Why The Antipsychiatrists Have It All Wrong

Twitter is an odd place to read about antipsychiatry.  There are apparently some academics in the UK who are keeping it alive and well. I sent this Tweet about the continued mischaracterization of psychiatry by various antipsychiatry factions. Those factions certainly are varied ranging from cults to academics - but they all seem to have an agenda that they are promoting. I certainly don't hope to correct their various rants and obvious conflicts of interest - only to set the record straight from this psychiatrist's perspective.

In a previous post, I pointed out how some of the more famous antipsychiatrists characterize psychiatry as monolithic and fail to appreciate both the diversity in the field and the complexity of the field.  Examples of those errors abound and I included them in previous posts about the monolithic mischaracterization and another rhetorical attack on the DSM-5.

It comes down to power and that argument is a gross distortion of reality. Before I proceed, let me say that I am talking about the time frame that encompasses my training and clinical practice. At this time that is the last 32 years post residency. During that time I have lived and breathed psychiatry and know what really happens in the field.  I came in to this field with my eyes wide open since I had a family member with severe bipolar disorder who was treated for years by primary care physicians with benzodiazepines and antidepressants so that by the time she was able to see psychiatrists - she could be partially stabilized but continued to have significant comorbidity. That family member was my mother.  As her son, I experienced first hand the lack of concern and care by any responsible entity in the community.  When she was extremely agitated and ill to the point that the police were being called repeatedly, I know what it is like when you are a kid and an angry cop says to you: "Do you want us to lock her up like a chicken in a chicken coop?" The cop of course knew nothing about severe mental illness and just wanted to leave and not have to deal with my mother's illness and her 5 young kids (my father was deceased).  In addition to my mother's illness, I witnessed first hand the toll that psychiatric illness had on the neighborhood as I walked to school every day. My point here is that I am not the only kid who had these problems.  In fact, I am certain the general view that psychiatric illnesses and addictions are diseases begins with this experience.

As a clinical psychiatrist with a solid medical orientation, my method has always been one that tries to engage the patient in a detailed analysis and solution to their problem.  Like many physicians, as a resident there is always an emphasis on what you are doing to solve the person's problem, but it was fairly evident that medical interventions themselves were risky and that higher risk interventions should be reserved for high risk conditions. It was also obvious that medical treatment depended on informed consent.  In other words provide the information to the patient and they either consent or don't consent to treatment.  It is really no different than seeing any other physician.

Since antipsychiatrists are a diverse group, they advance diverse rhetoric to advance their agendas.  That typically includes making money or seeking to elevate their status over psychiatry.  I will focus on a single common agenda and that is power.  The last time I actually studied power it was in a physics class.  It certainly never came up in medical school.  Studying psychiatry was an identical process to studying medicine and surgery.  Recognize the problems, diagnose, and treat them.

Somewhere along the line I realized that people were using rhetoric based on Foucault and whatever Szasz adapted from that to suggest that psychiatry had a hidden agenda.  It is so well hidden that it is unknown to psychiatrists.  It is more or less of a conspiracy theory that psychiatry wants to medicalize the treatment of all human behaviors and treat those behaviors as an illness.  Of course along the way, psychiatrists will enrich themselves and inflict untold suffering on the people they misdiagnose and treat.  Take a look at this argument that the DSM-5 was supposed to be a manual about how to live as an example. Their supporting arguments range from the non-existence of all mental illness to the fact that there are no tests that prove there is such a thing as mental illness.  The underlying antipsychiatry theories are predominately from the 1960s and 1970s and they have been classified by philosophers (1).  There has been little change since then - just a long series of repetitive recycled arguments.  The rhetoric can range from the recycled arguments of Szasz to overt threats.  One uniform feature of antipsychiatrists is that they believe they are above any sort of criticism.

The table below contains some of the common rhetoric used by antipsychiatrists. It is not exhaustive, but it is a good example of the rhetoric I referred to in my Tweet.

Here is why their power arguments and all of the associated rhetoric are irrelevant. The reality is that psychiatrists represent only 5% of mental health providers in the US.  Primary care physicians and now nurse practitioners and physician assistants prescribe far more medications than psychiatrists do and they have for some time.  Even though psychiatrists are a little slow in picking up on it – health plans are replacing physicians with non-physician prescribers and that is also true of psychiatry.  In fact, in most cases if you are trying to see a psychiatrist about medications you will end up seeing a nurse practitioner. Does that sound like an all-powerful profession?

The second point that the detractors seem oblivious to is that physicians in general have not run the field of medicine for the past 35 years. Nobody cares what a psychiatrist or for that matter any physician has to say.  Businessmen and politicians determine who patients see, for how long, and what those physicians are paid.  The only exception is specialty groups (Radiology, Orthopedics, Neurology, Urology, Ophthalmology) that can avoid employment relationships with healthcare organizations.  Does that sound like an all powerful profession? Strange that the antipsychiatrists with guild issues don't get that since they are under the same constraints from these monopolies.  

More to the point – if you see any physician in the USA and you don’t like what you are hearing – you are free to walk away and see somebody else.  It is not a question of being a victim of medical or psychiatric treatment.  In fact, psychiatric treatment is just as straightforward as I have portrayed it.  Come in, sit down and we will talk about your problems. My job is to give you the best possible scientifically based advice.  Your job is to decide whether to take it or not.  There is no medical treatment known that does not involve some risk.  Accepting treatment involves risk. If you accept that risk and are injured that does not mean that you were intentionally victimized by that physician or the profession.  In fact, only antipsychiatrists seem to routinely use that argument. 

Consider an example very familiar to me. Let’s say you are diagnosed with a hormone secreting pituitary adenoma.  The neurosurgeon you are seeing recommends removal but also says there is a chance that the carotid artery may be cut and the result would be catastrophic and irreparable.  Your choices are an experimental procedure with an uncertain outcome that may lead to surgery or radiation therapy (gamma knife) or doing nothing and trying to manage symptoms that will lead to your eventual death by congestive heart failure.  The risks are clear and significant, but the majority of people who I have met who have had this conversation decided on surgery. Antipsychiatrists will say it is not the equivalent to a suicidal person deciding to take an antidepressant.  I would say the risk of no treatment is equivalent, but the actual risk of psychiatric treatment is much less.  I have not seen a catastrophic, irreversible event from taking antidepressants as prescribed.  As far as the power dynamic – there is no comparision.  Being unconscious under general anesthesia for hours while an ENT surgeon and a neurosurgeon drill through your sphenoid bone into your pituitary fossa doesn’t compare to consciously talking to a psychiatrist for an hour, picking up a prescription, and then deciding on a day to day basis to keep taking an antidepressant pill.  There is really no comparison at all.

The point of this example is not that patient injuries do not occur during patient care. The point is that they do occur but that is the risk people generally have to take to get well.  The notion that psychiatrists are somehow more likely to cause these injuries and that the entire profession should be blamed as a significant cause of injuries compared with other specialists is a dubious argument at best.   

Antipsychiatry rhetoric has really not changed much over the years.  There is just a question of how much distortion, overt paranoia, or conflict of interest it contains.  In the 50 years that the antipsychiatrists have been hard at work, they have had more than ample time to come up with an alternate way to help people with severe mental illness.  To my knowledge they have not come up with a single treatment for mental illness. Of course that is no problem if you don't believe mental illness exists or that there is any way to diagnose or treat it.

That would also mean that the antipsychiatrists would have to do something positive instead of just blaming psychiatrists.  I am not holding my breath for that day to come.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:


1:  Fulford KWM, Thornton T, Graham G.  Oxford Textbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry.  Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006: 17.



Graphic Credit:

Samei Huda contributed 3 points on the graphic.

Even more DSM bashing - is it a fever pitch yet?

Just when you think you have seen it all, you run into an article like this one in The Atlantic.  A psychotherapist with a long antipsychiatry monologue.  It is written in interview format with psychotherapist Gary Greenberg as the discussant.  I thought it was interesting because the title  describes this diatribe as the "real problems" with psychiatry.  Of course what he writes about has nothing to do with the real problems that specifically are the rationing and decimation of psychiatric services by managed care companies and the government.  The entire article can be discredited on a point by point basis but I will focus on a few broad brush strokes.

The author here spins a tale that the entire impetus for a diagnostic manual and a biomedical orientation for psychiatry is strictly political in nature and it has to do with wanting to establish credibility with the rest of medicine.  That is quite a revision of history.  Psychiatry pretty much exists now because psychiatrists would take care of the problems that nobody else wanted to.  I have immediate credibility when another physician is seeing a person with a mental illness, they don't know what to do about it, and I do.  It is less clear today, but psychiatry professional organizations were asylum focused and the goal was to treat people in asylums initially and then figure out a way to get them back home.  Part of the psychiatric nosology was based on the people who would get out of asylums at some point and those who did not.  The credibility of psychiatry has nothing to do with a diagnostic manual.  It has to do with the fact that psychiatrists have a history of treating people with serious problems and helping them get well.  There is no discussion of how the numbers of people institutionalized in the 1950s and 1960s fell to the levels of current European levels as a result of psychiatric intervention that included the use of new medications but also a community psychiatry movement that was socially based. (see Harcourt Figure II.2)

The author uses the idea of "chemical imbalance" rhetorically here as further proof that psychiatrists are using a false premise for political purposes.  He presumes to tell his readers that during the time he is giving the interview there is some psychiatrist out there using the term chemical imbalance to convince a patient to take antidepressants.  Since I have never used that term and generally discourage it when patients bring it up, I wonder if he is right.  Any psychiatrist trained in the past three decades knows the situation is much more complex than that.  Eric Kandel describes the situation very well in his 1979 classic article on "Psychotherapy and the Single Synapse".  Any antipsychiatrist using "chemical imbalance" against psychiatry in a rhetorical manner suggests that there is no biomedical basis for mental disorders.  There should be nobody out here who believes that is true and in fact this article acknowledges that.

The basic position here is to deny that anything psychiatric exists.  Psychiatrists  don't know what they are doing.  Psychiatrists are driven by the conflict of interest that nets them "hundreds of millions of dollars".  He doesn't mention how much money he makes as an outspoken critic of psychiatry.  He tries to outflank his rhetoric by suggesting any psychiatrists who disagrees with him and suggests that it is typical antipsychiatry jargon is "diagnosing him".   He doesn't mention the fact that antipsychiatry movements are studied and classified by philosophers.

I think the most revealing part of this "interview" is that it appears to be orchestrated to enhance the author's rhetoric.  The evidence for that is the question about "drapetomania" and implying that has something to do with coming up with DSM diagnoses and the decision to drop homosexuality as a diagnostic category.   That is more than a stretch that is a clear distortion and of course the question is where the interviewer comes up with a question about "drapetomania".  I wonder how that happened?

This column is an excellent ad for the author's antipsychiatry work.  Apart from that it contains contains the standard "chemical imbalance" and psychiatric disorders are not "real illnesses".  To that he adds the conflicting positions of saying there appear to be biological correlates of mental disorders but they would never correlate with an existing diagnosis and the idea of a chemical imbalance metaphor is nonsense.  He uses colorful language to boost his rhetoric:  "They'll (those wacky psychiatrists - my  clarification) bob and weave, talk about the "living document," and unleash their line of bullshit." 

His conclusory paragraph and the idea to "take the thing (DSM) away from them" has been a common refrain from the DSM critics.  In fact as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is nothing to stop any other organization from coming up with a competing document.  In fact, sitting on my shelf right now (next to DSM-IV) is a reference called the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.  It is listed as a collaborative effort of six different organizations of mental health professionals.  It was published 12 years after the last edition of the DSM - it is newer.  I have texts written by several of the collaborators of this volume.  When I talk with psychiatrists from the east coast, they frequently ask me about whether or not I am familiar with the volume.   My point here is that if the author's contentions about the reality basis of DSM diagnoses are correct, it should be very easy to come up with a different system.  I encourage anyone or group of people to develop their own diagnostic system and compete with the DSM.

So the last minute attacks on psychiatry with the release of the DSM seem to be at a fever pitch.  The myth of the psychiatric bogeyman is alive and well.  Add The Atlantic to the list of uncritical critics of psychiatry.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1.  Hope Reese.  The Real Problems with Psychiatry.  The Atlantic.  May 2, 2013.

2.  Bernard E. Harcourt.  From the asylum to the prison: rethinking the incarceration revolution.  The Law School, University of Chicago, 2007.

3.  Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual (PDM).  A collaborative effort of the American Psychoanalytic Association, International Psychoanalytic Association, Division of Psychoanalysis (38) of the American Psychological Association, American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, National Membership Committee on Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work.  Published by the Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations.  Silver Spring, MD (2006).

4.  Kandel ER. Psychotherapy and the single synapse. The impact of psychiatric thought on neurobiologic research. N Engl J Med. 1979 Nov 8;301(19):1028-37. PubMed PMID: 40128.

The diagnosis of anosognosia

Follow up on another blog today where the author proclaims "It is not possible to diagnose anosognosia in schizophrenic patients on brain scan."

No kidding.  Here is another shocker and you can quote me on this - it is not possible to diagnose anosognosia in stroke patients based on a brain scan.  Quoting an expert: "Anosognosia refers to the lack of awareness, misbelief, or explicit denial of their illness that patients may show following brain damage or dysfunction.  Anosognosia may involve a variety of neurological impairment of sensorimotor, visual, cognitive, or behavioral functions, as well as non-neurological diseases."  I  encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to find a copy of this book chapter listed in the references below.  The author thoroughly discusses the fascinating history of this disorder, specific protocols used to make the diagnosis, various neurological subtypes with heterogeneous lesions and the fact that no specific mechanism has been determined.

In a more recent article available online, Starkstein, et al provide an updated discussion in the case of stroke.  They discuss it as a potential model of human awareness, but also point out the transient nature and difficulty in developing research diagnostic criteria.  They provide a more extensive review of instruments used to diagnose anosognosia and conclude: "Taken together, these findings suggest that lesion location is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce anosognosia, although lesions in some specific brain areas may lower the threshold for anosognosia. Strokes in other regions may need additional factors to produce anosognosia, such as specific cognitive deficits, older age, and previous strokes."

The experts here clearly do not base the diagnosis of this syndrome on imaging.  It is based on clinical findings.  For anyone interested in looking at the actual complexity in the area of anosognosia in schizophrenia I recommend reading these free online papers in the Schizophrenia Bulletin in an issue that dedicated a section to the topic in 2011.  You will learn a lot more about it than reading an anti-biological antipsychiatry blog.  But of course you need to be able to appreciate that this is science and not an all or none political argument.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA.

Patrik Vuilleumier. Anosognosia in Behavior and mood disorders in focal brain lesions.  Julien Bogousslavsky and Jeffrey L. Cummings (eds), Cambridge University Press 2000, pp. 465-519.