Categories
Lessons Nonfiction Observations Reflection

On Knowing Yourself.

I know of only two people who, upon starting medical school, knew that they wanted to become psychiatrists. (How did they know what they wanted to do eight years before they did it???) They both achieved their professional goals: One created a community clinic for people with severe psychiatric illnesses. The other became an addiction psychiatrist and now oversees an entire substance use disorder program for a health care organization.

I was not one of those people. As a youth, I aimed for family medicine, a generalist that would help people of all ages. While studying microbiology in college, I aimed for infectious diseases: The ingenuity of single-cell organisms! The science behind antibiotics and antiretroviral medications! The elegance of diagnosis and treatment! (My fascination with microbiology persists.) In medical school, I learned that infectious disease is a subspecialty of internal medicine and, WOW, there are a lot of subspecialities within internal medicine! Oncology (cancer) and nephrology (kidneys) captured my attention for a while—more incredible physiology that occurs on a cellular level!—and, then, seemingly out of nowhere, appeared psychiatry.

We’re biased when we look back at how things unfolded: We can’t change the past, so we tell ourselves that it all worked out the way it was supposed to. So, yes, of course I was supposed to go into psychiatry all along.

It became clear during my psychiatric training that I prefer to work with people who are experiencing severe psychiatric symptoms, particularly psychosis (e.g., people who hear voices saying terrible things about them, people who believe that someone has exchanged their internal organs for someone else’s). I also like the intersection and interplay of physical and mental conditions: Sometimes people who have significant medical illness develop striking psychiatric symptoms, which resolve along with their medical illnesses. Sometimes people with significant psychiatric illnesses develop significant medical problems, and successful treatment of both conditions requires teamwork. Complex problems are fascinating. Witnessing people recover from complicated conditions is rewarding. I’m lucky that I have had the opportunities to do this work.

I’ve also recognized that I am not consistently warm and empathic to people who are experiencing mild psychiatric symptoms. Two previous patients come to mind:

  • “I’m so stressed out,” she said while wringing her hands. She began to pick at the tassel of her Coach bag. “I don’t know which to remodel first: The beach house? the pied-a-terre? or the kitchen in our home? It’s all I think about and I’m starting to lose sleep over this.”
  • “My girlfriend started taking Prozac a few months ago, and it seemed to really help her. She has a lot more creativity. I’m thinking it might help me with that, too. In my line of work, creativity is important and if Prozac will help me with that, I won’t feel as much pressure on the job.”

For the woman with the three properties, we worked through that with minimal use of medications. I’m not proud to say that, for the man who desired creativity, I stared at him blankly when he was done speaking.


It’s important to know yourself. As I understand it, it usually takes at least a lifetime to learn about yourself. Even then, most people never know themselves completely by the time they die.

Learning about yourself helps you recognize how you could do things better or differently. We all have our weaknesses. They exist, even if we wish they didn’t. Everyone else sees them, even though we don’t.

There are many ways to get glimpses of our blind spots. If we’re willing to linger a bit when we catch these glimpses, we have the opportunity to make ourselves more awesome.

However, it’s hard to linger because these glimpses often occur when we’re angry or annoyed. Maybe you make an executive decision for something to happen and a lot of people don’t like it. Maybe you learn that not as many people liked or supported you when you thought they did. Maybe you wish that an institution or a group of people would write or say nice things about you, but they don’t.

How it burns!

These are all opportunities to get to know yourself a little better:

  • What emotion am I experiencing?
  • What happened that led me to feel this way?
  • What do I think the truth is?
  • Is it possible that what I think is true isn’t actually true?
  • What questions could I ask to learn more?
  • What do I think might happen if I start to ask questions?
  • What would it mean to show ignorance?
  • What would it mean if I were wrong?

Wherever you go, you bring yourself with you. Even if you do not yet have any interest in learning about youself, that doesn’t stop other people from learning about you. It is much more humiliating when everyone else knows you much better than you know yourself.

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
Medicine Nonfiction Reflection

Compassion?

I met him about a month before the election. He was confused. He spoke only about three things:

(1) his best friend, with love and affection
(2) his culinary skills, with pride and wistfulness
(3) Donald Trump, with exasperation and anger

“When’s the last time you and I spoke?” I asked.

“Uh, I don’t know… maybe a few days ago?” he guessed.

I had stepped away for only ten minutes.

In the weeks leading up to the election, I introduced myself each time. Each time he said that we had talked “just a few days ago”. At the end of each conversation, he extended his hand and said, “It was so nice to meet you!”

After repeating the ingredients of his prize-winning chile cocoa tacos (“cocoa powder! cumin! cinammon!”), he lurched into politics.

“Donald Trump! We can’t have Donald Trump! He’s not a good man. I won’t be voting for Trump! Not a good man. Not a good man.”

Perseveration, check.

Sometimes he would lurch back into prize-winning chile cocoa tacos; sometimes he would express his appreciation for his best friend (“I just want to see him again… when am I going to see him again?”). Sometimes he would look at me, pause, and then start talking about Bruce Lee.[1. I can’t tell you how many times people with psychotic or cognitive disorders look at me and then start talking about Bruce Lee. Sometimes they tell me I look like Bruce Lee’s sister. (I don’t look like him.) Sometimes they ask me if I know kung fu like Bruce Lee. Sometimes they speak highly of his films.]

Days after the newspapers splashed the results of Presidential election all over their front pages, we met again.

“Hi, I’m Dr. Yang.”

“Hi! It’s so nice to meet you. How are you doing?”

“I’m doing okay. How are you?”

“Donald Trump is ahead, can you believe it? I thought Hillary would be ahead by a lot, but Trump is ahead! Can you believe it?”

“Do you know who won the election?”

“It’s not over yet, they’re not done counting the votes. But Trump is ahead! I can’t believe it! I thought Hillary would be ahead by a lot—”

“Is the election over?”

“No, it’s not over yet, they’re not done counting the votes. But Trump is ahead. Can you believe it? Hillary still has a chance—”

“When is the election supposed to be over?”

“I don’t know, but Trump is ahead! Can you believe it? ”

One of the best things you can do for someone with memory problems is tell them information about “now”. Remind him what the date is. Tell him what time of day it is. Point out the seasons, talk about the city he’s in. Tell him who the President-elect is.

I looked at him as he continued to talk about the election. He still had hope.

I inhaled, smiled, and interjected, “So, you used to be a cook, right?”

“What? Oh, yes! I won a prize for chile cocoa tacos….”


Categories
Lessons Medicine Reflection

On the Importance of Hobbies.

During medical school, professors advised us to “have hobbies” and to “do stuff outside of medicine”:

  • “It’ll give you have something to talk about with patients.”
  • “It’ll help you maintain balance as you go through your training.”
  • “It’s important for self-care.”

Medical students, as a population, tend to be compulsive and there’s always more to read and learn. (Medicine, like many fields, entails lifelong learning, even when you are tired of lifelong learning.) It’s easy to drop other activities and study all the time.

As I’ve aged, my understanding of their advice has changed.[1. Even before I chose to enter the field of psychiatry, I was skeptical of the reason that hobbies “will give you something to talk about with patients”. While I believe that physicians should present as human beings at work, patients also don’t visit doctors to talk about shared hobbies. There are plenty of other shared topics to talk about, such as the weather, regional sports, etc. As physicians have limited time with patients, it seems self-indulgent to talk about MY hobbies when my role is to help the patient. Some may argue that my stance results in too rigid of a boundary, though I don’t think patients want to learn about our hobbies during medical visits. That’s what social media is for, right?]

When I’m not at work, no one calls me “Doctor”. I have hobbies, sure, but not solely to provide balance to my work in medicine. Working as a physician is an important part of my identity, but it’s not my entire identity.

And that’s where the value of hobbies come in. Physicians spend a lot of time in school and at work. Our jobs can easily become our entire identities. So if we have a bad day at work—maybe because we saw more people than usual with severe illnesses; maybe because we learned that one of our patients died; maybe because we’re frustrated with all the things we have to do that seem unrelated to actually taking care of people—we can feel terrible if that’s the sole lens in which we view our lives.

If I view myself only as a physician, then a crappy day at work means I will be in a foul mood for the rest of the day. And the only thing that will change that is a “better” day at work.

The importance of having hobbies is to experience growth and success outside of medicine. Maybe a patient said terrible things to me today, but I made a delicious soup from scratch. Maybe one of my patients died, but I was able to write about the loss in a meaningful way. Maybe the system isn’t broken; maybe it was built this way… but I finished a half marathon without stopping to walk.

Similarly, maybe my coconut-and-vegetable rice dish didn’t come out quite right, but one of my patients who has been psychotic is getting better. Maybe my hamstring is strained from running long distances, but I was able to help a nurse practitioner improve his clinical skills. Maybe blog posts I am proud of don’t seem to impress anyone else, but I was able to help nudge a policy to help improve patient care for a particular population.

Those are binary pairings, but it works across multiple spheres. I finished a book about a murder AND one of my patients isn’t getting better AND that new soup recipe turned out better than I thought it would. Life has its successes and failures. If we’re able to look back on the day and the sum of events is greater than zero, we are lucky.

So, for any medical students who are reading this, yes, make an effort to cultivate hobbies. Yes, hobbies make you a well-rounded person. More importantly, though, when you practice cultivating your hobbies now, you’ll be better at both the cultivating and the hobbies themselves when you’re a resident and an attending. You will have terrible days while you’re in training and when you’re working. You have a front seat in the theatre of human drama. These other hobbies will help you remember that you are a multifaceted person, that you are not your job.

And while you may take pride in being a physician, the reality is that you will not practice as a physician forever. You will one day retire from the practice of medicine. And, indeed, this will all end one day and you will die. While people may remember you in your role as a physician, people may remember you even more for your talents in cooking, your boundless knowledge about sports, the curious pieces of art your crafted, and your perspectives as a person who happened to work as a physician.


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.