The arbitrary and often absurd rhetorical attacks on psychiatry

 

I drew the above graphic (click on it to enlarge) to highlight a few things about popular psychiatric criticism, but mainly that it is absurd.  I have commented on antipsychiatry rhetoric many times in the past and how it has a predictable pattern.  But this goes beyond antipsychiatry to include critics in the press, authors selling books (or being paid for lectures or appearances), and even critics in the field. I thought it might be useful to try to crowd as much of this rhetoric into one diagram as possible for easy reference.

Why is rhetoric so important?  Rhetoric is all about winning an argument.  The strategies are all well documented and you can read about them and the common fallacious arguments in any standard rhetoric or logic text.  My goal is not to teach rhetoric.  For the purpose of this post, I want the reader to understand that there is more rhetoric leveled at psychiatry than any other medical specialty. There is always a lot of speculation about why that might be – but nobody ever seems to come out and say the most obvious reasons – gaining political advantage or financial renumeration. There is also dead silence on the questions of facts and expertise - since practically all of the literature out there including much of the rhetoric advanced by psychiatrists is an overreach in terms of psychiatric knowledge and expertise.  When absurd rhetoric about psychiatry makes the New York Times or even prominent medical journals it is simply accepted as a fact. There is no marketplace of ideas approach or even a single alternating viewpoint. Some of the statements in the graphic are taken directly out of newspaper articles and they are absurd. 

I happen to believe that the best critiques of the field come from people who are experts and usually do not deteriorate into ad hominem attacks against the field or other experts in the field. I was trained by many of those experts who consistently demonstrated that a lot of thought and work goes into becoming a psychiatrist and practicing psychiatry. I have known that for 35 years and continue to impressed by psychiatrists from around the world who contact me every day.     

I sought feedback from psychiatrists through several venues about absurd psychiatric criticism, by showing them a partially completed table and asking for suggestions.  One suggestion was making a grid to evaluate plausible, implausible, and unproveable. I do not think that is the best way to analyze these remarks. There seems to be a lot of confusion about rhetoric versus philosophy and a tendency to engage in lengthy philosophical analysis and discourse. It turns out that a lot of what passes for philosophical critique of psychiatry is really rhetoric.  That rhetoric generally hinges on controlling the premise and arguing from there. For example – the statement that the DSM is a “blueprint for living” is taken directly out of a New York Times article where the author – a philosophy professor was critiquing the 2015 release of the DSM-5 on that basis. Never mind that no psychiatrist ever made that claim or even had that fantasy – there it was in the paper written like the truth. A reading of the first 25 pages of the manual would dispel that notion but it is clear nobody ever seems to do that. 

I seriously considered modifying the diagram based on a division proposed by Ron Pies, MD (1).  That would have involved dividing the area of the graph into a zone of “legitimate criticisms focused on problematic areas in psychiatry” versus “fallacious and baseless attacks ... aimed at delegitimizing and ultimately destroying psychiatry.”  As I attempted to draw that graph – I realized that I could not include any of the current statements in a legitimate criticism zone.  In order to do that I will need to find an equivalent amount of legitimate criticism and include it in a new graph.

This rhetoric has much in common with misinformation, except it has been around for decades. It is not an invention of the Internet or social media. An important aspect of rhetoric is that since it does not depend on facts it can be continuously repeated. That is the difference between the truth and facts versus rhetoric. The classic modern-day example is the Big Lie of the last Presidential campaign. Former President Trump stated innumerable times that the election was stolen by election fraud and at one point suggested that there was enough proof that it allowed the Constitution to be suspended. All that rhetoric despite no independent corroboration by any judiciary or election officials from his own party.  Major news services began reporting his claim as a lie.  Recent news reports revealed that the stars of the news outlet that Trump was most closely affiliated with - did not believe the election was stolen. Many of the statements leveled at psychiatry in the table are equivalent to the Big Lie.

Rhetoric typically dies very hard and that is why it is an integral part of political strategy. A current popular strategy is to use the term woke as a more pejorative description of politically correct. It creates an emotional response in people “You may be politically correct but I am not.”  The term is used frequently to describe many things including the teaching of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in public schools. Repetition alone has many Americans believe that CRT is being taught in public schools and that is something that they should actively resist. The fact is – CRT is not taught in public schools and yet the effect of the rhetoric has been enough to leave many people outraged and susceptible to political manipulation. The rhetoric itself is difficult to correct by a long explanation about CRT.  That approach will not win any arguments. The best approach is to characterize it for what it is at the outset – absurd rhetoric that is not reality based. But there is a good chance that will also not have much impact.

When I talk with psychiatrists about the problem of not responding to rhetoric – I typically encounter either blank stares, the rejoinder that “there might be a grain of truth there”, or  the suggestion that we should just ignore it and it will go away. Physicians in general seem to be clueless about the effect of politics and rhetoric on medicine and psychiatrists are no exception.  When you are trained in science and medicine, there seems to be an assumption that the scientific method and rational discourse will carry the day.  That may be why we were all shocked when the American people seemed to be responding in an ideological way to public health advice during the pandemic and they were so easily affected by misinformation. 

Rhetoric in science predates the pandemic by at least a century.  It has been suggested that Charles Darwin used natural selection as a metaphor for domestic animal breeding (1) in order to convince the predominately religious people and scientists of the day.  He had to argue the position that unpleasant natural states were intermediate steps leading to a more advanced organic state.  Without that convincing argument Darwin’s theory may not have received such widespread acceptance in the scientific community. It is useful to keep in mind that just presenting the facts is not necessarily enough to win an argument especially in the post truth environment that exists in the US today.

The “grain of truth” rhetoric is typically used to classify, generalize, and stereotype and may be more difficult to decipher than straightforward ad hominem attacks. A typical “grain of truth” argument in the graphic concerns pharmaceutical money being paid to psychiatrists and other physicians. Some psychiatrists are employed by pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials and other business, some provide educational lectures, and more are passive recipients of free continuing medical education courses.  All of this activity is reported to a database where anyone can search how much reimbursement is occurring. From this activity it is typical to hear that psychiatrists are on the pay roll of, get kickbacks from, or are brainwashed by Big Pharma and KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders).  The reality is most psychiatrists have no financial conflict of interest and they are not free to prescribe new expensive medications because those prescriptions are controlled by for-profit PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers). Further – the entire issue was highlighted by a No Free Lunch movement that provided essentially rhetorical information about conflict of interest and how it affected prescription patterns.  Those arguments have a very weak empirical basis. 

What about just ignoring this rhetoric? Ignoring it has clearly not been a successful strategy.  Any quantitative look at antipsychiatry rhetoric and literature would clearly show that it has increased significantly over the past 20 years – to the point that papers written from this standpoint are now included in psychiatric journals and you can make money doing it.  Recent cultural phenomena including the Big Lie rhetoric of the last Presidential election, the partial recognition of climate change (despite firsthand experience with increasingly severe weather most do not believe it is due to human activity), and the multilayered problematic response to the coronavirus pandemic sends a clear signal that rhetoric must be responded to and not ignored. 

The American public has been fed a steady diet of absurd criticisms about psychiatry for decades. If you do not believe that – study the table and compare it to what you see in the papers and across the Internet.  And never take anything you read about psychiatry at face value.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  As noted in the above post I am interested in graphing legitimate psychiatric criticism in the same format used in the above graphic. If you have critiques and references - feel free to post them here.  I have some favorites from Kendler, Ghaemi, and others. 

 

References:

1:  Pies R.  Four dogmas of antipsychiatry.  Psychiatric Times May 5, 2022:  https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/four-dogmas-of-antipsychiatry

2:  Herrick JA. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. 7^th ed. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, 2021: 221-223.  – I highly recommend this book on the historical and current importance of rhetoric. A lot of what passes for philosophical criticism of psychiatry is really rhetoric.

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.

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        

 

The Myth of Monolithic Psychiatry

One of the familiar strategies of the various antipsychiatry factions out there is the monolithic psychiatry tactic.  A monolith can be a monument that is often a large rectangular block of stone.  The most recognizable monolith in my time was the recurring black monolith in 2001 - A Space Odyssey.  A monolith can also refer to "a large and impersonal political, corporate, or social structure regarded as intractably indivisible and uniform."  In that sense, a monolith can just be a fact.  I could refer to just about every government agency and insurance company that I have to deal with as monolithic.  They couldn't care less about anything that I say to them or how infuriating it is that I have to deal with them.  Their only interest is in their corporation and doing the absolute minimum that might cost them something and they are very good at it.  In practical terms that means authorizing any treatment I am forced to ask them about.  But in a new twist many of these organizations also aggressively trying to make any physicians they are working with - look bad.  They must think there is some advantage in keeping physicians on the defensive.

The beauty of monoliths is that no matter how hard you try there is no way to break in and get what you want.  No matter how many times I call the government bureaucracy in charge of dealing with managed care company complaints, I will get the same predictable runaround.  The first several lengthy calls will result in me talking to people who are not even sure that they should be talking with me.  They will send me to somebody in another building in an obscure department and eventually the calls will stop again.  I have wasted many hours of my life trying to crack into this monolithic state government bureaucracy without success.  I think it also illustrates some additional defining characteristics of monoliths - secrecy, anonymity, and a lack of accountability.  Eventually you end up talking with people so far removed from the problem, it is not clear how you ended up in touch with them in the first place.  Their names and positions are meaningless.  It is clear that they can't help you and if you wanted to complain about them it would not make any difference.  They are so far removed from your original problem it doesn't matter anymore.  You can rage against the monolith as much as you want and it doesn't make any difference.  There may be a conspiracy of monoliths if you are working with an employer who wants you to try to cooperate with them and makes that part of your contract.  Employers like that are often monoliths themselves, with various strategic firewalls around the organization to prevent employees from providing feedback on company policy.  Monoliths often trigger conspiracy theories because they are either intentional or unintentional conspiracies.

That brings me to the interesting phenomenon of monolithic psychiatry.  Assume for a moment that all psychiatrists in the country are in a monolithic structure like the one I described for the state bureaucracy.  It might make sense for someone to rage against the monolith by declaring psychiatry is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry or psychiatry overprescribes medications or psychiatry isn't interested in psychotherapy or whatever anyone wants to apply to the monolith.  Since we are talking about a monolith, whatever applies to one psychiatrist applies to them all which logically makes the criticism one big absurdist editorial.

There are many things wrong with that picture.  Psychiatrists have the most diverse population of any medical specialty and it is the farthest to the left.  More psychiatrists are liberals and psychiatry is the only specialty group that is predominantly composed of Democrats.  The broad range of interests of psychiatrists are evident at any American Psychiatric Association (APA) meeting and various annual subspecialty meetings.  Courses are available on a broad range of medical, neuroscientific, and psychosocial topics.  Psychiatrists work in a number of specialty areas and it is very likely that certain practices are highly specialized and focus only on the diagnosis and treatment of specific conditions.  That is not the structure of a monolith.  The total number of psychiatrists varies on the source.  The American Medical Association (AMA) census in 2010 put the number at 42,885.  The Census put the number at 40,600 in 2009 and of those 26,200 were office based.     According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are only about 25,000 psychiatrists who are employees of organizations.  The remainder are in private practice.  The American Psychiatric Association sent me the following data on the membership for the past 15 years.

  

As a measure of monolithic behavior,  in one of the most critical APA election in recent years regarding maintenance of certification (MOC) only 6,943 members voted.  Action requires a vote of at least 40% of the membership.  Interestingly the MOC vote occurred in 2011, the year of the lowest number of members.  The total vote was not close to the 40% number, but it exceeded the vote for the President Elect and Secretary by about 1,300 votes each.  Presidents are typically elected by less than 20% of the members.  These facts illustrate that the majority of psychiatrists in this country at any one time are being directly influenced by employers and in the overwhelming number of cases those employers are managed care organizations whose policies are generally inimical to quality psychiatric care.  It is also apparent from the vote and the election patterns within the APA, that there is not a lot of political activism or interest for that matter.  Hardly the behavior of a monolith.

The real difference with monoliths is the anonymity and secrecy issue.  Every practicing psychiatrist is on record as being responsible to his or her patients.  That responsibility is documented in medical records and pharmacy records.  In any state, any physician can be reported to a medical board for practically any reason.  Psychiatrists are held to the same professional standards as all physicians and that is a high bar, but it illustrates again - no monolith.  I can beat my head against the wall all day trying to get a prescription authorized, but any complaint about me gets immediate attention and immediate scrutiny of my practice by the state medical board that I practice in, my employer, various committees or other state agencies, and in some cases my malpractice insurance carrier.

All of these factors combine to lead to more diverse interests and opinions that in any other field of medicine.  As far as critics of the field, some of the best criticism comes from within psychiatry than from anywhere else.  That does not prevent the various antipsychiatry factions from posting blanket criticisms of "psychiatry" (whatever that might be) and coupling it with any irrational or rhetorical criticism that they might like.  I criticized some of this in the past and avoided most of the expected endless argumentation in response to my replies to these points.  To me the rebuttals are factually no big deal, but critics of the monolith are so certain about themselves that they really don't do well with criticism directed back at them.   I thought I would illustrate my point about monolithic psychiatry with some direct quotes from Robert Whitaker's book Mad in America.  The page numbers are included for reference, but they are all from Chapter 7.

             

I thought about addressing all of these quotes point by point, but decided that would be the standard type of endless argument that passes for Internet discourse, but is really an exercise in futility. Instead, I will just point out what I mean by the monolith strategy.  In this case the author looks at a combination of quasi-experimentation, historical associations, rhetorical arguments, and actual problems that were researched and changed by psychiatrists themselves to indict monolithic psychiatry.  Monolithic psychiatry is frozen across time.  It can never change and it almost certainly does not self-correct without the valuable input of people who have never been trained as psychiatrists or practiced psychiatry.  There is no reason to expect that any of the worst case scenarios described were rare events or that they are less likely to occur today.   Monoliths don't change.  This is an interesting perspective of course because there is no organization or profession that could withstand this kind of criticism.  It is a unique form of criticism that is only applied to monolithic psychiatry.  It is also interesting because the real monoliths behind the current plight of the mentally ill in this country that I mentioned in the first few paragraphs are completely left out of the picture.

As recorded history would have it, things have changed and they continue to change.  Psychiatrists can treat mental illness successfully across a number of settings and with a number of methods.  It happens on a daily basis and it happens hundreds of thousands of times per day.  It doesn't happen because monolithic psychiatry has a monopoly on the treatment of mental illness or a diagnostic manual.  There are many more primary care physicians and non-psychiatric mental health providers (see supplementary 2).  It happens because the treatment is successful and psychiatrists generally provide patients with the treatment and information that they need.

That is hardly the behavior of a monolith.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



References:

Robert Whitaker.  Mad In America.  Basic Books, New York, 2002.  pp.  161-193.


Supplementary 1:  The graphic at the top is from Shutterstock. 

Supplementary 2:  Psychiatry is dwarfed by the number of other mental health providers including 88,000 Family Practice specialists, 162,400 Internists,  100,000 psychologists and 120,000  Social Workers.  I don't know the number of Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants whose primary role is to prescribe psychotropic drugs, but I will happy to add it if somebody has that information.  Although I am sure that some of the physicians in these primary care groups don't prescribe some psychotropics, I am sure that 80% of all psychotropic medications in the US and most western countries are not prescribed by psychiatrists.  So remind me again, what would Big Pharma get out of controlling monolithic psychiatry with pizza, donuts, and KOLs?

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

I Don't Need Your Vote

Apple’s CEO Tim Cook came up with quote last week and I thought it was a good one:

“I’m not running for office.  I don’t need your vote.  I have to feel myself doing what’s right. If I’m the arbiter of that instead of letting the guy on TV be that or someone who doesn’t know me at all, then I think that’s a much better way to live.”

The original article began with an introduction about how Steve Jobs took a lot of heat and a lot of praise to protect the executives focused on Apple’s business and products.  Observers also note the activities of so-called “activist investors” trying to influence the management of the company into buying back stock for a quick short-term gain.  Cook is clear that he is all about long-term results and he is accountable for those results.  The same logic applies to what I do and have done for the past 30 years.  On the financial message boards there is constant noise with news and analysis of whether the stock price is going up or down.  After watching those trends it is clear that nobody knows the trends and that far fewer people know anything about the technology.  Many of those posts are placed there to manipulate opinion.  The critics don't know Tim Cook and the critics don't know me and clearly seem to have never met the psychiatrists that I know and work with.  Let’s take a look at how the so-called critics of psychiatry compare with the critics that Cook is addressing.  They can be broken down into several classes:

1.  The professional critic – criticism generally takes the form that I have special knowledge that no other psychiatrist has.  That knowledge can vary from the totally absurd (there is no such thing as mental illness or I am the only person to keep psychiatry honest) to more plausible exaggerations (I am the only person who can do this therapy, detect this side effect, prescribe this medication, etc.).  There is some legitimate criticism but it tends to be very rare.  I think the sheer number of internet articles by the same author saying the same thing may be an indication of volume substituting for quality.  The obvious message in many of these articles is that I am unique and everyone else is either ignorant, crooked, or stupid.   There are varying levels of conflict of interest (books, speaking engagements, the hero worship of various hate groups).  These critics are magnets for the haters of psychiatry who see them as modern day heroes and generally ignore the conflict of interest issues that their heroes use to criticize others.

2.  The journalist looking for an angle – the overall bias of journalism against psychiatry is well documented and wide spread.  Looking to sell papers or in these days mouse clicks is an obvious motivator.  In some cases the journalists just jump to books and web sites as sources of revenues and fame.  Even the most charitable interpretation of their work will note the obvious flaws.  Considering the DSM-5 a treatment manual or overestimating the impact of the DSM-5 when in fact most primary care physicians never use it are good examples.   While telling psychiatrists what their problems are when they have completely ignored the biggest stories in mental health for the past three decades that really have nothing to do with psychiatrists.  Those stories are how managed care companies and state and local governments have decimated the care for people with severe mental illnesses and addictions.  They have only recently picked up on stories related to incarcerating the mentally ill and trying to provide them psychiatric services in jail.  Not a stellar job of mental health reporting over the past 30 years.  As in the first category, some rare legitimate criticism exists.   

3.  The injured patient – certainly the treatment of psychiatric patients has the potential to cause injury like any other medical treatment and injuries do occur.  As I have posted several times on this blog, anyone who takes a medication that is FDA approved is at risk for side effects up to and including death.   As I have pointed out here (where you will not see in many other places) – the FDA decision can be purely political rather than scientific.  As a result, any medical or psychiatric treatment should be entered into very cautiously.   I have also posted here (and you will not see this in many places) that nobody wants to take a non-addictive medication and that people are generally hopeful that it will provide relief from a miserable condition.  I do not believe that people take any medications, especially psychiatric medications lightly.  I have outlined my clinical method to minimize side effects and adverse events.  Even with that high level of caution, side effects and adverse events will occur.  There are no shortage of remedies that can be pursued at multiple levels.  Most people resolve the problem immediately with their physician.   In the case where medical organizations are involved there can be direct complaints to the medical administration, hospital authority, or patient advocates.  At the state and licensing level complaints to the state medical boards and in some cases complaints to a mental health ombudsman can be made.  There are obviously malpractice attorneys.  Injuries caused by medical treatment are legitimate reasons for complaints and criticism but at some point I would hope that it would lead to a solution to a real problem.  I would also hope that nobody is compelled to sacrifice their medical confidentiality for the purpose of a complaint.

4.  The severely personality disordered – there is no good way to say it, but there are people who are very hostile to other people.  In many cases they aggregate around psychiatrists because that is where everyone else tends to send them when they cannot be dealt with.  Like any group of people in contact with psychiatrists, the vast majority of people with personality disorders are able to work on their problems in a productive way and do not turn treatment into a series of personal attacks.  But there are also the small fraction that do.  In many cases they target psychiatrists (and others) and their anonymous criticism is frequently irrational, heated and in some cases threatening.  They can attract like-minded people.

5.  The professional critic who is not a psychiatrist.  I posted my earliest experience of an irrational response by an attending physician when he learned that I was going into psychiatry.  In today’s politically correct landscape it would be classified as harassment and abuse.  Practically all of the psychiatrists I know have similar stories.  In fact, I personally have several more.  The unexamined irrational hatred of psychiatrists is just a fact that any psychiatrist has to deal with.  But when I hear a medical professional come up with some blanket statement about psychiatrists that is what it is all about.  I have examined in a previous post the basis for these generalizations.  Most physicians are at least are circumspect about why they did not go into psychiatry.  Most of them tell me they don’t want to deal with lethal violence or deal with the severely personality disordered.  Unless somebody points out this unexamined irrational thought pattern for what it is – it will never be corrected.  See my previous comment about it.  Or as the kids say these days haters be hatin' and leave it at that.

6.  The people who bristle when psychiatrists speak out against irrational criticism or even offer an alternate explanation are an interesting lot.  Some blogs seems to attract a lot of them, but I don’t frequent the more hateful blogs.  They are a self- righteous lot that looks as far as their own information.  They generally ignore any contradictory information and stick to their story or accusations.  They will attempt to bury any psychiatrist pointing that out with righteous indignation and sophistry usually by invoking victimhood  ("Noooo we are not antipsychiatrists – stop calling us that name!"),  hero worship ("You just aren’t as good as the psychiatrists who we agree with!") or the usual appeals to emotion ("It is so pathetic that these psychiatrists are just so (ignorant, evil, etc) and they just can’t accept our “facts”").  You can apparently say anything and really believe it is true.  Just so nobody forgets – it is true that psychiatrists are bogeymen.

Boo!

I am an experienced psychiatrist with 30 years of experience.   I have specialized in treating the toughest problems and the problem of lethal violence and severe mental disorders, often with significant medical comorbidity.  Like a neurosurgeon said to me at a serious point: “You guys treat the toughest problems that nobody else in medicine wants to treat.”  I have treated many more people than are mentioned in “case reports” and at this point in entire clinical trials.  I have as much experience as anyone in the safe and effective treatment of these disorders.  I encourage people to not tolerate side effects, use psychotherapy, and to be comfortable with the idea that I should be able to answer any questions they might have about my assessment or treatment recommendations.  Like all physicians I have much higher levels of accountability than most other professionals.  Like all physicians there is a rare day where I am not being harassed by someone who thinks they know how to do my job better than I do usually because it suits their business interests.  And I am the one with no conflicts of interest.  This is a non-commercial blog.  I have no books to sell.  I have no financial connections to any industry.   I couldn't care less if anybody ever paid me for my opinion.  So it should not be too surprising when I say:

I don’t need your vote.  I know what I am doing and that has been substantiated time after time – tens of thousands of times.  Further, I know how to read research and interpret the findings as opposed to the general lack of scholarship from those who assume they know more about my job than I do.  There are a handful of psychiatric experts that I consider to be authoritative and none of them are the usual media critics.  In fact, some of the media critics aren’t even psychiatrists and it shows.  But the best part is I am no different from my other colleagues that I consult and collaborate with every day.

They don’t need your vote either.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA