Anger and Projection Are Not Political, Racial Or Gun Control Problems

Anger and projection are mental and public health problems.

The homicides of two young broadcast journalists yesterday continues to stimulate the same media response that it always does - mourning the victims, discussing the tragic aspects of the event, and doing a media profile of the perpetrator.  Anyone who has read this blog over the last three years knows my positions on this.  Lengthy posts and academic references don't seem to matter so I thought that I would keep this brief and reiterate the main points before it becomes the usual media circus about gun control and speculating about the perpetrator's mental state.   The most rational analysis considers the following points:

1.  This is first and foremost about the mental state of the perpetrator:

Without the perpetrator there is no tragedy.  Preliminary descriptions in his own words that he was a powder keg that was waiting to go off.  He had a pattern of angry conflicts with coworkers that severely complicated his life, led to job loss, and ongoing conflicts.  I heard a detailed analysis of an alleged pattern of behavior that results in this kind of homicide on the morning news today and it was too pat.   It sounded like the old "stages of grief" model that people used to adhere to.  I think there is a lot of confusion out there about what is normal anger and what kind of anger is pathological.  Anger is a socially and culturally difficult construct.  In many places like my home state of Minnesota it is generally unacceptable.  It is difficult to recognize when anger becomes a problem, if your reality excludes it as a possibility.

Anger is a problem when it is persistent and pervasive.  Normal anger is transient and does not persist for days, weeks or longer.  It is necessarily transient because it can activate physiological processes like hypertension that are not conducive to the health of the individual.  Persistent anger also gets in the way of normal social interactions that all people need in order to function properly.  Human beings are undeniably social animals and we do not function well if we are isolated or cut off from one another.  Anger tends to automatically focus people on an outside source for their problems and frustration while minimizing their own potential role in the process.  Persistent anger does not allow for the necessary productive interactions with family members, coworkers, or in many cases casual contacts in everyday life.

Projection is the attribution of a feeling state or problem to another person.  It is commonly experienced when observing a person blame other people or circumstances for problems they are having in life.  How rational that level of blame seems may be an indication of the severity of the problem.  In my years of treating people in inpatient psychiatric units, it was rare to encounter a person who did not see me as the root of their problem, even though I had barely met them, had nothing to do with why they were in the hospital, and was the person charged with helping them get out.  Some might think that was just a part of me representing an institution, but that goes out the window when the reasoning being given is that I am white or jewish or racist or I am physically attracted to the patient.  Those were typically the mildest accusations.  In many cases, this anger and projection was obvious to family members and coworkers for months or even years before the person was admitted to my unit.  Threats of physical violence or actual physical violence in these situations was common.

2.  This is a public health problem:

People with anger control problems and projection generally do not do well in life.  At the minimum these problems are significant obstacles to a successful career and social life.  One public mental health focus should be on optimizing the function of the population and preventing this social morbidity that is also associated with somatic morbidity and mortality.  In some cases, these mental states are also precursors to violence including suicide and homicide.  In some cases they have led to mass shootings.

There are very few people who talk about this kind of violence and the associated mental state as a preventable or treatable problem.  Part of the issue is that anger is socially unacceptable and it seems like a moral issue.  We should all learn how to control our tempers and keep ourselves in check.  If we don't, well that's on us and we should be punished for it.  Another part of the problem is that some people want to see it as a strictly mental health problem and turn it into a problem of prediction.  The argument then becomes the inability to predict who will "go off" and harm someone.  The additional issue that will heat up at some point is the gun control issue.  Any reasonable person will conclude that gun access in the US is too easy and the amount of firearm injuries and deaths are absurdly high for a sophisticated country.  That said, there appears to be no practical way to alter this problem within our current legislative system.  Even if all guns were removed, it would not stop the problem of people with anger control problems and projection from not doing well in life or harming innocent victims.

To address the problem, we need to take an approach that is similar to suicide prevention.  I am not talking about screening.  I am talking about identifying people at risk.  The best way to do that is to develop strategies to help them self-identify and request help or to help people in their lives assist them in getting help.  Typical ways this works in suicide prevention is public service announcements, volunteer hotlines, referrals through law enforcement and the court system, and referrals through the schools.  Suicide is also identified as a major public health issue and as such it is a focus of many organizations that do advocacy and intervention work in the area of mental health.  There are no similar resources for anger and violence prevention.

That is my basic message involving the most recent incident of preventable homicide in the United States.   I wanted to get this out after seeing just one broadcast on the issue and before I saw too many stories politicizing the incident.  I think that the factors that have resulted in lack of action in this area are obvious and several of them will be on display over the next few days.

As a psychiatrist who has worked in this area for nearly 30 years, I can say without a doubt that this unnecessary loss of life can be prevented and preventing it does not require psychiatric services, but it does require people who are willing and able to address the problem.

We just have to stop pretending that it can't be stopped.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary:

1.  Previous violence prevention posts here.

2.  Previous homicide prevention posts here.





    

Will Changing The Commitment Standard Decrease The Rates Of Mass Shootings?

A colleague sent me an e-mail this morning about a story that focuses on changing the commitment standard to a need for treatment rather than dangerousness.  She asked me if I thought it would be an effective measure so that more people with psychosis are treated decreasing the risk of mass violence perpetrated by psychotic persons.  As a background, most states have civil commitment statutes that involve imminent dangerousness.  That literally means that the person in question has already done something dangerous or they appear to be at high risk for doing something dangerous in the near future.  My first reaction is that it would not do a thing and here is why - states routinely ignore lesser standards and default to dangerousness because it limits court and treatment costs.  At least until there is a "bad outcome" and then for a while the standard is broadened again.

Let me illustrate what I mean by using the statutes that pertain to civil commitment in the state of Minnesota.  The following are the statutory definitions of a mentally ill or chemically dependent person who could be considered for civil commitment in the state:

Subd. 13.Person who is mentally ill.

(a) A "person who is mentally ill" means any person who has an organic disorder of the brain or a substantial psychiatric disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation, or memory which grossly impairs judgment, behavior, capacity to recognize reality, or to reason or understand, which is manifested by instances of grossly disturbed behavior or faulty perceptions and poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by:

(1) a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care as a result of the impairment;

(2) an inability for reasons other than indigence to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care as a result of the impairment and it is more probable than not that the person will suffer substantial harm, significant psychiatric deterioration or debilitation, or serious illness, unless appropriate treatment and services are provided;

(3) a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others; or

(4) recent and volitional conduct involving significant damage to substantial property.

(b) A person is not mentally ill under this section if the impairment is solely due to:

(1) epilepsy;

(2) developmental disability;

(3) brief periods of intoxication caused by alcohol, drugs, or other mind-altering substances; or

(4) dependence upon or addiction to any alcohol, drugs, or other mind-altering substances.

Subd. 2.Chemically dependent person.

"Chemically dependent person" means any person (a) determined as being incapable of self-management or management of personal affairs by reason of the habitual and excessive use of alcohol, drugs, or other mind-altering substances; and (b) whose recent conduct as a result of habitual and excessive use of alcohol, drugs, or other mind-altering substances poses a substantial likelihood of physical harm to self or others as demonstrated by (i) a recent attempt or threat to physically harm self or others, (ii) evidence of recent serious physical problems, or (iii) a failure to obtain necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical care. "Chemically dependent person" also means a pregnant woman who has engaged during the pregnancy in habitual or excessive use, for a nonmedical purpose, of any of the following substances or their derivatives: opium, cocaine, heroin, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, amphetamine, tetrahydrocannabinol, or alcohol.

The first thing that should jump out at any reader is the fact that "dangerousness" most commonly defined as a "danger to self or others" is only one of several relevant criteria (see bolded sections).  A significant part of the statutory definitions for both mentally ill persons and chemically dependent persons has to do with self care.  Can they provide food, clothing, shelter, or medical care for themselves?  Can they manage their personal affairs?  I would suggest that the majority of people in this country with psychotic disorders and both substance use and psychotic disorders who are acutely disabled by those disorders meet this standard rather than threatening or aggressive behavior.  Suicidal ideation and behavior is also less common than deficits in functional capacity or self care.  There are also a number of important legal interventions that are as important as civil commitment to address these issues among them conservatorship or guardianship that provides substituted decision making for the person with impaired cognition due to mental illness.  I worked with an even better option in the State of Wisconsin and that was a parallel system of protective services and protective placement that could be used in place of civil commitment to assure that the person had adequate resources for their day to day needs and medical care.

The article I received today talks about mental health being the default position for legislators who do not want to take on the firearms issue.  The politics of this situation and the deadlock  are quite obvious so I won't belabor the point.  The legislator in this reference wants better training for the police and a commitment standard based on treatment considerations rather than "imminent dangerousness."  I have already demonstrated how imminent dangerousness is a de facto standard that the courts and managed care systems collude with, but it really has nothing to do with existing statutes on the books.  I will take a page from the gun advocates who claim we have enough gun legislation on the books it is just never enforced.  We have enough commitment standards on the books - they are never recognized or followed.  To say that the commitment standard is "imminent dangerousness" is simply false.    

The politics of civil commitment is always an interesting process and it does shed some light on why the standards are ignored.  It actually happens at all levels.  In Minnesota, if a person is on a 72 hold in a hospital they need to be seen during that time frame by a pre-petition screener from their county of residence. Pre-petition screeners come from many counties and they vary considerably in their clinical acumen and political orientation.  It becomes fairly easy to predict which counties will proceed with commitment and which will not.  Some counties have pre-petition screeners who actually consider themselves to be civil rights advocates and they will fight any suggestion of commitment.  That fight should occur at the next level and that is the county attorneys who represent the county in the commitments and the defense attorneys.  Outcomes vary with the personality of those attorneys and some of those outcomes are not good.  The final step is the probate court judge, commissioner, or referee responsible for making the determination of commitment.  The quality and experience at this level varies considerably ranging from judges who are consistent and handle cases very well to those who clearly make wrong decisions to judges who overstep their authority and start to make medical decisions such as ordering a specific medication or quantity of mediation per court order.  As far as I can tell there is no uniform training or standards for any member of the commitment process so variable outcomes should not come as a surprise.    

With the issue of civil commitment laws that use a treatment standard, they are already on the books but  they are rarely followed.  That has to do with the culture of rationing mental health services as much as anything.  How do I know this?  I have been part of conversations where staff involved in a commitment were told by a county bureaucrat that they were doing "too many commitments" and it was "costing the county too much money".  I never really understood that argument because all of the people involved are there, on salary, and show up every day whether there is anyone in commitment court or not.  The cost should be the same if one person shows up for a hearing or 20 people show up.  At 5 o'clock everybody goes home, so there is no overtime.  I have never seen the court so saturated that they could not move through the necessary hearings and decisions.  The only thing that this false economic pressure creates is a change in the way the commitment statute is interpreted.  Suddenly the ONLY rule is "dangerousness to self or others".  That also translates to "imminently dangerous to self or others".  Notice that the statute says nothing about "imminently" and any form of the word danger is limited to a special section at the bottom about "Mentally Ill and Dangerous".    

I conclude the changing the commitment standard and expecting that to have an impact on mass violence will not work, basically because that treatment standard is already on the books and it is routinely ignored.  In Minnesota, the entire chemically dependent person statute is frequently ignored and I often hear "we don't commit anybody for chemical dependency."  There are a number of financial, avoidance of work incentives, and lack of quality standards that have facilitated that process.  It is readily observable by any psychiatrist who sees their patient back, realizes that they did not receive any care in a hospital, and notes the patient was discharged at his or her request because "they were not imminently dangerous".  The financial interests of managed care systems and the counties involved overlap perfectly at that point.

Once again I keep coming back to the old term "quality".  Quality care never involves discharging a disabled person because it is convenient to do so and it can be rationalized by a "community standard" that is determined by everybody except the experts involved and in this case the state statutes..

The focus of psychiatric professional organizations should be on defining what that standard of care should be and how to optimize treatment instead of throwing in with a managed care model for rationing care.  Rationed care has resulted in a non-existent system of care for the patients with psychosis.  And as long as that system remains non-functional, the small percentage of people who are violent and psychotic will also not get the care they need.

The prevention of violence by individuals with psychosis starts with improving the standard of care for everybody rather then trying to pick the violent individuals out of the crowd. 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA 

What is wrong with the APA's press release about the NRA statement?

The APA released a statement about the NRA's comments, probably Mr. LaPierre's statements on Meet the Press on Sunday and a separate NRA release. There are several problems with the APA statement:

1.   The American Psychiatric Association expressed disappointment today in the comments from Wayne LaPierre…

Why would the APA be "disappointed" in a predictable statement from a gun lobbyist?  I really found nothing surprising in Mr. LaPierre's presentation or the specific content. As I previously posted, the NRA predictably sees guns as the solution to gun violence.  The concept "more guns less crime" has been a driving force behind their nationwide campaign for concealed carry laws. The concealed weapons that are being carried are handguns and handguns are responsible for the largest percentage of gun homicides in the United States. It is probably a good idea to come up with a solution rather than reacting to a predictable statement.

2.  The person involved in the shooting is named…

Although it is controversial, there is some evidence that media coverage is one factor that can lead predispose individuals to copy a particular crime.  Although this press release is a minimal amount of information relative to other news coverage, it does represent an opportunity for modeling techniques for more appropriate media coverage and that might include anonymity of the perpetrator.  The NRA release makes the same mistake.

3.   In addition, he conflated mental illness with evil at several points in his talk and suggested that those who commit heinous gun crimes are “so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them,” a description that leads to the further stigmatization of people with mental illnesses.

It is always difficult to tell how rhetorical a person is being when they use terms like "evil" and "demons". If they are considered to be descriptive terms for a supernatural force that suggests an etiology of mental illness that was popular in the Dark Ages.  Evil on the other hand does have a more generic definition of "morally wrong or bad;  immoral; wicked”.  In this case it is important to know if the speaker is referring to a definition that is based on evil as a supernatural force or a more common description. This is another educational point. People who experience voices and irrational thoughts involving homicide can be understood. Psychiatrists can understand them and can help them to come up with a plan to avoid acting on those thoughts and impulses and getting rid of them.  The NRA release is basically an indication of a high degree of naïveté in thinking about the unique conscious state of individuals.  The APA release should correct that.

4.  The APA notes that people with mental illnesses are rarely violent and that they are far more likely to be the victims of crimes than the perpetrators

The actual numbers here are irrelevant.  Psychiatric epidemiology cannot be casually understood and the media generally has the population whipped up about the notion of psychiatric overdiagnosis of everything anyway. The idea that some mentally ill persons are dangerous is common sense and forms the basis of civil commitment and emergency detention laws in every state of the union. Advocates need to step away from the notion that recognizing this fact is "stigmatizing". The APA needs to recognize that their members in acute care settings are dealing with this problem every day and need support. It is an undeniable fact that some persons with mental illness are dangerous and it is an undeniable fact that most of the dangerous people do not have mental illness. Trying to parse that sentence usually results in inertia that prevents any progress toward solutions.

The APA seems to have missed a golden opportunity to suggest a plan to address the current problem. The problem will not be addressed by responding to predictable NRA rhetoric.  There several other nonstarters in terms of a productive dialogue on this issue including - the specifics of the Second Amendment and specific gun control regulations. The moderator of Meet The Press made an excellent point in the interview on Sunday when he asked about closing the loophole that 40% of gun purchases occur at gun shows where there are no background checks. It was clear that the NRA was not interested in closing that loophole. The main problem is that the APA has no standing in that argument. Second nonstarter is the whole issue of predictability. Any news outlet can find a psychiatrist somewhere who will comment that psychiatrists cannot predict anything. That usually ends the story. If your cardiologist cannot predict when you will have a heart attack, why would anyone think that a psychiatrist could predict a rare event happening in a much more complicated organ? Psychiatrists need to be focused on public health interventions to reduce the incidence of violence and aggression in the general population and where it is associated with psychiatric disorders. 

What about Mr. LaPierre’s criticism of the mental health system?

“They didn't want mentally ill in institutions. So they put them all back on the streets. And then nobody thought what happens when you put all these mentally ill people back on the streets, and what happens when they start taking their medicine.  We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets. And we've got to deal with the underlying causes and connections if we're ever going to get to the truth in this country and stop this…”

Is it an accurate global description of what has happened to the mental health system in this country? He certainly is not using the language of a mental health professional or a person with any sensitivity toward people with mental illness.  There are numerous pages on this blog documenting how the mental health system has been decimated over the past 25 years and some of the factors responsible for that. Just yesterday I was advised of a school social worker who not only was unable to get a child hospitalized but could not get them an outpatient appointment to see a psychiatrist. The government and the managed care industry have spent 25 years denying people access to mental health care and psychiatrists. They have also spent 25 years denying people access to quality mental health care that psychiatrists are trained to provide. We have minimal infrastructure to help people with the most severe forms of illness and many hospital inpatient units do discharge people to the street even though they are unchanged since they were admitted.   Any serious dialogue about the mental health aspects of aggression and violence needs to address that problem.

That is where the APA’s voice should be the loudest.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary Material:  Quotes from and locations of transcripts – feel free to double check my work.

MTP transcript  12/23:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50283245/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/december-wayne-lapierre-chuck-schumer-lindsey-graham-jason-chaffetz-harold-ford-jr-andrea-mitchell-chuck-todd/#.UNlaJ-RqYrV

"I'm telling you what I think will make people safe. And what every mom and dad will make them feel better when they drop their kid off at school in January, is if we have a police officer in that school, a good guy, that if some horrible monster tries to do something, they'll be there to protect them." (p2)

"Look at the facts at Columbine. They've changed every police procedure since Columbine. I mean I don't understand why you can't, just for a minute, imagine that when that horrible monster tried to shoot his way into Sandy Hook School, that if a good guy with a gun had been there, he might have been able to stop..."—(p3)

"There are so many different ways he could have done it. And there's an endless amount of ways a monster.."—(p6)

"I don't think it will. I keep saying it, and you just won't accept it. It's not going to work. It hasn't worked. Dianne Feinstein had her ban, and Columbine occurred. It's not going to work. I'll tell you what would work. We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics." (p6)

"23 states, my (UNINTEL) however long ago was Virginia Tech? 23 states are still putting only a small number of records into the system. And a lot of states are putting none. So, when they go through the national instant check system, and they go to try to screen out one of those lunatics, the (p6)

"I talked to a police officer the other day. He said, "Wayne," he said, "let me tell you this. Every police officer walking the street knows s lunatic that's out there, some mentally disturbed person that ought to be in an institution, is out walking the street because they dealt with the institutional side. They didn't want mentally ill in institutions. So they put them all back on the streets. And then nobody thought what happens when you put all these mentally ill people back on the streets, and what happens when they start taking their medicine."We have a completely cracked mentally ill system that's got these monsters walking the streets. And we've got to deal with the underlying causes and connections if we're ever going to get to the truth in this country and stop this"—(p7)

NRA transcript 12/21: http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

"The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever

comprehend them." (p2)

"Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!" (p2)

"As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school.  The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?" (p5)

"Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no  place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?" (p5)

"Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?" (p6)

Additional Reference:

Copycat Phenomenon in medical literature (references 5, 13, 20, 26 are most relevant).

Guns Are Not Cooling Off Between Mass Shootings

I have previously posted my concerns about mass shootings and the general paralysis on dealing with this problem.  The gun lobby has unquestionable political power on this issue, but that is also due to judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment as it is written.  Today's New York Times describes a mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut.  At the time I am typing this, the death toll is 20 children, 6 adults, and the gunman.  This incident occurs three days after a shopping mall shooting in Oregon.

Most people would think that nothing would be more motivating for major societal changes than children being attacked in this manner.  Unfortunately this is not the first time that children have been victimized by mass shooters.  On October 2, 2006 a gunman shot 10 girls and killed 5 before committing suicide.  According to the Wikipedia article that was the third school shooting that week.  Altogether there have been 31 school shootings since the Columbine incident on April 20, 1999.

My question and the question I have been asking for the past decade is what positive steps are going to be taken to resolve this problem?  How many more lives need to be lost?  How many more children need to be shot while they are attending school?  Some may consider these questions to be provocative, but given the dearth of action and the excuses we hear from public health officials and politicians, I am left in the position of continuing to sound an alarm that should have been heard a couple of decades ago.  After all, the elections are over.  The major parties don't have to worry about alienating the pro-gun or the pro-gun control lobbyists and activists.  This will not be solved as a Second Amendment or political issue.  I have said it before and I will say it again - the basic approach to the problem is a scientific one and a proactive public health one that involves the following sequence of action:

1.  Get the message out that homicidal thoughts - especially thoughts that involve random violence toward strangers are abnormal and treatable.  The public health message should include what to do when the thoughts have been identified.

2.  Provide explanations for changes in thought patterns that lead to homicidal thinking.

3.  Provide a discussion of the emotional, personal and economic costs of this kind of violence.

4.  Emphasize that the precursors to homicidal thinking are generally treatable and provide accessible treatment options and interventions.

5.  The cultural symbol of the lone gunman in our society is a mythical figure that needs to go.  There needs to be a lot of work done on dispelling that myth.  I don't think that this repetitive behavior by individuals with a probable psychosis is an accident.  Delusions do not occur in a vacuum and if there is a mythical explanation out there for righting the wrongs of a delusional person - someone will incorporate it into their belief system.  The lone gunman is a grandiose and delusional solution for too many people.  If I am right it will affect even more.

6.  Study that sequence of events and outcomes locally to figure out what modifications are best in specific areas.

One of the main problems here may be the deterioration in psychiatric services over the past three decades largely as a result of government and managed care manipulations.  Ironically being a danger to yourself or others is considered the main reason for being in an inpatient psychiatric unit these days.  I wonder how much of the inertia in dealing with the problem of mass homicide comes from the same forces that want to restrict access to psychiatric care?  Setting up the remaining inpatient units to deal with a part of this problem would require more resources for infrastructure, staff training, and to recruit the expertise needed to make a difference.

The bottom line here is that the mass homicide epidemic will only be solved by public health measures.  This is not a question of good versus evil.  This is not a question of accepting this as a problem that cannot be solved, grieving, and moving on.  This is a question of identifiable thought patterns changing and leading to homicidal behavior and intervening at that level.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

More On Homicide Prevention

As the number of mass homicides becomes even more noticeable it is getting some attention in the psychiatric press. This months Psychiatric News has a story that looks at the issue of "explanations" for mass killings. There were a couple of new terms that I was not familiar with such as "rampage violence" or "rampage", "autogenic", or "pseudo-commando" killings.  The perspective in the article was generally public health research or the perspective of forensic psychiatrists. Inconsistencies were apparent such as:

"... Much research has shown that mental illness in the absence of substance abuse does not lead to violence and that most crimes are committed by people who have not been diagnosed with mental illness."

Followed by:

"Even when behavior reaches a level troubling to family or neighbors, getting an affected individual into treatment is difficult, especially in a society that highly values individual liberty..."

Are they referring only to those people who are abusing substances or only those people who become violent as a result of mental illness? My experience is that both categories are important and that is illustrated within the same article that refers to a study of five "pseudo-commando" murders where common traits were noted including the fact that all of the subjects were "suspicious, resentful, narcissistic, and often paranoid".

The overall tone of the article is that we may be too focused on mass homicide because only a small number of people were killed in these incidents compared to the 30 to 40 people per day who die from homicide and that violence prediction may be a futile approach. There is also commentary on why neither the Democrats or Republicans want to comment on this issue. An uncritical statement about the "support for gun ownership" being at an all-time high is included in the same paragraph.  Like most things political in the US, all you have to do is follow the money.

The same issue was covered in the September issue of Psychiatric Times.  Lloyd Sederer, MD takes the position that apathy fueled the lack of a sea change in gun control following the incident when Congresswomen Gifford was shot and several people at that same event were killed.  He includes an apathetic quote from Jack Kerouac and a nonviolent activist quote from Gandhi.  Allen Frances, MD makes the reasonable observation that understanding the psychology of a mass killer will not prevent mass homicide, but proceeds to stretch that into the fact that this is a gun issue:

"We must accept the fact that a small cohort of deranged and disaffected potential mass murderers will always exist undetected in our midst."

and

"The largely unnoticed elephant in the room is how astoundingly easy it is for the killers to buy supercharged firearms and unlimited rounds of ammo.  The ubiquity of powerful weaponry is what takes the US such a dangerous place to live."

He goes on to suggest that there are only two choices in this matter: accept mass murder as a way of life or adopt sane gun policies with the rest of the civilized world.

I don't think that gun laws are the best or only approach.  The idea that "supercharged" firearms are the culprit here or the extension to banning assault weapons as the solution misses the obvious fact that even common widely available firearms - shotguns and handguns are highly lethal.  Anyone armed with those weapons alone would be unstoppable in a mass shooting situation.  Secondly, the effects of stringent firearms laws have mixed results.  The mass shooting in Norway is an example of how tight firearm regulation can be circumvented.  It is well known that there are a massive amount of firearms under private possession in the US, making the effect of firearm legislation even less likely.  There are also the cases of heavily armed citizenry with only a fraction of the gun homicides that we have in the US.  Michael Moore's comparison of the US with Canada in "Bowling for Columbine" comes to mind.

The previous posts on this blog suggest clear reasons why gun ownership is at an all-time high. The problem is that much can be done apart from the gun ownership issue and the solutions are available from psychiatrists who are used to assessing and treating people with mental illness, severe personality disorders, threatening behavior, or history of violent or aggressive behavior. The critical dimension that is not covered is the issue of prevention and the necessity of an open discussion about homicide and how to prevent it. Education about markers that are associated with mass homicide is useful, but the focus needs to be on how to help the person who starts to experience homicidal ideation before they lose control.  That is also consistent with a humanistic approach to the problem.  I have treated many "deranged and disaffected potential mass murderers" who went back to their families and back to work.  We need a culture that is much more savvy about the origins of violence and aggression.  It is too easy to say that this behavior is due to "evil" and maintain attitudes consistent with that approach.  Time to develop research on the prevention of mass homicide, identify the individuals at risk, and offer effective treatment.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Aaron Levin.  Experts again seek explanations for mass killings.  Psychiatric News 2012 (47)17: 1,20.

Lloyd I. Sederer.  The enemy is apathy.  Psychiatric Times 2012 (29)9: 1-2.

Allen Frances.  Mass murderers, madness, and gun control.  Psychiatric Times 2012 (29)9:1-2.

"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

Colorado Mass Shooting Day 2

I have been watching the media coverage of the mass shooting incident today - Interviews of family members, medical personnel and officials.  I saw a trauma surgeon at one of the receiving hospitals describe the current status of patients taken to his hospital.  He described this as a "mass casualty incident".  One reporter said that people don’t want insanity to replace evil as a focus of the prosecution.

In an interview that I think surprised the interviewer, a family member talked about the significant impact on her family.  When asked about how she would "get her head around this" she calmly explained that there are obvious problems when a person can acquire this amount of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in a short period of time.  She went on to add that she works in a school and is also aware of the fact that there are many children with psychological problems who never get adequate help.  She thought a lot of that problem was a lack of adequate financing. 

   

I have not listened to any right wing talk radio today, but from the other side of the aisle the New York Times headline this morning was "Gunman Kills 12 in Colorado, Reviving Gun Debate."  Mayor Bloomberg is quoted: “Maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it,” Mr. Bloomberg said during his weekly radio program, “because this is obviously a problem across the country.”

How did the Presidential candidates respond?  They both pulled down the campaign ads and apparently put the attack ads on hold.   From the President today: " And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s a reminder that life is fragile.  Our time here is limited and it is precious.  And what matters in the end are not the small and trivial things which often consume our lives.  It’s how we choose to treat one another, and love one another.  It’s what we do on a daily basis to give our lives meaning and to give our lives purpose.  That’s what matters.  That’s why we’re here."   A similar excerpt from Mitt Romney: "There will be justice for those responsible, but that’s another matter for another day. Today is a moment to grieve and to remember, to reach out and to help, to appreciate our blessings in life. Each one of us will hold our kids a little closer, linger a bit longer with a colleague or a neighbor, reach out to a family member or friend. We’ll all spend a little less time thinking about the worries of our day and more time wondering about how to help those who are in need of compassion most."

These are the messages that we usually hear from politicians in response to mass shooting incidents.  At this point these messages are necessary, but the transition from this incident is as important.  After the messages of condolences, shared grief, and imminent justice that is usually all that happens.  Will either candidate respond to Mayor Bloomberg's challenge?  Based on the accumulated history to date it is doubtful.
  
A larger question is whether anything can be done apart from the reduced access to firearms argument.  In other words, is there an approach to directly intervene with people who develop homicidal ideation?  Popular consensus says no, but I think that it is much more likely than the repeal of the Second Amendment.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Barack Obama. Remarks  by the President on the Shootings in Aurora Colorado.  July 20, 2012

Barack Obama.  Weekly Address: Remembering the Victims of the Aurora Colorado Shooting.  July 21, 2012.

Mitt Romney.  Remarks by Mitt Romney on the Shooting in Aurora, Colorado.  NYTimes July 20, 2012.