Category: Medicine

Categories
Consult-Liaison Education Medicine Reading Reflection Systems

The Challenge of Going Off Psychiatric Drugs for Psychiatry.

Here are my initial reactions to the New Yorker’s The Challenge of Going Off Psychiatric Drugs:

Which populations are most likely to receive large numbers of psychiatric medications?

The woman described in the article comes from a family of money and privilege. These individuals (and families) have both the time and money to seek out psychiatrists who practice “precision psychopharmacology”. These psychiatrists then order complicated medication regimens that ostensibly address and “correct” neuroreceptors. As a consequence, people end up taking multiple medications.

There are also individuals who do not have money or privilege, but are subjected to psychiatric services due to the concerns of the public. They may be behaving in ways that endanger their own lives or the lives of others. As a consequence, they receive medications—sometimes willingly, sometimes through coercion—that aim to reduce certain behaviors. If one medication doesn’t reduce the behavior, then more are added.

What these two populations have in common are (a) the lack of clarity around diagnosis, which often stems from (b) missing information about the person and the context in which s/he lives.

I completely agree with Dr. Frances’s comment from the article:

[There is a] “cruel paradox: there’s a large population on the severe end of the spectrum who really need the medicine” and either don’t have access to treatment or avoid it because it is stigmatized in their community. At the same time, many others are “being overprescribed and then stay on the medications for years.”

The meanings of diagnosis and treatment, particularly medications.

Some people feel relief upon learning that their symptoms belong to a diagnosis, that what they have is “real”. Others don’t want the “label” of a psychiatric diagnosis; they are not damaged human beings.

For various reasons (e.g., the current primacy of biological psychiatry, insurance reimbursement, psychiatry’s seeming inferiority complex within medicine), treatment in psychiatry is often focused on medications. This is not ideal. Medications are a biological solution, though our understanding of the biology of the brain and mind remains limited.

In the meantime, doctors recommend that people take pills. Some people view pills as a necessary intervention to keep them healthy and well. Some people view pills as a shameful reminder that there is something wrong with them that will never improve. The more pills someone has to take, the more potent the reminder that they are beyond hope or repair. Some people view pills as an external validator of their pain and suffering: “Someone else believes and understands my pain and these pills remind them and me that my pain is real.”

The pills may not be treating what psychiatrists think they are treating.

The problems with psychiatric diagnosis.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) focuses only on the “what”, not the “why”.

It doesn’t matter why someone has a depressed mood, takes no pleasure in work or play, can’t sleep, won’t eat, and feels hopeless. The underlying reason could be the cardiologist’s realization that he should have pursued his dream of becoming an architect… or it could be the threat of eviction after losing one’s job.

This affects the way psychiatrists gather a history from people seeking care. Instead of learning the context behind one’s symptoms, psychiatrists now focus on whether certain symptoms are present or absent. What matters more is that she feels paranoid, not that the paranoia started when she learned that her father was molesting her sister.

To be clear, there are some instances in which the underlying “why” doesn’t matter. If someone is terrified of flying on a plane, there are treatments (e.g., exposure therapy) that can help people tolerate plane rides without getting into the reasons why this fear appeared in the first place.

In other instances, though, the “why” is often relevant. Since our understanding of the biology of the brain and mind are limited, we don’t know if the biological properties of Medication A are more useful in military veterans who have fought in combat or if those of Medication B are more useful in women who experience major depression after the birth of a baby. Even if evidence suggests that medications aren’t the best treatment for either population, it is often the easiest intervention to deliver. This is due to the context and underlying “whys” of the health care system.

All of the other psychiatrists.

It’s true that there is scant evidence about how to taper and stop medications. It is a shame that psychiatry, as a field, has nothing to say about deprescribing. The scientific literature has plenty to say about adding medications, but nothing that extols the virtues of taking them away. There are risks to stopping medications, yes, but why are psychiatrists unimpressed with the risks of starting them? In this way we have failed not only the people who receive care from us, but we also fail the people who step in to help in our absence: Other physicians, nurses, family members, friends.

When I consider the psychiatrists I have worked with with, many of them have helped people come off of medications. They work with their patients and go through the trial-and-error process together. While they may not work in ivory towers of acclaim, they are still doing the work of helping people make informed choices about their care so they can lead healthy and meaningful lives. These are the quiet anecdotes that will never make it into the New Yorker.

Psychiatry as an agent of social control.

This is not the first time I’ve written about psychiatry as an agent of social control.

What does it mean that “antidepressants are taken by one in five white American women”? Is this a reflection of white American women? Or a reflection of the society and systems that want to contain white American women?

What does it mean that African- and Latinx-Americans are more likely to receive diagnoses of psychotic disorders? Is this a reflection of these populations of color? Or a reflection of the society and systems that want to contain these populations?

Perhaps there needs to be a “Challenge of Going Off Psychiatric Drugs” for the field of psychiatry. To be clear, there is definitely a role for medications in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, though: first, do no harm. When The Royal We have more humility about what we do and do not know, and exercise more care in current pharmacological tools, then perhaps getting on or going off of psychiatric drugs won’t be a “challenge”.

Categories
Medicine Nonfiction Seattle

Questions After a Suicide.

To my knowledge, three people who were under my care killed themselves.[1. Additionally, three people who were active patients of mine tried to kill themselves. Then there are the people who have killed themselves, and I am simply unaware that they have died from suicide.]

The first was a young man—late 20s, maybe?—who I met while I was a psychiatry intern. He was hospitalized in the psychiatric unit where I had just started my rotation. I did not have the opportunity to get to know him well. Our paths crossed, at most, for two days. He had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. I can conjure up his face in my mind, though I do not remember his name. He didn’t blink much. While his face did not betray fear, he often looked uncomfortable.

I don’t know how many days he had been out of the hospital before he died, though I think it was within a week of his discharge. He jumped off of the Aurora Bridge (before a suicide prevention fence was installed) into Lake Union in Seattle.

The second was a man in his late 40s who had repeated visits to a crisis center. He did well in college and earned a law degree. His career as a lawyer was cut short due to problems with depression and alcohol. From there he became homeless and destitute. He had a diagnosis of major depression. Some professionals thought he had a personality disorder.

He was smart and sarcastic. While he was often critical of everyone around him, there were moments when he was self-effacing. After we had worked together for a few months, he commented that he liked “debating” with me, though I suspected that arguing was the only way he knew how to interact with other people. On the rare occasions when he took a break from his self-loathing, he considered how his life could change. He didn’t drink as much alcohol now as he once had, but it still helped him forget his shame and regret.

When I learned that he had died from an overdose of methadone, I knew immediately that he had intentionally killed himself. He had no history of using opiates, but he knew how, with or without alcohol, they could end his life. Over a month had passed between our last conversation and his suicide. When I learned of his death, I asked him—as if he could hear me—why he didn’t come back to the crisis center. He knew that he could.

I have not forgotten his name. Earlier this week, I saw his name in a newspaper. It wasn’t him, of course; the name belonged to an author who was promoting his book. I hadn’t seen this name elsewhere before. It made me wonder if my patient was saying hello.

This past week, I learned that a third person who was under my care killed himself. He was in his 20s, smart, and funny. When his symptoms were active, he was very ill. In the minutes to hours leading up to his death, was he experiencing a resurgence of his symptoms? Or was he mulling over how his illness could impact his life in the future and decided to impact his life first?

The last time I spoke with him, we talked about how his condition did not define him. His identity wasn’t solely his illness. We talked about the things he wanted to do in the future and how he could accomplish those things.

The person who called me to tell me the news heard my breath catch in my throat.

Death, while uncomplicated in some ways—it’s a permanent cessation of all vital functions, the end of life—our attachments make it complicated in other ways. We have so many questions that will forever go unanswered. We wonder where the dead go. Does a part of them persist outside of our memories? And for those who kill themselves, what happened? What got in the way of them asking for help? What made death the best option? What made them believe that the rest of us could not or would not understand?

The end of a life never just impacts the individual who died. The ripples spread far and wide. We search for words to describe our grief, but language fails us.

Categories
Medicine Nonfiction

Follow Up.

To my surprise, he called my name and asked to talk with me.

I didn’t bring up the incident that had occurred the last time we spoke: He got upset because he believed that I had put voices into his head. I wanted him to associate me with attributes other than hallucinations. There was no way I could help him if he believed that I was doing things against his wishes.

“So, hey,” he volunteered after we had spoken for a few minutes, “I’m sorry for yelling at you the other day. I was already thinking about robots and when you asked me about them, I freaked out. I’m sorry.” A sheepish smile bloomed on his face, but his eye contact did not waver. He looked and sounded sincere.

“It’s okay,” I replied. “This is a stressful situation and sometimes we all get upset over things that we feel like we can’t control.”

He nodded. We talked about the voices—they were still talking to him, but they were quieter now—and what other things he could do so they wouldn’t bother him as much.

Even though I’ve been doing this work for years now, there are still moments when I am astonished with the effectiveness of medications for symptoms of psychosis. I already knew they can save lives. I already knew they can transform lives. And yet!

“I am going to ask the nurses to offer you medicine,” I said the last time we met while he was yelling at me. “You don’t have to take it, but I think it will help.”

And, for whatever personal reasons he had, he took it. (The manner and skills of the nurses undoubtedly helped with this, though it appears that persuasion of any form was unnecessary.)

“Do you have any other questions for me before I go?” I asked. Last time, I simply told him that I was leaving. First, do no harm.

“No,” he said, smiling. “Thank you for talking with me. I hope you have a nice day.” He waved.

“Thank you,” I said, waving back.

Wondrous!

Categories
Medicine Nonfiction Reflection

Assuming Intentions from Behaviors.

The fear first appeared in his eyes, then washed over his entire face.

“Hey, how did you do that?” His voice grew louder. “You’re supposed to help me! How did you tell the voices what to say?”

I realized that this was not going to end well.

“The voices in my head are now saying that there are robots in my brain!” he shouted. “That’s illegal! You’re not allowed to do that!”

“I have no ability to put voices in your head or anyone else’s head.”

“But you did! Before you told me about what I supposedly said the other day”—he had told my colleague that there were robots in his brain—“the voices never talked about robots. YOU did this!”

“I did not.”

“You did!” He looked around, frantic. “HELP! SOMEONE HELP ME! THIS NURSE IS PUTTING VOICES INTO MY HEAD!”

My heart sank further. Many people who experience auditory hallucinations learn to avoid sharing this with others. This man did not realize how others would dismiss his suffering.

“I’m going to go.”

“NO! You can’t go! You’re doing something illegal!” He saw an officer approach. “GUARD! GUARD! This nurse is doing something illegal! She’s putting voices in my head!”

Though he has worked on the unit for years, I suspect that he had some innate skills in talking with people who were overwhelmed.

“Hey, you don’t need to yell, I’m right here. She’s trying to help you….”

He managed to shout, “HEY, COME BACK HERE, YOU NEED TO STAY!” as I slipped away, but he stopped yelling before I was out of earshot. The officer later told me the man demanded that I call his parents to tell them that I was putting voices in his head.

There’s no way this could ever happen to you, right?

But aren’t there times when we believe that someone did something to us… except they didn’t?

Like those times when we say, “She makes me so mad!”

Or, “He’s trying to make me jealous.”

We assume intention from behaviors. Sometimes our assumptions are correct, but not always. We feel whatever emotions we feel, but that does not always mean that somebody else is responsible for our emotions.

“But, Maria,” you might retort, “there’s a big difference between hearing voices and feeling emotions. We all feel emotions. Only sick people hear voices.”

… except there’s data[1. Prevalence of auditory verbal hallucinations in a general population: A group comparison study and A comprehensive review of auditory verbal hallucinations: lifetime prevalence, correlates and mechanisms in healthy and clinical individuals.] that suggests that anywhere between 5% and 28% of the general population hears voices. They are your coworkers, friends, members of your family, people you routinely see in your community.

And even if we don’t hear voices, our running internal dialogue—while not “voices”, per se, but “thoughts”—can transform an event into something else that never actually happened.

I felt sad as I was walking away from this man. First, do no harm. Our conversation went sideways and caused him distress. I replayed the interaction in my mind—my own internal dialogue was loud—and recognized several points where I could have taken a different approach. The outcome still may have been the same.

The truth remains, though: I did not put voices into his head. I don’t know how to do that. My hope is that he will recognize and accept that in time.

Categories
Medicine Policy Reading Systems

The Word is Not the Thing, And…

This past week I finished reading McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art.[1. I purchased Understanding Comics to learn a different perspective about storytelling. I am not a routine reader of comics. Regardless, I do recommend this book. It is a thoughtful and fun read, and it’s a comic book.] The second chapter, “The Vocabulary of Comics”, reiterates a major point in Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action:

The first of the principles governing symbols is this: The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized; the word is NOT the thing; the map is NOT the territory it stands for.

McCloud uses René Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images” to welcome the reader to “the strange and wonderful world of the icon”:

I’m using the word “icon” to mean any image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea.”

This idea that “the word (or icon) is not the thing” is relevant to a recent opinion piece, “Beware the Word Police“, in the academic journal Psychiatric Services:

Frequent calls for changing diagnostic labels to decrease stigma may result in unintended consequences. Condemning incorrect language by policing word choice oversimplifies the depth of work involved to increase opportunities for people with mental illness. This Open Forum reviews three unintended consequences of using scolding language.

The author of that opinion piece, Patrick Corrigan, lists these three unintended consequences:

  1. the word police’s focus on “just changing terms” misrepresents the depth and persistence of bias and bigotry
  2. word police are a major barrier to the essential goals of stigma change
  3. word police may undermine stigma change at the policy level

I’m One of Those People who avoids using the words “addict”, “schizophrenic”, or “diabetic”. I instead say “individual with a substance use disorder”, “person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia”, or “someone with diabetes”.

While I agree with all the authors above—words and icons aren’t the thing, they only represent the thing; the use of different words does not equate to actual reduction in discriminatory behaviors—I also believe that, as a society, The Royal We have come to agree that certain words have certain meanings.

For example, if I describe a person as a “diabetic”, what comes to mind? Perhaps you think of a family member who has diabetes and has excellent management of her blood sugars. Maybe you think of the person who goes to the emergency department multiple times a month due to high blood sugars and non-healing wounds. Or maybe you’re thinking about the growing number of people who struggle to pay for insulin to treat their diabetes. The range of ideas that come to mind with the word “diabetic” is broad.

But if I say someone is an “addict”, what comes to mind? Maybe you think of a senior vice president of a major business who wears tailored suits, but most people don’t. When I teach and ask audiences—comprised of health care professionals or otherwise—to list what comes to mind when I say “addict”, the list always includes things like

  • dirty
  • mean
  • desperate
  • selfish
  • etc.

(When the audience is comprised of health care professionals, I remind them that, right now, they are likely working with someone with a substance use disorder… and that person won’t disclose how much s/he is suffering because they feel shame about the presumed characteristics of “addicts”.)

It is true that the word “addict” is NOT the person with a substance use disorder. However, we, as a society, have somehow arrived at the agreement that the word “addict” describes someone who is dirty, has no self-control, etc.

Even though a different word doesn’t change the actual thing, the different word can change the idea about the thing. A different word can have a different definition, different associations.

Again, if I describe someone as “schizophrenic”, what characteristics comes to mind?

But what if that person with schizophrenia is your neighbor? works as a barber? works at Microsoft? is raising two kids? just earned her graduate degree? volunteers at the animal shelter? is the owner of that plot in the community garden that is overflowing with flowers and vegetables?

If different words can change the idea about the thing, then different words can help people change their behaviors about the thing.[2. To be clear, insight does not always result in behavior change. Even if the psychoanalysts argue otherwise.] In regards to the “word police” piece above, shifts in ideas and behaviors can drive improvements in health and social policy. This can lead to a reduction in stigma. The Royal We can develop new agreements for these different words. And using different words is sometimes easier than changing definitions for the same word (e.g., consider racial slurs).

Maybe I am falling into the “word police” camp. However, I do agree that behavior change is the ultimate goal, since what we do matters more than what we say. As with many things, the solution is somewhere in-between: Let’s work on word choice to help shift ideas and behaviors, but also remind ourselves that the word is not the thing.