike Schatzlein’s blog (titled, Is This Thing On), about the same topic, but more related to physical medicine.  I wasn’t going to post about it, because it didn’t really have anything to do with mental health, but once I read Dr. Carlat’s article, I decided big-pharma’s marketing tactics were relevant to everyone in healthcare and systemically undermining the patients right to trust his/her physician, despite the area of practice, with making the best medical decision, based on the patients’ needs.

Indeed, in Dr. Schatzlein’s blog, he makes the point that by advertising directly to the consumer, big pharma is, in a sense, undermining the physician who, because they may not prescribe a specific drug, is not, in the patient’s view,  giving the patient the best care.  In fact, the opposite is probably more true, that not prescribing a heavily advertised drug will more than likely, cost the patient less, and is more tailored to their specific situation.  Dr. Schatzlein also mentions a well know heart researcher who is currently hawking the prescription drug Lipitor.  While this researcher did graduate from medical school, he has spent his entire life developing high risk artificial hearts that, while not really successful, garnered him a high degree of fame.  According to Schatzlein, this researcher, after medical school, never sought a license to practice medicine and went straight into research.  So we have this researcher who has never written a prescription, telling consumers this is the best drug for them.  In the Blogmeister’s opinion, it appears that after a life of research (he’s getting up there), this researcher is “selling out” to big pharma to pad his retirement account.

It is exactly this “selling out” to big pharma that Dr. Carlat addresses in an article he wrote for New York Magazine.  The Blogmeister was enthralled with this article which describes the insidious way a good Psychiatrist was turned into a pawn for the drug companies through lavish ego stroking and, of course, cash.  He outlines how his conscience eventually caught up with him and his search to reconcile how he may have misled other physicians and possibly hurt patients, with wanting to be an ethical Physician.

The point of all this is the public needs to trust their Physicians.  They need to know their Physician is prescribing what is best for the patient, despite what  a drug representative just bought them for lunch.  By the same token, patients need to realize, while sometimes the best drug for them is the one with the best marketing campaign, sometimes it is not.  The person to determine that difference is your unbiased Physician.

[Post-script:  As I was fininishing this post, my 10 year old Daughter looked over my shoulder.  She saw the word "Lipitor" and commented, "Oh, I've heard of that, it's on T.V.]