Category: Systems

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 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.

Categories
Policy Reading Systems

About that APA Statement on “Toxic Masculinity”…

Several people asked me about the American Psychological Association’s (APA) statement about “toxic masculinity”. You can find the statement, which is actually a practice guideline, here.

I read the entire guideline. My reactions and opinions follow:

1. The title of the practice guideline is not “Toxic Masculinity”. The title is “APA Guidelines
for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men”. The word “toxic”, let alone the phrase “toxic masculinity”, does not appear anywhere in the document.

2. This APA practice guideline, like other clinical practice guideline, is a “statement[s] that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavor, or conduct for psychologists”. Psychologists are the intended audience. On page one of the document, it states:

These guidelines serve to (a) improve service delivery among populations, (b) stimulate public policy initiatives, and (c) provide professional guidance based on advances in the field. Accordingly, the present document offers guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men.

3. The introduction to the document includes a section of definitions. Language is how we communicate with each other, but, wow, can words get in the way. I suspect some readers had strong reactions to the definitions (and, perhaps, to the legitimacy of some of the words defined). And if those readers do not agree with the definitions (or question the validity of the words themselves), then the rest of the document will seem like a pile of poo.

My guess is that the phrase “traditional masculinity ideology”, tucked into the “masculine ideology” section, and the accompanying definition made some people clutch their pearls. I myself did not react one way or another to the phrase “traditional masculinity ideology”, which the APA defines as

anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.

This phrase has apparently been in use since 2007. This definition gets more attention later in the document, which may have caused the strands holding the pearls to rip, thus sending hundreds of pearls clattering to the floor.

So many words. So many opportunities to develop heartburn over words.

4. The practice guideline includes ten specific guidelines. Here they are:

Psychologists…

  1. strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.
  2. strive to recognize that boys and men integrate multiple aspects to their social identities across the lifespan.
  3. understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others.
  4. strive to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the interpersonal relationships of boys and men.
  5. strive to encourage positive father involvement and healthy family relationships.
  6. strive to support educational efforts that are responsive to the needs of boys and men.
  7. strive to reduce the high rates of problems boys and men face and act out in their lives such as aggression, violence, substance abuse, and suicide.
  8. strive to help boys and men engage in health-related behaviors.
  9. strive to build and promote gender-sensitive psychological services.
  10. understand and strive to change institutional, cultural, and systemic problems that affect boys and men through advocacy, prevention, and education.

Lots of striving happening here.

While I can understand why some people might hurl spittle at their electronic screens at a few of these guidelines, most of them are reasonable and want to improve the well-being of boys and men. Don’t we want boys and men to successfully integrate various aspects of their identities? Who objects to helping men become better fathers? Why would anyone get upset about reducing the problems that boys and men are more likely to encounter in both behaviors and health?

4. I took the most notes for the first three guidelines:

Guideline 1: Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.

And this is where the pearls spilled all over the floor.

Recall that the APA’s definition of “traditional masculinity ideology” refers to “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence”. In this section, APA asserts that this ideology “can be viewed as the dominant… form of masculinity” that “strongly influences what” people in a culture assume is normal.

APA goes on to assert that this “dominant masculinity” has historically excluded men “who were not White, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, and privileged”.

So many words in there that induce emotional reactions, right?

I argue, however, that this definition is fair. Let’s go through a thought experiment together:

In the United States, the image of a cowboy easily comes to mind upon hearing the word “masculine”. Picture a cowboy in your mind’s eye, if you will:

  • What color is his skin? Does he look like this or this?
  • When he is riding off into the sunset, who does he want to make sweet love to? Why was Brokeback Mountain so scandalous?
  • Did you even consider that your cowboy could be a trans man?
  • Does your cowboy wear glasses? hearing aids? a prosthetic limb?
  • And does your cowboy push the saloon doors open with bravado? Or does he brush off all the dust from his face and clothes, ensure that he has proper identification on him, and knock on the wall of the saloon?

APA never states that this definition of “dominant masculinity” is “toxic”. Instead, APA asserts that the “ideal, dominant masculinity is generally unattainable for most men”. As a consequence, men “who depart from this narrow masculine conception by any dimension of diversity… may find themselves negotiating between adopting dominant ideals that exclude them or being stereotyped or marginalized”.

Because it’s too hard to reach that ideal, “men not meeting dominant expectations often create their own communities”.

APA then recommends that psychologists work with individuals in their care to “become aware of how masculinity is defined in the context of their life circumstances”. More importantly, APA advises that “psychologists strive to understand their own assumptions of, and countertransference reactions toward, boys, men, and masculinity”. Because if I think Mr. Doe should be like a cowboy and refrain from crying after the death of his child, Mr. Doe is going to pick up on that, even if he wants to weep. And, thus, I’m a jerk and I’m not helping him.

Guideline 2: Psychologists strive to recognize that boys and men integrate multiple aspects to their social identities across the lifespan.

This guideline delves more into the intersection of things like race, age, sexual orientation, etc. and being a boy or man. And these intersections aren’t limited to these “social justice warrior” flavors: A man who has served in the military has a social identity that many others lack. Military service is its own culture and affects how men interpret and define masculinity.

As such, APA recommends that psychologists “working with boys and men strive to become educated about the history and cultural practices of diverse identities” and

[w]hile attempting to understand, respect, and affirm how masculinity is defined in different cultures, psychologists also try to avoid within-group stereotyping of individuals by helping them to distinguish what they believe to be desirable and undesirable masculine traits and to understand the reasons upon which they base these beliefs”.

This recommendation is easiest to understand through a lens of race or ethnicity (e.g., a black man or a refugee from Somalia), though has other applications.

Guideline 3: Psychologists understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others.

More words that have the power to launch spittle across the screen.

My overall read of this guideline suggests that the ostensible privilege that boys and men have can also trap them. If boys and men are trying to fit into a masculine ideal that is unattainable, and that masculine ideal includes behaving in ways that are intended to restrict resources and power from others, that pursuit impairs their abilities to have effective and meaningful relationships with human beings. This leads to suffering for all involved. This ties into Guideline 4:

Psychologists strive to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the interpersonal relationships of boys and men.

The recommendation is that psychologists

can discuss with boys and men the messages they have received about withholding affection from other males to help them understand how components of traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance, and competitiveness might deter them from forming close relationships with male peers.

For me, the punchline of the practice guideline is actually tucked in the section that defines “masculine ideology”. The last sentence in that section is:

acknowledging the plurality of and social constructionist perspective of masculinity, the term masculinities is being used with increasing frequency. (emphasis mine)

If there are multiple definitions of “masculinity”, and knowing that those definitions can change over time, even within the same person, then we can use those changing definitions to help improve the psychological and physical health of boys and men.

Do I think the moral fiber of our nation will disintegrate if a boy or man chooses to wear nail polish? No.

Do I want boys and men to stop trying to achieve things? No.

Do I want them to avoid risks and adventure? No. (Do I want them to avoid stupid risks and pursue noble adventures to make great achievements? Yes.)

Do I want boys and men to engage in less violence? Yes, because I want everyone to engage in less violence. I value cooperation over conflict… and that’s the only way we’re going to survive as a species.

Do I think men should feel comfortable crying in public when they feel heartbroken? Given what some (many?) of them have experienced, yes. I want them to know we don’t think less of them when they need help… because we all do.

The “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence” of “traditional masculine ideology” is not “toxic” or evil. There were assumptions behind that definition and it’s outstanding that we can now challenge those assumptions. It means that we’re growing and learning, and don’t we want people and societies to change for the better as time passes?

Categories
Nonfiction Observations Seattle Systems

What Seattle Got From Amazon.

Yesterday’s New York Times had an article with the title “Amazon’s HQ2 Will Benefit From New York City. But What Does New York Get?” I don’t know what New York (and Crystal City) will get, but here are my observations (as someone who lived in Seattle from 2004 to 2008, and then from 2011 to now) as to what Seattle got:

Lots of young people. Some of these people look like they’re 12 years old, but that’s because I’m now officially old. And some of these young people, fresh out of college, make six-figure salaries. Sometimes it shows. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Lots of blue badges. Amazon employees wear blue badges. You can tell your proximity from the Amazon campus (which is a campus; it occupies an entire neighborhood) by the density of blue badges hanging from lanyards, dangling off of belts, and swinging off of coats.

Food trucks. The young people apparently like food trucks. Caravans of food trucks rumble towards South Lake Union, the site of the Amazon campus. The rotating food trucks sell Thai bowls, Italian sandwiches, barbecue wings, Turkish kebabs, Hawaiian poke bowls, and other international cuisines from their portable kitchens.

Hip restaurants that sell overpriced food. Here’s an anecdote that I share with some bitterness: One such restaurant has the following item on its dessert menu:

Warm chocolate chunk cookie with whole milk. $8.

Long-time readers know that I am fond of cookies, particularly the chocolate chip variety. Upon seeing this item, my eyes lit up, but the light drained from my eyes when I saw the price.

“No cookie and milk is worth $8,” I said. “Even my favorite cookie (the Levain Chocolate Chip Walnut Cookie) is just $4.”

“But what if it is the best chocolate cookie you will ever eat?” my husband countered.

“I doubt it. This is a restaurant, not a bakery.”

“Let me buy it for you.”

I relented and ordered the warm chocolate chunk cookie with whole milk, my taste buds eager and my mind skeptical.

What actually arrived? Two cookies, each about four inches in diameter, and a glass holding about six ounces of milk. The cookies were barely warm, the chocolate was not chunky, and the overall texture of the cookies was dry. The milk was wholly unremarkable. The dessert was rich only in the flavor of disappointment.

These restaurants can charge $8 for cookies and milk because they know that the young people who work at Amazon have no qualms spending such a ridiculous sum on a treat that is sweet only in memory.

Traffic. The tens of thousands of people who moved to the Seattle metropolitan area have to get around somehow. When I was a resident, I saw few taxis downtown or on Capitol Hill. Taxis of all colors now zip around the city, along with ride sharing vehicles. There are a lot more fancy cars—Teslas, Porsches, and the like—crawling up the hills. The buses, streetcars, and trains are packed with well-heeled young people.

High rents and expensive homes. The city of Seattle is in King County. The average rent in King County is $1,731, which doesn’t seem impressive compared to rents in other major metropolitan areas. The rent in King County, though, has increased 155% in the past twenty years. Furthermore, Seattle, by far, is the most expensive and developed city in the region and pulls the average up, as other areas in the county are sparsely populated and considered rural.

Income inequality. I don’t know if Amazon was/is the cause of the homelessness crisis in this region (remember, correlation does not mean causation). As young people with gobs on money have moved in, more people with little money have moved out onto the streets. Certainly the higher rents have pushed many people out of the city: Some people work in Seattle and live in neighboring counties, as that is the only way they can afford their rent or mortgage. Landlords in Seattle know that they can charge nearly $3000 for a one-bedroom apartment because someone from Amazon can afford to pay that. (Just like restaurants can charge $8 for cookies and milk.)

Anti-Amazon and anti-Jeff Bezos graffiti. It is not uncommon to see graffiti painted on sidewalks and buildings that denounce Amazon and Jeff Bezos. Some of it is frankly disturbing (e.g., death threats), though it illustrates the strong feelings people have about Amazon.

Spherical buildings. They took all the trees / And put ’em in a tree museum / And they charged the people / A dollar and a half to seem ’em

Amazon has done well for itself, though it seems that many people in Seattle have an uneasy relationship with Amazon. They like what Amazon has to offer, but don’t like how the wealth of the company has affected the city. Perhaps the leadership of New York and Crystal City will forge closer working relationships with Amazon from the outset to prevent the congestion, big income disparities, and resentment[1. The resentment that people have for Amazon also comes from its own employees. For a while I worked in a clinic where some of my patients were Amazon employees. They often spoke of the pressures working at Amazon, whether they worked in programming, marketing, supply chain, or warehousing. There’s likely selection bias at play, but their work nonetheless induced anxiety and affected their abilities to cope.] that occurred in Seattle.

Categories
Lessons Nonfiction Reflection Systems

Phone Calls.

I don’t miss making the phone calls in the middle of the night.

“Hi, this is Dr. Yang calling from the Psychiatric Emergency Service. May I speak to Mr. or Mrs. Doe?”

“Yeah, this is Mr. Doe,” he’d reply, his voice thick and slow with sleep.

“I’m sorry to call so late. Your son is here at the hospital.” Take a breath and slow down for the next part. “He’s alive and doing okay at this moment”—I quickly learned that it is important to say these words at the start of the call—“but I hope to get some information from you about him.”

I have marveled at the grace people have extended to me during these conversations. Sometimes family members have grown accustomed to these 2am calls and their voices sound not only physically sleepy, but also psychologically exhausted. Sometimes family members have never received this phone call, but their voices remain calm with only the occasional quaver while they talk.

These days, it’s “Dr. Yang calling from the jail”. Though I’m not making these phone calls in the middle of the night, it is questionable that these are better phone calls.

It is a blessing when family members are still involved, when there’s someone I can call. The person in question is usually a male in his 20s. He often has reached desirable milestones: Maybe he just graduated from high school or is in college. His primary health issue is the mental health condition—often bipolar disorder or schizophrenia—and he’s otherwise healthy. He is often able to tell me about a family member who loves him, even if what he tells me doesn’t make a lot of sense in the moment.

For so many others under my care, there’s no one to call:

  • “They died.”
  • “I don’t want anything to do with them.”
  • “I don’t know where they are.”

Sometimes the person in question is much older. In some ways, these phone calls are more tragic:

  • “I’m in my 70s now and I’m the process of moving my wife into a memory care facility….”
  • “My husband has already died and I worry who will take care of my son when I go. He still needs a lot of help.
  • “Thank you for calling, Doctor, but it doesn’t seem like anything will change. I’ve been doing this for almost thirty years now.”

I marvel at the grace people have extended to me during these conversations, too. For some of these family members, they’ve had dozens of these conversations with many other doctors, nurses, counselors, and social workers. They know what questions I will ask; their answers are succinct because others have interrupted them in the past; they have lists of information already prepared to send.

Almost without fail, after I thank these family members for their help and then comment on the difficulty of the situation, they cry. Sometimes the sobs that escape their throats surprise them.

“I’m sorry,” they mumble. I can hear them wipe the tears from their faces with haste.

I’m sorry that we can’t do better for your son. I’m sorry that the science hasn’t advanced enough that we can prevent this from ever happening to your son ever again. I’m sorry that your son is in jail when he should be in a hospital. I’m sorry that your hopes and dreams for your son haven’t come true. I’m sorry that few people know the depth of the worry you have for your son. I’m sorry that these systems fail you and your son. I’m sorry that your love for your son isn’t enough to save him from these systems.

“Please, don’t apologize,” I say instead.

I wonder why.