July 2016 – Maria Yang, MD

For the past few weeks I have felt discouraged about ongoing local, national, and global violence. I felt powerless to do anything—including write—to help make things better. I could not find the words to express my sorrow.

So I turned to Buzzfeed.

I came across an article describing the efforts of Asian-Americans who were writing letters in their respective Asian languages to their parents about Black Lives Matter. My father and I hadn’t discussed the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling. However, the topic of race in America comes up in our conversations every few months.

Several months earlier, while discussing experiences of racism in his life, my father commented, “The Chinese should not be surprised to experience racism. We made the choice to come to America. It was voluntary. Black people didn’t have a choice. They were forced to come here.”

It was a perspective that I hadn’t considered before. And while I understood his point, I wondered what degree of racism any person should experience without feeling “surprise”.

It was only recently that I understood that some people who hear “Black Lives Matter” interpret that to mean “Only Black Lives Matter”. Thus, the rebuttal “All Lives Matter” came into being.

Of course All Lives Matter, I thought. That’s the whole point. Perhaps it would be more precise to say Black Lives Matter, Too.

I asked my dad if Black Lives Matter was receiving as much media attention in Taiwan and China as it was here in the US. I also expressed my surprise about the rebuttal of “All Lives Matter”.

“The Chinese media talk about it in a different way,” he said. “It’s not ‘Black Lives Matter’. It’s ‘Black Lives are Also Lives.’ It’s more clear.”

Indeed! There is no pithy retort to that. The clear implication is that we, as a society, value lives. The death of a Black life should disturb us as much as the death of any other life.

For all of us who are ever considered The Other—and everyone, at some point, is considered The Other—we must support the other Others.[1. We support other Others if their causes are noble and just. Make no mistake: I am not saying that we should support The Others who advocate for genocide, torture, etc.] There was a time in the US when The Majority were fearful of the Chinese, which resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act. This was the first law that explicitly stated that a specific ethnic group could not immigrate to the United States. Though this law was ultimately overturned in 1943 (not even 100 years ago!), the Chinese are still the only ethic group specifically named for exclusion in the United States Code.

People who were not of Chinese descent disagreed with this law before, during, and after its implementation. They also supported its repeal.[2. I understand that some people opposed the Chinese Exclusion Act solely for commercial reasons. They did not care about equality. I’m not talking about those people.] I am grateful that they spoke up. Had they not, my parents would not have been able to immigrate to the US, contribute to this society, enjoy what America has to offer, and raise a daughter who now writes this blog.

We all speak up in our own ways: Some people participate in protests; others write words for others to read; still others have quiet conversations about it. Advocacy takes many forms. Choose what works best for you.

A colleague sent me a Washington Post article, “As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession.”

After the author lists his credentials as a psychiatrist, Dr. Gallagher explains why he believes that some people who demonstrate unusual behaviors do not have psychiatric conditions, but are actually possessed by demons.

The sheer number of comments (over 2300 as of this writing) tells me that many people had strong reactions to this piece. (Or perhaps the bulk of comments are vitriolic arguments, name calling, and other unfortunate aspects of communication on the internet.)

It appears that Dr. Gallagher and I share some general principles when it comes to psychiatric diagnosis. For example, he notes:

I technically do not make my own “diagnosis” of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.

Indeed, one of the most important services psychiatrists can provide is giving an opinion about whether someone has a psychiatric condition or not. A common saw in medicine is that diagnosis guides treatment. Incorrect diagnosis can lead to incorrect treatment which, at best, will do nothing or, at worst, will harm someone.

Say a man is thrashing around the room, shouting nonsense, and looks confused and angry. The cause of his behavior is low blood sugar. If, however, all the physicians in the room assume that this man has schizophrenia, then instead of giving this man some form of sugar, they may instead give him a variety of tranquilizers.[1. In practice, people with low blood sugars who are behaving this way often receive both tranquilizers and sugar.]

Sometimes people may not recognize that a psychiatric condition is present, which can delay useful treatment. Sometimes people assume that a psychiatric condition is present, when in fact it is a medical condition. Sometimes people assume that a psychiatric condition is present, when in fact it is a variant of human behavior.

As I’ve written many times in the past, though, context matters. Where I believe Dr. Gallagher has taken a misstep is his assured belief that, if these individuals don’t have a psychiatric condition, then they must have demonic possession.

All of his referrals come from clergy who believe in demonic possession. To his credit, Dr. Gallagher does comment

I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness —– which represent the overwhelming majority of cases —– from, literally, the devil’s work. (emphasis mine)

In medical parlance, then, the chief complaint for his referrals is always “does this person have a psychiatric condition?”. It appears that the answer is often “yes”.

I must comment, though, that I cringed when I read some of his descriptions of people with psychiatric conditions. For example, he describes some of these people as

histrionic or highly suggestible individuals, such as those suffering from dissociative identity syndromes

I will assume that he has no ill will towards “histrionic or highly suggestible individuals”, though no one wants to be described as either. It’s not clear to me if he believes in the construct of “dissociative identity syndromes”. I am skeptical.

He also describes some of these people as

patients with personality disorders who are prone to misinterpret destructive feelings, in what exorcists sometimes call a “pseudo-possession,” via the defense mechanism of an externalizing projection.

Perhaps I underestimate the fund of knowledge the general public has about psychoanalysis. I had to read this sentence twice at a slow pace to understand what he was trying to say. If you believe in psychoanalytic theory, then, yes, that sentence makes sense. If you don’t believe in psychoanalytic theory, then that sentence might make as much sense as demonic possession.

If the answer to the question of “does this person have a psychiatric condition?” is “no”, though, then it appears that the only other option Dr. Gallagher considers is demonic possession:

This was not psychosis; it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed.

This is dangerous, whether we’re talking about medicine or any other field. The moment you limit your options, you overlook evidence that supports other ideas and focus only on evidence that supports your theory. This is also called confirmation bias.

The following list may be absurd, but for the sake of illustration, is the only possibility that the “self-styled Satanic high priestess” is possessed by a demon? What if:

she is an alien?
her previous devotion to the Catholic faith has turned into contempt, so she is using her abilities to combat the faith?
she has excellent skills in “reading” other people and senses that Dr. Gallagher may be “histrionic or highly suggestible” to the ideas of demonic possession?

In medicine we often speak of the importance of “having a wide differential diagnosis”. Yes, the man described above who was thrashing around the room, shouting nonsense, and looked confused and angry could have schizophrenia. He could also have low blood sugar. Or he might:

have dangerously high blood pressure
have an infection in or around his brain
not be getting enough oxygen
be bleeding in his brain
be intoxicated with illicit drugs
be experiencing toxic effects from a poison

If we’re only thinking about a few of those things on that list, we might miss everything else. And all the things on that list can lead to the man’s death.

Do I think it is possible that people are possessed by demons?[2. My initial experience with Catholicism was spending hours in debates with my college roommate about transubstantiation. She, raised in the Catholic faith and able to recite Catholic prayers while falling asleep, insisted that the Communion wafer was literally the body of Christ and the wine was literally his blood. I insisted that this was physically impossible. These debates then wandered into other differences in Catholicism compared to other Christian faiths (faith versus good works, etc.—to be clear, I’m a big fan of good works).] Maybe. Is “demonic possession” high on my list of possibilities? No. Do I think that people experience spiritual distress? Yes. Do I think Dr. Gallagher has done an excellent job of promoting his forthcoming book about demonic possession? Absolutely.