Category: Reflection

Categories
NYC Observations Reading Reflection

Three Comments about Race.

I’m currently reading Nelson Mandela’s autobiography Long Walk to Freedom. Learning about his experiences with apartheid in South Africa provide both hope and discouragement about current race relations[1. The juxtaposition of reading Mandela’s book with the protests about Ferguson and Eric Garner is… interesting.] in the United States. While there has been some progress in the past fifty years, it seems like it’s not happening fast enough. Why do Nelson Mandela’s experiences and words still apply to the world today?[2. Though I am just over halfway through it, I would recommend Mandela’s autobiography. He tells his story with clarity, humor, and dignity. Do note that it over 650 pages long.]

While in New York I visited the New York Historical Society, which had an exhibit entitled Chinese American: Exclusion/Inclusion. The banner fluttering in front of the museum for this exhibit features the “certificate of identity” of a Chinese actress. I, of course, have no idea what she was thinking when the authorities took her photo, though I see fierceness and indignation in her face.

There I learned that the Geary Act of 1892, which served as an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, introduced the first form of photo ID in the United States. (Which makes me wonder if the Chinese in America were the first to create fake IDs.)

Again, there has been progress in the past century, but that there exists a museum exhibit on the exclusion/inclusion of Chinese Americans tells me that, as a population, we continue to wobble across that slash. And I think it is meaningful that “exclusion” comes first.[3. Iris Chang wrote an engaging book about The Chinese in America that discusses these exclusion acts. I will note that Chang’s writing brims with anger and hostility at points throughout the book. I nonetheless still recommend it. A more modern perspective on Chinese exclusion/inclusion is Gene Yang’s lovely graphic novel American Born Chinese.]

One of my patients in the jail, a man who is not Caucasian, has significant psychiatric symptoms. Some days he tolerates our conversation better than others. He recently became overwhelmed with rage and, in the midst of some colorful epithets, shouted, “I’m gonna rape you! No! You know what? I’m gonna get a whole bunch of WHITE GUYS to rape you!”

I immediately ended the conversation (for what I hope are obvious reasons). His commentary, though, fascinated me:

The emphasis of his threat was focused on race, not on the number of men. When you look him or me, you can instantly discern that neither one of us is white. He judged that the threat of a white man raping me was more demeaning and insulting than a man of any other race raping me.

It is also noteworthy, though perhaps not surprising, that he has directed this specific threat only to me. He has told my male colleagues that he will either beat or kill them. Neither threat, of course, is desirable.

Categories
Lessons Nonfiction NYC Observations Reflection

Living in New York, or Assertiveness Training.

Over three years have passed since I moved out of New York—or returned to Seattle, however you want to look at it. I have had the good fortune to visit New York every year since my departure, though I was unable to last year due to my mother’s illness.

Whenever people ask me about my time in New York, I usually say something like, “I’m so thankful that I had the chance to live there, but I ultimately found it too overstimulating.” Sometimes I comment how I found myself laughing when I realized the number of people who seemed to take everything, including themselves, so seriously. I didn’t laugh because I found their behaviors funny; I often didn’t know how else to react.

When I was an intern in Seattle, one of the fellows told me about the year he spent in Boston earning an Master’s degree in public health. “Living on the East Coast is like going through assertiveness training,” he quipped.

Indeed, I found my three years in New York to be a course in assertiveness training. This training did not occur because “people are rude in New York”. To be clear, there are rude people in New York, but not more so than anywhere else.

People learn to assert themselves in New York City because of the constant crush of people and what seems like scarce resources. (“Resources” isn’t limited only to money; I refer also to time, attention, and space.) If you don’t assert yourself, people overlook you. And I’m not even talking about people overlooking you for promotions, relationships, or praise. I’m talking about crowds overlooking you while you try to get on a subway car[1. Here are photos of men taking up too much space on the train. Many of the photos feature the New York City subway.], taxi drivers overlooking you as they race down the avenues, or the guys at the pizza counter overlooking you when you’re trying to order a slice.

You learn to change the way you walk, the way you hold yourself, the way your form occupies space. You learn to arrange your body and face to announce, “I am here.” You don’t send that message because you want to be the center of attention; you just want to get stuff done.[2. Because you learn how to adjust your body and face to make your presence known and felt, you also learn how to turn all that off. Sometimes you want to disappear into the crowd; you just want to watch what is happening around you without having to take part.]

You learn to speak up. Speaking up doesn’t mean speaking more; you learn how to get enough attention for enough time to say what you need to say. You learn that if you don’t speak up, people

  1. may not realize you are there
  2. may not realize that you have something useful or helpful to offer
  3. may develop wrong opinions about you, what you think, or what you’re about

You learn to speak up and make your presence known because you witness someone else speak up and advocate for you. You pay that forward and notice that, for whatever reason, that karmic system works.

You also learn to assert yourself because sometimes you get attention you don’t want. There are all the irritating men who catcall you[3. I am an N of 1, but men in New York catcalled me way more than men in any other city I have lived in. That video resonated with me.], the taxis that trail you as you walk on the sidewalk, and the disgruntled people you happened to interact with at the wrong time. You learn to ignore the unwanted attention without showing discomfort or fear on your face. You arrange your body and face to announce, “I am here, but not for you.”

You learn that people respond to you—favorably!—when you assert yourself. You learn that when you speak up and deliver your message in an envelope of good manners, people often change their behavior. You learn who respects you. You also learn that one of the best ways to show respect to others is to tell them what you’re thinking and feeling. You learn that they can handle it. You also learn that you can handle it, too.

I remain grateful to New York for teaching me how to sharpen my assertiveness skills. I’ll be visiting the great city soon and trust that I will have no choice but to review the coursework.

Categories
Education Funding Homelessness Medicine Nonfiction Policy Reading Reflection Systems

My Thoughts about Torrey’s “American Psychosis”.

This weekend I began and finished E. Fuller Torrey’s American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System. (That’s not an inflammatory title. At all.) Though I have read a few of his articles, I have avoided reading his books. Part of this was due to all the other books I have wanted to read; most of this was due to my discomfort with how he frequently presents people with severe mental illnesses as dangerous and violent. Torrey is probably best known for his arguments to change the law so that it is easier to hospitalize people against their wills.

You can see how that is controversial. What his Treatment Advocacy Center says is advocacy, others say is coercion and social control.

In this book Torrey presents a history of the Community Mental Health Act of 1963 and presents compelling arguments that it was flawed since its inception. He also argues that patients with severe psychiatric conditions now continue to suffer consequences from the Act.

Although I do not agree with all of Torrey’s opinions, I do agree that the current “mental illness treatment system” doesn’t work. People—social workers, patients, nurses, therapists, case managers, psychiatrists—are all doing the best that they can, but the system could improve. A lot.

Fuller offers ten solutions to make the “mental illness treatment system” better:

Public psychiatric hospitals cannot be completely abolished. A minimum number of beds, perhaps 40 to 60 per 100,000 population, will be needed. This is approximately four times more beds than we have available today.

Torrey argues that a small percentage of people, due to their chronic and severe psychiatric symptoms, will need to stay in hospitals for a long period of time.

I am torn about that: On the one hand, I have my own anecdotal experiences working with patients who, with the “right”[1. “Right” is a relative term and depends on the individual. I also recognize that my anecdotal experiences are just that: anecdotal.] support, were able to stay out of hospitals despite their significant symptoms. The lack of public hospital beds forced all of us—the patients and the supporting team—to figure out creative ways to keep patients out of the hospital.

On the other hand, people get caught up in where patients with severe psychiatric symptoms are. There is an underlying assumption that being in a [state] hospital is bad, an evil to be avoided at all costs. Yes, there were and are hospitals that do not provide good care. That does not mean all psychiatric hospitals are terrible. Some people who are in jails, on the streets, or sitting in emergency rooms night after night are those who could benefit from treatment in public psychiatric hospitals.

As someone who has worked in all three systems—jails, homeless services, and emergency/crisis centers—I must say that the stability and structure of a [state] hospital is much more therapeutic and safe than the chaos often inherent in the other sites.

Lack of awareness of illness (anosognosia) must be considered when planning any mental illness treatment system and provision made for the implementation of some form of involuntary treatment, such as assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) or conditional release for approximately 1% of all individuals with severe mental illnesses who are living in our communities.

Prior to reading this book I had never considered the comparison of anosognosia in people with dementia with the anosognosia of people with psychiatric conditions. People readily commit people with dementia (who can be as violent, though perhaps without the same sense of purpose, as people with psychosis) into homes and institutions without discussions about their civil liberties. Why don’t we do the same with people who are psychotic?

The conditions are different, of course.[2. We will put aside commentary about Kraeplin’s dementia praecox for now.] Dementia is a global phenomenon; it affects nearly all spheres of a person’s existence. Psychosis is often sphere specific. There are people with psychotic conditions who pay their rent, buy food, take showers, and spend time with friends and family… and earnestly argue that cameras are monitoring them, that chips were implanted into their bodies in the past, and the FBI is trying to kill them.

The system often tries to avoid admitting people with dementia into hospitals for psychiatric reasons. Why? Because, at this time, we have no interventions or expectations that people with dementia will get better.

We admit people with psychiatric conditions into hospitals because we expect people will recover.

Community treatment of mentally ill individuals will only be successful if carried out by community mental illness centers, not in community mental health centers. The change of one word is crucial to the success of any such program. Mental illness centers may be freestanding or integrated as part of medical centers.

The italics are Torrey’s, not mine. You now see why Torrey calls it the “mental illness treatment system”.

While I agree that words matter, I don’t think using the word “illness” will endear the system to either patients or those who work in them. There is already stigma attached to psychiatric conditions. Who wants to walk into a “mental illness treatment facility”? Furthermore, when we do understand etiologies of psychiatric conditions, why not invest energy in prevention?

There are dialysis centers, children’s hospitals, and heart and vascular institutes. If a name change is indicated, why not “mental treatment system” or “mental institute”? Some people will maintain their mental health; others will receive active treatment for mental illness.

Continuity of care, especially continuity of caregivers, is essential for good psychiatric care of individuals with serious mental illnesses.

This is true for anyone for any condition (cardiologists and people who have had heart attacks; students and teachers; parents and children; etc.).

We must create a system where staff retention is a priority. So many people leave community psychiatry because they burn out and don’t receive support. Patients should leave us because they recover and become independent; we should not leave them.

In addition to medication, individuals with serious mental illnesses need access to decent housing, vocational opportunities, and opportunities for socialization. The clubhouse is the best model for meeting these needs.

Note that Torrey argues that medication is the anchor for psychiatric treatment. Others disagree. I think it depends on the person and situation.

Clubhouses don’t receive the attention they should. They’re inspiring. Fountain House in New York City is the original clubhouse. One of the primary arguments against clubhouses is that they do not foster integration with people who don’t have psychiatric conditions. We all, however, are free to choose who we want to spend our time with and people with psychiatric conditions are no different. If they want to spend time at the clubhouse, they can. If they don’t, they won’t.

To protect vulnerable mentally ill individuals living in nursing homes and board-and-care homes, there must be periodic, unannounced inspections by an independent state agency. Evaluations and corrective actions must be made public.

I agree.

My work has not brought me into nursing homes and adult family homes (what “board-and-care homes” are called here in Washington State). Torrey presents heartbreaking anecdotes and data about the treatment people did not receive and the abuses they experienced in these facilities. (They mirror reports that came out of some state hospitals in the past.)

Unfortunately, people with psychiatric conditions generally don’t pull at heartstrings the way kids with cancer do. I worry that, given the relative apathy to the number and conditions of people who are homeless, the public may not have any reaction upon learning what happens in adult family homes.

For-profit funding of public mental illness services has been tried and does not work.

I agree.

Torrey and I share the same perspective: If the organization’s goal is to make a profit, money will always trump patient care. People with significant psychiatric conditions will somehow exit the system[3. And by “exit the system”, I mean patients are actively pushed out, not let back in, or made to jump through hoops that they cannot get through in order to receive services.] because they often require resources—time, money, energy—that are antithetical to saving or earning money.

This is why I am biased against for-profit correctional systems.

In selected cases, psychiatric information on mentally ill individuals who have a history of dangerousness should be made available to law enforcement personnel, because they are now the frontline mental health workers.

This point is tied to Torrey’s arguments that people with severe mental illnesses are dangerous. To Torrey’s credit, he does state that people with psychiatric conditions are vulnerable and are often victims of violence, but he spends a lot more time discussing the murders that people with psychiatric conditions have committed.

There are obvious privacy concerns about this. Are police officers familiar with HIPAA? How else might law enforcement officers use this information?

The single biggest problem with the present anarchic system of mental illness services is that nobody is accountable. It will be necessary to assign responsibility to a single level of government, and to then hold such individuals accountable, before any improvement can occur.

Torrey makes it clear that the federal government should not be the responsible party. I agree with that.

While I understand the Torrey’s sentiment, it is much easier said than done. The “mental illness treatment system” now spans multiple domains: the legal system, emergency departments, medical clinics, homeless shelters, law enforcement, mental “health” centers, hospitals, etc. Working with all these groups and aligning efforts to a set of goals will require significant culture change.

If you made it this far in the post, let me conclude by saying that, even if you don’t agree with Torrey’s thesis, this book is still an engaging and thoughtful read. I will confess that I began to feel hopeless and overwhelmed as he laid out all the failures of the system. However, he did finish the book with compelling solutions and highlighted that we can’t give up. This is not easy work, but it is meaningful work, and there is value both to individuals and the community if we take care of the vulnerable people in our lives.

Categories
Medicine Reflection

Culture and Cure.

A note written by an internist for a patient with altered mental status:[1. The hospital team, which included several specialists, had done a thorough medical workup for the patient. A psychiatrist got involved after three or four days.]

One option is to have someone (from patient’s culture) perform sacrifice and prayers for him. Another option is to find a traditional (culture) doctor for him here. We’ll discuss these options. Lorazepam and Seroquel for now.

I smiled after I read this. Why?

  • Was it the earnest efforts of the physician to integrate two different cultures—the culture of Western medicine and the culture the patient belonged to—in this patient’s care? That the internist was willing to consider treatments that he did not understand or use? That the physician was motivated to help the patient, regardless of method?
  • Was it the haste of the last sentence—a fragment, an afterthought—that suggests resignation about the patient’s minimal improvement? and relief because the physician was familiar with those pills? That, “for now”, giving those medications meant that the physician was “doing” something?
  • Was it the realization that other cultures might view our faith in medications as strange?
  • Was it the uncertainty about the tone of voice the physician used when dictating this short note? Was he actually earnest? Or rolling his eyes?

The punchline: The patient’s symptoms did improve with medications. When a spiritual leader from the patient’s culture spent an hour with him a day or two later, the patient’s condition completely resolved.

Categories
Medicine Observations Reflection

On the Word “Prescriber”.

Please don’t call call me a “prescriber”. Yes, I know it’s easier to say “prescriber” than “psychiatric nurse practitioner, physician assistant, or psychiatrist”.[1. I don’t know if ARNPs, PAs, and physicians are called “prescribers” in other areas of medicine. Do people call their cardiologists or pediatricians “prescribers”?] The word “prescriber”, however, puts severe limits on what I can do and how I can help.

You may believe that, because I have a license to prescribe medications, that’s all I choose to do. In fact, you may believe that’s all I know how to do.

Psychiatrists can do a lot more than that.

As a psychiatrist, I can:

  1. use interpersonal skills so that people feel comfortable talking to me about personal things
  2. help people design mini-experiments to determine if their beliefs about themselves are helpful or accurate
  3. prompt people to consider different sides of an issue to help them commit to decisions about their health
  4. encourage people to pause and reflect on their own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors
  5. teach people skills about how to manage the expectations they have of themselves and others
  6. educate people on how to help themselves so that they eventually won’t have to see me or another psychiatrist in the future[2. This list in technical terms would translate to:
    1. engage and build rapport with a wide variety of people
    2. gently challenge cognitive distortions
    3. enhance ambivalence, as in motivational interviewing
    4. encourage self-reflection to facilitate mindfulness and create more opportunities for positive reinforcement
    5. teach skills related to interpersonal effectiveness and the dialectic of acceptance and change
    6. help people exit the mental health system

    ]

While it is true that I might use those skills to encourage some people to take medications, I can also use those skills to:

  1. help people to reduce the number and amount of psychiatric medications they are taking[3. Some people end up taking multiple medications for unclear reasons. This often occurs when physicians do not have a clear diagnosis; they are instead chasing symptoms. One irritating example is the prescription of antipsychotic medications for insomnia… for someone who is not psychotic. Yes, antipsychotic medications are sedating. They can also cause high blood pressure, weight gain, diabetes, and involuntary movements. I’m not confident that all doctors regularly share this information with patients.]
  2. coach people to first try interventions other than medications[4. Remember, when we prescribe medications, we are recommending to people that they put chemicals into their bodies. In psychiatry, we often can’t offer solid explanations as to how these chemicals work. To be clear, I am not anti-medication; I use the word “chemicals” to highlight what we’re asking people to do when we write prescriptions.]
  3. provide education about the interactions between mind and body, whether related to medications or medical conditions

If my skill set is limited to prescribing medications alone, those automated psychiatrist machines will replace me in short order.

Psychiatrists should continue to strive to be the artisans of the clinical interview. As with the other specialties in medicine, the goals in psychiatry should focus on improving quality of life and reducing suffering. Sometimes that involves medications; sometimes it doesn’t.

The word “prescriber” overlooks those goals entirely.