The Subjectivity of Psychology

The New Freedom Initiative, which is the official title of the newly proposed Mental Health Screening for our youth is truly cause for concern. I remember years ago, I was taking a psychology class in college and heard the term unconditional positive regard, which I understood to mean, you may not appreciate what someone is doing, but you separate the act from the person, and you care about the person. Actually that concept was introduced long before Freud or Jung, in the Bible as; G~d loves the sinner, but hates sin. At any rate, I used that terminology in front of several teens in my home, just in casual conversation toward my daughter. She happened to be friends with the daughter of a psychiatrist. My daughter later told me that her friend's dad didn't think that was a good thing for a mother to say to a child. I use that case in point for one simple reason. Look at the subjectivity of the opinions that took place just between a doctor and a student and a family interaction. Did the teens repeat what was said, correctly? Who knows. Did I mean anything derogatory toward my daughter or her friends? Absolutely not! Did the doctor think I was verbally abusing my daughter? I don't think so, he let his daughter come back to my home. My point is, the statements that were made and the information exchanged were completely based upon perception and everyone had a different one.
So, what is this new initiative likely to become? I am guessing a real boom for the pharmaceutical companies. What will happen when the kids of our public school system are having a bad day, one bad day, and that's the day of the evaluation? Or what happens if a child is just not feeling up to par, that day, something going around that hasn't quite "gotten" them yet? What about the children that are just terribly creative and march to a different drum beat? You know, since Freud started this emotional extravaganza and mental manipulation, there just aren't the artists and musicians that lived before his time, are there? And just who determines the mental health of those that are administering the evaluation? I know a number of people in decision making positions regarding the lives and future of others, that can't manage their own lives or health. If preachers are supposed to be moral and have high standards to preach, then why aren't doctors and nurses required to be healthy? And should counselors or therapists have problems, if they are equipped to tell others how to handle theirs, or in authority to revoke the privelege from others? Just who will be setting the standard and evaluating those doing the evaluation? I guess the "powers that be" are just doing what they think is best for the rest of us, who are questionably thinking for ourselves. And that raises another question. In these evaluations, since we now see what is perceived as "normal," are those that don't see things this way abnormal?
And with the new HIPAA regulations, if an adult is perecieved to be a problem or concern; to "protect their privacy" a concerned caller cannot even know if they are being detained. So I guess my question is: Why is this personal invasion called a New Freedom Initiative, or is this just one more manipulation of a definition of a word we regard with great value? Is this really going to preserve our freedom or give freedom a NEW definition?

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed