Category: Consult-Liaison

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Lessons Reflection

Being Right vs. Being Effective.

“It’s best to avoid confirming their beliefs,” they said, “but you can validate the underlying emotion.”

She was dabbing her eyes with a crumpled tissue already streaked with mascara.

“It’s been two years and I still can’t believe he’s gone. I thought we would grow old together, that he’d get to see his kids graduate from high school.”

“The sadness still feels overwhelming.”

“Yes,” she whispered before bursting into tears. “When will I stop feeling so sad?”

He avoided eye contact while his leg bobbed up and down.

“I feel so anxious, like I’m paranoid. It used to be that I only felt paranoid when I was high on crystal meth, but now it’s all the time. It’s like people are watching me all the time, like they want to know all my business or something.”

“It’s exhausting to feel so anxious all the time.”

“Oh my God, YES. I’m so tired, but I can’t relax.”

“I didn’t know what to say to my wife. She didn’t deserve any of this. I tried to stop, and I did for a few weeks, but then I’d download more of it. My wife was the one who answered the door when the police came to seize my computer. I would do anything to not have this problem; I know how many people it hurts.”

“You feel a lot of shame about looking at child porn.”

His face flushed and his voice quivered.

“Yeah.”

She heard every word, but her gaze was fixed to something on the other side of the room.

“I can’t. I’ve already said too much. I can’t. I can’t. They know, they will know, they already know everything. I can’t. It’s in the lights, it’s in the ceiling, it’s in the sky. It’s everywhere. I can’t. They will know and they will know through the lights—”

“You’re scared that something bad will happen if you tell me the story.”

“Yes! And I want to be strong, I don’t want to be scared.”

“The whites are better than the Asiatics—”

“Let me ask something else—”

“—and there will come a day when all the races will submit to us—”

“—I’m going to walk away if you keep talking about this—”

“—even people who went to a lot of school like you. I’ll remember that you were helpful, but you are still just an Asiatic—”

“—okay, I’m going now.”

“But Doctor! You know what I say is true! C’mon! Why won’t you talk to me about this? You’re not being a good doctor….”

“You also have to respect your own limits,” they said. “Sometimes you want to show that just how right you are, but it’s much more helpful to be effective. And sometimes it’s best for everyone if you end the conversation when you’re no longer effective. You can always try again later.”

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Nonfiction Reflection Systems

Reflections While Writing About Psychiatry

I know I haven’t posted in a while. Someone presented me with the opportunity to write a section on psychiatry for medical students. This is wonderful (an opportunity to influence future physicians!!!) and terrible (GAAAAH there’s so much in psychiatry!!!). Between thinking about psychiatry at multiple levels at work and thinking about the foundations of psychiatry while writing the section, I’ve felt cognitively impaired when thinking about what I should write here.

But the thinking never stops… and here are some reflections I’ve had over the past two months while writing:

The differences between what physicians and patients want. Many medical students choose medicine because of the opportunity to help people in a very real way: In helping people improve their health, physicians help people experience a better quality of life. This is rewarding for both patient and physician. Right?

As physicians go through training, they learn the heartbreaking lesson, often repeatedly, that it’s not that simple.

Sometimes people want physicians to help them in ways that physicians can’t or won’t. Some people want medicine that will make the cancer go away and never come back. Other people want pain medicine or sedatives for short-term relief, though the long-term consequences are problematic and potentially devastating.

Other times, people reject the best help that physicians offer. Some people will not take insulin, even though it will prevent prevent worse outcomes from diabetes. Other people don’t want to see any physicians, even though medical interventions for their conditions are simple and effective.

Many medical students assume that patients will only be grateful for and accepting of the help physicians offer. That assumption is wrong.

But this is part of the “art” of medicine, right? How do physicians and other medical professionals help people when we don’t have an intervention that “works”? How do we help people who don’t want the help that we know “works”?[1. There are, of course, strategies we learn as psychiatrists to address how to help people who don’t want the help physicians offer. The problem is that the issue then gets cast as a “psychiatric problem”, when it, in fact, is a “human relations problem”. Psychiatrists often feel frustrated when some physicians either want us to have the doctor-patient relationship in their stead or, worse, when some physicians assume that a Disagreeing Patient is a Mentally Ill Patient.]

The psychiatric conditions that psychiatrists don’t encounter. I’ve worked in a variety of settings—in clinics, hospitals, a crisis center, a jail, homeless shelters, housing, and on the street—and, despite all that exposure, I have never met with someone with a diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder or factitious disorder. While both conditions are rare, my colleagues in primary care and emergency departments see people with these conditions more frequently. Those same people don’t want to see a psychiatrist.

When we think about systems that take care of patients, sometimes we need to remember that the patient isn’t always the actual patient. Sometimes the best way psychiatrists can help these patients is to help the physicians who actually see them. If we wipe our hands and say, “Well, they won’t see me, so that’s not my problem,” what are we doing? If there are barriers in the system that prevent us from helping our colleagues, how can we work together to remove them to increase the likelihood we can help them?[2. This is an argument for “integrated care”, which refers to the integration of physical and behavioral health services. Unfortunately, how these services are paid for often creates barriers… which is exactly why we need more physicians involved in advocacy and leadership.]

Conversations on what is “wrong” instead of the experience of being ill. While in training, physicians learn how to diagnose and treat conditions based on what is “wrong”. We learn the characteristics of the condition, its underlying causes, and the treatments that often correct it. However, we don’t spend a lot of time learning just how much the condition afflicts people.

To be fair, there is so much to learn in medical school and beyond. Furthermore, physicians, as a population, like to solve problems. This temperament was likely present in all of us even before we went to medical school. If talking and listening won’t actually fix the problem, but doing Something actually will, why don’t we just do the Something and get on with it?

Because of this focus on Fixing the Problem, some people assume we are uncaring. That assumption is often wrong, too.

There are also other forces at work: Physicians often don’t have as much time with patients as they would like to listen, provide education, and offer encouragement. Those are Receptive skills and, while complementary to, are often not as glamorous (or billable) as Problem-Solving skills. All of us—in health care or otherwise—often forget that healing occurs with both Receptive and Problem-Solving skills.

I’m grateful for many reasons to have this opportunity to write for medical students. A major reason is the chance to explicitly go back to the basics. Examining the foundation reminds me why I chose to go into psychiatry in the first place, highlights (again) just how much I don’t know, and challenges me to consider what is actually important in my clinical work. And let me tell you, knowing the doses of various medications is not actually important. That’s stuff you can look up. As Dr. Edward Trudeau said, what is actually important is “to comfort always”.[3. The full aphorism attributed to Dr. Trudeau is “To cure sometimes, to relieve often, to comfort always.”]

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Observations Policy Reflection

Why I Agree with the Goldwater Rule.

The New York Times and NPR recently published articles related to the Goldwater Rule. In short, a magazine sent a survey to over 12,000 psychiatrists in the US with the single question of whether they thought Presidential nominee Mr. Barry Goldwater was fit to serve as President. Few psychiatrists responded. Of those that did, more than half—still over 1,000—said that he was not. Mr. Goldwater ended up losing the Presidential race, but he sued the magazine over this… and he won. Thus, the American Psychiatric Association has advised that psychiatrists should not diagnose public figures with psychiatric conditions. Some psychiatrists have felt otherwise for the current Presidential election.

There is a hypothetical concept in psychiatry called the “identified patient“. It is most often applied in family systems. For example, consider a family that consists of a mother, a father, a son, and a daughter. The parents bring the daughter to a psychiatrist and say that she has worrisome symptoms. Maybe they say that she is always angry, doesn’t get along with anyone in the family, and does everything to stay out of the house. The parents and the son argue that there must be something wrong with her.

As the psychiatrist works with the family, the psychiatrist learns that the parents have the most conflict. The daughter may have developed ways to cope with this stress in ways that the parents don’t like. Because the parents have the most authority in this system and do not recognize how their conflicts are affecting everyone else, they assume that the daughter is the problem. To oversimplify it, the daughter becomes the scapegoat. The daughter is the identified patient.

Presidential nominees don’t become nominees through sheer will. There is a system in place—putting aside for now whether we think the system is effective or useful—where the American public has some influence in who becomes the ultimate nominee. Candidates are eliminated through this process.

Does the Presidential nominee actually have psychopathology? Could a nominee rather reflect the public that supports him or her? Could it be more accurate to describe the nominee for a specific party as the “identified patient”?

Erving Goffman presents an argument in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life that has similarities with the monologue in Shakespeare’s As You Like It:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts

Goffman and Shakespeare are both commenting on the presence and importance of performance in our daily lives. Goffman argues in his text that context matters[1. I agree that context matters. See here, here, and here.]. We all do things within our power to alter ourselves and the contexts to present ourselves in certain ways.

Some mental health professionals have argued that we can diagnose public figures with psychiatric conditions because of “unfiltered” sources like social media. While it may be true that some people are more “real” (or perhaps just more “disinhibited”) on social media than others, that does not mean that people are revealing their “true selves”. Do you think that people are always eating colorful vegetables in pleasing arrangements? or that people are always saying hateful things, even while waiting to buy groceries, attending a church service, or folding laundry? or that their cats are always cute and adorable, that hairballs and rank breath have never exited their mouths?

Lastly, the primary purpose of diagnosis is to guide treatment. There is no point in considering diagnoses for someone if you’re not going to do anything to help that person.

People have commented that psychiatric diagnoses often become perjorative labels. Unfortunately, there are those who work in psychiatry who will use psychiatric diagnoses as shorthand to describe behavior they don’t like. Instead of saying, “I feel angry when I see her; I don’t like her,” they will instead say, “She’s such a borderline.” That’s unfair and often cruel. If you’re not going to do anything to help improve her symptoms of borderline personality disorder, then why describe her that way? (We’ll also put aside that such a sentence construction reduces her to a diagnosis, rather than giving her the dignity of being a person.) If we are serious about addressing stigma or sanism, then we should only use diagnosis when we intend to help someone with that diagnosis.

I agree with the Goldwater Rule, though not because of the exhortations of the American Psychiatric Association.[2. I’m not a member of the APA. The reasons why I am not a member are beyond the scope of this post.] Diagnosis should have a specific purpose. We often do not have enough information about public figures across different contexts to give confident diagnoses. Presidential nominees are often appealing to various audiences, which can both affect and shape their behaviors. Most importantly, giving a diagnosis to a public figure without any intention of helping that person doesn’t help anyone, especially those who would ultimately benefit from psychiatric services.

Categories
Consult-Liaison Informal-curriculum Medicine Observations Reading

Psychiatrists and Demonic Possession.

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.

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Lessons Nonfiction Reflection

Five Things You Can Do When You Have to Talk to Someone You Don’t Like.

We all have to talk to people we don’t like, whether in our professional or personal lives. We try to avoid these people. We try to work around them. Sometimes we spend a lot of energy trying to get away from them. And, despite our efforts, we often still have to spend time with them.

Most people don’t like the experience of disliking people. Some blame it all on the disliked person. Some people assume all the blame themselves (“why don’t I like that person? what is wrong with me?”). And, despite self-reflection (or lack thereof), the uncomfortable sensations remain.

It’s okay to dislike people. It happens. Sometimes we don’t have rational reasons for disliking people. Even if the reasons elude us, one of the most useful things we can do for ourselves (and for everyone else) is to acknowledge our dislike. Once we recognize our internal reality, we can then take useful steps in our external reality when we have to spend time with these people.

Here are five things you can do to make the best of the time you have to spend with someone you don’t like:

1. If they are much older than you, really look at them and picture them as kids. Kids are cute. All of us were kids at one point. Sometimes things happen to kids that lead them to act in certain ways as adults. These certain ways helped them cope with and survive in the world. Maybe these strategies don’t actually work well now, but they may have been lifesaving when they were kids.

Have compassion on the kid.

2. If they are much younger than you, really look at them and picture them as elderly people. You might recognize that, if they keep doing whatever it is that they are doing, they will have difficult lives as older adults. Maybe they haven’t learned what they need to learn yet. Maybe the time you spend with them can help them learn something different so they aren’t destined for decades of misery.

Have compassion on the elder.

3. Try to get to know them better. Abraham Lincoln remarked, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.”

Yes, this means that you might have to spend even more time with someone you don’t like. When you start exercising curiosity about people you don’t like, though, you often learn that you both have something in common. Sometimes you learn things about the person’s past that might explain why they he does the things he does. Instead of thinking of him as an “annoying dickwad”, you may notice that you now think of him as “that poor guy who no one cared for as a kid”.

4. Assume that the person is having a rough time in his life. None of us shine when we’re dealing with the problems and failures that inevitably occur. We often have no idea what challenges people have in their lives. Even though their challenges may occur in contexts that have nothing to do with you, the ways they deal with those challenges may affect how they interact with you. What they do that vexes you may be the best way they know how to cope.

5. Approach them with the assumption that these people are your teachers. Everyone you meet can teach you something. Because we often have no idea what has happened or is happening to people, it is foolish to believe that we know more about life than those around us. This person might teach you how to show more compassion or exercise more patience. This person might be an accurate reflection of those aspects of you everyone else finds annoying. Your reaction to this person could help show you how you can make your other relationships better.

You may protest that these suggestions may not reflect actual reality: “These are just mind tricks you play on yourself!” However, you cannot control the behavior of other people. You are limited to choosing how you can react to and interact with the people you dislike.

Thus, if the goal is to make the best of your time with people you don’t like, would you rather be “right”? or would you rather be “effective”? These five suggestions may not be “right”, but they are more likely to make you effective.