Social Media Discovers Managed Care and Rages - Or Not?

I watched TMZ last night and they were fascinated about the homicide of Brian Thompson the CEO of United Healthcare in New York City the night before.  The hosts could not approach that topic directly so they brought on Taylor Lorenz who they described as a social media expert.  She made some posts about healthcare companies.  She claims that the “entire internet left and right” was united in celebrating the death of this CEO because “Somebody stood up to this barbaric, evil, cruel violent system.”  Her rational is that if you see a loved one die because an insurance company denied care it is natural to want to see that person dead and this is not advocating homicide. It is a justice fantasy.  She went on to say that United Healthcare has murdered tens of thousands of Americans by denying healthcare.  She sees this as a revolution and it is a problem that should be addressed without violence.  She suggests letter writing and possibly politicians and journalists getting a clue and seeking to correct this imbalance. 

I have been aware of United Healthcare for at least 30 years.  They are renowned in Minnesota for their initial emphasis on not funding psychiatric care and moving on from there.  Physicians like me have been railing against United Healthcare and other managed care companies for decades.  And nobody - and I mean nobody cares. No politicians, nobody in the media, and nobody in physician professional organizations.  There has been an occasional activist state Attorney General suing these companies into a temporary correction that they can easily wait out.   The American Medical Association just recently came out against prior authorization one of the main forms of managed care denial – just a few years ago.  It has been in place along with utilization review – the other main form of denial for at least 40 years.

These business practices have transformed the practice of medicine into a high productivity and low-quality enterprise where medical judgment is replaced by the judgment of middle managers with no medical training and company profit in mind. Physicians have been displaced in their roles in managing the treatment environment and now it is staffed by business people concerned only about the bottom line. If a company decides it is not going to cover a medication or a procedure or a hospitalization – the general message to the patient is “you are out of luck.”  I worked at the same hospital for 22 years and during that time we went from providing care to anyone who walked in the door to care based on businesses telling us what to do.  At one point to make things less contentious (and after we were bought out by a managed care company) – the external review was replaced by the same kind of decisions made by internal staff.  Some physicians became "managed care friendly" in order to move up the corporate ladder.

How did these organizations get so much power over healthcare?  A lot of it depended on lying to gullible politicians.  The original sales job was that physicians were just too expensive.  They order too many tests.  They were going to close down or buy out the expensive specialists and greatly expand primary care.  That primary care expansion would lead to more prevention and reduce the overall costs of medicine. But once these organizations were granted all the power they wanted, they began acquiring specialists and providing their own specialty care.  They also greatly expanded middle management to micromanage staff and basically tell them to work harder.  The result is a system that is much more expensive rather than more cost effective.  Shareholder profits and CEO salaries require a lot of denied care to fund.  This article about the company is an indication of the amount of money that we are discussing. We are talking about executives that are making tens of millions of dollars in an organization that rations health care.

Of course, people are angry about the situation of rationed health care. But it is more about how things are organized and all the associated politics. I think we can all agree that there do not seem to be many bright politicians out there and that low bar took an even more precipitous drop in the last election. Even managed care companies know more than to ration vaccines or give everyone hydroxychloroquine for COVID.

 Politicians have invented this system at every step of the way and made it impossible for the average citizen to get any satisfaction when their health care is denied. Federal and state governments both side with healthcare companies to support the denial of care and (incredibly) indemnify them from liability when their denials result in bad outcomes.  Death is just one of many bad outcomes. 

The press does not get it. I am tired of writing about it for physicians.  The only bright idea that group seems to have come up with is not contracting with these companies and either charging cash or asking the patient to seek their own insurance reimbursement after paying their bill. This obviously has limited application and doesn't work if the patient needs more resources like operating rooms or rehab facilities.  So - Ms. Lorenz’s solution of writing letters certainly will not work.

Some news services seemed to connect a policy reversal by Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield (ABCBS) to the homicide. Some of the original stories claimed that anesthesia time per procedure would be limited and the patient might need to pay the balance. Subsequent stories state that the insurance company planned to pay the time allotment indicated in the estimated relative value units (RVUs) for the surgery.  They claim their reversal was based on misinformation. RVUs are another form of rationing – paying only a set amount irrespective of the complexity of the case.  It is another way that psychiatric services were also rationed by reduced reimbursement.  In some cases, it leads clinics to stop seeing all the patients from a particular insurer based on low reimbursement to the physicians and providers.  Lorenz posted a caption of the ABBCBS story with the additional line:  ‘And people wonder why we want these execs dead.'     

This is the state of medicine in the US today. We have just had an election that puts the most rational parts of the fragmented healthcare system (the ACA or Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid) at risk.  The party in power espouses gun extremism and uses political tactics that direct violence and aggression toward specific individuals or groups. The party in power favors the top wage earners rather than production or knowledge workers. That includes large healthcare conglomerates that all function by rationing care and access to medications and procedures. And in that context, we have a social media expert claiming that we now have bipartisan rage against these health care companies who have murdered tens of thousands of people by denying their care.  I certainly know many people who have been harmed by the denial of care.  In some cases, I spent hours advocating for them and trying to get the care they needed but I was simply ignored.   

At this point, the crime is being analyzed like it is just another true crime TV show. Endless analysis about the perpetrator’s behavior and possible motivations.  It is all highly speculative but made as controversial as possible.  All the analyses I have seen so far seem way off the mark – but I am not going to add mine at this point.  I am more than a little suspect about all the social media rage. Is it real or just generated by a few provocative trolls?  Will it lead to a typical Congressional show hearing where members manufacture outrage and nothing changes. One thing is for sure – the current state of events is not a good sign.  It is a sign of just how corrupt, ignorant, and not self-correcting the American political system is - and just how much those politicians collude with businesses.

In the end, Americans end up paying top dollar for a healthcare system that may refuse to treat them, an airline system that may refuse to fly them, a financial system with excessive charges and minimal interest payments on savings, and a system for workers that disproportionately pays the people who do not do any of the brain or physical work.  Is it any wonder that 4 people in the US possess more wealth than 50% and that 50% are essentially left hoping for changes that never come.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

Jeremy Olsen.  Shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO revives criticism of company’s medical claim denials.  Some mourn the shooting of chief executive but still have scorn for the insurance company he ran.  StarTribune.  December 5, 2024.  https://www.startribune.com/why-unitedhealthcare-is-a-four-letter-word-to-critics/601191492

 

Addendum:

As any reader of this blog can attest – I do not consider homicide as a solution to any problem.  The two main features of homicide that I consistently observe on this blog is homicide as a primitive value and a primitive solution.  It has no place in civil society.  In the anthropological literature homicide as a solution dates to prehistoric times when minor conflicts escalated from individuals to entire villages.  Modern man has not uniformly progressed very far as evidenced by every active war in the world right now and ever.  The shooting of Brian Thompson is no exception. Given everything, I have listed in the above post – it changes nothing.  It was a cowardly, immoral act, and unlawful act. I hope that the perpetrator is caught and punished.  I hope that the privacy of Brian Thompson’s family is respected.  

Another Note on Gun Extremism - An Appeal to Grandparents

 

I cannot let this latest incident slide by. A colleague posted this article yesterday about a 6-year-old boy who shot a teacher during an altercation inside of a Virginia school. At the time I am typing this the teacher was listed in critical condition. The way this incident is reported is bizarre for a guy whose K-12 years were 1956 to 1969. It has nothing to do with banning guns – but it has everything to do with gun extremism to the point that people get casual about guns. They either forget that children and young adults do not have the necessary judgment to responsibly handle guns or the adults themselves do not exercise adequate judgment and either allow their children to have access to guns or do not secure them at home. Using firearms to settle trivial or inappropriate disputes is a clear example of a lapse in judgement.

Let me paint the picture about what it was like in the 1950s and 1960s before we were deluged with gun demagogues. Many families in the remote area where I was raised hunted for food or sport. The hunting included deer, rabbits, ducks, geese, pheasants, and partridge.  I don’t have any statistics but if I had to speculate – the hunting families were in the minority.  Most families that did not hunt and had no firearms on the premises. The only exception might be World War II veterans with souvenir weapons – mostly not maintained and unloaded.  If you had friends from hunting families and there was a chance that you might go hunting or target shooting with them – you had to take an NRA (National Rifle Association) Hunter’s Safety course. Most people took that course when they were in middle school.  It was taught by a middle-aged guy I knew from church.  He presented the course in a very calm matter-of-fact manner and clearly outlined all of the dangers of firearms.  I recall anecdotes about people being accidentally shot at home and injuries from the wrong ammunition being used in the wrong gun.  Rule number 1 was "never point a gun at anybody - even if you think it is not loaded."  We all fired air rifles and .22 caliber rifles at indoor ranges in his basement and at a larger range in the basement of a retail store downtown.  All guns had to be pointed downrange at all times away from the shooters.  Nobody fired a handgun, because you had to be 21 years of age to do that and we were all 12 or 13.

There were no political or marketing movements focused on firearms at the time.  We had to be NRA members to take the course. As long as you were an NRA member you got a monthly copy of their publication the American Rifleman.  The centerfold for that magazine was a long list of “sporterized” military rifles that could be purchased at a low price. I recall many days pouring over that list and thinking about what kind of rifle I would buy when I was old enough.  I never did buy that rifle.

The other incentives to stay engaged with the gun community was getting ratings based on your marksmanship. If you could demonstrate certain scores on targets you would qualify for small military style medals saying that you were an Expert or Distinguished Marksman. Like most skills, it took a little practice (but not that much) to become proficient in shooting. Contrary to some stories that you read today about hunters and school – nobody ever brought a gun to school. There were no Second Amendment discussions and no suggestion that the training had to do with militias. The result was that there was a small group of middle school kids who had taken a safety course focused on handling firearms while hunting.

That did not mean there were no firearm related deaths in my small community. During those early school years there were 2 suicides and a hunting accident, all involving kids who I knew.  Firearms are never completely safe even with limited access and training.

Back to the article – let me examine two direct quotes starting with:

“Experts said a school shooting involving a 6-year-old is extremely rare, although not unheard of, while Virginia law limits the ways in which a child that age can be punished for such a crime.”

Extremely rare but not unheard of is quite an introduction.  Within the space of 2 generations, we have gone from unheard of to rare but not unheard of. Without being an expert on Virginia law my speculation is that any legal decision about culpability and punishment is based on the capacity of a child to formulate a plan and rationally decide to shoot someone.  The irony here is that you can watch true crime television and see the same problem in all of the 20+ year old men who impulsively commit gun homicide. There are no reasons for these homicides.  They all seem to occur during trivial arguments where somebody gets angry and starts shooting.  The problem, is depending on the judgement of children and immature adults and the solution is not providing them access to firearms.

“Today our students got a lesson in gun violence,” said George Parker III, Newport News schools superintendent, “and what guns can do to disrupt, not only an educational environment, but also a family, a community.”

Unfortunately – the students did not need this “lesson”. From the description they were all traumatized and school shootings are so common in the US, that they are continuously exposed to it. I would not be shocked to learn that many of the students and parents involved had been worrying about an event like this for a long time. The people who ignore this “lesson in gun violence” are all adults.  Many of them are in positions where they could make a difference but consistently fail to do so – or even make decisions that increase the likelihood of future incidents. In the case of politicians, you share responsibility by voting for gun extremists.

As a country are we so oblivious to gun extremism and gun violence that we continue to allow a political party and a politicized gun organization to compromise the safety of school children and teachers? My appeal today is to the grandparents out there – people of my generation. If you remember what the gun atmosphere was like when you were a kid – compare it to what is going on right now.  Were there kids in your first grade class getting into altercations with teachers?  Was there gunfire in primary school?  Do you recall routinely hearing about primary and high school students being shot and killed?  Were there military style high capacity firearms widely available?  Were there armed militias wearing body armor standing outside of your state capitol?  Did the musicians you listen to endorse a lifestyle that involved gun violence to settle minor disputes? Were there people suggesting that you needed to carry a gun around with you at all times for protection? Could you pick up a gun and carry it around with no training and/or no permit?  If you are a person of my generation - the answer to these questions is no.

That is the country we have become. And it is all due to one political party, their politicized allies in the community, and their judges in the Supreme Court drastically changing gun access and attitudes about firearms in the community.  Nobody is safe with these people in power. 

Be a single issue voter and vote the gun extremists out.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  Update on the incident that initiated this post.  Reports in the press today (1/9/2023) say the teacher was intentionally shot with a 9 mm handgun that the 6 year old took from his mother. There are conflicting reports that the teacher was trying to disarm the student when the shooting occurred.  She was shot though the hand and into the chest. She assured the safety of the rest of the students before seeking help for herself. The status of the handgun while all of that happened is unclear. She was reported as being in stable condition in a hospital.  The school is closed to give "students and families time to heal."

Supplementary 2:

Based on an initial response to this post let me be clear about the way to reign in gun fanaticism in the US.  To my knowledge no responsible person has ever suggested "grabbing guns" or "coming for your guns".  There are too many firearms in the United States for that or for gun "buy backs" to ever be practical. The gun grab argument was basically invented to create gun extremism.  Nobody was worried about it in the 1970s.

We are stuck with widespread gun availability and we need to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to do the most damage.  Unfortunately that means a majority of people who would not fail either background checks or red flag laws. They are also probably more susceptible to the impulsive use of firearms not just for gun homicides but also gun suicides.  A good starting point would be:

1.  Universal background check - no state to state loopholes or private sale loopholes.

2.  Red flag laws - already incorporated broadly in the FBI NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database.  That would include people adjudicated by a court as being at high risk of harming themselves or others if they had firearms.  Red flag laws should depend only on a direct or indirect threat to harm with a firearm. Since there is a very serious bomb hoax statute - an actual threat to an individual or a facility should be taken at least as seriously.  The standard should ne a threat to use a firearm and not having to provide the likelihood or using the firearm or potential dangerousness of the person making the threat.

3.  People with substance abuse disorders or mental illnesses at high risk for violence to self or others.  That should include a permanent ban on firearm acquisition where determined by a court.

4.  People with a history of actual violence to self or others. 

5.  Additional factors per the NICS system.

6.  Serious discussion is needed about the permit less system that is now in place in many states. A practical law would be to prohibit assault weapon sales, high capacity magazine sales, and increase the age for handgun purchases to 25+.  But now that there has been a lifting of the moratorium on gun violence research the research on gun violence in this age group and what kind of firearm is being used will make these conclusions obvious.  

7.  Stop encouraging legal gun violence. Stand your ground laws, permit less carry, and widespread access make guns available for dispute resolutions that do not require lethal violence. 

8:  Waiting periods for gun purchases. I have had too many people tell me that a waiting period saved them when they had transient thoughts of self harm.

Supplementary 3:  The easy access to firearms by everybody who want them is based on many false premises.  Here are a few:

1.  Do you really want everybody on the street to carry a firearm? Or do you only want a few special people to be carrying these firearms?   The assumptions here are obvious.  Only the good guys or maybe the masculine guys should be carrying guns. How do we determine who those people are?  Is it sex or gender based?  Or maybe it should depend on race?  Is there a box you can tick to just get a gun. Maybe this is why the gun extremists eliminated all of the boxes.  Thinking through that problem is just too hard.

2.  Maybe the gun extremists really mean that everyone should carry a gun. In that scenario it is fairly predictable that more and more minor disputes and arguments will be settled by gun violence. We have seen that happen in many national cases already and it obviously happens on true crime TV.  Even the Sheriffs in western towns in the 19th century saw this as a problem and had people coming into towns check their guns. (see Tombstone statute from 1851)

3.  There is an assumption that gun owners, especially concealed carry owners are supermen (or superwomen) who never make a fatal mistake with a gun, never get in an argument where they might threaten somebody with a gun, know where their gun is at all times, and never accidentally shoot themselves. We know from the data that none of that is true and we can see recordings of real time incidents on television that illustrate this fact including the news report that lead to this post.

References:

1:  Finley B, Barakat M. Police: 6-year-old shoots teacher in Virginia classroom.  Associated Press.  Fri, January 6, 2023 at 2:20 PM CST  Link

2:  American Progress.  Fact Sheet: Weakening Requirements to Carry a Concealed Firearm Increases Violent Crime.  October 4, 2022. Link

Graphics Credit:

Photo of the Polychrome Mountains that I shot in Alaska.

The Real Lesson of the George Zimmerman Trial

The latest reality based media event has been the George Zimmerman trial.  Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin and most media outlets have reviewed the details of the case including courtroom reenactments of the physical confrontation that resulted in the shooting.  The secondary story is how the public will react to a verdict.  A tertiary story that is building at this time is media criticism - has the media gone to far and should there be cameras in the courtroom?

My point is not to reconstruct the arguments of case but to speculate about how unnecessary violent confrontations may occur in the first place.  They do occur frequently and the majority of those confrontations are not covered by the press.  You might read about them in your local newspaper or if you are a health professional you have probably encountered the victims or the combatants.  In my experience, the level of violence and the resulting injuries are always surprising.  People are punched in the face or head and die instantly.  People are struck or pushed and strike their heads on the way to the ground and die.  People are severely beaten on the street for either a trivial reason or the victims of gang violence and die or sustain disabling injuries.  Weapons are used against friends and family.  It is as if people think that you can engage in Hollywood style mayhem and in the end only the bad guys suffer.  The idea that the human body, especially the brain is extremely vulnerable and needs to be protected seems to be suspended.  But that in itself is not the root cause of the problem.

Violence and aggression as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict has been with the human race since prehistoric times.  I have found that Keeley offers the best historical account and analysis at the level of conflicting villages, city-states, and nations.  His original intent was to dispel the notion of the noble savage or the peaceful prehistoric man living in an idyllic situation.  He ends up showing that warfare has been a remarkably constant feature across time.    From his text:

"According to the most extreme views, war is an inherent feature of human existence, a constant curse of all social life, or (in guise of a real war) a perversion of human sociability created by the centralized political structures of states and civilizations.  In fact, cross cultural research on warfare has established that although some societies that did not engage in war or did so extremely rarely, the overwhelming majority of known societies (90-95%) have been involved in this activity." (p 27-28)

In reviewing some of the smaller pacifist pastoral societies,  Keeley cites their low population density as well as their strong moral distaste for violence (p 31) as a likely reason that the Semai could return to a peaceful existence after being recruited by the British to fight against Communist insurgents in the 1950s.  In his chapter "Crying Havoc-The Question of Causes", Keeley takes a fairly detailed look at how war starts as a combination of psychological and political factors starting off with a conflict between two villages where one village owed the other village a debt.  He demonstrates how that that conflict escalates to the point of violence and death for several reasons.  He cites prestige, theft,  adultery, and poaching as common reasons for conflicts with aggression resulting in death.  He concludes that the specific information from an archaeological standpoint is generally difficult to discern and considers broader contexts.

I think the implicit strength of Keeley's work is that he does have a lot of information on warfare and conflict in small and large societies and through all of that information the common thread is that humans resort to violence as a way to resolve conflict, even in situations that are relatively trivial and could easily be resolved by other means.  I  have made that observation repeatedly in clinical situations and the only exceptions are where the violence is driven by a psychiatric disorder.  It is also obvious that learning other strategies can definitely occur often times for the worst possible reasons.  An example is an aggressive man with antisocial personality disorder who typically gets what he wants by threatening or harming people.  If he survives long enough, he may get to the point where that is a losing tactic and he becomes less aggressive with age.  A more common example is the case of people referred to anger control groups through their contact with law enforcement or the courts.  Many find that the strategies they learn in these groups are very effective.

So what is the real lesson in this case?  The real lesson is that this violent confrontation did not need to occur.  All of the energy being expended in the debate about who was the victim and whether or not legal penalties should be assigned misses that point.  It should be fairly obvious that each side can construct a detailed narrative of what happened and how that should affect the outcome.  My courtroom experience has left me with the impression that it is possible that neither narrative is an entirely accurate representation of what happened.  Who would want their future decided by those circumstances?

All of the sensational coverage by the press misses even more widely.   Solving conflicts between people by aggression and homicide is a strategy of primitive man.  It arose out of a time before there was a legal system or designated police.  It came from a time where there was no recognition that every person is unique and society may be less if that unique person is lost.  Until there is the realization that violent confrontations are a toxic byproduct of of our prehistoric ancestors and that they are no longer necessary - there will continue to be unnecessary tragedies.  Society is currently complex and aggression will never be a final solution.  Coming up with better solutions at this point is the next logical step.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Lawrence H. Keeley. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, 1997

Homicide Debate Goes Further Off the Rails

Apparently broadcast news is about as reliable as the Internet these days.  I was watching an "expert" on the weekend discuss the connection between homicide and antidepressant medications.  He apparently believed that there was one.  I understand that Sanjay Gupta made a similar comment today on CNN.  The misinformation is flying out there.  There are several political interests that would like that statement to be true and they appear to be out in full force. What is the short answer to the association between antidepressants and homicide?  Who can you believe?

Well there is always the scientific approach and a review of the medical literature.  Admittedly the literature is a lot drier and less entertaining than Dr. Gupta.

There is also simple arithmetic   The American media like to give the impression that violent crime and homicide are at epidemic levels.  It is always a shock when people discover that in fact we are at a 30 year low:

The homicide rate has actually declined from 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980 to 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009.  What are the odds of that happening if a major new cause of homicide is being added at the same time (namely antidepressants).  How does that compare with antidepressant use?  A recent study estimated that from 1996 to 2005, the number of Americans older than 6 years of age in surveyed households who received at least one antidepressant in the year studies increased from 5.84% in 1996 to 10.12% in 2005.  From the table there was a 24% reduction in the homicide rate during a time that antidepressant use nearly doubled.  One in ten Americans received an antidepressant prescription   The authors of this study noted this trend was broad based and correlated with a lower percentage of people receiving psychotherapy.

But what does that tell us about the observation that antidepressants cause homicide?  Technically there is no current way to demonstrate causality from a negative correlation between homicide rates and the rate of people taking antidepressants.  A large scale significant negative correlation between antidepressant use and lethal violence over a 15 year period has already been reported in the Netherlands.

What about the commentator suggesting that the toxicology of homicide perpetrators shows that they can have psychiatric drugs present that explain their homicidal behavior.  In fact, a study looking at that issue showed that 2.4% of 127 murder-suicide perpetrators had toxicology that was positive for antidepressants.  That is a lower than expected rate of antidepressant use than in the general population.   In a study of elderly spousal homicide-suicide perpetrators, depression was seen as an antecedent to this act but none of the perpetrators tested positive for antidepressants.

Given these observations any claim that antidepressant or any psychiatric drug causes homicidal behavior needs to be backed up with some hard data.  I don't mean a series of cases reported by somebody to make a point and I don't mean a legal decision where lawyers and judges can pretend that scientific data do not exist and make a decision about what they hear in a court room.  I also do not mean listening to somebody claim that we will never know the real relationship until we conduct "prospective double blind placebo controlled studies" of homicidality as a medication side effect.  If it isn't obvious, that study would by definition be unethical and would not pass the scrutiny of any human subjects committee.

Anyone with potential homicidal thinking needs close supervision and treatment.  They may need inpatient treatment in a unit that specialized in treating homicidal thinking and behavior.  Any clinician working in these settings will tell you that the people being treated generally come in with aggressive and violent thoughts and behavior before they take any medication.  If they have positive toxicology associated with homicidal thinking it is generally alcohol or an illicit drug like cocaine or methamphetamine.  Anyone with this problem also needs close monitoring and management of medication side effects.  Antidepressants can cause agitation and restlessness.  There are some people who do not benefit from antidepressants.  In the case of persons with the potential for aggression and suicide the medication response may need to be determined in a controlled environment before they can be safely treated.  Like all medications antidepressants are not perfect medications and they need to be administered by an expert who can provide effective treatment while managing and eliminating any potential drug side effects.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

"Preventing Violence: Any Thoughts?"

The title of this post may look familiar because it was the title of a recent topic on the ShrinkRap blog.  That is why I put it in quotes.  I put in a post consistent with some the posts and articles I have written over the past couple of years on this topic.  I know that violence, especially violence associated with mental illness can be prevented.  It is one of the obvious jobs of psychiatrists and one of the dimensions that psychiatrists are supposed to assess on every one of their evaluations.  It was my job in acute care setting for over 25 years and during that time I have assessed and treated all forms of violence and suicidal behavior.  I have also talked with people after it was too late - after a homicide or suicide attempt had already occurred.

The responses to my post are instructive and I thought required a longer response than the brief back and forth on another blog.  The arguments against me are basically:

1.  You not only can't prevent violence but you are arrogant for suggesting it.
2.  You really aren't interested in violence prevention but you are a cog machine of the police state and inpatient care is basically an extension of that.
3.  You can treat aggressive people in an inpatient setting basically by oversedating them.
4.   People who are mentally ill who have problems with violence and aggression aren't stigmatized any more than people with mental illness who are not aggressive.

These are all common arguments that I will discuss in some detail, but there is also an overarching dynamic and that is basically that psychiatrists are arrogant, inept, unskilled, add very little to the solution of this problem and should just keep quiet.  All part of the zeitgeist that people get well in spite of psychiatrists not because of psychiatrists.  Nobody would suggest that a Cardiologist with 25 years experience in treating acute cardiac conditions should not be involved in discussing public health measures to prevent acute cardiac disorders.  Don't tell anyone that you are having chest pain?  Don't call 911?  Those are equivalent arguments.  We are left with the curious situation where the psychiatrist is held to same medical level of accountability as other physicians but his/her opinion is not wanted.  Instead we can listen to Presidential candidates and the talking heads all day long  who have no training, no experience, no ideas, and they all say the same thing: "Nothing can be done."

It is also very interesting that nobody wants to address the H-bomb - my suggestion that there should be direct discussion of homicidal ideation.  Homicidal ideation and behavior can be a symptom.  There should be public education about this.  Why no discussion?  Fear of contagion?  Where does my suggestion come from?  Is anyone interested?  I guess not.  It is far easier to continue saying that nothing can be done.  The media can talk about sexual behavior all day long.  They can in some circumstances talk about suicide.  But there is no discussion of violence and aggression other than to talk about what happened and who is to blame.  That is exactly the wrong discussion when aggression is a symptom related to mental illness.

So what about the level of aggression that psychiatrists typically contain and what is the evidence that they may be successful.  Any acute care psychiatric unit that sees patients who are taken involuntarily to an emergency department sees very high levels of aggression.  That includes, threats, assaults, violent confrontations with the police, and actual homicide.  The causes of this behavior are generally reversible because they are typically treatable mental illnesses or drug addiction or intoxication states. The news media likes to use the word "antisocial personality" as a cause and it can be, but people with that problem are typically not taken to a hospital.  The police recognize their behavior as more goal oriented and they do not have signs and symptoms of mental illness.  Once the psychiatric cause of the aggression is treated the threat of aggression is significantly diminished if not resolved.

In many cases people with severe psychiatric illnesses are treated on an involuntary basis.  They are acutely symptomatic and do not recognize that their judgment is impaired.  That places them at risk for ongoing aggression or self injury.  Every state has a legal procedure for involuntary treatment based on that principle.  The idea that involuntary treatment is necessary to preserve life has been established for a long time.  Civil commitment and guardianship proceedings are recognition that treatment and in some cases emergency placement can be life saving solutions.

The environment required to contain and treat these problems is critical.  It takes a cohesive treatment team that understands that the aggressive behavior that they are seeing is a symptom of mental illness.  The meaning is much different than dealing with directed aggression by people with antisocial personalities who are intending to harm or intimidate for their own personal gain.  That understanding is critical for every verbal and nonverbal interaction with aggressive patients.  Aggression cannot be contained if the hospital is run by administrators who are not aware of the cohesion necessary to run these units and who do not depend on staff who have special knowledge in treating aggression.  All of the staff working on these units have to be confident in their approach to aggression and comfortable being in these settings all day long.

Medication is frequently misunderstood in inpatient settings.  In 25 years of practice it is still very common to hear that medication turns people into "zombies".  Comments like: "I don't want to be turned into a zombie" or "You have turned everyone into zombies" are common.  I remember the last comment very well because it was made by an observer who was looking at people who were not taking any medication.  In fact, medication is used to treat acute symptoms and in this particular case symptoms that increase the risk of aggression.  The medications typically used are not sedating.  They cannot be because frequent discussions need to occur with the patient and a plan needs to be developed to reduce the risk of aggression in the future.  An approach developed by Kroll and MacKenzie many years ago is still a good blueprint for the problem.

There is no group of people stigmatized more than those with mental illness and aggression.  It is a Hollywood stereotype but I am not going to mention the movies.  This group is also disenfranchised by advocates who are concerned that any focus on this problem will add stigma to the majority of people with mental illness who are not aggressive or violent.  There are some organizations with an interest in preventing violence and aggression, but they are rare.

At some point in future generations there may be a more enlightened approach to the primitive thoughts about human consciousness, mental illness and aggression.  For now the collective consciousness seems to be operating from a perspective that is not useful for science or public health purposes.  There is no better example than aggression as a symptom needing treatment rather than incarceration and the need to identify that symptom as early as possible.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Wartime atrocities

The recent mass murders in Afghanistan and the analysis of the events in the press highlight my contention from an earlier post that the press really does not do a good job in these situations. We can expect a continued exhaustive risk factor analysis and discussions by various pundits. The accused soldier clearly had a lot of exposure to combat stress, there is a history of traumatic brain injury, there is a possible history of substance abuse, and there are multiple psychosocial factors. So far we have seen the statements by people who knew him describing this event as completely unpredictable based on his past behavior. The debate will become more polarized as the lawyers get involved. The real truth of the matter is never stated.

What we know about these incidents is more accurately described by anthropologists than psychiatrists or psychologists. The best book written on this subject is Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilization.  In that book Dr. Keeley explores the contention that primitive peoples were inherently peaceful compared to modern man and a warfare that was waged was brief, fairly nonlethal, and stereotypic. In order to explore that theory, Dr. Keeley ends up writing a fairly definitive book on the anthropology of warfare. There are more lessons in that book about war and peace then you will ever hear on CNN or in the risk factor analysis that is produced in the popular media.

So what do we know about the mass murder of civilians during warfare? The first thing we know is that it is commonplace. It happens in every war and no military force despite their level of training is immune to it.  In prehistoric times, the most frequent scenario was a surprise attack on a village with the goal of killing as many inhabitants as possible. In Keeley's review, that number was generally around 10% of the population and that could have devastating consequences for a particular tribe including the complete dissolution.

Keeley also makes the point that: “Only the "rules of war," cultural expectations, and tribal or national loyalties make it possible to distinguish between legitimate warfare and atrocities.”  He gives the examples of Wounded Knee and My Lai as well as larger scale bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden.  My Lai was a highly publicized incident from my youth. It occurred during the Vietnam War when the US Army massacred hundreds of Vietnamese noncombatants – largely women, children, and old men.  In that situation, 26 soldiers were charged and only one was convicted. The convicted soldier served 3 1/2 years under house arrest.

In addition to outright killing, mutilations of bodies and the taking of body parts as trophies continue to occur in modern civilized warfare in much the same way that these practices occurred in primitive warfare.  Haley reported on a series of Vietnam veterans seen in psychotherapy and the special problems that exist in patients who have been exposed to or participated in wartime atrocities. Based on the literature at the time she suggested that the war in Vietnam resulted in a disproportionate number of atrocities.

My current final analysis of the situation is that there are important social and cultural determinants of war and the inevitable wartime atrocities. Risk factor analysis and analysis of individual biology is very unlikely to provide an explanation for what occurred. The moral, legal, and political environment has changed since Vietnam and that is obviously not a deterrent. A comparison of the final legal charges and penalties in this case with what happened in Vietnam will be instructive in terms of just how far those changes come. If there is a conviction, there will be a lot of pressure to portray the convicted soldier as very atypical and probably as a person who underwent a significant transformation of his conscious state.  There will be many theories. The idea that this transformation predictably occurs during warfare will not be discussed. I have already heard some experts talking about the thousands of soldiers who go though similar situations and seem to do just fine.

The best approach to these events is a preventive one that includes minimizing the exposure to war instead of being involved in the longest war in American history.  I don't expect that much will be said about that either.

George Dawson, MD

Lawrence H. Keeley. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Haley SA. When the patient reports atrocities. Specific treatment considerations of the Vietnam veteran. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1974 Feb;30(2):191-6.

Violence and Gunplay - Why Nobody is Informed by the Media Anymore

Mass shootings have been a phenomenon of my lifetime.  I can still clearly remember the University at Texas-Austin shootings that occurred  on August 6, 1966. A single gunman killed 16 people and wounded 32 while holed up on the observation deck of an administrative building until he was shot and killed by the police. I first read about it in Life magazine. All the pictures in those days were black and white. Some of those pictures are available online on sites such as "Top 10 School Massacres.”  I generated this timeline of mass shootings when Google still had that feature in their search engine. 

The problem of course is that the mass shootings never really  stop.  In the USA, the press is so used to them that they seem to have a protocol.  Discuss the tragedy and whether or not the perpetrator was mentally ill, had undiagnosed problems or perhaps risk factors for aggression and violence.  Discuss any heroic deeds. Make the unbelievable statement that the victims were "in the wrong place at the wrong time."  And then move on as soon as possible.  There is never a solution or even a call for finding one.  It is like everyone has resigned themselves to to repetitive cycles of gunfire and death.  It is clear that the press does not want to see it any other way.

When you are practicing psychiatry especially in emergency situations and hospitals, you need to be more practical.  When I took the oral boards exams back in 1988 and subsequently when I was an examiner, one of the key dimensions that the examiners focused on was the assessment of dangerousness.  Failing to explore that could be an exam failing mistake.  Any psychiatric inpatient unit has aggression toward self or others as one of the main reasons for admission to acute care and forensic settings.  With the recent fragmentation and rationing of psychiatric services, many people who would have been treated in hosptials are diverted to jails instead.  That led one author to describe LA County jail as the country's largest psychiatric facility.  

I have introduced the idea of looking for solutions into professional and political forums for over a decade now and it is always met with intense resistance.  Some mental health advocates are threatened by the idea that it will further stigmatize the mentally ill as violent.  Many people consider the problem to be hopeless.  Others see it as the natural product of a heavily armed society and no matter what side you are on that argument - that is where the conversation ends.

In an attempt to reframe the issue so that this impasse could possibly be breached the Minnesota Psychiatric Society partnered with the the Barbara Schneider Foundation and SAVE Minnesota in the wake of a national shooting incident to suggest alternatives.  Rather than speculate about psychiatric disorders or gun control we were focused on solutions that you can read through the link below.

The actual commentary was never published by the editor who apparently stated that there was a conflict of interest because we seemed to be fishing for research dollars.   It appears that the press can only hear the cycle of tragedy, speculation about mental health problems, and the need to move on.  The problem with that is that we continue to move on to another shooting.

George Dawson, MD


A Commentary Statement submitted to the StarTribune January 18, 2011 from the Minnesota Psychiatric Society, The Barbara Schneider Foundation, and SAVE - Suicide Awareness Voices of Education