An Effort To Distance Critical Psychiatry From Antipsychiatry

I read the paper “Critical psychiatry: a brief overview” by Middleton and Moncrieff. This paper was the basis for the commentary by Peter Tyrer in the previous post on this blog. The authors try to make an argument to differentiate critical psychiatry from antipsychiatry. They claim that critical psychiatry offers constructive criticism of the field whereas antipsychiatry seeks to abolish the field. Constructive criticism needs to be valid criticism I hope to point out why critical psychiatry does not meet that threshold.

One of the interests for me in reading this paper was to see if critical psychiatry in fact could be distinguished from typical antipsychiatry rhetoric. That might be the easiest way to illustrate a significant difference. An associated strategy might be to show that critical psychiatry had origins that were clearly independent of antipsychiatry.   The authors suggest multiple common origins.  They both have the same heroes - Szasz and Foucault. They both draw heavily on the defective ideas of Szasz and Foucault. These ideas have no scientific basis and are not logically derived.

Social control is one concept that ties in what the authors claim is “controversy” about the institution of 19^th century psychiatry and the ideas of Szasz and Foucault. By the authors own definition Szasz trivializes serious mental illness as a social disorder and socially deviant behavior rather than a potentially lethal illness. In order to consider a mental illness to be a true disease, Szasz believed it would have to be a “neurological” illness.  That does not recognize that a significant number of these disorders have no known pathophysiological mechanism.  Szasz and the authors paint themselves into a corner with this construct given the clear medical, neurological, and substance induced disorders listed in any diagnostic manual for psychiatry. They also seem to not realize that these distinctions are all arbitrary definitions by Szasz. Most medical professionals and lay people do not believe that a specific pathophysiological mechanism is the basis for disease, illness, or treatment in most cases. For the antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry adherents of Szasz this is one of their most predictable arguments.

On the issue of social control, the antipsychiatry arguments are as weak. The authors explain Foucault’s position as:

“Thus, the birthplace of institutional psychiatry can be considered arrangements for managing unproductive behaviour in a system of wage labour and industrial production. The growth of psychiatry in the 19th century legitimated this system by presenting it as a medical and therapeutic endeavor.”

I really doubt that Foucault was accurate in his historical observations.  German psychiatry at the time was clearly focused on persons with significant psychopathology and who could eventually be discharged as well as the biological basis of psychopathology. Have psychiatrists ever had the influence to run governments and dictate government policy? What ever spin Foucault could put on old history we all know what is happening now. Psychiatry is nearly completely marginalized.  Despite the antipsychiatry movement there is widespread agreement that there are too few psychiatrists and that people do not have enough time with them.  That process also highlights the true agents of social control.  Federal and state governments have supervised rationing bed resources to the point where they are extremely low.  At the same time there has been a huge increase in the mentally ill who are incarcerated, making county jails the largest psychiatric institutions in the country. Los Angeles County jail is building a new facility that is designed to hold a population with mental illness. They are calling it the Mental Health Treatment Center.  Foucault's speculation has not stood the test of time. There should be no doubt that the true agents of social control are federal and state governments, law enforcement, and businesses that profit from their relationships with government officials and not a marginalized medical specialty.  

The authors also march out the old Foucault quote “psychiatry is a moral practice, overlaid by the myths of positivism”.  Philosophers have the annoying practice of coming to a conclusion that is not backed up by any data or proof. That may be why Foucault also has to discredit positivism. He is basically in his own little parallel universe.  Let’s forget about the fact that no psychiatrist I have ever met was trained to exert social control and manage “unproductive behavior” by putting the poor and disabled into almshouses. Present day psychiatrists in the US are most commonly battling with insurance companies to get minimally adequate care for their patients.  That insurance company rationing has also resulted in the bed crunch that leads to incarceration, chronicity, and associated medical problems. Foucault’s proclamations about psychiatry have not withstood the test of time and in the modern world are wrong. 

  

An offshoot of the social control speculation is the authors comments about the sick role:

“Psychiatry’s institutional functions are legitimated by the designation of its clients or patients as ill or ‘sick’.”

They speculate that when the designation occurs the person is relieved from their social responsibilities as long as they play ball and remain in a passive sick role following the advice of their psychiatrist. Unfortunately for the authors they seem to have no real-world experience in what happens to people with psychiatric disabilities. They live in poverty. In the US, they may have to spend a much larger portion of their income on medical expenses. They have significant medical morbidity and have less access to care.  Substandard living conditions exposes them to more violent crime than the average person. They are at higher risk for incarceration. If they receive assistance from the state or federal government, these stipends can be reduced or stopped at any point resulting in homelessness – another significant risk in this population.  All of these factors combine to illustrate that there is no contract with society.  American society has shown time and time again – persons with mental illness are the first people thrown under the bus. So much for another critical psychiatry theory.

The final section is a recap about social control and they have an interesting paragraph where they blame psychiatry for both homosexuality as an illness and drapetomania as an illness.  No mention of the fact that Spitzer changed that designation about homosexuality in 1973, decades before the rest of the world caught on (some still have not).  Blaming psychiatry for drapetomania is standard antipsychiatry rhetoric. Anyone reading that word should realize this. It was a term coined in 1851 by Samuel Cartwright, an American physician to suggest that when slaves ran away it was a sign of mental illness. Antipsychiatrists have locked onto to this term since Whitaker put it in his provocative book Mad In America (p 171) as something else to blame psychiatrists for. The only problem is that Cartwright was not a psychiatrist and his off the wall theories were widely discredited at the time. The term has nothing to do with psychiatry or any psychiatric diagnostic system. Anyone using either homosexuality or drapetomania as examples of a powerful group (implicitly psychiatry) defining socially repudiated behavior as a mental illness to eradicate or control it (the authors words) – is by definition an antipsychiatrist.

The authors proceed to discuss treatment and how it differs if provided by critical psychiatrists.  This discussion contains very little that is remarkable.  They suggest that psychotherapeutic outcomes are broadly similar and discuss very broad definitions of psychotherapy. Anyone familiar with psychotherapy would not agree with these broad generalizations. They provide no real evidence for their conclusion that there are obstacles in place that discourage the relationship dimensions of therapists and encourage “paternalizing and instrumental approaches”.  It sounds to me like they are not approving of research based psychotherapies.   

On the medical side of things, I have serious questions about whether they do anything at all that is medical.  They suggest that psychiatry needs to be affiliated with medicine in order to get professional legitimacy. They have apparently never picked up a copy of Lishman’s Organic Psychiatry, Lipowski’s Delirium: Acute Confusional States, or Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine by Kryger, Roth, and Dement.  Professional legitimacy is a two way street and psychiatry gives as much as it gets.  They can also find those biomarkers they are looking for in any sleep medicine text.

The section on “drug treatment” explains the critical psychiatry theory of a “drug centered” model.  In this model, there are no specific mechanisms of action – only alterations in normal mental processes, emotion, and behavior.  They include a table showing that the effects of most modern psychiatric medications depend on producing sedation, cognitive impairment, dysphoria, and loss of libido.  When I read this section I had three thoughts.  The first is that this table contains list of side effects.  I had to look again to confirm that the authors are calling them psychoactive effects.  The second is that none of the critical psychiatrists treats anyone with severe psychiatric disorders or monitors side effects very well.  The most striking feature of treating people with severe illnesses is when their acute symptoms of hallucinations, delusions, mania, or severe depression go away. The associated goal is when their side effects are managed so that they have none.  Not noticing either of these effects may be because you are just not treating very ill people. My third thought was that the authors just don’t know very much about pharmacology.  We are currently talking about decades of study of some of these systems where the behavioral pharmacology and imaging studies have been done. If you don’t know that stimulants can cause hallucinations and delusions, that non stimulant dopamine receptor agonists can do the same thing and that dopamine receptor antagonists can reverse these effects – you have just not been paying very much attention. This is basic pharmacology that every psychiatric resident should know.

The authors conclude that “critical psychiatry is not antipsychiatry” but the problem is they have not offered any compelling arguments to back that statement. If anything, the bulk of their discussion illustrates that their philosophical origins and rhetoric against clinical aspects of modern psychiatry is right out of the antipsychiatry playbook.  They claim to be not be anti-science and have clearly rejected modern pharmacology and brain science in favor of a meaningless theory of drug effects.  The closing paragraphs on the existence of social problems and the importance of the therapeutic relationship is nothing new to the practice of psychiatry - everybody does it.

The only logical conclusion is that critical psychiatry is antipsychiatry.  Just like Szasz and Laing they eschew the term, but there is just no getting around it.  I want to end with a quick note about the practical implications of critical psychiatry coming out into the light. The first is that clinicians doing the work every day should not be surprised to see this rhetoric surface time and time again. There is nothing innovative about critical psychiatry - how could there be? Nothing will deter them from making these arguments in the foreseeable future.  My concern is the potential impact on patients. I have certainly seen patients affected by antipsychiatry cults. I have concerns about the effects in large health care organizations. Is it just money that caused psychiatric resources to be cut to the bone and our patients incarcerated or is there somebody making these decisions who embraces critical psychiatry or antipsychiatry?

At the academic level, the best way to deal with these biases against psychiatry is to leave the people perpetuating these biases back in the mid-19th and 20th centuries. Psychiatry has given many of these authors plenty of space in journals and debates.  They thrive on freedom of speech and expression. I think there is a problem with academic or clinical departments allowing the expression of information that in many cases reflects poor scholarship, is largely rhetorical, and in some cases is patently false. No other medical departments do this. 

The question is where and when that line should be drawn and as readers may have guessed - my threshold is lower than most.      

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplemental:

In their Szaszian efforts to act like psychiatric disorders are not illnesses, diseases, or diagnoses, antipsychiatrists typically refer to them using the pejorative term "labels".  The following philosophical cartoon illustrates why a psychiatric diagnosis is no more a label than a hot dog is a sandwich.  Cartoon here. 

Ref:

Middleton H, Moncrieff J.  Critical psychiatry: a brief overview. BJPsych Advances (2019), vol 25, 45-54.    

Critical Psychiatry or Antipsychiatry?

Peter Tyrer wrote a commentary on Critical Psychiatry in a recent edition of British Journal of Psychiatry Advances.  It was in response to a paper by Middleton and Moncrieff that focuses primarily on distancing critical psychiatry from antipsychiatry. Dr. Tyrer is very clear about the fatal flaws of critical psychiatry. He takes on Middleton and Moncrieff’s false dichotomy between medicine psychiatry and characterizes it as "arrant nonsense". He cites a few of the many lines of evidence that psychiatry developed as a medical discipline and that great majority of us are still on that pathway.

He also takes on the pseudoscience and philosophical aspects of critical psychiatry most notably the lack of positivism. His definition positivism is “a philosophy that argues that understanding can only be achieved by logic and scientific verification and that other philosophical systems are therefore of no value”. That makes psychiatrists in the training program of psychiatrists positivist in nature. This is a significant difference since much of critical psychiatry does not depend on logic or science.   That is an unappreciated difference for many people who use philosophy to criticize psychiatry. I have an excellent example on this blog of a philosopher who decided that the DSM-5 was really a recommended blueprint for living by psychiatrists. It was clear from his position that he had no knowledge of the DSM-5, had not discussed it with a psychiatrist, and did not know how it was applied. Even those limitations did not prevent him from giving a philosophical opinion on what was wrong with the DSM-5. That is a clear example of criticism that has no value.

Dr. Tyrer’s second major point has to do with the critical psychiatrists criticism of the diagnostic process. He had co-authored a book on personality disorders for the general public and apparently got a “storm of protest and hostile reviews from service users”. The critical psychiatrist writing the review suggests that this was due to the standard medical sequence of diagnosis and then treatment. Apparently the critical psychiatry thinking is that people can be “treated” or not without making a diagnosis. One of the distinguishing characteristics of critical psychiatry is vagueness. In reading the writings of critical psychiatrists how they actually practice psychiatry is unclear. Why people see critical psychiatrists is really not clear. The outcomes of critical psychiatry practice is even less clear. The associated issue illustrated here is that critical psychiatry is a social media magnet for people who are self proclaimed experts who find it easy to embrace rhetoric rather than study science.

Dr. Tyrer’s commentary starts out in a charitable way where he suggests that critical psychiatry may have a useful role in pointing out there is frequently exuberance about a particular new therapy that never pans out. In my experience, noncritical psychiatrists and average clinical psychiatrists provide the best criticism and feedback in that area. He incorrectly cites “chemical imbalance” theories as legitimate criticism by critical psychiatrists. In my library I have 40 years of psychopharmacology texts and not a single one of them refers to “chemical imbalance”. To me chemical imbalance is a red herring marker of both anti-psychiatrists and critical psychiatrists. He points out the importance of culture and suggest that this is another area where critical psychiatrists may have a role. The role of culture has been discussed in the DSM, many departments of psychiatry have cross-cultural departments with interpreters, and in the past 20 years I’ve attended numerous conferences where cross-cultural psychiatry was either the main component or one of the significant lectures. I doubt that critical psychiatry as had anywhere near the impact of regular psychiatrists who go to work every day and practice cross-cultural psychiatry. He cites “coercion” in psychiatry is another area where critical psychiatry may have some legitimacy. In fact, every state in the United States as safeguards written into their statutes that describe the circumstances where involuntary treatment may be ordered by a court. Critical psychiatry and anti-psychiatry continue to confuse the legal system, psychiatry, and involuntary treatment of mental illness whenever it is convenient.

Dr. Tyrer also suggests that critical psychiatry has a role in “correcting the growing belief that mental illnesses are just diseases of the brain and can soon be transferred to neurology”. It is no longer the early 20^th century. The neuroscientific study of the brain and mind is growing exponentially. As we appreciate that complexity it should be apparent to everyone in the field that no single practitioner or scientist will be able to master all of that information. Psychiatrists are not neurologists even though many of us share the same personality characteristics. Psychiatrists are still trained in the importance of the interpersonal relationship and its meaning whether or not the underlying biology of the process is completely known or not. This is an ongoing scientific endeavor also occurs at the clinical level and I think it is unlikely that the hundreds of newly identified clinical entities will ultimately be classified as neurological conditions.

I agree completely with Dr. Tyrer’s main points but as noted above don’t think he went far enough.  Critical psychiatry really is not an exercise in scientific criticism - it is an exercise in rhetoric. Speaking to his metaphor critical psychiatry is not "becoming Luddite" - it has always been.  He does not give the field of psychiatry enough credit in the area criticizing itself. He also gives critical psychiatry too much credit for constructive criticism while pointing out that they have created “increasingly destructive commentaries”.  He points out that critical psychiatry is adding little knowledge to the field and serving a brake on progress but does not comment on significant conflict of interest that exists with much of this criticism.

There is also a question of how much harm is caused by these destructive commentaries and anti-psychiatry websites and anonymous posters suggesting to readers that the treatments working for them are toxic and that psychiatrists are inherently bad people. As physicians we need to be very explicit about that problem.

I plan to read the Middleton and Moncrieff paper and post a critique here the end of the weekend.  I have already done much of that work on this blog. It will hopefully be useful to see what their positions really are.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Reference:

1.  Tyrer P.  Critical psychiatry is becoming Luddite. BrJPsych Advances 2019, vol 25: 55-58.

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.

Psychiatry or Anti-Psychiatry Blog How Do You Tell?

I was recently e-mailed a graphic that declared "Top 100 Psychiatry Blog" and encouraged me to display it on my blog.  I was contacted again a week later and asked why I was not displaying the graphic.  My first question was whether there really were 100 psychiatry blogs on the Internet.  My second question was whether there was any advertising hype associated with this offer.  The Internet seems like one big ad these days.  What appears to be a reasonable site often degenerates into more mouse clicks than an electronic health record in order to get viewers close to ads so that they count as advertising revenue.  There are plenty of sites out there that just link to other sites and try to get advertising revenue without producing any original content.

I visited the list of blogs and several were familiar.   I have a number of blogs written by the psychiatrists who I follow attached to this web site in my profile - along with a number of scientific blogs.  I don't think that ranking them serves any useful purpose, but I will say that they seem very reasonable to me.  At the same time there were also blogs listed there that were more antipsychiatry than anything.  Are antipsychiatry blogs psychiatry blogs?  What if they are implicitly rather than explicitly antipsychiatry blogs?  Does that make a difference?  I think that if you are writing from a strictly or even loosely antipsychiatry vantage point it probably has very little to do with psychiatry.  These sites exist and you can certainly go there.  You can read them exclusively.  But I would not equate them to a psychiatry blog that is written by someone who knows the field and is interested in scientific discussions about the field.   

So what are the red flags if you are wondering about a psychiatric blog that you might be reading? Here are a few guideposts:

1.  They are not written by psychiatrists -

Believe it or not there are a multitude of people on the Internet writing about subjects that they have no knowledge of at all.  It turns out that psychiatry is a complex subject that requires a great deal of scholarship in training and on an ongoing basis.  It is not generally amenable to lay interpretations of the meaning of brain imaging studies or clinical trials.  Some of the top viewed posts on this blog are excellent examples.  Some of the major Internet sites have writers that clearly do not know the subject material but do not hesitate to provide a heavy handed analysis that is often miles away from reality.  Fake news is an overused term that can't easily be applied to opinion.  I had a couple of readers ask the question: "Well - aren't we entitled to our opinion?"  Of course you are entitled to your opinion - but your opinion really does not apply to the real treatment of psychiatric illnesses or what is really happening in psychiatry.  There are blogs out there who bombastically target about "reforming" psychiatry when the opinions expressed on those sites clearly indicate that none of the authors knows anything about the practice of psychiatry or the influence of business and government on the care of mental illnesses.         


2.   They are written by psychiatrists -

Curiously - psychiatry itself has produced some world class antipsychiatrists who in some cases affiliated themselves with more notorious antipsychiatry organizations.  For me Thomas Szasz is a clear case in point.  In fact, some of his antipsychiatry rhetoric has become so mainstream that it is even used by psychiatrists when they wax rhetorical.  I recommend a skeptical approach to any blog - even if it is written by a psychiatrist that is a blanket condemnation of the field or that makes it seem like every conceivable problem with mental health diagnosis and treatment can be blamed on psychiatry or psychiatrists.  There is generally an air of superiority in the writing as in "Most other psychiatrists have these problems but I don't, because either I am intellectually superior or my methods are superior."  To my knowledge that condition has never existed in the history of the field.

3.  They may be the remnants of the newspaper business selling the news -

Every week I get one and sometimes two large newspapers in my driveway whether I want them or not.  The newspaper business is so desperate that they have to give papers away. They have stopped cold calling every week with some promotion that everyone knows these days is just a scheme to rapidly escalate the charges to the point that you cancel the subscription and start over.  It is obvious that nobody wants to buy a newspaper anymore.  I don't even want it littering my driveway for free.  I feel badly for another industry gone obsolete - but not bad enough to buy a newspaper.  That unhealthy atmosphere drives all manner of provocative headlines.  What used to be a discussed and edited product is now like anything else on the Internet - provocative and looking for mouse clicks and advertising revenue. The spin offs of these newspapers are generally as bad.  Some of them are "Top 100" sites. Not the best sources to consider for unbiased news about psychiatry - especially in the context of a well documented pre-existing media bias against psychiatry.

4.  They are uniformly negative about psychiatry and psychiatric practice-

One of the main reasons for this blog is to simply point out that most media is biased against psychiatry and psychiatrists - if anything the blogs are much worse.  I wrote an early post on this blog about how a writer has to adopt an overly negative view of psychiatry in combination with an overly positive view of the rest of medicine to be that negative about psychiatry.  In the real world, the demand for psychiatry has greatly exceeded the supply.  Non-physician specialists are now being hired en masse to fill unfilled psychiatric positions.  Psychiatrists are consulting in collaborative care models with primary care physicians to enable them to treat more psychiatric problems and prevent closed practices that occur when psychiatrists provide individualized care.  All of this hiring is being done by organizations that would just as soon not hire any psychiatrists if they could get away with it.  That is strong economic proof that psychiatrists and psychiatry has a lot to offer tens of thousands of patients in these health plans. 

5.  They are basically fronts for antipsychiatry cults-

As a psychiatrist with limited resources I am not about to name names and end up in some endless cycle of ridiculous litigation.  You really have to do your homework on this one, because nobody can afford to stick their neck out and name names.  Sites on the Internet that were set up to follow and characterize these groups have been intimidated into removing material or in some cases just shutting down.   These sites are often obvious by over the top rhetoric about psychiatry or psychiatrists, but many are now taking a more subtle approach.  They can give the appearance of being legitimate - right up to the point that they may offer services or request donations.  The services often cost very large amounts of money.  The legitimate psychiatry blogs I read are not looking for patients or funds.  They also point out they are not handing out medical advice and that they are generally for educational or scientific purposes.  One of the best ways to investigate questionable clinical services or requests for donations is to make sure that they have appropriate site licenses and professional licenses by state regulatory agencies.   

6.  They are written by somebody who claims they have been wronged by a psychiatrist-

I am always skeptical of this approach, basically because if you have been wronged by physicians in American society there are generally more remedies than there are in any place in the world.  I have repeatedly pointed out that the boards of medical practice in any state have a very low threshold for investigating physicians and assigning punishment that can include license forfeiture.  Practically all physicians these days are employees in healthcare organizations and there are administrators in those organizations who may be even more eager than medical boards to discipline physicians right up to firing them.  All three of these entities - medical boards, employers, and malpractice attorneys have very strong incentives for going after physicians.  In fact, any physician caught in that cross fire does not stand a chance - even if they have done nothing wrong.  American society is renowned for being litigious and medical malpractice is one of the cash cows.  There are 3 ready solutions for people who feel they have been wronged by any physician.  When I compare the time it takes to write a vituperative blog for no real gain to these cash, justice, or revenge solutions - the logical question is why?  There are not many good answers to that question.  I can think of maybe one or two - but even then extrapolating from an isolated case to thousands of doctors requires an illogical leap - especially while maintaining an equal level of contempt.

Keep all of this in mind.  A "Top 100" site may include sites that are there to bash psychiatrists or the profession.  It may be written by someone with absolutely no knowledge of psychiatry or (potentially worse) a psychiatrist who thinks that they know more than any other psychiatrist who was ever born.

Like most things on the Internet - let the reader beware.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Marvel and Netflix Keep The Antipsychiatry Fake News Alive

I try to exercise an hour a day.  During that time I am either on a treadmill or an exercise bike.  If I am exercising in the house, I am watching television at the same time.  I watch a lot of television at the same time.  Entire series on Amazon, Netflix, or premium channels.  Some of this television can be motivating but even with all of that content bandwidth - I still find myself searching for the occasional independent film because there seems like there is nothing else out there.  About 80% of what I watch is on Netflix and a lot of that is science fiction.  The Marvel series on Netflix is a rich source of superhero type science fiction.  I noticed the latest addition The Iron Fist some time ago, but that name and the visuals were not all that inspiring.  At least until I stopped a very bad film dead in its tracks about 15 minutes in an switched over to Iron Fist.

In the opening moments we see a disheveled young man walking barefoot through New York City.  We find out that his name is Danny Rand.  He appears to be fairly naive.  At one point he announces that he is from a large family who owns a prominent building and the man he is talking to suggests that he should: "Sell the building an buy some shoes."  He tries to get in to the building to talk with Harold Meachum his father's former partner who is currently the head of Rand Enterprises.  He has to fight his way past security.  He encounters the adult Meachum children Ward and Joy.  They tell him that Harold is dead and they doubt his identity.  They say the Rands including Danny were all killed in a plane crash in the Himalayas 15 years ago.  He leaves but Ward Meachum dispatches his security forces to find Danny and beat him up or kill him.  After he dispatches the security guards he breaks into the Meachum home and eventually meets with Joy back at the company headquarters.

This is where several distinctly antipsychiatry themes start to kick in.  Joy drugs Danny and he is taken to what appears to be a small forensic psychiatric hospital.  He awakens there in five point restraints and is advised that he is on a 72 hour hold.  Over the course of that hold he is given many cups of what are supposedly psychiatric medications.  In some cases the orderly forces his mouth open with a tongue blade and pours the cup of capsules and tablets into his mouth.  On other occasions, the orderly comes  in with an absurdly large bottle of medication and draws the medication out of that bottle into a syringe and he is given an injection.  He is told that the medication is given to him so that he will "cooperate".  Cooperate is loosely defined as not becoming aggressive but also in some cases giving up the idea that he is Danny Rand.  In short, he is basically tortured on this inpatient unit.

To make  matters even worse, another patient disguised as a physician with a white coat is alone with him at one point when he is being restrained.  The viewer does not realize it at the time until this patient suggests that Danny kill himself and when that fails he sticks a fork under his chin and says he will kill him if he gives him the word.  The aggressive patient is eventually removed, but later reinstated as Danny's "tour guide" of the unit.  During that tour, he advises Danny of the folly of the 72 hour hold like this: "He was living under a bridge and came in here on a 72 hours hold.  Now he has paranoid personality disorder and he has been here for 5 years.  He was living on the street and came in on a 72 hour hold.  Now he has schizoaffective disorder and has been here for 3 years."  He simultaneously points out the folly of the 72 hour hold and suggests that people are just plucked off the street, labelled and stuck in a locked psychiatric facility for a long time.  In the span of 5 or 10 minutes we have seen a homicidal patient disguised as a doctor, threatening to kill the superhero, and then becoming a tour guide who is an expert commentator on psychiatric injustices!

Dr. Paul Edmonds is the psychiatrist on the floor.  He is pleasantly coercive at first.  He seems generally clueless about assessing acute care psychiatric patients and interacting with them.  He finally catches on that Danny Rand is who he really says that he is and acts professionally for a brief period of time.  He almost gets to the point where he will release Danny, but decides against it when he hears about how Danny is a Warrior Monk who is in possession of the power of the Iron Fist.  At that point Harold Meachum who has been watching all of the events in the psychiatric unit remotely and who has concluded that Danny is the real Danny Rand - sends in his security to take Danny out of the hospital.  In the finale to episode 2, Danny summons the Iron Fist power to dispatch the security guards who were beating him mercilessly and with a single punch - knocks down a large metal door confining him in the hospital.

There are numerous cliches about psychiatric treatment that are obvious in this episode.  The first is that psychiatric treatment is about social control.  In this case the Meachums have a problem when Danny shows up.  He owns 51% of the company stock.  They get him out of the picture by drugging him and taking him to a psychiatric hospital.  I have never seen that happen.  In real life, if a person in the emergency department shows up there drugged and points out that somebody did this to them, the police would be dispatched to pick them up for assault.  The associated dimension here is that the psychiatrist and the hospital are working for the Meachums and doing their bidding at least until Dr. Edmonds finally refuses to provide Joy confidential information on Danny.  In my 23 years of inpatient work, treatment was focused on the best interests of the patient, and confidential information was not provided without consent.  Forced treatment was portrayed in as heavy handed a manner as possible.  The patient was drugged to the point that he was "in control" and in one situation ready to cooperate by accepting a false identity.  Dr. Edmonds also appears to lack skill at two levels.  It takes him too long to find out who Danny really is and them it seems only by a bit of luck.  When he finally does that, he is unable to assess the patient's superhero story (trained warrior monk from the Mother of the Crane order in the mythical K'un-Lun that appears from another dimension once in every 14 years), see it for what it is and release him.  Any inpatient psychiatrist has seen and discharged their share of superheroes.  Delusional or not - treatment depends on local legal convention and the bias is heavily stacked toward no treatment by the courts and business systems.  Businesses don't want anybody spending any length of time in a psychiatric hospital whether they are stable enough for discharge or not.  But I suppose that is a far less dramatic premise than psychiatrists and psychiatric hospitals detaining people and torturing them.

At no point do we see legal representatives and representatives of the court to protect the civil rights of anyone who is on a legal hold or subject to involuntary treatment.  The viewers have to suffer through another skewed treatment of psychiatric care and an unenlightened view of the containment function of psychiatric units.

There is a clear mischaracterization of acute care or inpatient psychiatric units.  Anyone experienced with psychiatric disorders and severe addictions realizes that there are some mental disorders where the person's ability to self correct is gone.  That results in uncharacteristic behaviors that can include aggression, suicide, self-injury, and a long list of high risk behaviors that endanger health and life.  A common example is mania without psychosis.  The manic person can carry on a coherent conversation but may have been hospitalized because his or her judgment and decision-making was greatly impaired by the manic state.  A consistent treatment environment is required to assist that person in getting back to their stable mood and decision-making.  Having an appropriate treatment unit available can prevent life altering events that can be associated with severe mental disorders.  When I refer to a containment effect - it means providing a safe environment for these changes to occur and there are multiple pathways to stability.

I know a lot of people will say it's just a television show.  It is a television show with considerable viewership in a country with meager resources for psychiatric treatment.  It is a television show in a country that is a mill for antipsychiatry fake news.  It is also part of an ongoing process that stigmatizes people with mental illnesses and psychiatrists.  You only have to look as far as network television and Gotham or American Horror Story to find an equally grim depiction. It seems that the default horrifying and anxiety producing storyline is to go back to the old myth of the psychiatrist as bogeyman.

The treatment situation is so desperate that in current politically correct times - people with mental illnesses, their families, and doctors need to be treated realistically just like it would occur with any other disadvantaged minority.            

Get real with portrayals of mental  illnesses, psychiatric treatment, and psychiatrists and drop the unnecessary drama and distortion.  It deters people from seeking the safety and treatment that they need and keeps politicians and the businessmen in charge of medicine and cutting psychiatric services to the bone.

It's the 21st century and it is time to wake up and realize that there is an enlightened approach to these problems.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA        

 

A Garage Door Lesson

I learned a valuable lesson from a garage door today that I thought I would pass along to some posters who think they know something about psychiatry and psychiatrists.....

I came home early this afternoon and hit my garage door remote, like I had done thousands of times in the past.  This time the door went up and seemed to hesitate and drop back about 2 inches, then it went all the way up.  I stepped out and noticed a bolt laying on the floor.  I picked it up and it was a 5/8 x 1 1/2 inch self-tapping bolt.  Looking around, I noticed that it has fallen out of the plate that fastens the garage door to the door itself.  The plate was bent and there was only one bolt left holding the door.  I grabbed a socket wrench and a ladder and headed up to where the door was suspended to fix it - about 5 or 6 feet off the floor.  It was immediately evident that the plate was bent at such an angle that I could not gain any purchase in the door with the free end of the bolt - or it was stripped.  Without thinking, I thought I would pull the emergency door release hanging just to my right to give me just enough slack to fasten the bolt.

In an instant, the arm assembly jerked my left hand very hard toward the door opening as the door crashed from fully open to fully closed in a less than a second.  I was propelled about ten feet through the air landing on the floor at the base of the door with some serious neck strain and a few sprains but otherwise, none the worse for wear.  I was somewhat stunned by all of this.  When I looked up I noticed the coil spring over the left side of the double garage door was snapped in half.  Directly in front of me was a warning that I had read many times before:

The universal "Don't turn your own wrench" sign.  I apparently ignored some pretty basic information that any professional garage door mechanic would not have.  It resulted in me getting knocked around pretty good and putting me at serious risk for a head injury, a spinal injury or death.  A few data points and I ignored them.  I also knew that garage doors were dangerous.  Just a few years ago, my brother showed me a healed scar across his palm that resulted when he attempted to repair a snapped garage door spring.  But where in all of this is the lesson for the inappropriate criticism of psychiatrists?

I should probably define at least part of what I consider inappropriate criticism and what a poster here has touched on as important dynamic.  On the sites where it is common for psychiatrists to post or sites that claim some legitimacy in the area of criticism, there are also some thoroughly hostile and malignant posts that are at the minimum inappropriate and at their worst pathological.  I have received a few directly here last week, but have decided that posts such as these will not appear on this blog.  I am aware that some people think that anyone should be allowed to criticize psychiatrists in any manner.  They are wrong.  People suggesting that I should "burn in the hottest part of hell" of course would be one example, but there are many more.

The garage door incident is instructive for at least some of them.  I recently saw a number of anonymous posts saying that psychiatrists can "just say anything" and that psychiatric credibility could be "shredded" in forensic settings.  Interspersing those arguments among supposedly legitimate critics takes the level of their arguments way down.  If these types of posts were always the case, it would be very easy to ignore a thread inhabited by barbarians.  I could certainly come up with a neat little definition of the barbarians but what is the point?   A related question is why those sites feel compelled to include this posts?  I don't think that is a passive or well thought out decision.  Once the discussion has headed into abusive, threatening, or irrational territory and it remains in fair play - that says a lot about the intent of the administrator.  At the very minimum, the intent is no longer a reasonable discussion.  Granted that it is often difficult to determine what is reasonable, given the overall tenor of the site.  For example, if I wrote a book bashing all psychiatrists and was promoting it on a site, why wouldn't I include every possible irrational post as evidence that I am correct?

It is much more instructive to look at the garage door example and what it implies for the basic argument that there is no such thing as mental illness and the closely related arguments - psychiatrists are not needed for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness or that they have simply made up mental illness so that they can all be rich and drive expensive cars (another e-mail from one of the fans).  The garage door is a simple scenario with three critical points of information that any experienced person could observe - arm plate screw missing, arm plate bent, and left main garage door coiled spring snapped in half.  As an additional historical point I should add that in my experience these springs snap about every 15 years and this one was only 5 years old.   I observed 2/3 of the points thought I could make the repair and nearly had a catastrophic result.

In the case of a psychiatrist seeing a new patient, there are hundreds of relevant points that all have to be acquired and examined in the initial evaluation.  The total number of critical points is unknown, but to use just the example of a basic instrument for the assessment of suicide potential they number in at least the 20-30 range.  This assumes that the patient is able to respond appropriately to the questions.  There are at least another 20 or 30 points when it comes to the prescription of medications and coming up with a treatment plan.  As any affected family member can attest, severe mental illness or addiction is at least as serious as a crashing garage door that knocks you off a ladder.  It leads to trying to shake off the acute effects and prevent any long term harm.  In that event many people are seen and treated successfully by psychiatrists.  As I have posted here before, we are the people who are trained to see significant problems and the psychiatrists I know do a good job.

In practically all of the irrational criticism of psychiatry, none of these information points are covered.  People seem quite content to tar and feather psychiatrists with whatever seems fashionable at the time.  So this lesson is really one about the information content not typically being covered and how missing even a small point in any information set can be potentially problematic, and in my analogy, not just in terms of my own safety but the liability issue if anyone had been working with me.

I know that this lesson may be a stretch for some and in that case consider this a public service announcement for not trying to fix your own garage door.  Do not try it at home like I did.  Leave it to the professionals.

Oh - and I am not sorry to disappoint those who would have just as soon seen another psychiatrist bite the dust.

As far as I know - I am OK.



George Dawson,  MD, DFAPA

The Jerk Store Called

In response to a number of posts to my last post, I decided to take an idea posted by Dr. Steven Reidbord and run with it - but at his request I used a different descriptor than the one he suggested.  From my early days as a psychiatrist the general idea in our culture is that you basically listen to all of the criticism of psychiatry no matter how nonsensical it is and put up with it.  Act as though it is true.  In fact, go ahead and make public policy based on it!

One of the most frequent rationalizations for that passive behavior is that there are always some imperfections and therefore just about any criticism is justified - shut up and take it.  At some point it becomes obvious that line of logic excludes most reality.  When Dr. Reidbord requested that I not use his brilliant metaphor, the only other thing I could think of was the term "jerk".  That reminded me of the Seinfeld episode "The Comeback" and George Costanza's failed retort about the Jerk Store so I thought I would include it here.  The following post has otherwise been vetted by a philosophy professor and it looked good to him.

So here goes:

The Jerk Argument

It is a given that the the class of psychiatrists like all major subgroups of people and workers contains some jerks.  In this case a jerk can be defined as whatever a hater of psychiatry likes it to be.

Possible conclusions:

1.  All psychiatrists are jerks.

2.  Psychiatrists are inherently evil whether they are jerks or not, jerks are not really any worse.

3.  All psychiatrists should be treated like jerks whether they are jerks or not.

4.  It is possible to distinguish jerks from psychiatrists and treat each class accordingly.

5.  It is inaccurate at best to generalize to the entire class of psychiatrists what is observed in the jerks.

1-> 3 are positions of the various psychiatry bashers whether they are antipsychiatrists or not, or formal antipsychiatry philosophies or not.  That encompasses a full range of cults, lone critics with an axe to grind, academics, competing professionals, critics with a book or column to sell, and scandal mongers.  It may even contain some critics with a legitimate criticism but they end up including these additional invalid arguments in the body of their work.  These positions contain various logical fallacies and are unsupported at that level.  It is also interesting to contemplate that these initial conclusions are never applied to any other medical specialty and ideally are not applied to any group of people.  Think about substituting any other societal group in those sentences as see what you come up with.  Since they are illogical arguments the only possible conclusion is that psychiatrists as a group are clearly discriminated against and the basis for that discrimination is irrational.

Jerk logic also has implications for the way that the government and healthcare organizations treat psychiatrists.  The government and managed care attitude toward psychiatrists is probably most accurately captured in 3.   Every regulation and interaction with a managed care company reinforces that idea.  It could also be argued that the managed care industry is in the business of converting psychiatrists into jerks.  That is true if they are employed by the managed care companies directly or indirectly working on the "medication management" assembly line.

My positions are best represented by 4 and 5.  That is the evidence I focus on in this blog.  I have debated with myself about whether I should fight the bashers head on, but they generally not really interested in debating logic, scientific evidence, or any evidence contrary to their argument.  Per my previous post they are engaged in sophistry and will post endless fallacious arguments and say that ain't so.  So fighting them by definition is futile and they can aggregate to any number of psychiatry bashing sites on the Internet where they can revel in their rhetoric.

So if the basis of your psychiatry bashing lies in arguments 1 - > 3.

The jerk store called and  ...........

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  As I was preparing this post I noticed this post popped up on the Shrink Rap blog entitled Are Psychiatrists Evil? and that dovetails nicely with my small study in rhetoric.  There are several previous posts here that examine this rhetoric in different ways like The Myth of the Psychiatrist as Bogeyman  and Why Do They Hate Us?

Supplementary 2:  Per this previous post - the  antipsychiatry philosophies follow per the reference below.  It is also a good example of a potential critic with something useful to say but using invalid arguments of the form given in the body of the above post.  A standard tactic is falsely claiming that psychiatrists hold a certain position and then attacking that position as though it is true.

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

"Some of the main models advanced by antipsychiatrists, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s, can be summarized thus:

1.  The psychological model...
2.  The labeling model...
3.  Hidden meaning models...
4.  Unconscious mind models...
5.  Political control models..." <-Foucault is located here. (p. 17)

Supplementary 3:  Of course it is always important to recognize the bullshitters - Is Bullshit A Better Term Than Antipsychiatry?

Is Bullshit A Better Term Than Antipsychiatry?

I saw Professor Harry G. Frankfurt on David Letterman a few years ago.  He was there to explain his recently released book entitled On Bullshit.  He was joking with Dave about how somebody called him up one day and wanted to make one of his essays into a book.  When asked how that happens he said "Bigger fonts and wider margins."  I don't know if he was consciously trying to convey the idea that he was no bullshitter.  In the book he is listed as a renowned moral philosopher and Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.  The book is inexpensive and a quick read.  Imagine an essay stretched into a book the size of an address book in 67 pages of 12 point font and 1 inch margins.

Despite the catchy title and obvious magic of marketing, I really like this book.  First off, it is written by a professor of moral philosophy and I always like hearing from the experts.  Secondly, Professor Frankfurt looks at the differences between lying and bullshitting and all points in between. The opening line is classic:

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit." (p. 1)

In the opening paragraph he goes on to explain that study of bullshit has not attracted much attention because most people take it for granted that they can recognize it and not get taken in.  The result is a lack of theoretical understanding of bullshit.  His stated goal is to articulate what it is and what it is not.

I will let any interested reader acquire a copy of the book.  With its brevity I run the risk of reciting all of the high points in this post.  I will quote two more lines from the book because of the amount of information they convey:  

"The realms of advertising and of public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept." (p. 22)

Professor Frankfurt goes on to develop the idea that the bullshitter can be imprecise and that unlike a liar he has no prerequisite that he knows the truth.  He is bluffing and faking his way through.  Bullshitters don't reject the truth, they pay no attention to it.  In the technical sense, bullshit is not false it is phony.   And perhaps the essence as it applies to a professional field (I have to use a third quote):

"Bullshitting is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about." (p. 63).

The last requirement is interesting because there are conscious and unconscious components.  The unconscious component is the innate ability that most people have to practice folk psychology.  It is the equivalent of a social brain.  We recognize certain patterns in people and how they behave that allow us to make predictions about their behavior.  I am quite sure that many people mistake that ability for being trained as a psychiatrist.  I base that a lot on what people tell me that they "observe" and "diagnose".  For all of the concern about the "medicalization" of the population - the average folk psychologist has a much lower threshold than any psychiatrist I have ever met.  For example, in various workplaces I have been warned by employee supervisors that three separate coworkers that I would be working with were "paranoid", "obsessive compulsive" and "borderline".  I did not see any characteristics that the amateur diagnosticians warned me about and in all three cases, I found these co workers to be excellent and had absolutely no problems working with them.  This is probably an extension of Dr. Frankfurt's work - the unconscious aspects of bullshitting but I expect that it correlates closely with some descriptions in a classic paper on prevarication.  

But in the case of talking without expertise, I am afraid that the unconscious aspects cover a very small part of the bullshitting spectrum.  You can go to any site where psychiatry is routinely criticized, attacked or vilified and you will see any number of posts by the anonymous posters who talk about their anecdotes and proclamations about psychiatry.  Many are bombastic.  None are challenged.  It is the general tenor of many of these sites that psychiatrists are basically incompetent assholes (yeah I said it) and should be barred from practicing medicine.  Psychiatrists only injure people and have never helped anyone.  If they produce any coherent arguments they generally fit the psychiatrist as bogeyman dynamic that I previously described.  Some people who have seen a psychiatrist may grudgingly admit it, but nobody ever seems to acknowledge that a psychiatrist did anything to help them.  The more erudite approach may be to critique psychiatry without acknowledging that psychiatrists in fact are better critics and have critiqued their own field.  If anyone is questioned they may produce the indignant response: "Are you calling me an antipsychiatrist?"  

Some of what passes for criticism actually ignores what really happened and attempts to cast modern psychiatry in a light that is based more on historical spin than what is applicable today.  Some of these efforts are actually considered to be "good" criticism, even though it is clear to any trained psychiatrist that the author knows little to nothing about the field.  You would think that anyone interested in developing a negative narrative about psychiatry would do the basic research of picking up a copy of  Shorter's A History of Psychiatry and reading about the ways things were before there was any psychiatry.  In his text Shorter describes severe mental illness as a death sentence (p. 2) and the following historical observation:  "In a world without psychiatry, rather than being tolerated or indulged, the mentally ill were treated with a savage lack of feeling.  Before the advent of the therapeutic asylum, there was no golden era, no idyllic refuge for those deviant from the values of capitalism.  To maintain otherwise is a fantasy." (p. 4).  But the ignorance of psychiatry extends far beyond the historical.  It is apparent that many of the critics have no knowledge of the current current psychiatric literature.  They often reference the New York Times as though it is authoritative.  They criticize highly technical subjects and it is apparent that they have not read a journal or a book from that field.  Like Frankfurt's definition they pay no attention to the truth.

Based on Professor Frankfurt's essay, I conclude that bullshit is a much more appropriate characterization of many of the misrepresentations of psychiatry.  I would also suggest it may be more politically correct than implying that the author is a member of a cult or a school of philosophy. (see the footnote at this link)

They are quite simply a bullshitter and bullshit remains as it always has been (even pre-Frankfurt) - bullshit.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Harry G. Frankfurt.  On Bullshit.  Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005.

SNL Keeps the Stigma Going

I suppose I was one of millions of disappointed viewers who tuned in to Saturday Night Live last night. One of the skits was to show the first used car commercial.  The commercial uses the familiar "crazy" motif, implying that the business uses an irrational pricing strategy that favors the customer.  Practically every television market has a business that uses this approach for selling cars, appliances, stereos, you name it.  I suppose that some comedians would suggest that this is commentary on these commercials as a rationale for the video.  In the same show there was a skit about a drunk uncle.  At one point the drunk uncle introduces meth nephew - portrayed by an actor for the AMC series Breaking Bad.  I can recall the comedic placement of an alcoholic dating back to The Andy Griffith Show's Otis.

Associating comedy with mental illness is stigmatizing.  That is not an original thought and I am sure that some people have written about it before.  I am sure there is a thesis somewhere submitted for degree requirements that looks at the rationale and the pros and the cons.  For me the straightforward analysis is that it is a reflection of the disproportionate noise in the media about psychiatry and mental health.   That is closely followed by the fact that  there are no similar comedic approaches to other diseases.  Where are the skits about an uncle with cirrhosis, chronic pancreatitis or cancer?  Or the uncle in prison for vehicular homicide while intoxicated?

I also can't help but notice if you were not laughing at the Tina Fey character in the commercial what were you thinking?  I was thinking about a situation where a family might notice a personality change or a change in thinking like the one described in this skit and what they would do about it.  There are no clearly defined public health approaches to these problems.  People get concerned, they get very uneasy, they don't know what to do about it, and complications happen.  They may actually bring their relative down to the local Emergency Department only to find that they are declared "not imminently dangerous" and discharged with a number to call for an outpatient appointment.  If their family member is in need of medical detoxification from alcoholism, they may be discharged with a bottle of lorazepam and instructed on how to detox them at home.  I was thinking about the millions of Americans out there who have had this happen, have inadequate treatment, and never recover.  Their role in the family is permanently altered or disrupted.

I was thinking about the legal approach to some of these problems and the issue of criminal responsibility.  That dovetails with the lack of a public health approach because one of the possible complications is that a crime gets committed during an episode of mental illness.  Of course it is a crime based on the assumption that the person is able to appreciate what they are doing and that it is unlawful.  In the majority of cases it is not likely that a severe crime will be understood that way and the defendant will typically get psychiatric treatment in prison or a county jail.  The civil legal approach is as problematic.  An actual or practical "imminent dangerousness" standard for treatment leaves huge numbers of people untreated and acutely mentally ill.

For all of these reasons, these skits were not funny to me.  I like Tina Fey and think that she is a comedic genius, but I didn't crack a smile.  I think it will be a test of mental health advocacy groups everywhere to see what they say about this.  Some have criticized SNL before but I have not seen anything about this skit so far.  All of the discussions about the problems with the lack of adequate mental health treatment in this country and the associated public health disasters have no traction as long as we continue to think of mental illnesses and addictions as comedy.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA