Straight Talk About the Government Dismantling Care for Serious Mental Illness

The ShrinkRap blog posted a link to an E. Fuller Torrey and D.J. Jaffe editorial in the National Review about how the government has dismantled mental health care for serious mental illnesses and some of the repercussions.   Since I have been saying the exact same thing for the past 20 years, they will get no argument from me.  Only in the theatre of the absurd that passes for press coverage of mental illness and psychiatry in this country can this subject be ignored and silenced for so long.  It was obviously much more important to see an endless stream of articles trying to make the DSM-5 seem relevant for every man.  The stunning part about the Newtown article is the commentary about what government officials responsible for policy have actually been saying about it.

The authors waste very little time examining the sequence of events in the Obama administration following the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting.  President Obama initially stated he would "make access to mental health care as easy as access to guns." and set up a Task Force under Vice President Biden to make recommendations.  The authors argue that the agency that was consulted, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) promotes a model of treating mental illness that has no proven efficacy, does not discuss serious mental illnesses in its planning document, ignores effective treatments for serious mental illnesses and actually goes so far as to fund programs that block the implementation of effective treatment programs.  In an example of the obstruction of effective programming by SAMHSA funded programs following the Newtown mass shooting:

"But, alas, the situation is even worse. SAMHSA does not merely ignore effective treatments for individuals with severe mental illness. It also funds programs that attempt to undermine the implementation of such treatments at the state and county level. One such program is the Protection and Advocacy program, a $34 million SAMHSA program that was originally implemented to protect patients in mental hospitals from abuse. It was kidnapped by civil-liberties zealots and has been used to block the implementation of assisted outpatient treatment, funding efforts to undermine it in at least 13 states. For example in Connecticut, following the Newtown massacre of schoolchildren, the federally funded Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities testified before a state-legislature working group in opposition to the proposed implementation of a proposed law permitting court-ordered outpatient treatment for individuals with severe mental illness who have been proven dangerous. The law did not pass."  (page 3, par 2.)

In other words, a SAMHSA funded program was opposed to a law in Connecticut that could potentially reduce violence from persons with severe mental illness.

SAMHSA administrators are quoted at times in the article. Any quote can be taken out of context but the characterizations of severe mental illness as "severe emotional distress", "a spiritual experience" and "a coping mechanism and not a disease" reflect a serious lack of knowledge about these disorders.  The idea that "the  covert mission of the mental health system ...is social control" is standard antipsychiatry philosophy from the 1960s.  How is it that after the Decade of the Brain and the new Obama Brain Initiative  we can have a lead federal agency that apparently knows nothing about the treatment of serious mental illnesses?  How is it that apart from  some fairly obscure testimony, no professional organizations have pointed this out?  How is it in an era where governments at all levels seem to demand evidence based care, that a lead agency on mental health promotes treatment that has no evidence basis and ignores the treatment that is evidence based?

Having been a long time advocate for the prevention of violence by the treatment of severe mental illnesses my comments parallel those of the authors.  Inpatient bed capacity in psychiatry has been decimated.  They point out that there are only 5% of the public psychiatry beds available that there were 50 years ago.  It is well known that people with mental illnesses are being incarcerated in record numbers and some of the nation's county jails have become the largest psychiatric institutions.  Where are all of the civil liberties advocates trying to get the mentally ill out of jail?

Only a small portion of the beds available can be used for potentially violent or aggressive patients and that number gets much smaller if a violent act has actually been committed. Most of the bed capacity in this country is under the purview of some type of managed care organization and that reduces the likelihood of adequate assessment or treatment.  The discharge plan in some cases is to just put the patient on a bus to another state.

Community psychiatry is a valuable unmentioned resource in this area.  In most of the individual cases mentioned in this article, the lack of insight into mental illness or anosognosia is prominent.  It is not reasonable to expect that a person with anosognosia will follow up with outpatient appointments or even continue to take a medication that treats their symptoms into remission.  Active treatment in the community by a psychiatrists and a team who knows the patient and their family is the best way to proceed.  All of this active treatment has been cost shifted out of insurance coverage and is subject to budget cuts at the county and state level.

Civil commitment laws and proceedings are probably the weakest link in treatment.  Further cost shifting occurs and violent patients often end up aggregating in the counties with the most resources.  Even while they are there, many courts hear (from a budgetary perspective) that they are committing too many people and the interpretation of the commitment law becomes more liberal until there is an incident that leads to the interpretation tightening up again.  Bureaucrats involved often become libertarians and suggest that commitment can occur only if an actual violent incident has happened rather than the threat of violence.

Although Torrey and Jaffe are using the extreme situation of violence in the seriously mentally ill to make their point, the majority of the seriously mentally ill are not violent.  They need the same resources.  It has been thirty years of systematic discrimination against these people, their families and the doctors trying to treat them that has led to these problems.  I pointed out earlier on this blog the problem I have with SAMHSA and the use of the term "behavioral health".  The problems with SAMHSA and current federal policy are covered in this article and I encourage anyone with an interest to read it.  If history is any indication, I don't expect anything serious to come of the criticism.  I anticipate a lot of rhetorical blow back at Dr. Torrey.  But as a psychiatrist who has worked in these environments for most of my career, his analysis of the problem is right on the mark.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

E. Fuller Torrey & D.J. Jaffe.  After Newtown.  National Review Online.

White House.  Now Is The Time.  The President's plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.  January 16, 2013.

The Myth of the Psychiatrist as Bogeyman

Probably the most annoying aspect of being a real psychiatrist is the constant attacks on the profession.  Psychiatry is unique among medical specialties in that there are a number of philosophies, special interests, critics for profit, and some might say cults out there who generate a constant barrage of criticism of widely varying quality.  There are even attacks from within the field.  Most medical specialists are concerned primarily with patient care, but that is not true for the self appointed critics of psychiatry who like to attack psychiatry at any possible point in time.  In this negative atmosphere - real psychiatrists like me are dedicated to patient care and continue to provide a valued service that has recently been demonstrated to deliver treatment results on par with other medical specialists.  Our reason for existence in the negative environment is the sole fact that we will treat severe problems successfully that nobody else will approach.  Unique psychiatric training allows us to do that.  So how do we explain the incongruence between what real psychiatrists do every day and how they are treated in the media?  It is basically a two step process.

The first step is looking at what is said in the media and what it really means.  When Senator Grassley began investigating psychiatrists and their relationships to the pharmaceutical industry on a selective basis ignoring other medical specialties despite widespread relationships between other specialists and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry what was the real message there?  When the DSM5 is critiqued for being an inaccurate device designed to make as much money for the pharmaceutical industry and organized psychiatry as possible - what is the real message there?  When psychiatric diagnosis is described as being totally arbitrary and lacking validity by people who think that validity has something to do with a laboratory test, what is the real message there?  Let me translate it for you.  It means that psychiatrists are at best totally incompetent and at their worst greedy, dishonest, manipulative, unethical, and interested basically taking money for a worthless diagnostic and treatment exercise that frequently harms people.  In other words perpetrating fraud.  There is really no way to sugar coat it.  If all of the critiques of psychiatry in the media are accurate - that is the only logical conclusion.   If you accept that position psychiatry has been devalued as an essentially worthless medical specialty.

The second critical step is to ignore all of the flaws associated with the rest of medicine.  Let's forget the fact that 30% of patients entering a medical clinic will not get an adequate explanation for their symptoms even after extensive investigation with those gold standard tests.  You know - the tests that mean the diagnosis is "valid".  Let's forget that reliability estimates for medical diagnoses - even using those gold standard tests are no better than the so-called poor reliability estimates of psychiatric diagnoses.  Let's forget the fact that diagnostic and treatment errors in medicine are common.  Let's forget that treatments for medical disorders generally carry a much higher risk of death and complications.  Let's forget the fact that patients with factitious disorders get admitted to general hospitals for extended periods of time and pretend that only psychiatrists can't detect a pseudopatient.  Let's forget the fact that significant numbers of medical diagnoses are routinely made in the same way that psychiatric diagnoses are made.  Let's forget the fact that consensus medical diagnoses by experts are common within all medical specialties.  Let's forget the fact that other specialists work for pharmaceutical and medical device companies.  Let's forget the fact that many specialty organizations have revenues from industries that easily exceed the revenue stream of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).  Let's forget an entire list of imperfections in the practice of medicine and pretend that general medicine is perfect for the sake of comparison with with an imperfect psychiatry.  We have succeeded in overidealizing medicine.

That two step dynamic of devaluing psychiatry on a purely arbitrary basis and idealizing the rest of medicine and choosing not to apply the same criticisms that are used in the case of psychiatry is the recipe for the psychiatric bogeyman that you keep reading about in the papers.

If you really believe that there is a psychiatric bogeyman - I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

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

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

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

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

The Ultimate Antipsychiatry Movie?

Side Effects may qualify as a new level of antipsychiatry film.  I went to see this film last night with a vague notion that it was a thriller with some surprise plot twists and that it may have something to do with psychiatry. I walked out one hour and 46 minutes later with the impression that I had seen an antipsychiatry movie on a grander scale than previously observed. My previous standard was the psychiatrist who happened to be a serial killer and cannibal. The psychiatrists portrayed in this film were not as aggressive but certainly had their fair share of criminal activity, unethical behavior, and boundary violations.  The sheer scope of that behavior was striking.

The plot unfolds as we get to know Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara).  She appears to be depressed and even suicidal at times. This depression occurs in the context of significant life stressors including the incarceration and subsequent release of her husband Martin (Channing Tatum) for securities fraud. There is an overall impression that the couple lost quite a bit of status and financial resources as a result of that problem. We see her struggling at work and eventually intentionally injuring herself. That leads to her initial encounter with Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law).  Dr. Banks initiates treatment with antidepressant medication and Emily seems to be experiencing intolerable side effects from the initial SSRIs.  In the meantime, Dr. Banks is in touch with Emily's previous psychiatrist Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who suggests a new recently approved antidepressant.  Emily takes this new medication and appears to be experiencing even more side effects right up to the point that she kills Martin while she is apparently “sleepwalking” as a medication related side effect.

From the initial perspective, it seemed like a heavy-handed “psychiatrists corrupted by Big Pharma” film until that point. After all Emily seems to be clearly made ill by the drugs and that point is emphasized cinematically by slowing down the entire scene in what seems to be her drug addled perspective.  Her psychiatrist seems indifferent to the problem and the fact that her spouse is getting more angry about the situation.  At one point the representative of a pharmaceutical company offers to pay Dr. Banks a considerable sum of money for doing research on the new antidepressant. There is a suggestion that Dr. Banks is already spread too thin. In that same scene, the representative emphasizes that she can buy psychiatrists meals and they banter about consulting fees.  Dr. Siebert hands Dr. Banks a pharmaceutical company branded pen with the name of the new drug printed on the side.  The sum of the cinematic effect at that point is to suggest that antidepressants are very toxic drugs, psychiatrists inflict more problems on people with these drugs, and that psychiatrists essentially prescribe these drugs because they are pawns for Big Pharma.  Admittedly nothing more than you might read in the Washington Post.

The plot lurched forward at that point to the issue of a not guilty by reason of insanity defense and the interactions of Dr. Banks with his patient even after she was sent away to a forensics facility. There was also considerable emphasis on the interaction between Dr. Banks and Dr. Siebert.  I will try to point out problems that occur along the way without giving away the rest of the plot. The first problem at that point in the movie was both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney suggesting that Dr. Banks should consult for their side. The fact that Dr. Banks has a treatment relationship with Emily makes his consulting with either side a clear conflict of interest, even in a non-criminal matter. He continues to see Emily at the state forensics facility.  At that time he is seeing her only to advance his interests and they no longer have a therapeutic relationship.  He threatens her, essentially blackmails her, and administers a questionable treatment in an unethical manner.  We later learn that Dr. Siebert also has an inappropriate relationship with Emily and has been involved in criminal activity with her.

At one point, Dr. Siebert attempts to ruin Dr. Banks’ professional reputation and relationship with his wife by releasing a letter from a former patient and manipulated photographs of Dr. Banks and Emily. His partners react strongly and fire him from their practice. An investigator from the state medical board seems suspicious of Dr. Banks.  Part of this side plot seems to be the only plausible aspect of this film and only insofar as complaints against physicians and psychiatrists are common and greatly outnumber the incidence of inappropriate physician behavior. The reaction of Dr. Banks’ partners to this material as well as an adverse outcome is overdone.  Any psychiatrist treating people with severe mental illnesses has adverse outcomes.  Most reasonable people agree that an adverse outcome in medicine and psychiatry does not imply either negligence or criminal intent.

I am generally focused on the purely cinematic aspects of any film that portrays psychiatrists. I explained my rationale for this approach in a previous review.  My approach is based on the low likelihood of seeing an accurate cinematic portrayal of a psychiatrist.  I imagine that other professionals have the same experience. The problem with this film is that the actions of psychiatrists are the major part of the plot and it is difficult to focus on the motivations and personalities of the other characters.  The character of Emily is not developed very well and her actions are difficult to understand.  Dr. Banks and Dr. Siebert are certainly much more active but their de novo sociopathy and unethical behavior have no context.  This lack of character development, dominant scenes by psychiatrists, and the implausibility of those scenes makes this a difficult film to watch.

Regarding the entire issue of why I referred to this as an anti-psychiatry movie that is based on the classification from the Oxford Textbook of Philosophy and Psychiatry. It can be found in the footnote to this post (reference 2).  This film is a good illustration of the biomedical psychiatry as political control cliché.  The psychiatrists in this film are unhindered by any legal, ethical, or professional barrier in promoting their own self interests.  Their obnoxious behavior seems on par or worse than the actual crimes that were the focus of the story line and seems to be more than the typical antipsychiatry bias that is expected in the media. 

The psychiatrist as bogeyman is alive and well at the cinema.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

kappa statistic rhetoric

This post was inspired by a post on the Neuroskeptic.  The impression I get from that blog is that the average reader thinks that psychiatrists are a bunch of chuckleheads who know very little and that is probably why they are so ignorant of science.  The Neuroskeptic himself seems to be slighlty more tolerant but like most bloggers he has to stir the pot.  The focus of this post was to take a look at kappa statistics given in the article by Freedman on DSM5 field trials and a graphic supplied by the boringoldman blog and conclude that DSM5 reliabilities were not good, they were not as good as DSM-IV, and thankfully psychiatrists could just ignore the DSM if they wanted to.

On the face of it all this seems like damning criticism.  Is there any defense from the neuroscientific opinion?  It turns out that there is and it comes from two sources.  The first is the common experience that most people have had who have any medical diagnosis in their lifetime.  Were you ever misdiagnosed?  Did you ever get a second opinion and find that the diagnoses by both doctors were so far apart that it was difficult to make a plan to address the problem?  I can give you one of many examples from my lifetime.  When I was a second year medical student I had several incidents of ankle pain.  I was assessed and ended up at an orthopedics clinic.   I had my ankle casted a couple of times, even though I had no history of trauma.  I finally woke up one night with excruciating left ankle pain and went to the emergency department.  I saw orthopedics again and they aspirated the joint.  They also asked my  wife to leave and asked me if I had possibly contracted gonorrhea somewhere.  I was given acetaminophen with codeine and discharged after about 8 hours.  A couple more weeks of pain and I finally got in to see one of the top experts in Rheumatology who finally made the diagnosis of gout.  At that point I had seen 4 or 5 other doctors and none of them had been able to correctly diagnose the cause of my ankle pain.  Calculating a kappa statistic for a comparison between the expert and the previous physicians would have resulted in a very low number.

But the story doesn't end there.  As anyone with gout knows, it has varied presentations including inflammation that often seems to extend outside of the joint.  During my residency training a few years later I had acute right wrist pain.  The internist I saw decided he needed to aspirate my wrist joint and ended up aspirating a piece of the wrist joint into the syringe.  No diagnosis despite this procedure.  I demanded treatment for gout and of course it worked.  Several recurrences of wrist pain have resulted in misdiagnoses of cellulitis.  Keep in mind that I am not testing these doctors.  I am presenting to them and telling them I have gout and I think my wrist pain is an acute gout attack.  They are saying: "Well gout doesn't usually affect the wrist. I think this is cellulitis."  I have walked out of clinics and thrown the prescription for antibiotic away as I walked out the door.  I finally just got a supply of the anti-inflammatory medication that I need and treat these episodes myself rather than risk misdiagnosis by a physician who does not know much about gout.

You could say this is all anecdotal.  I have more anecdotes about how I have been personally misdiagnosed and the anecdotes of an additional thousand people at this time.  I heard Ben Stein say: "At some point the anecdotal becomes the statistical" and this is a good example from medicine.  But what does the literature say about the reliability of diagnoses.  The diagnostic criteria for gout have been around longer than the DSM.  Another frequent criticism of psychiatric diagnosis is that there are no confirmatory tests for the diagnosis.  Numerous confirmatory tests for gout did not prevent misdiagnosis in my case.  

That brings us to the second line of defense - kappa values that are documented in the medical literature.  Let me preface that by saying that compared to psychiatry, there are literally a smattering of kappas from other specialties.  The following table is a sample from this literature search:
  

observation	kappa	reference
Scaphoid bone fractures diagnosed by radiologists	0.51	de Zwart AD, et al.  Interobserver variability among radiologists for diagnosis of scaphoid fractures by computed tomography. J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Nov;37(11
Reproducibility of serrated polyp diagnosis by pathologists	0.38-0.557	Ensari A, et al. Serrated polyps of the colon: how reproducible is their classification? Virchows Arch. 2012 Nov;461(5):495-504. doi: 10.1007/s00428-012-1319-7.
Detection of anomalous origin of coronary arteries by CT	0.65	Jappar IA, et al. Diagnosis of anomalous origin and course of coronary arteries using non-contrast cardiac CT scan and detection features. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012 Sep-Oct;6(5):335-45.
Skeletal muscle CT to idenitify various muscular dystrophies	Overall 0.27 but in some cases 0.51 and 0.59	ten Dam L, et al.  Reliability and accuracy of skeletal muscle imaging in limb-girdle muscular dystrophies. Neurology. 2012 Oct 16;79(16):1716-23.
Criteria standards to diagnose CHF	0.59-0.74	Collins SP, et al. A comparison of criterion standard methods to diagnose acute heart failure. Congest Heart Fail. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):262-71.
Spoke sign for otitis media	0.21 (residents) 0.24 (staff) 0.61 (ENT residents)	Sridhara SK, Brietzke SE. The "Spoke Sign": An Otoscopic Diagnostic Aid for Detecting Otitis Media With Effusion. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Oct 15:1-5.
Pediatric residents diagnosis of otitis media compared to ENT experts	0.3	Steinbach WJ, etal. Pediatric residents' clinical diagnostic accuracy of otitis media. Pediatrics. 2002 Jun;109(6):993-8.
Abnormal cardiac exam during sports screening	0.1 (cardiology fellows) 0 (fellows compared to staff)	O'Connor FG, et al. A pilot study of clinical agreement in cardiovascular preparticipation examinations: how good is the standard of care? Clin J Sport Med. 2005 May;15(3):177-9

What jumps out at you from the table?  The kappas from other specialties are widely variable and certainly no better than criticized values from psychiatry.  The fact that some of these kappas are based on interpretations of more uniform test data (radiology images or pathology specimens) seems to make little difference.

Low interobserver consensus seems to be the rule rather than the exception in medicine.  Psychiatry is the only specialty that openly admits this.  Misdiagnosis is a universal phenomenon and I would argue that it is a basic element in the process of medical diagnosis.  Some have referred to it as the "art" of medicine, but I prefer a more scientific explanation.   From a neurobiological standpoint there is certainly the phenomenon of significant variability between people.  Medicine from the outset has always presented itself to practitioners as a field where rational analysis produces a logical result.  With the degrees of freedom inherent in biological systems that degree of certainty is an illusion at best.   Pretending that psychiatry is less reliable than any other field is an equally problematic illusion, but I guess it makes for good rhetoric.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Freedman R, Lewis DA, Michels R, Pine DS, Schultz SK, Tamminga CA, Gabbard GO, Gau SS, Javitt DC, Oquendo MA, Shrout PE, Vieta E, Yager J. The Initial Field
Trials of DSM-5: New Blooms and Old Thorns. Am J Psychiatry. 2013 Jan
1;170(1):1-5.

Maclure M, Willett WC. Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Aug;126(2):161-9. Review. PubMed PMID: 3300279.

Yoshizawa CN, Le Marchand L. Re: "Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic". Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Nov;128(5):1179-81. PubMed PMID: 3189294.

Singh H, Giardina T, Meyer AD, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings.JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):418-425. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777

Moralizing About Psychiatry and the Limits of Philosophy

This article came to my attention this week from the New York Times blogs.  The author identifies himself as a philosophy professor and scholar who is an expert in French philosophy.  He presents some viewpoints of Foucault and others to criticize the DSM and of course the clinical method in psychiatry.  I will be the first to admit his initial argument is confusing at best and is based on Foucault’s observation: “What we call psychiatric practice is a certain moral tactic….covered over by the myths of positivism.”  Indeed, what psychiatry represents as the “liberation of the mad” (from mental illness) is in fact a “gigantic moral imprisonment.”  In the next sentence the author  acknowledges: "Foucault may well be letting his rhetoric outstrip the truth, but his essential point requires serious consideration."

From my viewpoint whenever an author’s rhetoric outstrips the truth it means that at the bare minimum any observer should be skeptical of the biases involved and these appear to be the common themes that we see from antipsychiatrists.  It does not take the author very long to develop that angle:

“Psychiatric practice does seem to be based on implicit moral assumptions in addition to explicit empirical considerations, and efforts to treat mental illness can be  society’s way of controlling what it views as immoral or otherwise undesirable behavior.”

He gives examples of the previous treatment of homosexuality and women and uses this as a platform for suggesting “….there’s no guarantee that even today psychiatry is free of similarly dubious judgments.”  With no credit given to Spitzer’s role in both the DSM and eliminating homosexuality as a mental illness back in the 1970’s (where is the rest of America on that issue even today?) he latches on to the bereavement exclusion as the latest example of how psychiatrists are trying to dictate how people live and how various nonphysicians are better equipped to decide about whether the bereavement exclusion should be left in place.  Like every other commentator he waxes rhetorical himself using the well worn descriptor “medicalization” and suggesting part of the motivation for these changes is pressure from the pharmaceutical industry.  I recently posted a response to a less well written criticism from the Washington Post that addresses these issues and I would encourage anyone interested in finding out what is really going on to take a look at that post.

The question here is what have Professors Foucault and Gutting missed in their critiques about psychiatry?  It turns out they have missed a lot. The first obvious flaw is the misinterpretation about the role of psychiatric diagnosis and a diagnostic manual for psychiatrists.  The DSM (or any technical diagnostic manual) does not represent a blueprint for living and there is no psychiatrist who has ever made that claim.  This error is promulgated in the media by referring to the DSM as a "bible".  In fact, it is not a bible or blueprint for living.  Psychiatrists more than anyone realize that they are addressing a small spectrum of human behavior with the goal of alleviating suffering and restoring function.  The second flaw is that changing a diagnostic criteria in a DSM has any meaning with regard to treatment and diagnosis.  In the case of bereavement that ignores the fact that only a tiny fraction of patients with complicated bereavement or depression ever come to the attention of a psychiatrist.  Grief is a normal human reaction and everybody knows it.  Taken to an absurd level – if organized psychiatry said that everyone with grief needed to take an antidepressant for the simple fact that “we have special knowledge about how people should live”  we would have no credibility at all.  People everywhere know that grief is common and expected and severe mental illnesses are not.  At that level psychiatry is an extension of the common man’s psychology.  The third flaw has to do with impairment.  A diagnosis can be made only with an impairment dimension.  From DSM-IV:

“In DSM-IV, each of the mental disorders is conceptualized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e. impairment in one or more areas of functioning) or with significantly increased risk of suffering, death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.  In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one.” – DSM-IV

The critics never acknowledge that like all physicians, a psychiatrist’s role is to treat illness and alleviate suffering.  Further, the clinical method in psychiatry is the only specialty training that emphasizes clinical neutrality and recognizing emotional and intellectual biases that impact the physician patient relationship and offers ways to resolve them.  That is hardly a model for forcing value judgments about preferred mental states on people who other physicians are frequently unable to treat because of their own value judgments.

The author also erroneously concludes that it is dangerous to make psychiatrists “privileged judges of what syndromes should be labeled mental illnesses” based on the fact that “they have no special knowledge about how people should live”.   Since psychiatrists do not make that claim, and since various groups including governments and religious institutions have been making these judgments for centuries with very poor results, I would suggest that psychiatry has had some problems – but the progress here is undeniable.  That makes psychiatrists experts in their own field in their own field and the purveyor of their own diagnostic methods and not a claim that people should live in a particular way.  DSM-IV takes pains to point out that it is classification system for syndromes and NOT people.  The DSM is not designed for an untrained person to look at and make a diagnosis or get guidance for living.  It is designed to be a common language for psychiatrists who have all had standardized training.

I would also like to suggest that the same philosophical criteria be seriously applied by philosophers to the pressing problems within the health care system.  The DSM is not even a gnat on that landscape.  We have had nearly 30 years of active discrimination by governments and insurance companies against persons with mental illness.  While much criticism has been heaped on the bereavement exclusion criteria, people with addictions and serious mental illnesses are routinely denied potentially lifesaving interventions.  This discrimination has been well documented and it has fallen disproportionately on the mentally ill.  Jails and prison have become de facto mental hospitals.  People are being treated with addicting drugs on a large scale to the point that many consider opiate use and deaths from overdose to be an epidemic.  Governments save money and pharmaceutical companies and the managed care cartel prosper.  Contrary to the author’s suggestion that “psychiatrists are more than ready to think that just about everyone needs their services” psychiatrists are rare and access is strictly controlled by managed care companies and the government.  Even if a person sees a psychiatrist, their medications, access to psychotherapy, and access to hospital treatment are all dictated by a business entity rather than their doctor.

It would seem that philosophers could find something to critique in that glaringly bleak health care landscape other than a trivial change in the diagnostic manual of a vanishing medical specialty.   If not, I would be very skeptical  of their arguments.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Gary Gutting.  Depression and the Limits of Psychiatry.  New YorkTimes February 6, 2012.

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)

Shorter E.  A History of Psychiatry.  John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997: 302.   

"By the early 1990, DSM-III, or the revised version that appeared in 1987 (DSM-III-R), had been translated into over 20 languages. French psychiatry residents, initially taken with antipsychiatry and the doctrines of Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault, began memorizing the 4 criteria (and 18 possible symptoms) 6 of which must be present for anxiety disorder." (Shorter: p 302) 


Addendum:

I made this interesting discovery several years after the original post (on May 22, 2019). Dr. Gutting has a chapter on Michel Foucault in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and this is very consistent with his flawed analysis of the DSM-5.  Link.

Paradigm Shift or Typical Rhetoric?

"Humanism and science cannot be based on rhetoric and wishful thinking. They require hard work and dedication to both scientific methodology and humanistic concerns."  - Akiskal and McKinney - 1973  


Well I decided to interrupt a post I was working on to respond to more noise about everything that is wrong with psychiatry - at least according to one blogger and an author that he is reviewing.  The basic argument is that there is a push to "remedicalize" psychiatry because of pressure on psychiatrists from non physician providers.  Apparently psychiatrists are an expensive commodity- especially if they really don't know anything.  That argument is so poorly thought out - it is difficult to know where to start.

The medical basis of psychiatry is well recorded starting in European asylums.  At one point German psychiatry was firmly focused on brain studies and Alzheimer, Nissl and others were searching for the neuroanatomical basis of mental illnesses in the late 19th century.  Psychiatrists were the first physicians responsible for the large scale treatment of epilepsy and neurosyphilis.  Whenever a previously intractable condition became more treatable it seems like it was no longer under the purview of psychiatry.

If anything there was a push to demedicalize psychiatry with the advent of Freudian and later therapies - that for the most part were good literary efforts but seem to offer very little in terms of modern treatment apart from a few very broad guideposts. It probably persisted right up to the heyday of biological psychiatry in the US and I would put that sometime in the early 1980s.  A well read friend of mine suggested that when Freud was waiting for a call from the Nobel committee, it probably should have been the committee on Literature rather than Medicine.  Given Freud's subsequent impact on English literature - I think that was a keen observation.  It certainly had little to do with medicine.

The medical basis of psychiatry is well documented and all I have to do is  spin around in my chair and look at the texts I have on my book shelves.

The original work on delirium by Lipowski.  Three editions of Lishman's Organic Psychiatry.  Countless texts on consultation liaison psychiatry, geriatric psychiatry, addiction psychiatry, sleep medicine, psychosomatic medicine, and specialty volumes on Alzheimer's disease and other brain conditions.  Classic chapters in Lahita's Systemic Lupus Erythematosus on the cognitive and psychiatric aspects of SLE.  Every psychiatrist needs to know if there is a medical cause for the psychiatric problem being evaluated, if it is safe to treat a person given their medical comorbidity, and how to assure the medical and psychological safety of that patient they are treating.  That has always included the ability to make common and rare medical diagnoses, interpret physical findings, and interpret test results.  That last sentence is frequently minimized but it requires the ability to recognize patterns and manage information that is on par with any other specialist.

The idea that psychiatry requires "remedicalization" or has been "remedicalized" is another myth of the ill informed, but it does have a basis.  The basis is in how the managed care cartel has taken over and dumbed down the field.  Managed care companies would like nothing more than psychiatrists sitting in offices doing cursory interviews and handing out antidepressants.  Reviewers from managed care companies have essentially disclosed this to me over the years with comments like: "Psychiatrists are not supposed to manage delirum".   My reply:  "That's funny because the Medicine service transferred me this patient as 'medically stable' and with no delirium diagnosis."  Who in the hell else is going to manage delirious bipolar patients with hepatic or renal failure?

Of course I realize that managed care companies really don't care about my patients and in this case it was fairly explicit that they could save the "behavioral health" cost center a lot if they could shame me into transferring the patient back to Medicine.  My response was basically - you convince them to accept the patient and I will transfer them back.  It never happened.

The only "paradigm shift" required here is to let psychiatrists practice medicine at the level they are competent to provide, rather than rationing their services.  The quality of care will dramatically improve and that includes associated medical care and diagnoses determined based on the ability of psychiatrists to communicate with patients.  What is probably difficult to accept by the "paradigm shifters" no matter who they may be is that psychiatry is a difficult field.  You do have to know plenty of medicine and like all other medical specialties you need to know the theory.  When I trained in in medical school there was plenty of theory that we had to learn that never made it into mainstream practice.  Much of the neuroscience and genetics that applies to psychiatry already exceeds the applicability of what I was taught about theophylline in medical school.

The most difficult part about psychiatry is that you always have to be patient centered and know how to talk to people.  That falls flat if you don't have the expertise to recognize all of their their illnesses and help them get better.  The only real crisis in psychiatry is that it is being starved into non existence by the government and managed care companies.  They don't care what psychiatrists know and what they can do.  They don't want you to see one.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Akiskal HS, McKinney WT Jr.  Psychiatry and pseudopsychiatry.  Arch GenPsychiatry 1973 Mar;28(3):367-73.

The diagnosis of anosognosia

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

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

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

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

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA.

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

E. Fuller Torrey on the New Anti-biological Antipsychiatry

This post by E. Fuller Torrey was noted on another blog especially the phrase "the new anti-biological antipsychiatry".  Torrey explains anosognosia both as a biological phenomenon and why it may be "deeply disturbing" to the new antipsychiatrists.  Basically it represents the difference between social behavior based on choice versus social behavior based on brain damage.  The former  might be a civil rights issue but the latter is a medical problem that benefits from identification, study, and treatment.  Torrey is also clear about the consequences of no treatment, facts that the antipsychiatrists conveniently often leave out of their arguments or more conveniently blame on treatment.

There is a lot of technical information apart from the data on anosognosia that is ignored by the new anti-biological antipsychiatry.  There are studies on the prefrontal cortex that go back for decades and the implications for social behavior and the neurobiology of everything from addiction to dementia.

Here is a link to the original blog post by Duncan Double entitled: "E. Fuller Torrey attacks 'The new antipsychiatry.'"  Defending against attacks by the new antipsychiatry is more like it.  Dr. Double laments the fact that at times he is seen as an antipsychiatrist, even though he essentially maintains many of the positions of mainstream antipsychiatry.   He includes a variation of the old antipsychiatry argument that if you don't have a specific test for a disease - the disease does not exist.  That opinion fails to take into account studies about what is or is not a disease as well as a massive literature of biological psychiatry.  It also fails to take into account the fact that these arguments are political in nature and have very little to do with science.

A good example is the chemical imbalance red herring.  Any psychiatrist trained since the 1970s is aware of the complex neurobiology of human behavior.  I can recall reading Axelrod's paper in Science over 30 years ago.  Since then there have been eight editions of The Biochemical Basis of Neuropharmacology and five editions of the ACNP text Neuropsychopharmacology.  Since then a psychiatrist has won the Noble Prize for contributions in neuroplasticity and wrote a seminal article on neuroplasticity and learning in psychotherapy.  That is apparently ignored by the anti-biological antipsychiatry crowd and those who would characterize the field as prescribers versus therapists.  The Internet is currently full of diagrams of cell signalling pathways with the associated proteins and genetics.  The idea that chemical imbalance reflects some central central theory of biological psychiatry or represents anything beyond pharmaceutical company marketing hype reflects a gross misunderstanding of the field.

Any psychiatrist who tries to respond to these crude arguments is at a disadvantage for a couple of reasons.  It is certainly seems true that the antipsychiatrists political stance is really not conducive to scientific discourse.  Suggesting that the appearance of conflict of interest invalidates psychiatry is an obvious example.  Discounting the amassed research on the neurobiology of mental illness is another.  A political argument is well outside the scope of hypothesis generation and testing.  Dismissing the science by attributing it to the "worldview" of a single person is consistent with that political approach.  

"Doctors don't label"

In a rare statement of clarity amid the usual sensational spin this comment jumped out at me:

"Doctors don't label...Doctors diagnose, take care of, and treat.  That's not to say that something cannot be stigmatizing, but 'labeling' kind of gets right into the antipsychiatry component of it."  William T. Carpenter, MD  - Clinical Psychiatry News September 2012; p 3.

Dr. Carpenter is right and every psychiatrist knows it.  Psychiatrists don't label.  Psychiatrists diagnose.  Psychiatrists are very aware of the limitations of diagnosis given the the sociocultural and medical  contexts.  The psychiatric orientation is to be helpful to patients and the diagnosis is the focus of that treatment.  Furthermore, all psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is supposed to be confidential and there is no group of physicians who has tried to hold the line more against government and insurance companies eroding patient-physician confidentiality than psychiatrists. 

A significant part of this article about the content of a letter from the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32 of the American Psychological Association).  Read the letter and draw your own conclusions.  The points of contention listed in the letter have been exposed in several other media contexts.  As I read through the letter there are several problems:

"This document was composed in recognition of, and with sensitivity to, the longstanding and congenial relationship between American psychologists and our psychiatrist colleagues."

I don't think that this is an accurate statement.  When I started out in psychiatry and was in my third year of residency the American Psychological Association decided to get more aggressive politically and their target was basically American psychiatry.   I won't rehash all of that ugliness but simply point out that things were far from congenial and in many areas remain problematic.   Much of those political efforts were based on the idea that organized psychiatry had an inordinate amount of control  over the treatment of mental illness.  Any observer - biased or unbiased should recognize that psychiatrists and physicians in general have been marginalized and the American Psychiatric Association is politically ineffective and weak.  Of course any other group of mental health providers is in the same boat. 

"Given lack of consensus as to the “primary” causes of mental distress, this proposed change may result in the labeling of sociopolitical deviance as mental disorder."

This is a comment on the new DSM5 definition of a mental illness, specifically that the new definition does not explicitly say that deviant behavior and conflicts with society are not mental disorders.  The current version states that these conflicts need to be the result of dysfunction within the individual.  It is hard for me to see a situation where this is relevant to the practice of psychiatry.  Is there really a case where I am going to diagnose a person in this situation with a mental disorder?  Definitely not and the reason is that I have been confronted with the situation many times before and pointed out that the conflict was not the product of a mental illness.  The authors here have focused primarily  on a lower threshold for diagnosis and how they are not confident about the clinical decision making skills of practitioners - but do not comment on the threshold part of the definition.  

"Increasing the number of people who qualify for a diagnosis may lead to excessive medicalization and stigmatization of transitive, even normative distress."

The risk of "medicalization" needs to be considered for a moment.  What is "medicalization"?  The implication of this letter at a practical level is that it involves an excessive use of medications.  Suspending the poor quality of many of those studies for a moment, what is the real driver of medication use in today's practice environment?  The minority of people taking any kind of psychiatric medication see psychiatrists.  The managed care industry and the government are clearly the driving force.  Current "evidence based" approaches are linked directly to medication use.  A checklist diagnosis and rating scale approach has been used to rapidly treat patients with antidepressants in primary care settings.  That approach alone has easily outpaced any DSM5 modifications.  Direct to consumer drug advertising compounds the issue of getting as many people on medications as possible.  You don't even have to read the DSM5 to see that medicalization has little to do with medical doctors.  In fact, managed care companies would clearly like to replace as many doctors as possible with "prescribers" who can fill prescriptions according to these protocols.  The pharmaceutical and managed care industries are far more interested in distilling psychiatric treatment down to a pill or a capsule than psychiatrists are.

The associated idea that psychiatrists may be the initiators of this medicalization or at least collude with it ignores psychiatric innovation that does not involve the prescription of medications.  On this blog alone, I have posted excellent examples of work done by Greist and Gunderson on innovative and highly successful non medication approaches to significant problems.  Dr. Greist's ideas have been presented to a wide audience that includes pharmaceutical companies.  His ideas about how to make effective psychotherapy widely available have been successfully applied in other countries.  Ignoring psychiatric innovation outside  of psychopharmacology is a curious phenomena, but it definitely makes it easier to see psychiatrists as the "medicalizers".  I am sure that both Greist and Gunderson would not see medications as the primary treatment for anxiety disorders or borderline personality disorder.

Once again, the focus on problems in the DSM5 leading to medicalization and stigmatization is clearly overemphasized.  There is no group of people more aware of the limitations of the current diagnostic system than psychiatrists.  There is no group of people better equipped to compensate for these deficiencies.  There is no group of people more aware of the stigma of mental illness and addiction.  Psychiatrists have a unique perspective in observing first hand how health care systems institutionalize stigma and use it to reduce the resources dedicated to treat these problems.  There should be no doubt that the DSM5 is being produced in what is considered the best interest of the American Psychiatric Association.  There should also be no doubt that the critiques of the process have their own interests and their opinions should be evaluated in that context.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Medscape Has Not Stopped Anonymous Postings

I had to put this comment here because my attempt to post it on the Psychiatric Times was unsuccessful.  I tried to put this comment in response to an article by Ronald W. Pies, MD on anonymous posters that are abusive and in some cases threatening.  He discusses situations where psychiatrists who are not anonymous are subjected to these tactics by anonymous posters.  He  goes on to say:

"It was therefore with great satisfaction that I learned of a new (6/27/12) policy on the popular medical Web site, Medscape; ie"we have removed the ability to post comments anonymously in our physician-only discussion forum, Medscape Connect, and in all Medscape blogs."

I am familiar with the discussion area on Medscape for quite a long time.  There are anonymous posters there who are somewhat disagreeable.  There are anonymous posters there who clearly have a lot of time on their hands.  There are posters there whose main goal is to denigrate psychiatry and psychiatrists.  Interestingly posts against psychiatrists and psychiatry have never been censored, no matter how off the wall they are.  One psychiatrist fighting back, made several posts that were pulled.  The abusive anonymous posters there usually fall back on "freedom of speech" as their right to say whatever they want about psychiatry.  As far as I know only a psychiatrist was ever censored in that forum - but in that case an entire series of posts was pulled.

I have always advocated for physicians posting under their own name in any Internet discussion by physicians.  When that does not happen there is always a predictable amount of rhetoric and name calling.  At times the posts on Medscape were at such a level it was difficult to believe that they were made by physicians.  Of all the specialty discussion boards on Medscape, it is probably no surprise that psychiatry was the only specialty under attack.

The problem currently is that despite their advertised policy, posting on Medscape's physician discussion forums really have not changed.  I just looked at the forum and anonymous posting is alive and well.  Bashing psychiatry is alive and well.

Old antipsychiatry habits die hard.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Ronald W. Pies, MD.  Is it time to stop anonymous (and abusive) posting on the Internet?  Psychiatric Times; August 16, 2012.