What Is Missing From The Divisiveness Debate?

Migratory routes of Homo heidelbergensis from East African origins (numbers are approximate years in past) - see attribution for reference.  Homo heidelbergensis is thought to be the common ancestor for Neanderthals, Denisovans, and modern humans - Homo sapiens.

The recent high profile incidents involving the shooting deaths of young black men and police officers and the associated news coverage and involvement by high profile celebrities and politicians has sparked a social activism, debate, and dialogue.  Like any complex issue, there are people who have opinions that mirror their political party lines, people who have their own opinions and they are not interested in changing them and people who are more open to a dialogue.  Practically all of the dialogue seems focused on high risk incidents that happen in a matter of seconds that involve deadly force.  I have seen some neuroscientific ponderings about how unconscious or implicit biases can affect those split second decisions.  I thought that was possible until I went to the web site and took the tests involving implicit bias.  There was not a single case where I could not predict the outcome ahead of time based on what I already know about myself.  To me it appeared that unconscious bias was not operating in the decision.  Since I am a white psychiatrist and not a police officer, I am not going to suggest specific solutions for police officers or the black community.  I do see a number of scientific dimensions that nobody or very few people are talking about so it is time to add my two cents:

1.  We are all from Africa -

Practically all of the debate centers on race.  There are statistical studies that show black drivers are stopped at higher rates than white drivers.  There are more white people killed by the police but as a proportion of the population black people are overrepresented.  The numbers are real and require serious analysis, but the larger picture is ignored.  That larger picture is that race is a social and cultural convention and not a scientific one.  On a scientific basis, everyone in the world - all human beings originated in East Africa about 200,000 years ago.  At some point, different races were described but at the time this genetic evidence was unknown.  The genetic evidence for racial and ethnic differences is still an area of active investigation.  Those studies illustrate the difference in skin color for example may come down to mutations in two genes (1, 2).  At the proteomic level, a recent study (3) looked at an analysis of interindividual variation in the total number of proteins that could be identified in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and urine and found considerable variation between individuals.  There was a 26% difference across 968 urinary proteins and a 18% difference for 512 CSF proteins.  Those numbers are very large compared with the difference between 1 or 2 skin proteins.

Although the total number of proteins identified in the human proteins is 10,500, estimate of the true size has varied from 10,000 to several billion (4) making the number of proteins responsible for skin color differences even less significant.  More skin specific information is available from the Human Protein Atlas.  Their analysis shows that there are 95 skin enriched genes and 412 genes with enhanced expression in the skin.  Only three of these genes MLANA, DCT, and TYR involve melanin synthesis or skin pigmentation.  Person to person variation on an arbitrary racial classification based on skin color is obscured by the expected genetic variation among members of the same race.

Further evidence is available to anyone by sending their DNA for analysis by the National Geographic Genographic Project.  You will receive a map of how your ancestors migrated from East Africa and information about marker that you share with other ethnic groups across the world.  The analysis will also include information about DNA that you share with ancient humans specifically Neanderthals and Denisovans.  The current project also estimates regional ancestry based on markers that appeared over time if migration from Africa occurred.  All of these science considerations should point to the fact that what we have generally considered to be racial boundaries may have political and cultural meaning to people - but there is no scientific meaning.  Every human being on the planet is descended from a small group of ancestors in East Africa.  Time to put the cultural and political stereotypes about race behind us.        

2.  Every person in the world has a unique conscious state -

One of the concepts that I am careful to mention whenever I am discussing aspects of psychiatric diagnosis is human consciousness.  From a neurobiological perspective the human brain has evolved to be a very efficient information processor.   Plasticity leads to experience dependent changes in the brain.  Experience can have a biasing effect of the general form that "my experience is everyone's experience" or "my experience is more valuable than anyone else's experience" or in the extreme case "my experience is the only one that counts."  Fortunately the human brain also has top-down controls like empathy, the ability to recognize that other unique conscious states exist, and the ability to correct its own erroneous biases.  Just the fact that every person on earth has a unique conscious state has significant ethical and moral implications for how one person interacts with another.  Those individual ethical imperatives are seriously watered down by political and legal limits that often target the lowest common denominator.    

3.  Anger has a predictable biasing effect -

Let me start off by saying that this paragraph is not meant to discount anyone's anger.  Anger is a universal human emotion, but the analysis of anger usually stops at the point of whether it is justified or not.  The analysis seldom looks at how anger biases subsequent decisions or how it might affect the initial encounter between the police and suspects.  Any student of social media can observe the very predictable polarizing arguments that occur following these incidents.  Partisans will frequently post arguments and counterarguments followed by statistics and counter statistics.  In many cases the arguments are rhetorical at at some level fallacious.  The dynamic driving these arguments is never mentioned and that dynamic is anger.  Anger has been studied by cognitive scientists and it functions to squarely focus blame on a specific person whether that is accurate or not.  This is as important for the police officer on the scene as it is for the secondary clashes between protesters, the public and the police.  When police officers confront a suspect and start swearing angrily at him/her to comply with their demands - that may be part of their training, it may be something that happens spontaneously, but in either case any real anger on the part of the officer implies that the subject has done something wrong and that the officer's decision-making capacity may be affected by his/her emotional state.  Emotions are critical in human decisions, but not all emotions result in a focus on another person as a source of wrongdoing.  

4.  Human reaction time is a limiting factor - 

The human nervous system takes time to process information.  There is surprisingly little public data available on how much time there is to make a decision to shoot an armed suspect.  The only study I could find (6) involved a simulation where an untrained armed suspect was either holding a handgun to his own head because he was allegedly suicidal or holding a handgun at his side when confronted by a police officer.  In the case where the suspect decides to fire a shot at the officer instead - it took an average of 380 msec.  Highly trained officers shot in 390 msec.  That translated to inexperienced suspects shooting first or tying the officers in 60% of the scenarios.  An interesting article in the literature also suggests that shooting errors in high threat situations persist even after weeks of practicing these scenarios (7).  For comparison, this web site allows for a determination of reaction time in a scenario that is completely free from distractions and noise - like anxiety and trying to determine if what the suspect is holding is really a firearm or not.  It is obvious that these decisions to fire by both officers and armed suspects are not like they are portrayed in television programs and films.  In real life there are no prolonged standoffs with officers and suspects pointing firearms at one another while they talk.    


5.  Human beings have a long history of solving difficult problems through violence and aggression -

One of the major lessons of human history is that lives matter only up to a point and if nobody agrees at that point - people will die.  In human history there are very few exceptions to that concept.  The best analysis of the situation that I have seen comes from anthropology (8) and the detailed study of modern and ancient warfare.  Several authors have written about the attractiveness of war to some of the participants - most prominent Chris Hodges (9).  The powerful combination of war and winning a conflict by force and being reinforced by the secondary aspects of camaraderie, teamwork, meaningfulness, and the political illusions of what an armed conflict can accomplish are all powerful incentives to avoid peace and conflict resolution.  The last time there was as serious peace movement in the USA it was largely a reaction to a prolonged and unnecessary war in Vietnam.  Since then there have been three unnecessary wars and no corresponding peace movements.

The war metaphor doesn't stop at the level of nations fighting nations.  At the next level it is always local governments and police departments fighting drug dealers, gangs, terrorists and various criminals.  I don't think that the reinforcers that occur at a global level stop just because the conflict is at a local level.  Americans in general want to see the bad guys stopped in any way possible.  With that attitude there are invariably serious mistakes.    


6.  Widespread availability of firearms ups the ante -

I have written about firearm related issues in many places on this blog.  My primary focus have been to suggest that violence, especially firearm related deaths including suicide, homicide, and mass shootings can probably be stopped by public health measures.  Very few people agree on those points and there are various political reasons why they do not.  Stopping firearm related violence does not necessarily require addressing firearms availability, but make no mistake about it - firearms access rather than mental illness is the number one cause of these deaths.  The problem with high risk scenarios involving either firearms or the threat of firearms with the police is even more obvious.  Statistics are available for the number of people killed by the police in a number of countries and the numbers are skewed in the expected manner toward the US.  It is clear that widespread availability of firearms is dangerous for both the police and the people who are being policed.  A lot of that comes down to being able to assess the threat and react in less than a half second.  That is the time a police officer has in a high threat scenario.

The six dimensions I briefly described are critical but unmentioned in the current debate.  The current debate is framed in terms of race, immutable interracial relationships, and a lack of scientific consideration at several levels.  At the cultural level, the notion of race having some specific meaning needs to be put to rest forever.  There is no scientific basis for classifying people based on skin color or other so-called racial characteristics.  Racial diversity is nothing compared with genetic diversity and that needs to be the new standard.  The second scientific consideration is based on the unique conscious state of humans.  This important concept should form the basis for everyone being treated with respect and consideration.  That is not to say that will preclude criminal conduct or violent acts against bystanders, but it should be a standard for everyone else.  The expression of anger especially sustained anger has a particular biasing effect that is never mentioned.  We hear that anger is appropriate or justified, and therefore it should be expected.  Appropriate, justified and expected anger still affects human decision making in a predictable way.  The angry - no matter who they are need to realize that they may not be seeing things clearly due to the predictable and biasing effects of that emotion.  The technical aspects of human reaction time and the fact that decision making in high threat situations does not improve - even with training is a sobering fact that all police officers need to deal with.  Given the quoted statistics, in high threat situations when a subject is armed - the outcome of that confrontation will essentially be a coin toss.  The only logical approach to the situation is to design a new situation where it does not come down to reaction time and every officer knowing they have a 50:50 chance of being able to shoot first.  There is an innate human tendency for conflict resolution by aggression and choosing sides on how that plays out is not the best way to resolve the problem.  All that I have seen in social media and the press highlights a string of arguments designed to support one side or the other.

Considering the science behind this problem will lead to permanent, long term solutions.          



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

1: Murase D, Hachiya A, Fullenkamp R, Beck A, Moriwaki S, Hase T, Takema Y, Manga P. Variation in Hsp70-1A Expression Contributes to Skin Color Diversity. J Invest Dermatol. 2016 Apr 16. pii: S0022-202X(16)31047-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.03.038. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27094592.

2: Yoshida-Amano Y, Hachiya A, Ohuchi A, Kobinger GP, Kitahara T, Takema Y,Fukuda M. Essential role of RAB27A in determining constitutive human skin color. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041160. Epub 2012 Jul 23. PubMed PMID: 22844437; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3402535.

3: Guo Z, Zhang Y, Zou L, et al. A Proteomic Analysis of Individual and Gender Variations in Normal Human Urine and Cerebrospinal Fluid Using iTRAQ Quantification. Pendyala G, ed. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0133270. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133270.

4:  Elena A. Ponomarenko, Ekaterina V. Poverennaya, Ekaterina V. Ilgisonis, et al., “The Size of the Human Proteome: The Width and Depth,” International Journal of Analytical Chemistry, vol. 2016, Article ID 7436849, 6 pages, 2016. doi:10.1155/2016/7436849.

5:  Skin specific proteome.  The Human Protein Atlas.  Accessed on 7/16/2016.

6:  Blair JP, Pollock J, Montague D, Nichols T, Curnutt J, Burns D.  Reasonableness and reaction time.  Police Quarterly Dec 2011; 14: 323-343 (especially pages 15-20).

7:  Nieuwenhuys A, Savelsbergh GJ, Oudejans RR. Persistence of threat-induced errors in police officers' shooting decisions. Appl Ergon. 2015 May;48:263-72. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.12.006. Epub 2015 Jan 16. PubMed PMID: 25683553.

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

9:  Chris Hodges.  War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning. Public Affairs, New York, New York, 2002.

Attributions:

Attribution:  Graphic at the top is by Altaileopard SVG by Magasjukur2 [CC BY-SA 2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Spreading_homo_sapiens.svg

A Real Case Of Psychosis And What Can Happen

Public radio continues to be a rich source of information when it comes to real life psychiatric problems.  In this case the NY Times was also involved.  Considering the date the story was filed the usual critics have not chimed in yet.  They may not be able to since no psychiatrist or psychiatric medication was involved in the care of this patient - and it shows.  There is no more compelling story that psychiatric disorders exist, are severe, and for various reasons can end catastrophically.  I won't  belabor the point that I have treated hundreds of people with very similar problems.  For 22 years, I treated people with severe psychiatric disorders and most of them had psychotic disorders.  The episode of psychosis described in this story is the kind of psychosis that psychiatrists treat, not the vague symptoms described in a recent paper that suggested that some symptoms of psychosis are a normal experience.

Before I get into a brief discussion of the scenario, I would like to acknowledge the patient Alan Pean for sharing his story.  I heard his story on This American Life and the host Ira Glass was explicit that Mr. Pean  had signed a release of information so that the hospital records and a 50 page report of the incident could be used to construct what had happened. His family members were also available for the interview.  In this age where health care companies view patient information as proprietary corporate information I applaud Mr. Pean's decision to make this very personal private information public.   There are numerous lessons to be learned from this incident that I hope to make explicit  at the end of this post.

For anyone interested in listening to the audio version of this story go to the This American Life web site and look up episode 579 My Damn Mind.  This amazing story begins after Mr. Pean has been shot in the chest and is bleeding to death on the floor of his hospital room.  There is blood  everywhere on the floor and people entering the room have to put on shoe covers.  Later in the story we learn that he lost about 1/3 of his total blood volume.  A trauma surgeon is demanding that the police take the handcuffs of Mr. Pean because even though he is shot and immobile, he is handcuffed lying on the floor.  According to the Centers For Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) report he was trying to get up after he was shot and saying that he was "Superman". From there,  Ira Glass starts to interview Mr.  Pean about the 20 hours prior to this incident.  He describes being anxious and at times panicky.  He was sleeping 4 hours per night and recognized he was manic from his past experiences in 2008 and 2009.  He was diagnosed with possible bipolar disorder treated with medication and had no further episodes in 6 years.  He was trying to unwind by playing a video game online with his friends.  He started to think that the video game controller had been reprogrammed by the enemy and was switching on a processor inside of him.  He could not logon to the game because he knew that drones would triangulate on him if he did and destroy his apartment.  He called his brother for advice.  His brother told him to lay down and put cold water on his face.  He concluded that his circuits were overheating like a robot and his brother knew this.  At one point he knew he had to escape from his third floor apartment balcony because snipers were closing in on him.   As he looked down he thought remember your training - you are trained for this.  At that point Ira Glass jokes with him about that point and they both laugh.  He of course had no training and it was apparent to me that Glass had not talked with many delusional people.  Pean executes a perfect drop to the second floor balcony and grabs the railing.  From there he notices two air conditioning units on the ground swings past then and jumps.  He hits the ground running for his car because he has called in a drone strike in his apartment building using Google Maps.  He jumps in his car and heads out of the parking lot.  When the gate doesn't open he rams it until it opens.  At this point he is thinking that his rendezvous point is the hospital.  In a moment of clarity he also realizes that he needs Geodon, the medication that he takes for psychosis.  He feels like he is a bionic person or a cyborg driving the car at a high rate of speed toward the hospital.  As he approaches, he loses control and hits several autos and the hospital building totaling out his car.  An EMT sees the crash. puts him on a gurney and wheels him into the Emergency Department.

This entire sequence of events was driven by delusions.  In the narrative Pean described an intense fear for his life and the fact that his "adrenaline was pumping" at times.  That combination of emotion, especially high anxiety and delusional thinking can lead to impulsive behavior and a lack of typically rational decision-making.  It is an example of "dangerousness" or the emergency criteria that governs whether a patient with psychiatric problems is offered inpatient treatment or not.  The problem is that Pean's actions are all internally consistent with his delusional state.  He talks with his brother on the phone and does not mention that he thinks he is delusional.  In this state of mind, it is very likely that anyone assessing him for "dangerousness" would seriously underestimate what he was capable of.  A lot of his acts are also environmentally determined.  His delusional biases interpret the information as he sees it.  When he was speeding toward the hospital, he was convinced that some of the buildings he was passing were going to explode at any minute.  Despite the non-psychiatric interview, I think the emotion driving the delusionally based decisions is apparent.  Ira Glass points out that the narrative though irrational is internally consistent like a movie and not what he expected.

Pean is eventually admitted to the trauma surgery service for further observation of injuries from the car crash.  There was ample information that he had a significant psychiatric disorder including direct statements from his father who is a physician.  He is noted to be disoriented and believes that it is 1989.  His speech at time is incoherent, but the staff observe him to be lucid at times.  Immediately prior to the incident, several staff report the patient coming out of his room into the hallway either nude or partially clothed.  He had to be redirected back into his room and asked to put a gown back on.  He was dancing and in some cases danced away from staff trying to help him into the gown.  With his history (and assuming that brain trauma has been ruled out) these can all be features of a severe psychosis.  His parents are concerned that they plan to discharge him without psychiatric consultation.  The hospital they are in does not have an acute inpatient psychiatric unit and he has not seen a psychiatric consultant.  They leave at some point to rent a car so that they can drive him to psychiatric facility if necessary.  While they are gone he becomes extremely agitated.  He is tasered several times and ultimately shot in the chest just 40 minutes later.

The New York Times article goes into detail about the issue of armed security in hospitals.  It reviews the number of people with mental illness who were shot or tasered and killed.  I have pointed out some of the problems with firearms in psychiatric hospitals in an article about visitors carrying firearms into Texas state psychiatric hospitals.  The same issues apply in this case.  Firearms are not a deterrent when confronting a person who is agitated and psychotic.  In this case the patient recalls that he was some kind of cyborg secret agent.  In that frame of mind he is likely to interpret any efforts to contain his agitation and aggression as potentially dangerous to him and it would provoke extreme behaviors to counter that aggression.  In every security setting where I have worked, security and law enforcement lock up their weapons and do not take them into patient care areas even if a patient is highly aggressive and out of control.  It takes well trained staff and security to be able to do this and recognize why this is the best approach.  It also involves a contingency plan to physically restrain the patient in a safe manner as quickly as possible if the patient does not respond to verbal deescalation.

The CMS document discloses several important pieces of information that are not in the media.  The first eye opener is that the hospital administration said the security officer was justified in shooting the patient because he had assaulted them.  That statement grates on any inpatient psychiatrist or nurse who recognizes that is not the appropriate frame of reference for this incident.  This is not a street fight.  This is a vulnerable patient in a hospital whose rights and standard of care needs to be recognized.  One of the implicit assumptions in most hospitals is that psychiatrists and psychiatric staff are supposed to view aggression as an occupational hazard.  A unidentified staff member speaks to that in the radio piece and is very explicit about the amount of aggressive behavior that he sees in the hospital and the fact that he gets hit.  That is not the case in other parts of the hospital where aggressive behavior is more frequently seen as criminal behavior.  Early statements from the hospital administration suggested that the law enforcement officers here were justified in shooting Alan Pean, but they were subsequently modifying their position.  He was also charged with 2 counts of aggravated assault on both of the law enforcement officers who entered his room.  Clearly this is a psychiatric problem and the patient needs  protection.  As I read through the 50 page document from CMS, the suggested solution varied from being vague to solutions that many hospitals already have such and an emergency response team for behavioral emergencies.  They suggest that armed law enforcement officers should be only in the ED, not be involved in the behavioral emergencies until all other resources have been exhausted and intervene only in the case of life-threatening or criminal activity.

One of the primary conclusions of the This American Life piece is that is could have been prevented if the patient had received a psychiatric evaluation.  A hospital staff person pointed out that this was standard procedure and also that any number of staff used to encountering aggressive patients could have contained the patient without firearms.  There is apparently an inpatient psychiatric unit at this medical center where he could have been transferred.  Alan Pean responds to Ira Glass's question about how it is that he went to the hospital with mania and psychosis and ended up getting shot in the hospital instead.  One of his conclusions is that he is a young black man and he does not think that it would happen if he was white.  He remains understandably traumatized by his near death experience.

The only logical conclusion here is one that I have already reached many times in many posts on this blog.  Violence and aggression are treatable problems when they are associated with psychiatric illnesses.  There needs to be psychiatric and psychiatric nursing expertise in major hospitals at several levels.  One of the unusual parts of this story was all of the information available suggesting that the patient in this case had a significant mental illness.  That was made even clearer when his physician father made the statement, requested the psychiatric evaluation, and was told that the patient was being discharged instead.  The CMS report does not address staffing levels in the hospital and whether there are adequate staff to address the problem.  In my experience, a nurse and another staff person going to address a situation where there is potential aggression by a young manic patient is not enough staff.  I have personally found myself in many situations when I walked in a room and there were four highly trained nursing assistants out in the hallway, ready to intervene if necessary.  In every case our goal was to protect the patient from injury.

The lesson in this case is that if you go to a hospital with aggressive behavior due to a psychiatric disorder somebody on the receiving end needs to know what to do to keep you safe.  Only a fraction of American hospitals are set up to do this and provide the necessary psychiatric care to resolve the crisis.  Some hospitals will never be equipped to deal with this problem and the practical solution in most communities is to triage violent and aggressive people to more appropriate facilities.  Even though the New York Times article points out that there has been a 40% increase in hospital violence, many of the people with that problem never make it there.  There needs to be enough capacity to treat people so that people with violent and aggressive behavior from a psychiatric illness can go to a hospital knowing that their problem will be diagnosed and treated and that their safety will be assured.  
             
Nobody should ever have to experience what Alan Pean went through.



George Dawson, MD, DLFAPA




References:

1:  This American Life.  579: My Damn Mind.  February 12, 2016.

2:  Elisabeth Rosenthal.  When The Hospital Fired The bullet.  New York Times February 12, 2016.

3:  Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction.  St. Joseph Medical Center; 1401 St. Joseph Parkway, Houston Texas 77002.


Supplementary 1:

In the report by This American Life, it was apparent that at least some authorities were looking for evidence that the patient had aggressive tendencies outside of the episodes of mania and psychosis.  They did this by asking his family if he had any criminal convictions.  In the original hospitalization he was also noted to have THC in his toxicology.  The fact that there were no other drugs present and that THC can persist a long time was emphasized in the This American Life piece.  In fact, THC is not a trivial compound in this case.  No conclusions can be made based on the existing data and the lack of direct assessment of this patient, but this compound should be avoided by anyone diagnosed with bipolar disorder, especially if there is any doubt about the diagnosis.


Twitter Graphic:

Is Susceptibility To Terrorism A Developmental Risk?

I think it was about 1967 when I was playing football with my usual group of friends.  We played football every night for about 8 years.  One of them put on his Army jacket after the game and I noticed that he had a small solid blue button affixed to the lapel.  I asked him what it meant and he said "Students For A Democratic Society."  That was the very first time I had heard of the SDS.  In those pre-Internet days, the only access to radical literature was filtered through popular press in articles that were intended to sell copies.  There were some counter culture approaches like the Whole Earth Catalogue that advised on how to access non-mainstream forms of writing.  It was also possible to travel to one of the universities at the time that were the sources of radical thought and listen directly to what some of the student leaders had to say.

As I pondered that blue button, my next contact with radical thought occurred in the freshmen philosophy course of my liberal arts college.  I ended up in that class like several of my football playing colleagues.  The only reason I went to college was to play football and eventually become a football coach and physical education instructor.  My only disappointment so far was that the college did not have a PE major.  One of the texts for the philosophy course was Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice.  The only thing making my life more complicated at the time was that the instructor graded on class participation.  If you didn't speak up, he would scan the list of names and call one out.  It happened that day in the fall of 1969 that he called my name and asked me what I thought of some aspect of Cleaver's radical text.  I was seated in the back row as 44 sets of eyes turned to stare at me.  My voiced cracked a little bit as I delivered a several minute interpretation.  I wish I could recall what I said that day because it was one of many turning points for me in college - but I can't.  All I can recall is the Professor's response:  "That is good Mr. Dawson.  That is very good."  From that point on, he knew I read the stuff and and could be counted upon for reasonable commentary.  When I sat down the introverted football player seated next to me - gave me a thumbs up.

The 1960s and 1970s were turbulent times.  The same guys I played football with - every day for years - were enlisting in the Marines and going to combat in Vietnam.  One of our group died over there and his name is on the Vietnam Memorial.  It was a very unpopular war and in those days protesting unnecessary wars was popular and became more popular as time went by.  My overall recollection was that information about the war was much more tightly controlled in those days than it is now.  That may have been part of the backdrop for protests, but there was more.  My home state of Wisconsin was a hotbed of radical political thought centered at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.  There were protests in the street and riot tactics used against the protestors.  At one point the windows were broken out of the stores so often on State Street that there were replaced with wood.  One of the retail pharmacies there eventually replaced their windows with bricks and mortar so that the store resembled a bunker with small windows up at the top.  It was an exciting place to visit due to the activity on campus and high level of emotion.  There are detailed descriptions of the history of what happened in Madison available around the Internet and I am not going to excerpt them here.  One of the references suggests that the three radicalized university campuses of that era were Madison, Berkeley, and Columbia.

The protesting in Madison seemed to peak on August 24, 1970 when 4 men blew up the East Wing of Sterling Hall.  That explosion killed a 33 year old physics researcher, injured 3 others, and destroyed years of research - in one case 25 years of research.  The apparent target was Mathematics Research Center because it was funded by the US. Army and the motive was to protest the war in Vietnam.  The 4 men involved ranged in ages from 19 to 23.   The same group was involved in an earlier attempt to bomb the Badger Army Ammunition plant in Baraboo, Wisconsin just down the road from Madison.  Depending on who you read, this bombing changed the course of war protests in Madison.  Many people left the anti-war movement when they realized it contained an element that were not concerned about the lives of others.  Even though many seem to agree that the incident seems to be forgotten, I think there are questions about whether the almost total lack of protests and radicalization today is not in part due to this lingering concern.  In his book Days of Rage, Bryan Burrough described the Sterling Hall bombing as having a transformative effect in that it refocused conversation from the Nixon administration to the bombers and assigned a larger responsibility to anyone who encouraged violence either directly or indirectly.

Burrough goes back and does a good job of making sense of what happened in the 1960s and 1970s.  He covers all of the main radical groups and points out that terrorism (of a domestic kind) was much more widespread then than terrorism of all forms is now even though it was less lethal.  To cite a few examples, in 1972 there were 1900 domestic bombings in the United States.  Bombings were occurring daily and an FBI agent in the book referred to it as "commonplace".  One of the commonest sources of explosives for bombs was dynamite stolen from construction companies.  A Senate investigation in 1970 showed that the amount of dynamite being stolen from quarries and construction sites went from a total of 12,381 pounds in 1969 to 18,989 pounds in the first 5 months of 1970 (Burrough, p151).  By the end of that year most states had passed or were considering new laws limiting the sale of dynamite.  Radical groups also targeted police officers in their activity with several municipalities reporting several fold increases in assaults and homicides of police officers.      

Although Burrough's book is not written from the perspective of developmental psychiatry, there are important themes there that highlight what I think is the most plausible answers to both the recruitment of terrorists and some mass shootings that involve men in this age group with no clear mental illness.  First and most primary is emotional maturity.  Emotions  are both necessary for optimal decision making and at the same time can obscure clear decisions.  The factors that result in that optimal decision making are under delineation but brain maturity, the absence of intoxicants, and appropriate social context and boundaries are all important  aspects of the process.  It is clear from reading Days of Rage that the terrorists of the 1970s like many of their peers - lacked a lot of this.  Burroughs documents disagreements based on boundary issues within some of these groups and in some cases naive approaches to building solidarity within the group that was nothing more than sexual acting out.  Envy was a notable dynamic.  Many of the Weathermen were described as being envious of the Black Panthers.  Some of the radicals most notably the Weathermen were so naive in their quest to recruit and save the working class, that they did not realize that the working class did not want to be saved - at least by them.  The violent activity seemed to be driven at times by narcissism more than anything else.  Being the most violent person in a group of otherwise ambivalent terrorists conferred a certain status that seemed to last a long time.  Late adolescence and early adulthood is also the last great moment to be bonded to a group of your peers.  The next life stage for most people involves family units taking priority rather than peers.  Bonding around a life changing event like a revolution or even much less visible military service can be a powerful experience if it really happens.

History tells us that the revolution did not happen.  Several of the radicals from that time are interviewed and talk about being convinced at the time that it would.  The author refers to this thought as delusional at times, but it is more likely quasi-delusional - shared with such emotional intensity that a very low probability event seemed likely.  Some ponder their sparse legacy or rationalize a lot about what happened.  One interesting twist is that many of the radicals who were never convicted and even some who were completed their college degrees and even went on to professional school.  Some became lawyers and teachers.  One became a prominent psychiatrist.  That aspect of their transition from advocates for a violent overthrow of the system to being an integral part of it separates domestic terrorists from those who are involved in countries without that opportunity.  That may be what separates countries who may transiently have several hundred terrorists who fade away in a fraction of a generation to generations of terrorists living in an abandoned country like a revolution has happened.

There are experts in this area who have different ideas about classifying terrorists - but they are generally based on stable adult personality structures.  I  think that there is a lot to be said for a model that looks at susceptibility to recruitment into terrorist organization as a developmental predisposition and one of many decisions that needs to be made in the transition to adulthood.  That transition is fraught with bad decisions that are the product of the highly variable judgment that can be readily observed in adolescents and young adults.  That includes a prominent bias starting in adolescence that you are making the same decisions that adults would make or that you would make if you were slightly older.

What happened to the domestic American terrorists in the 1970s and how quickly they were forgotten is probably a case study in the problems with this process.  It is very likely that process continues to this day when young adults are recruited to work as foot soldiers in organizations that have similar violence-based ideologies that appeal to very few people.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA     


Reference:

Bryan Burrough.  Days of Rage.  Penguin Press.  New York, 2015.

Note on the reference: If you lived through this time like I did,  this is the best reference I have found to help you figure out what really happened.

        


















Attribution:

FBI wanted posted image at the top of this post uploaded by Magnus Manske, via Wikimedia Commons - on April 12, 2012.


The following photos were taken of some of the historical locations mentioned in the above post in Madison, Wisconsin on Thursday October 22, 2015. 

Sign to commemorate Reform and Revolt just east of Sterling Hall. 

Sterling Hall Sign

Sterling Hall Main Entrance

State Street from the foot of Bascom Hill.

Death Cults

That may seem like an odd topic for a psychiatry blog but I did not know where to put this.  Earlier this week my wife and I decided to stop watching a popular television show called The Following.  It is basically a fictional show about a death cult that involves a charismatic psychopath who engages other psychopaths to do mass killing.  They typically use knives as murder weapons and kill large numbers of innocent people at public gatherings like book signings in book stores.  In one episode last year, the main psychopath in the show happened across the camp of another death cult run by a different psychopath and it was the expected lethal battle for leadership.  The dramatic tension is created by a group of FBI agents trying to catch and stop the psychopaths and the personal stories in that group.  In the opening show this year, there was a murder scene that was explained to the audience and then implicitly done that was so sadistic and so sick that we decided to shut off the show and never watch it again.

Violence and aggression are always in the background in America.  We take violence and aggression for granted and it seems surprising when they are excluded from entertainment.  What no car chases or shootings?  And it has been there a long time.  I can remember being in East Africa in the 1970s and at that time many of the Africans that I met, had the idea that most Americans carried guns.  That conclusion was from watching American films.  There has always been the debate about whether or not the display of all of this violence affects people.  Like practically all research of this type, I would expect the results to reflect the biases of the researchers.  Typical research would look at a large group  exposed and not exposed to violence in the media and the results are mixed.  Mixed results lead to the status quo, but the status quo has gradually gotten worse.  Television shows commonly have sadistic serial killers as their plot line and in one case a serial killer is the main character and hero.  

According to a 2012 report by the Media Violence Commission (1) major medical (including the American Psychiatric Association) and the major psychological organization in this country support the argument that there is a casual connection between media violence and aggressive behavior.  This report also looks at the biases that may be in place that might obscure that connection.  The authors mentioned the belief that the effects must be immediate and severe is a common bias.  In other words, I see a violent movie and perpetrate a violent act within the next day or two.  Instead over time, exposure may decrease prosocial behaviors.  This report briefly summarizes the literature on possible psychological mechanisms that occur with exposure to violence but the most important  conclusion is:

"One conclusion appears clear-extreme conclusions are to be avoided. Not every viewer or player will be affected noticeably, but from understanding the psychological processes involved, we know that every viewer or player is affected in some way."

Many clinical psychiatrists have talked with people who have perpetrated violence based on some act that was portrayed in the media.  These stories are also described in the media with some regularity.  I think that if there are any factors containing a media effect it is the moral development of most people and that fact that a lot of the violence is hypothetical and it could not be enacted without considerable resources.  Factors that may facilitate violence after exposure would include a developmentally immature brain or a brain that would be more susceptible to the priming effects of violence.  That would include various forms of severe mental illnesses or personality effects like psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder.  In many cases the perpetrators of violence has no idea about how devastating injuries can occur from fictional portrayals where people get up after being hit over the head with a pipe.  They don't realize that in many cases that results in a fatal or disabling brain injury.

The overriding dimension affecting violence that needs to be addressed is at the cultural level.  A critical recent development is the resurgence of the death cult.  The concept of death cult is poorly defined at this time and as far as I know there are no definitive scholars.  They seem to come in two forms.  The first requirement is a cult or an organization with a charismatic leader and followers who are willing to uncritically follow the edicts of the leader.  There have been various studies of the dynamics of these groups and who might be susceptible to becoming a cult member.  Jerrold Post, MD has analyzed the dynamics of charismatic leaders and describes them as "mirror hungry" personalities that require constant admiration, convey a sense of omnipotence and grandeur,  have the appearance of certainty, and rely heavily on splitting as an adaptive psychological defense (2).   Death cults seem to come down to 2 varieties - those predisposed to mass suicide and those that are predisposed to homicide and mass homicide or in some cases genocide.  For the purposes of this post, I am focused on the latter, because they seem to pose the most immediate danger to the most people.

Prototypical homicide focused cults or movements in my lifetime have included the Nazis and Pol Pot.  The concept of "charismatic leader" can probably extend to larger groups of extremists that have been described as being responsible for genocides (3).  Over the past 30 years, we have seen many of these cults or movements commit homicide to various degrees often with loose religious rationalizations.  The killings have become increasingly vicious and sadistic.  The killings have reached a level of intensity that all of the religious justifications no longer seem to apply.  The international solution has been to mobilize against these groups and in some cases, explicitly threaten to kill them.  The media is always complicit with death cult propaganda and the resulting desensitization may have been one of the factors in the escalation.  This is an interesting parallel with television entertainment that seems to be in the same cycle of escalating to the most horrifically sadistic and brutal types of killing and torture.

What is missing in all of this mass exposure to violence and killing is an explanation of the driving forces and a plan for change at a cultural level.  There is a current and shocking increase in antisemitism spreading across Europe, to the point that one author has suggested that it may be time for the Jews to leave Europe (4).  There don't seem to be any pacifists any more.  There is no peace movement like there was in the 1970s.   I have not seen any explanations for this primitive behavior and why it occurs even though many explanations have been around for years.  Here is one from Lifton that has been available since 1986 and it is accessible to any psychiatrist trained in psychodynamics or any good student of English literature:

"Fascist ideology can have particular appeal for the survivor self fighting off disintegration because it holds out, at all levels, a promise of unity, oneness, fusion.  It deals with death anxiety, moreover by glorifying death, even worshiping it.  While one's own death as a warrior is idealized, the self mostly escapes death - achieves the death of death - by killing others.  There can readily follow a vicious circle in which one kills, needs to go on killing to maintain one's cure, and seeks a continuous process of murderous, deathless, therapeutic survival.  One can then reach the state of requiring a sense of perpetual survival through the killing of others in order to re-experience endlessly what Elias Canetti has called the "moment of power" - that is the moment of cure."  p. 499.

Lifton knows full well that the fascist thought process that he describes is not a diagnosis,  but it is the way that large groups of people can think.  It has been present since the time of ancient man.  You can find theories about how it is "hardwired" into the human brain with suggestions that it is adaptive.  The only real way we can combat it is through educating people about what is really going on, improving critical thinking and changing popular culture.  Teach them how to recognize biases and overcome them.  A basic skill would seem to be able to recognize a death cult and realize why participation may not be in your best interest.  It goes without saying that it could not be in the best interest of civilized society, but the philosophy behind that probably needs teaching.

When I turned off my TV set the other day, I was not seeing it as a protest.  But if media producers realize that abhorrent violent content is less interesting that may be an important cultural change.      


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




References:


1:  Media Violence Commission, International Society for Research on Aggression(ISRA). Report of the Media Violence Commission. Aggress Behav. 2012 Sep-Oct;38(5):335-41. doi: 10.1002/ab.21443. Epub 2012 Aug 10. Review. PubMed PMID: 22886500 (full text available online).

2:  Jerrold Post, MD.  Personality and Political Behavior.  Door County Summer Institute July 21-25, 2003.

3:  Alan J. Kuperman.  The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention - Genocide in Rwanda.  Brooking Institution Press.  Washington, DC (2001) p. 12.

4:  Jeffrey Goldberg.  Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?  The Atlantic.  April 2015.

5:  Robert Jay Lifton.  The Nazi Doctors.  Basic Books, New York (1986) p. 499.




Supplementary 1:    I would not encourage anyone to watch the television program in question that I mention in paragraph 1.  I have seen plenty of media violence, but consider this depiction to be the worst.

More On Violence And Aggression In Minnesota Hospitals

There was a recent incident (see link within that article) that occurred in a Minnesota hospital a few weeks ago that resulted in serious injuries to nursing staff.  There are various sites on the Internet where you can view the videotapes that were obtained from the hospital's security cameras.   It shows an out of control man chasing and striking nursing staff with a metal bar or pipe, in some cases repeatedly.  The patient in this case was eventually apprehended outside of the hospital and died suddenly after he was tasered, taken to the ground, and handcuffed.   Preliminary information suggested that the patient involved in this situation was probably experiencing an acute change in his conscious state because it was a total departure from his personality and he had no previous episodes of aggression or violence.  Nursing staff sustained serious injuries including a pneumothorax.  Autopsy results have not been released at this time.

Many people were shocked by this activity and yet is is a fairly common occurrence.  People may expect this kind of agitated and aggressive behavior to occur only on psychiatric units, but the reality there is that is happens only on a few psychiatric units.  Most psychiatric units are managed to limit the admission of patients with a high potential for violence.  It happens on medical-surgical units for a number of reasons and the effects are more dangerous at times because of the availability of objects that can be used as weapons.  I have seen stands used for hanging intravenous solutions being swung in a wide circle through an intensive care unit.  These stands have heavy bases that can inflict serious injuries and destroy a lot of equipment in an ICU.  There are many possible reasons for this kind of aggressive behavior ranging from delirium and psychosis on one end of the spectrum to antisocial behavior and wanting to intimidate medical staff on the other.  Although it seems incongruent with a controlled hospital environment, many families have an experience with a family member who suddenly loses control.  The proscription on aggression and violence and the moral interpretation of this behavior often makes it difficult for families to comprehend what is happening.  Families and medical professionals alike often lack the vocabulary for describing this behavior and can just lump it together as "bad" behavior.

I saw the preliminary description of this incident and the video clips and decided not to comment on it until after the results of the autopsy and investigation were known.  The idea that  this problem would be approached by making this behavior illegal made me change my mind for a couple of reasons.  First, there is a very high probability that this behavior was precipitated by a medical problem that led to a change in consciousness to the point that this individual had no control over his behavior.  Anyone who has been delirious has experienced this at one point or another.  In my own family one of the male relatives who was a well driller was apparently "blown up" in a well one day and the resulting brain injury led to permanent and extreme changes in his behavior.  From that day on he was extremely aggressive and the aggression was directed toward property.  He continuously overturned furniture and smashed dishes until the entire house was trashed.  In those days before any care or containment was available, the expectation was that the family would care for him and they did until he died.  The home environment was constantly disrupted by rage attacks until that day.  In my capacity as an inpatient psychiatrist, I would routinely see people brought to the hospital after they suddenly became aggressive at home.  When their relatives arrived they were always shocked to find that the patient had been admitted to a psychiatric unit.

My second reason for concern is the involvement of politicians in what is a misunderstood medical problem.   An acute medical problem causing aggressive behavior in not a criminal act - it is a medical problem.  Attempting to incarcerate or fine a person for aggression that occurs in that circumstance does not make any sense at all.  It may be a way to secure political capital from a special interest groups, but criminalizing a medical problem is not a reasonable approach.  Even suggesting that this is something that should be debated in a court of law is questionable.  I base that on the known track record of the not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-illness defense.  It is widely known that there is a low probability of that defense succeeding.  It is also widely known that people who have committed criminal acts and who clearly have severe mental illness  are typically convicted.  All it usually takes is a expert testimony suggesting that despite any mental illness diagnosis, the defendant appeared to be taking planned steps to achieve a goal.  In the case of aggression those steps would involve assaultive behavior and destruction of property rather than random activity.  I can say that in every case of aggressive behavior that I have witnessed in a hospital, even in cases where the patient had no subsequent recall of the incident that their behavior appeared to be planned and the assaults were directed.

On the non-medical side of the spectrum, there are people whose conscious state is not altered at all and they have directed violence as part of their personality structure.  Threatening and assaulting people are a way of life.  They frequently have criminal backgrounds or an arrest record.  They often give a history of fighting and may have harmed someone when they were defenseless or felt no remorse if their aggressive behavior resulted in injury or disability.  In my experience the majority of these persons can control themselves in medical settings with a few exceptions.  Any drug or alcohol intoxication state makes them more unpredictable.  Seeking prescriptions for controlled substances like opiates or stimulants can also create confrontations if they don't get the prescription that they are seeking.  There may be a question about whether any special legislature penalizing what is essentially criminal assaultive behavior would be useful.  My guess is that it would not for the same reason that civil commitments fail to work - the laws are not utilized.  Hospital administrators and courts tend to ignore aggression toward medical and nursing staff from patients who are willfully directing violence toward them as a product of their usual conscious state.  Administrators always explained it to me as an occupational hazard, especially on the part of the nursing staff.  That casual attitude often leads to inadequate safeguards at every step.  There should be a zero tolerance attitude for personality disordered violence and that should include prosecutions for assault.

The key to protecting medical and surgical staff and their patients from aggression associated with acute changes in consciousness is to have a heightened level of awareness.   The patient's history prior to admission is critical.  Prompt recognition of delirium from many causes and acute drug and alcohol intoxication and withdrawal states is necessary.  Adequate staffing is critical.  There needs to be a definite team approach, all of the staff on the unit need to be aware of the potential for violence, and the priority needs to be on protecting the nursing staff delivering direct care to the patient.  Medical staff and nursing have to be on the same page and there can be no factors present that lead to split treatment.  Enlightened administrators may be helpful in preventing that dynamic, but in my experience I have not found any.

One of the common problems is that staffing on some of these cases involves 1:1 observation preferably by a trained psychiatric technician or nursing assistant who knows how to help patients de-escalate.   Just having a reassuring person in the room can often have the same effect.  There are protocols that address the physical environment to reduce the likelihood of post operative delirium.  Where necessary it is useful to have experienced staff treat acute agitation in hospital settings with medications.  Some large hospitals have psychiatric consultation 24/7 to address the problem and in some cases where the patient is medically stable transfer them to a more secure psychiatric environment for assessment and treatment.  Medical and nursing staff need to be in close contact 24/7 in order to make rapid adjustments in the treatment plan.

Making the aggressive behavior associated with explainable medical problems a crime is the wrong approach.

When I see legislators talking about what medical professionals do or do not know about containing violence and aggression my typical response is to cringe.  I put it on the long list of all of the other things that legislators think they needed to train physicians in - like how to prescribe opiates (in the year 2000) and then how not to prescribe too many opiates (in the year 2010).  There are plenty of people who come out of training who known how to assess and treat aggression.

They are called psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses.




George Dawson, MD, DFAPA            

Minnesota Continues A Flawed Approach To Serious Mental Illness And Aggression

I was shocked to see this article posted on a CBS web site.  I was shocked because I was completely unaware  that such a law existed.  I was shocked because Minnesota has fairly well documented problems in their state hospital system.  The state security hospital has had numerous problems with containing violence and aggression and there is no evidence that situation has been resolved.  There are very few specialized units in hospitals in the state that could potentially deal with the problems of violence and aggressive patients.  There has been no effort to modify the limited infrastructure in the state that has been the result of managed care-like rationing over the past 20 years.

The story is a lot more involved than suggested by the news article.  When I read it I contacted my state legislators and asked for clarification primarily by pointing me to where the "12 hour rule" existed in the State Statutes.  The Minnesota State Statutes are generally easy to search but I could not find it.  My state Senator got back to me and suggested that this is the rule in 253B.10 PROCEDURES UPON COMMITMENT.  Chapter 253 is the civil commitment statute and reading through this chapter suggests that transfers from jail to state mental hospitals have to be adjudicated as mentally ill by civil commitment.  Other pathways include being found not guilty by reason of mental illness, and for examination or determination of competency to proceed to trial.  Apart from the time constraint, that part of the statute does not materially alter patient flow to state hospitals.  The statute gets more interesting with the following subdivision:

Subd. 4. Private treatment.

Patients or other responsible persons are required to pay the necessary charges for patients committed or transferred to private treatment facilities. Private treatment facilities may not refuse to accept a committed person solely based on the person's court-ordered status. Insurers must provide treatment and services as ordered by the court under section 253B.045, subdivision 6, or as required under chapter 62M. 

Private facilities refuse to accept court ordered and committed patients all of the time just based on the fact that severe mental illness cannot be treated on an 8 day DRG payment that in reality is treated like a 4 or 5 day length of stay.

The article itself focuses on Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center.  That is a state operated psychiatric facility just north of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  If the intent of the legislature is to alleviate crowding in jails, the writing of a statute will not do that.  If I had to estimate, the majority of inmates in county jails with significant mental illness and addiction problems are not committed and do not meet the forensic criteria suggested in the statute.  The article also illustrates the ambivalence that the state government has toward state run hospitals.  Not too long ago, the legislature wanted to close this hospital down.  Many states have adopted the managed care rationing model to mental illness.  They reasoned that the best way to "save" money is to close down state-run hospitals and clinics.  I have no doubt that the state would close it down if possible but it occupies too central a role in the civil commitment process.  There is instead a detailed political process to manage the hospital (see first reference).  That document is current, 114 pages long with 41 references to "jail" and 37 references to "aggression".  It acknowledges the role of the state in treating aggressive patients with mental illnesses. 

I have no way of knowing if any of the patients mentioned in this article requested transfer to a private hospital.  I would consider any hospital in the state that is outside of the state hospital system to be a private hospital because at this point they are all parts of private health care systems.  Only a fraction of community hospitals in the state have psychiatric units and a smaller portion of those are equipped to treat violent or aggressive patients.

I have tried to elaborate on this blog the type of structure necessary to treat people who are violent and aggressive as a result of mental illness. Any time that correctional populations are considered, the problem is more complicated than mental illness or not.  There are many individuals with sociopathy or personalities that are anti-authoritarian and with a tendency to criminal behavior.  At the extreme end a variant of psychopathy has been described where criminal tendencies, combined with a lack of empathy leads to an individual who is potentially more dangerous.  Those individuals often have a history of repeated violence against others and a pattern of planned violence as way of life.  The associated issues are that patients who are predominately personality disordered criminals are better taken care of within the correctional system.  Patients with primary mental illness who are incarcerated for non-violent crimes or violent crimes that occur only an episode of discrete mental illness are probably better treated in a mental health setting - especially if that is a continuation of their ongoing care.  Those statements are generally true because the personality disordered mentally ill will demonstrate a pattern of threatening other patients and staff with physical violence.  They may also exploit more vulnerable patients and try to intimidate them into giving them money, information, or personal favors that they can use to their advantage.  Those behaviors are goal driven, reinforced by a life of crime, and not likely to change as a result of any psychiatric intervention.

The article states that 146 inmates have been transferred from Minnesota jails to state hospitals since July 2013.  There is an eye witness account of what has occurred and a description of some of the injuries to staff including facial fractures and a torn shoulder tendon as the direct result of assaults on staff.  There is also the following statement from the affected staff person:

 And though she agrees there are other factors behind the rise in workplace injuries — a hesitance to use force against potentially abusive patients chief among them — she said she and her co-workers believe the 48-hour rule is largely responsible.

The issue of the use of physical force in psychiatric hospitals was also the primary cause of the upheaval in the previously cited problems at the Minnesota Security Hospital. A change in administration occurred to address the issue of patient injuries due to physical interventions. According to news reports that and the associated administrative measures were associated with an increase in staff injuries. We are left with the impression that there have been no effective interventions to prevent patient and staff injuries in state hospitals and the problem of aggression in these facilities has been poorly addressed. Organized psychiatry in the state has been silent on these issues.

The bottom line in this article is that it illustrates that Minnesota politicians and bureaucrats have no understanding of what is required to treat people with mental illness and aggressive behavior.  Their misunderstanding is significant and it occurs at multiple levels.  First, they have no understanding that the current system of mental health care is based on a system of rationing designed to provide minimal to no mental health care.  That all starts with hospital systems that have been rationed to the point that there are often no detectable changes in the mental health of the people admitted compared with the people discharged.  Psychiatric care in rationed hospitals is designed to limit treatment to a brief period or reimbursement.  Second, they have a track record of using mental health jargon to come up with their own diagnostic category of "sexual psychopaths" that can be used for indefinite confinement of sex offenders.  This categorization allows for diversion away from a correctional system that is apparently unable to confine sex offenders to the satisfaction of politicians and their constituents.  Third, the state managed security hospital has had a number of problems in the past few years including the mass resignation of psychiatry staff and an increasing number of injuries to hospital staff.  Fourth, Deputy Human Services Commissioner Anne Barry is quoted in the article. She was also quoted in previous articles about the Security Hospital. She attributes the problem to unintended consequences. To me that suggests a complete misunderstanding of psychiatric services in the state of Minnesota. Any psychiatrist in this state, especially if they work on an inpatient unit would be able to predict this problem. Commissioner Barry has also been quoted in the articles about the Security Hospital (see below)  Fifth, the direct quote by State Sen. Kathy Sheran also illustrates a misunderstanding of the problem. The idea that state hospitals are holding large numbers of people who don't need to be there is longstanding political rhetoric. In the absence of environments that can assist severely disabled individuals the default environments are hospitals. It is glib to say that people should no longer be a hospital when they have no safe place to live outside the of the hospital. As a reviewer of hospital admissions and lengths of stay, the presence of acute symptoms is typically used to mark who should be in a hospital. Chronic severe psychiatric disorders have a number of problems with cognition and functional capacity that lead to an inability to care for self independently of acute symptoms.  The associated political problem is a lack of funding for community based programs to resolve the problem.  As I have previously posted in many cases these community based programs that are inadequately equipped to contain aggression place both patients and staff at higher risk.

I qualify this post with the same qualifications I have put on previous posts on the topic on state run facilities.  The only source of information I have on this issue has been the press and legislative reports on mental health services in correctional facilities and at Anoka.  Media reporting of psychiatric issues and services leaves a lot to be desired and typically vacillates between blaming psychiatrists for all of the problems and tragic cases that result from a lack of services.  The only corroboration in this article seems to be the reaction of state politicians to it.  We have seen similar reactions to these issues in the press.  Unless there are some outright denials about the scope of the problem, something needs to be done.  The last thing we need is a state run Task Force or Commission investigating  itself.  The second to last thing we need is consultants hired by the state to write another report.  At this point, I don't even think that a review of the incidents is possible.

Any hospital in the state should be required to prospectively flag records based on violence, aggression and whether they were transferred from the correctional system.  All of the staff in those cases should make a recording of their perceptions of the antecedents, intervention and why it failed or succeeded, and the outcome.  Those cases should be reviewed on a weekly or monthly basis by psychiatrists with experience in treating severe mental illnesses and aggression.  That panel of psychiatrists should be carefully screened for conflict of interests, especially any financial conflicts of interest with the State or any other entities responsible for providing the treatment in question.

It is time to solve this problem.  Having the problems analyzed time after time by the same people who do not understand the problem and who can not possibly come up with a solution has not worked in the past 5 years and it will not work in the future.  Instead we have a state official charged with solving the problem saying that fewer psychiatrists makes sense and psychiatric expertise at the systems level is not needed as the system continues to collapse.  The system of state hospital care for patients with serious mental illnesses and aggression may not be salvageable at this point without realistic backing by the state.

A key part of the miscalculation appears to be casting psychiatrists in the role of generic technicians.  Of course these technicians would not have any understanding of patient centered care or a therapeutic alliance despite the fact that they have been writing about it for over a 50 years.  This accomplishes two goals at least at the rhetorical level.  It makes it seem like untrained administrators can address systemic issues of violence and aggression.  It also makes it seem like the only thing psychiatrists can do it prescribe medications - often to "stable" people.  Far too many errors have been made and public statements on the issues are consistent with a lack of appreciation of the problem and a complete lack of appreciation that psychiatrists are the only people professionally trained to provide this level of care.  This is by no means only limited to state systems.  These attitudes are prevalent in any hospital or clinic that is under the direction of a managed care system.

Will the problem of aggression in people with severe mental illness be addressed by arbitrary rules on patient flow and a treatment program that is flowing down from politicians and bureaucrats?  Will the problem be solved by a consensus of stakeholders?  Will the problem be addressed by new age jargon and philosophy?

I don't think so.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Refs:

Minnesota Department of Human Services - Direct Care and Treatment. Plan for the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. Direct Care and Treatment and Chemical and Mental Health Services Administrations. February 18, 2014

From the above document:  "Jails also count on AMRTC to take people whose criminal behavior is determined to be the result of mental illness (a new law requires that AMRTC accept referrals from jails within 48 hours of referral). Because of insufficient capacity in the service system, there are lengthy waiting lists for AMRTC beds"  (p 61).

Supplementary 1:  A previous quote from Commissioner Barry: "DHS officials say the facility no longer needs as many psychiatrists because many of the patients are stable and only require psychiatric visits once every three months. In addition, Barry said, the importance of psychiatrists at the facility has lessened over the years. Psychiatrists are just one part of the treatment team, she said. Nurses and psychologists also play an important role in patient care, and in many cases, advanced practice nurses can handle many of the tasks that used to be the responsibility of the psychiatrists, she said."

Supplementary 2:  I was unable to find any statute that described this 48 hr transfer rule.  I have asked my state representatives for assistance since it may not be a statute.  Corrected as of 12/9/2014 with the statute posted above.

Supplementary 3:  If you currently work in a non-state funded psychiatric unit and have received these transfers from correctional facilities please post your experience in the comments section below.  Feel free to post them anonymously and in a way that does not indirectly identify you or the facility that you work at.

The Retirement Party

There aren't too many retirement parties that you can go to and spend a lot of time talking about violence.  I suppose it might happen with law enforcement and the military.  When I went in to psychiatry I never seriously thought about the fact that I might have to go to work every day and face people with serious problems with aggression and violence.  In some cases that would mean seeing people who had threatened to kill me and my family.  It would also mean seeing people with documented incidents of aggression toward others, toward themselves, and toward property.

I went to a retirement party yesterday for a nurse I had worked with in an acute inpatient setting for about 20 years.  Like most of the nursing staff I work with she has excellent skills but was also renown for her sense of humor and positive attitude.  She was the kind of person I counted on when things were particularly grim - a frequent occurrence on inpatients units.  I could only make it to the last 2 hours of the party, so I missed the evening shift who all had to leave and go to work.  There were about 20 people there including a psychiatric colleague who worked with me on that unit and who I have known for 30 years.  I always consider retirement parties to be very happy events.  I have known too many medical professionals who never made it to retirement.  I want everybody to make that goal, especially people I have been in the trenches with.  I previously posted here many times about the inpatient environment and its importance is treating and containing aggression and how that function has been subverted by political and administrative forces and rationed to the point of being minimally effective.  When you are working on an inpatient psych unit, it is a lot like going to war every day.  You are facing many patients who don't want to be there despite significant problems.  Many are involved in contested commitment hearings based on whether they have a suicide or aggression risk.  Many have severe substance use problems that intensify suicidal thinking and aggression.  They are generally not interested treatment for the substance use problems or do not see that as a significant issue.  There are minimal resources to work with.  The team social workers generally don't last too long because there are very few community resources that want to cooperate with discharge plans from acute care psychiatric units.  Everyone is working under an administration that is focused on restricting resources and providing suboptimal care.  Everybody at that party worked with me in that environment at one point or another for 23 years.  At times it was like we were in foxholes under siege for weeks at a time, just looking for a break.

It was good to see everyone in a much less stressful context, but like most groups of people who have been immersed in a high intensity work experience the conversation tends to gravitate back to the humorous and stressful events that we were all a part of.  One of the common threads was aggression.  I learned that one of the nurses had recently been assaulted and sustained broken nose and a traumatic brain injury.  She discussed the incident and her reactions to it.  My psychiatric colleague added her personal experiences with aggression directed toward her.  As I looked around the room, I was aware of the fact that significant physical aggression had occurred toward about 25 % of the people there.  In some cases there were episodes of repeated physical aggression.  At some point in my career,  I realized that there was really nobody who was interested in helping inpatient staff contain aggression.  There are always administrators around who are ready to assign blame.  I can remember one particularly unhelpful "consultation" that suggested that the problem was a lack of rapidly forced medications.  The most recent administrative initiatives have to do with not forcing anything.  Suddenly everyone was supposed to respond to quiet deescalation.  Sitting in a quiet office somewhere and looking at spreadsheets does not lead to any insights into containing aggression on an inpatient unit.  I guess the typical administrator does not realize that.  My realization was that as a team we had to discuss the issues with patients constantly, emphasize the violence risk, emphasize that we did not want anyone to take chances in these situations, and discuss a detailed plan that included ways to approach the patient and their family as much as medication.

About halfway through the party, one of the nurses handed me her iPhone with the the story about a psychiatrist who had shot a patient in a crisis clinic.  It reminded me of the time I had to consider about whether or not to arm myself.  I was after all a tree hugger and a Child of God from the 1970's.  The last thing I wanted to do was have guns in my house.  I was aware of psychiatrists who had been killed by patients, in several cases with firearms.  I had just read an article about a psychiatrist who was also a Sheriff's deputy who carried a handgun.  In my case it was a patient who threatened to shoot me when I was walking out to my car from my clinic.  He made the additional threat to burn down my house and kill my family.   He proved that he knew where to find me by reciting my home address.  Going to work under those conditions every day and treating other aggressive patients is stressful to say the least.  But it is expected of psychiatric staff, in some cases even after they have been assaulted and the patient who initiated the assault is still in treatment.

I have no personal knowledge of the shooting incident but the descriptions suggest common system wide issues that are never well addressed these days.  Rather than speculate about media reports there are some common safeguards that I have learned apply everywhere and serve to contain violence and aggression in clinics and on inpatient units:

1.  The atmosphere - you can't really expect to reduce the potential for violence or aggression unless the environment is adequately managed.  Psychiatrists used to talk about the milieu but that ship has apparently sailed.  The largest professional organization of psychiatrists is silent on inpatient treatment and the treatment of aggression and violence.  The American Psychiatric Association (APA) used to have guidelines on such matters, but nothing has been written in a long time.  I don't know if that is just giving up to the widespread managed care blight or an open acknowledgement of the hopeless situation.  The APA has been reduced to homilies about how increasing access may reduce violent events rather than speciality units set up to treat aggression and violence associated with severe psychiatric disorders.

Inpatient units can literally be staff on one side of the plexiglass and the violent and aggressive patients on the other.  I worked on a unit like that at one point.  We were all shocked one day to learn that we really were not behind plexiglass when a steel chair came flying through a shattering tempered glass window.  It sailed right over my head and I was standing up at the time.  It must take quite a bit of force to throw a steel chair that distance through glass and to that height.  Nursing staff dove for cover with the explosion of the glass.  In addition to the staff it took two Sheriff's Deputies to resolve the situation.   There are any number of reasons given for running units like this and none of them are good.  It puts the patients and staff at risk by eliminating one of the most important aspects of psychiatric care - the interpersonal relationship between patients and staff.  Without it a correctional atmosphere can develop that is more conducive to rioting than treating mental illness.

That same floor had a history of firearm related events.  There was the case of a patient who had a firearm smuggled in.  He held the psychiatric resident hostage and ended up shooting a Sheriff's deputy at the control desk out in the hallway.  When I worked there, I was surprised one morning  to find a number of men on the unit in suits.  I learned they were federal agents.  I was more surprised to find out they were carrying machine guns.  People armed with automatic weapons really do detract from the therapeutic atmosphere of a psychiatric unit.

2.  Relationships - one of the most dangerous situations I have ever been in was ending up on the wrong side of the plexiglass at the wrong time.  The wrong time was at a time I was being blamed for a staffing problem that I really had nothing to do with.  Many people don't know how the attitudes that staff have toward one another can be played out in an intensified version by patients.  I found myself surrounded by 4 young aggressive paranoid and antisocial patients who threatened to beat me up.  After I talked my way out of that situation, my solution at the time was to transfer off that unit with the idea that I would not let that happen again and hopefully pass that knowledge along to other staff.  Unfortunately that same pattern of behavior can occur if it is activated by someone outside of the treatment team.  When that happens it is impossible to deal with in a constructive manner.

3.  Systems issues - the lack of administrative support for any functional approach to aggression is often the biggest obstacle to solving the problem.  This is not an issue in many places where the approach is to kick the can down the road.  Many community hospitals don't accept violent or aggressive patients or even patients who are highly suicidal and may require 1:1 staffing.  They are transferred to tertiary care centers where these problems tend to concentrate.  In those tertiary care centers it is important to segregate patients based on their potential for aggression.  I have heard all kinds of arguments against this procedure  that do not hold water.  I think people may be confused about the segregation issue.  I am  talking about separating men with a high potential for physical aggression from other inpatients who are generally more vulnerable than the average person.  Trying to treat those populations on the same unit is a recipe for disaster.  If the most aggressive mentally ill people in the state are being concentrated in a few hospitals, it is the only safe way to proceed with treatment.  Even then, there needs to be considerable expertise on the part of the staff involved.

4.  Serious administrative deficiencies - I have never seen a clinician with the knowledge required to address any of the above issues in an administrative position.  In an a new twist, there are some hospitals where administrators with no experience at all are charged with running hospitals for patients with severe forms of mental illness and associated aggression.  The commonest excuse for not addressing any of the concerns on this list is finances.  There is not enough money to provide adequate staffing.  In many cases there are now elaborate methods to decide on adequate staffing.  At times the staffing differences between an all male unit housing patients with psychotic and personality disorders with aggressive behavior is not much different from a mood disorders unit where there is practically no aggressive behavior.  Security on the units with a high potential for aggression often depends on other staff being available by cell phone or alarm.  In some cases it is a 911 call to local law enforcement.  I have had to ask that the 911 call be made when an entire male unit essentially rioted and it was no longer safe for the staff.

5.  It is all about the nurses - A key lesson that nobody ever learned in medical school and few physicians seem to learn after is that the only reason anybody needs to be in the hospital is nursing care.  Doctors can go in and out for 20-30 minute blocks and write orders, do procedures, and write prescriptions anywhere.  The nurses are with the patients 24/7.  It follows that one of the primary tasks as a physician is to assist the nurses.  That ranges from taking care of medical and psychiatric problems in a timely manner to backing them up in highly contentious situations.   Nurses are not there to make physicians miserable.  Nurses have an incredibly hard job to do and they know it takes a team effort.  There can't be any "personality conflicts".  In the interest of the team they need to be set aside.

Those are some of the thoughts I had about this party.  Of course I thought about the person being honored and my direct and very positive professional experiences with her.

And I looked around and hoped that everybody there could function as a team, take care of one another, and make it to retirement.

They have nobody else looking out for them.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Supplementary 1:  I had thought about posting the following disclaimer at the top of this post:

"In case you thought this was my retirement party and thought you would enjoy reading about that and rejoicing - you can stop reading right here.  I have not retired and this blog continues...."

But I thought it flowed better the current way.