On the Validity of Pseudopatients

Every now and again the detractors and critics of psychiatry like to march out the results of an old study as "proof" of the lack of validity of psychiatric diagnoses.  In that study,  8 pseudopatients feigned mental illness to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals.  The conclusion of the study author was widely seen as having significant impact on the profession, but that conclusion seems to have been largely retrospective.  I started my training about a decade later and there were no residuals at that time.  I learned about the study largely through the work of antipsychiatrists and psychiatric critics.

Several obvious questions are never asked or answered by the promoters of this test as an adequate paradigm.  The first and most obvious one is why this has not been done in other fields of medicine.  It would certainly be easy to do.  I could easily walk into any emergency department in the US and get admitted to a Medicine or Surgical service with a faked diagnosis.  I know this for a fact, because one of the roles of consulting psychiatrists to Medicine and Surgery services is to confront the people who have faked illness in order to be admitted.  Kety (9) uses a more blunt example in response to the original pseudopatient experiment (1):

"If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behavior of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labeled and treated me as having a bleeding peptic ulcer, I doubt that I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition. "(9)

I also know that this happens because of the current epidemic of prescription opiate abuse and the problem of drug seeking and being successful at it.  An estimated 39% of diverted drugs (7) come from "doctor shopping."  By definition that involves presenting yourself to a physician in a way to get additional medications.  In the case of prescription opioids that usually means either faking a pain disorder or misrepresenting pain severity.  So it is well established that medical and surgical illness well outside of the purview of psychiatry can be faked.  And yet to my knowledge, there is hardly any research on this topic and nobody is suggesting that medical diagnoses don't exist because they can be faked.  Does that mean the researchers consider the time of these other doctors too valuable to waste?  More likely it did not fit a preset research agenda.

The second obvious question has to do with conflict of interest.  It is currently in vogue to suggest that psychiatrists are swayed in their prescribing practices by incentives ranging from a free pen to a free meal.  Compensation as a company employee or to give lectures is also thought of as a compromising incentive. The free pen/free meal incentive is pretty much historical at this time.  What about intentionally misrepresenting yourself?  What is the conflict of interest involved at that level and how neutral can you stay when you are trying to escape detection in order to prove a point?  A vague script like a mono-symptomatic presentation of schizophrenia should suggest that the intent is to escape detection.  How should a person with a vague script act when they are face to face with a real clinician?  The logical conclusion is that they would be as evasive as possible even if they were adhering to that protocol.

The bottom line is that the pseudopatient experiments were seriously flawed out of the box.  Continuing to promote them as meaningful reflects a serious lack of scholarship in reading the relevant literature and a need to suspend the reality that in fact mental illness does exist, that distinctions can be made among various types of mental illness, and that those distinctions are useful to psychiatrists trying to help people with those problems.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Rosenhan DL. On being sane in insane places. Science. 1973 Jan 19;179(4070):250-8. PubMed PMID: 4683124.

2: Fleischman PR, Israel JV, Burr WA, Hoaken PC, Thaler OF, Zucker HD, Hanley J, Ostow M, Lieberman LR, Hunter FM, Pinsker H, Blair SM, Reich W, Wiedeman GH, Pattison EM, Rosenhan DL. Psychiatric diagnosis. Science. 1973 Apr 27;180(4084):356-69. PubMed PMID: 17771687.

3: Bulmer M. Are pseudo-patient studies justified? J Med Ethics. 1982 Jun;8(2):65-71. PubMed PMID: 7108909; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC1059372.

4: Spitzer RL, Lilienfeld SO, Miller MB. Rosenhan revisited: the scientific credibility of Lauren Slater's pseudopatient diagnosis study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2005 Nov;193(11):734-9. PubMed PMID: 1626092

5: Spitzer RL. More on pseudoscience in science and the case for psychiatric diagnosis. A critique of D.L. Rosenhan's "On Being Sane in Insane Places" and "The Contextual Nature of Psychiatric Diagnosis". Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1976 Apr;33(4):459-70. PubMed PMID: 938183.

6: Zimmerman M. Pseudopatient or pseudoscience: a reviewer's perspective. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2005 Nov;193(11):740-2. PubMed PMID: 16260928.

7: Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Cicero TJ, Kurtz SP, Martin SS, Parrino MW. The "black box" of prescription drug diversion. J Addict Dis. 2009 Oct;28(4):332-47.  PubMed PMID: 20155603; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2824903.

8: Millon T. Reflections on Rosenhan's "On being sane in insane places". J AbnormPsychol. 1975 Oct;84(5):456-61. PubMed PMID: 1194506.

9: Kety SS. From rationalization to reason. Am J Psychiatry. 1974 Sep;131(9):957-63. PubMed PMID: 4413516.

SAMHSA Aligned with Managed Care

When you have been as sensitized as I have to the rebranding of mental health services as "behavioral health" by the managed care industry - seeing a government agency promoting that brand is difficult to take.  I got an e-mail from SAMHSA this morning that does exactly that. The subsequent spin on behavioral health and health care reform needs to be read to be believed.  It is something that only a government bureaucrat or managed care administrator could actually believe.

This is an interesting excerpt: "Twenty years ago, even some in the behavioral health field didn't think recovery was possible."  Maybe that was why they were telling me that people in the throes of detoxification were now stable after three days.  Insisting that subscribers to their managed care insurance should be discharged home and that they could go to outpatient treatment despite repeated failures is certainly consistent with that statement.

Their spin on the PPACA is even more incredible with this summary statement: "Providers will also face new payment mechanisms such as capitation, episode rates, and team based payments rather than based on services provided."  That statement alone is proof that nobody at SAMHSA seems to understand that capitation was the primary mechanism that managed care used to dismantle mental health and addiction services to the abysmal level that they currently exist at.   Either that or they understand perfectly. 

This web page confirms what I have been saying for the past twenty years.  The government, in this case the federal government has been colluding with the managed care industry to marginalize the expertise of professionals and to continue to disproportionately ration care to anyone with a mental illness or an addiction.  The managed care industry and federal and state governments can spin that anyway that they want, but they can't get rid of the dismal record of the past 20 years or the fact that the government is now obviously promoting it.

More PPACA News

More news on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the New York Times today. I certainly want to applaud the New York Times for including another article that is fairly positive in terms of content regarding psychiatry and mental illness. On the other hand it is probably not a realistic appraisal of the impact the ACA will have on increasing the quality and availability of mental health services in the United States.

As I posted a couple of days ago the predominant business paradigm in healthcare is the main obstacle to reform, not the laws regulating healthcare or the payment mechanism. As long as the health care system is run by people who have no expertise and are making essentially business decisions we can expect the ongoing triple whammy of more health care inflation, poorer healthcare quality, and a lack of innovation.

This opinion piece is interesting because it includes a comment about what was supposed to be the great leveler of the healthcare landscape - the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.  Similar opinion pieces were written about this law as soon as it came out in 2008. It was a cause for celebration among psychiatrists and advocacy groups. And then slowly over time it became clear that reality did not match the enthusiasm, even by a long shot.

The same process is occurring as I write this about the ACA.  Through a process of being favored by politicians and regulation, managed care companies have always been able to use purely subjective guidelines often under the rubric of "medical necessity" to deny care to people with mental illness or addictions.  There is absolutely no reason to expect that will not continue to happen.

Let me be clear about the types of problems I am referring to.  I am referring to people with significant disability due to major mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and addictions who have life-threatening problems and no real access to solutions other than spending a few days in a hospital ward that is poorly equipped to help them and the hope that they can make it to a 10 or 15 minute equally meaningless outpatient appointment anywhere from one to four weeks down the road. These people frequently have associated medical problems and no resources like a stable income or housing.

The proponents of the ACA will tell you that these people will now be seen in integrated outpatient primary care clinics and the quality of their care will improve. The logical question is why have the resources to help them been denied for the past 20 years and what is the likelihood that dynamic will change with an additional 15 to 20 million people in the system?
Psychiatric illness on a par with all other medical disorders?  I don't think so.  Not as long as a faceless managed care bureaucrat with no accountability can throw you out on the street, deny a medication that you need for an "equivalent" medication, or tell you that the treatment for your problem involves an endless series of "medication checks" with a "prescriber". 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Richard Friedman.  Good News for Mental Illness in Health Care Law.  New York Times July 9, 2012.

SCOTUS decision irrelevant for health care reform

The decision by the Supreme Court on June 28 regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has generated a lot of speculation about the implications for health care reform, the politics of the Supreme Court, the health of Supreme Court justices, and the impact on two party politics. Very few people seem really focused on the issue of health care reform. Even the most positive spin on this decision misses the mark. This article by Brooks that seems to center on the ideology of the Court and how the decision is healing is illustrative with the following quote:

"People in both camps seem to agree: We’ve had a big argument about health care over the past several years, yet we haven’t tackled the big issues. We haven’t tackled the end-of-life issues. We haven’t fixed the medical malpractice system. We are only beginning to correct the antiquated administrative systems."

And:

"... we haven’t addressed the structural perversities that are driving the health care system to bankruptcy. ... American health care is still distorted by the fee-for-service system that rewards quantity over quality and creates a gigantic incentive for inefficiency and waste."

The observations like essentially all observations about the ACA ignore the basic fact that this IS managed care and in fact - managed care on steroids. Managed care has proven time and time again to not contain costs and introduce administrative inefficiency in over two decades of experience. Whether or not the Supreme Court allows it to go forward or it is politically defeated in the future is peripheral to the fact that managed care has not worked as a device to contain health care inflation and it certainly does not provide either quality care or innovation. It can make money for stockholders and CEOs. In fact, in an up or down economy I can't think of a better recipe for making money than being able to deny health care benefits to a group of health care plan subscribers or deny or reduce reimbursement to physicians.

The structural perversity in the system is that in the overwhelming number of cases, personal health care decisions are no longer made between a patient and a physician. Contrary to managed care hype, their decisions are not necessarily based on any legitimate evidence. They are based on what is good for business and in this case we don't have a business that needs to build a better product. We have a business that has to ration access to a service.

Until that is recognized - health care reform is basically continuously rearranging ways to shift money from the people providing the care and the people paying for care to business entities that are "managing" the care.

The outcome is as predictable as where the managed care systems have gotten us to at this point.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

NYTimes on Involuntary Treatment

The New York Times somehow let an all too true story about the treatment of mental illness slip through today instead of one of their more typical speculative pieces.  It is a story of a family desperately trying to get their father and husband assistance after he develops acute bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms.  It is a reasonable discussion of some of the issues behind deinstitutionalization, involuntary treatment, and the sad state of affairs that currently exists in trying to get treatment for those with severe mental illness. 

Probably the best quote in the article follows:

“The lack of resources has triggered a devolution of the standard,” says Robert Davison, executive director of the Mental Health Association of Essex County, a nonprofit group that connects patients to services in northern New Jersey. “Twenty years ago, ‘imminent danger’ meant what most people think it means. But now there’s this systemic push to divert people away from inpatient care, no matter how sick they are, because we know there’s no place to send them.”

I will refrain from the typical term applied to the situations whose definition is: "a particularly bad or critical state of affairs, arising from a number of negative or unpredictable factors".  The reason I will refrain is that it is not exactly accurate.  The entire debacle has been totally predictable.  It is the predictable result of applying managed care rationing techniques to the private and public mental health sector and denying care to those people with the most severe forms of mental illness.  When your only perspective is rationing care to make money - there are no standards.

So  what are the solutions?

They are fairly straightforward.  First off, there needs to be reasonable commitment standards with a more appropriate balance than "imminent dangerousnessness".  From the article it is clear that even that standard is interpreted widely.  There needs to be a three part standard for danger to self, danger to others, and gravely disabled and not able to care for oneself.  Some states accomplish the same goals by separating civil commitment from protective services/protective placement statutes.  The latter approach has the advantage of avoiding the use of commitment courts for issues that come up in the course of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.

Secondly,  the statutes need to be uniformly interpreted.  My experience working with probate courts from a 3 county area illustrates that no two judges would make the same decision on a particular case.  In many counties, the social workers screening the cases had much different philosophies.  The only time that changed was when there was a bad outcome.  That outcome was typically a person released by the court who attempted or committed a homicide or suicide.   

Third, there needs to be recognition that state hospital beds are not the only solution.  The main reason that state hospital beds don't work is that there are no local resources.  Once a person is ready for discharge, there is no place to send them.  More and more people accumulate at the state hospital and nobody is discharged.  There needs to be housing resources and community teams to actively work with people to facilitate discharge and maintain them in the community.   Just building state hospital beds has the predictable outcome of building more state hospital beds.

Fourth, financial conflicts of interest must be eliminated.  They exist at multiple levels and are the predictable outcome of rationing techniques that originated in the managed care industry 30 years ago.  The basic premise of managed care is that a "medical necessity" standard can be developed that will be subjectively interpreted by the company in order to ration care and save the company money.  One of the major loopholes has been any person that needs involuntary treatment.  The managed care company can simply say this care is no longer "acute" or "medically necessary" and transfer the financial burden of care to the taxpayers.  Huge cost savings to the managed care company.  That doesn't happen if you need a heart transplant.

The financial conflicts of interest occur at every level in the system.  Another example is the interpretation that at an aggressive or self endangering event has to have occurred in order to meet the commitment standard.  The author here does a good job of providing examples.  What is not obvious is the financial conflict of interest that is present in these situations.  In almost all cases - the hearing occurs  at the county level and the judge presiding knows the county's financial status and access to resources.  That significantly biases decisions especially in the case of counties where there are limited resources.

The only solution to avoiding these pure conflicts of interest is to have the money follow the patient and have it in a dedicated fund.  It is too easy to move funds around that should be designated for the treatment of severe mental illness if they move in and out of a general fund.  

Fifth, there need to be better managers of the systems responsible for the care of patients with severe mental illnesses.  Managed care companies clearly do a very poor job.  On the other hand every state generally has a large Department of Human Services and second to education they are usually the largest budget in the state.   Despite significant constant and high demands they are generally managed like any other state agency.  If there is a revenue shortfall and everybody has a 6% across the board spending cut, DHS also has a 6% spending cut.  These departments usually employ cost  center accounting that is also a detriment to coming up with an adequate plan of care across treatment settings.  Finally it is also common these days in both managed care and state systems to see managers with no clinical experience attempting to hold clinicians accountable to subjective standards and implementing plans to change care delivery - even though they have no expertise.

These are a few changes that would make a world of difference for families and patients like those mentioned in the NYTimes article today.  I am not very hopeful that they can happen because it would also involve changing a culture that has been the most insidious aspect of managed care.  That culture is quite simply - bureaucrats and business people telling psychiatrists what to do and restricting the resources needed to provide adequate care.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Jennen Interlandi.  When My Crazy Father Actually Lost His Mind.  NYTimes June 22, 2012. 

The Therapeutic Alliance

You + Me -> working on your problems.

That is the basic paradigm for treatment.  It assumes that the psychiatrists is competent and professional.  Assumptions about the patient are less clear.  In the ideal situation, the patient is aware of the therapeutic alliance and focused on examining and solving problems.  There are a wide array of problems that can be the focus of treatment.

The approach generally works very well but there are things that can derail it.  In the course of treatment, emotionally loaded topics are discussed.  In some cases the emotions of patients and psychiatrists impinge on the alliance and need to be clarified.  There are boundary issues that often bias treatment in a particular direction.  A common example is a friend or family member referring a person into treatment.  These days there are important factors outside of treatment that bias treatment as indicated in the following diagram.

In this case, the patient and psychiatrist can have an excellent working alliance.  They can be focused on solving problems by applying the best possible evidence based medicine or consensus guidelines, but the best course of treatment that they agree on is not funded by the managed care company or pharmaceutical benefit manager.  A common example these days would be a patient with depression and back pain.  I frequently recommend duloxetine, especially in the case of failed treatment with SSRI type antidepressants.  Even in the case where this treatment is effective for both depression and back pain,  the PBM can either refuse to pay for the medication or make the copay so high that the patient cannot afford it.  On the inpatient side, a common scenario is the manic patient who is not able to function unsupervised at home or in transitional care.  The managed care  company can say that the patient is "not a danger to self or others" and insist that they be discharged form the hospital.  That is probably one of the most frequent reasons for readmission.  In other cases, managed care companies declare that the patient is no longer at risk for suicide.  Their reviewers make this decision based on reading chart notes or talking to the doctor who thinks that the suicide risk is still high.  In the majority of cases they decide against the attending physician - probably the most egregious breach of the therapeutic alliance especially when the patient is as concerned as the psychiatrist.

The government also intrudes at multiple levels.  The biggest intrusion has been by facilitating the development of both managed care and PBMs.  These are businesses that were essentially invented by the government in order to reduce the cost of health acre.  After two decades it is clear that health care inflation is as high as ever, that mental health services have been cut to the bone, and that public mental health services that have adapted managed care strategies have a also dramatically reduced services.  In almost all cases, the government advances a purely political experiment that results in numerous inefficiencies that fails to produce results.  Some common example include failed pay for performance initiatives and a failure to reduce Medicare readmissions based on financial incentives and disincentives.  Practically all of these experiments use the administrators assumption that physicians don't know what they are doing in the first place.  That is probably not the best place to start.

There are many political influences that  are not on the diagram.  Direct to consumer advertising, the media, and various advocacy groups are additional examples.  Psychiatry is unique in that there are a number of causes dedicated to the most negative characterizations or destruction of the field.  That orientation not only precludes any therapeutic alliance but also may lead to intrusions on existing or initial alliances.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Autism and the Fathead Minnow

I saw an article recently that reminded me that at one time in my life, I wanted to be a limnologist.  I studied water chemistry and all of the little known plant and animal life in freshwater rivers and lakes.  At one point I was standing out on a frozen section of Lake Superior hand pumping 50 gallons of water through a plankton sampler.  The Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) was not a stranger to me.

In this experiment, the researchers were focused on the effect of medications in the water supply.  This phenomenon has been widely reported (1, 2, 3, 6).  The issue of whether exposure to low levels of pharmaceuticals in the water supply is problematic is controversial (4, 5).  The researchers used a gene expression study to show that a mixture of unmetabolized psychoactive pharmaceuticals (UPPs) can induce an Autism Spectrum Disorder-like gene expression profile in the fathead minnow.  In this case the UPPs used were  fluoxetine, venlafaxine, and carbamazepine used in concentrations that were about one order of magnitude greater than observed concentrations in drinking water, rivers and wastewater.  The greatest concentration in the water systems occurred in either wastewater treatment plant effluent or the water system downstream from the plant.  The authors conclude that their experiment shows that psychoactive drugs at low concentrations may be an environmental trigger for individuals susceptible to autism.

Reading this paper also reminded me of a paper I had read in Science several years ago on the production of fluorinated pharmaceuticals.  It is a little known fact that there are very few naturally occurring fluorinated molecules in biological systems.  Advances in organic chemistry made it possible to easily fluorinate molecules for medicinal purposes and several of the more well known medications like Prozac (fluoxetine) and Lipitor (atorvastatin) are members of that new class of molecules.

The solution to the problem is the same solution I was taught as a tree hugger over 30 years ago.  Keep potential pollutants out of the water supply.  No pharmaceuticals should be dumped into the water supply.  In the solid unused form they should be completely incinerated, hopefully in a plasma furnace.  Wastewater treatment needs to engineer new methods to remove both unmetabolized and metabolized pharmaceuticals from the wastewater effluent.  These are preliminary results that need widespread replication, but from an environmental perspective adding novel biologically active compounds to the environment and not expecting unintended consequences does not seem to be a very well thought out course of action to me.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Thomas MA, Klaper RD (2012) Psychoactive Pharmaceuticals Induce Fish Gene Expression Profiles Associated with Human Idiopathic Autism. PLoS ONE7(6): e32917. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032917

Müller K, Faeh C, Diederich F. Fluorine in pharmaceuticals: looking beyond
intuition. Science. 2007 Sep 28;317(5846):1881-6. Review. PubMed PMID: 17901324.

Revolutionizing the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression

In a word - computers.

I had the good fortune of training with John Greist, MD  at the University of Wisconsin in the 1980s.  Interestingly, many people have the opinion that Dr. Greist is firmly in the camp of biomedical psychiatry.  He and his long time colleague James Jefferson, MD regularly give Door County symposia on the medical treatment of mood and anxiety disorders.  They are highly regarded for their scholarship and teaching ability.  If you haven't listened closely enough over the years, you might miss the fact that Dr. Greist has consistently pointed out the superiority of psychotherapy for various conditions and that  computerized versions of the same psychotherapy perform as well as seeing a therapist.

At a recent MPS meeting, Dr. Greist gave a presentation on computerized therapy.  He made a compelling argument for computerized psychotherapy based on a recent meta-analysis of effectiveness and a comparison of the cost effectiveness of developing moderately effective drugs compared to very cost effective and potentially more effective computerized psychotherapies.  He was an innovator in the field publishing some of the original research and designing some of the original software.  At this meeting he made a strong argument that the software is inexpensive, potentially as effective and more consistent than human therapists and for many conditions more effective than medication.

If there was any market value in the existing mental health field, Dr. Greist's concept would be disruptive.  It would potentially change the way that treatment is provided, especially treatment of anxiety and mood disorders.   Think about the way that treatment of these disorders is currently delivered.  Twenty percent of the adult population is at annual risk.  About 40 percent of that group seeks treatment primarily through primary care clinics.  Very few people see psychiatrists and very few people need to.  The standard of care for almost everyone else is taking a medication prescribed by a primary care clinic.  Many people are treated with benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotic medications that have no efficacy in anxiety or depression and they continue these medications on a chronic basis.  If psychotherapy is available it is two or three sessions of crisis intervention or supportive psychotherapy rather than research proven therapy for a specific disorder.

The lack of availability of psychotherapy in the health care system is another direct result of managed care and rationing.  Managing most of the anxiety and depression with medications and brief visits is ideal for the bean counters.  Outpatient clinics become an assembly line of 15 minute "med checks".   The only reality is a medication and whether that medication works and is tolerated.   An occasional manager may insist that the clinic double book patients to compensate for missed appointments or extra appointments to generate more revenue.

I noticed  today in an effort to send an e-mail to my internist that his primary care clinic offers e-mail consults on treating anxiety and depression for $40.  That is about what most psychiatrists get paid for a face-to face consultation.  I wonder if the $40 fee includes a description of the psychotherapies that might work better than medication?

Enter computerized psychotherapy.  Instead of waiting to get into a clinic that is based solely on medications, a person with anxiety and or depression accesses an Internet Clinic and proceeds through a number of self-guided and computerized cognitive behavioral therapy options.  There are options for preferences, combination therapies, and inadequate response to computerized therapy.  There is no need to travel to a clinic and there is no waiting.  The therapy is available on demand and for free. The cost of treating thousands of patients is trivial, basically limited to staff to maintain the web site, collect treatment data, analyze outcomes, and modify the software as necessary.

All of this has been a known possibility for about two decades.   Why isn't it happening?  Why is mental health treatment limited to medications when psychotherapy, even by a machine is superior in many cases?  Over those two decades we have seen unprecedented rationing of mental health services.  We have seen what used to be clinical decisions turned into business decisions.  The end result has not only been lower quality clinical care but a complete lack of innovation.  It is time for the pendulum to swing back in the right direction.    

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Andrews G, Cuijpers P, Craske MG, McEvoy P, Titov N (2010) Computer Therapy for the Anxiety and Depressive Disorders Is Effective, Acceptable and Practical Health Care: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13196. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013196

A Positive Review of DSM5? In the New York Times?

I know it is hard to believe.  Something about psychiatry in the NY Times that is not spun as negatively as possible.  One blogger referred to the phenomenon as "New York Times Psychiatry".  But today there is a positive review of the addiction section of DSM5.  No spin on how the DSM is a carefully crafted plot by psychiatry to diagnose all Americans with a mental illness or collude with Big Pharma to sell more drugs.  Instead an author suggesting that there may be a scientific basis for these decisions.  And as we all know, science is a process and not a set of definitive answers.  Could science actually be the organizing force in the DSM rather than what we typically hear in the media?

Probably.

This is a brief scholarly essay on the history of the concept of addiction and the current neurobiological underpinnings.   It should be no surprise that with the accumulation of knowledge that the concepts of what is an addiction and what is not changes over time.  Just like everything else in the DSM and just like everything else in the field of medicine.  It is not a conspiracy or a plot - it naturally happens as knowledge accumulates and we get more sophisticated.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


Howard Markel.  DSM 5 Gets Addiction Right.  NY Times June 5, 2012.

Some Psychiatrists Continue to Obsess - Time for Action

In an editorial in this month’s British Journal of Psychiatry, Peter Tyrer contemplates the future of the profession.  It seems that pieces like this happen every 6 months or so in psychiatry and never in other medical specialties.  Tyrer discusses a recent conference in Belgrade where one of the speakers predicted that psychiatry would vanish and be absorbed into neurology.  That is after he develops the theme that neurology is so different from psychiatry that he could not possible entertain the idea of being a neurologist.    He would not have gone into psychiatry if it was a branch of neurology.  I think the problem for psychiatry and psychiatrists is really encapsulated in a single sentence in this editorial and it is also one of the main reasons I keep writing this blog:

"We live in turbulent economic times and may have a right to be gloomy, but I was quite disturbed to hear speaker after speaker predicting the demise of our profession or its absorption into neurology or some other discipline, as the funding for mental illness and respect for psychiatrists gets progressively less."

There is probably no better recipe for the demise of a profession than continuing to obsess about the future.  Pick a direction, any direction and the critics be damned.  It seems that the personality of most psychiatrists does not allow for that action.  We can dissect how psychiatrists as a group may be different from other specialists but I think the problem is that introspection and the need to understand motivations and emotions has translated into a lack of action and a really very annoying tendency to never take a stand.  I have also observed and equally annoying trait of uncritically accepting any criticism that comes down the pike as though it is generally legitimate.  All of the maladies in Dr. Tyrer’s piece including stigma, decreased funding, and a lack of respect for psychiatry come from those places.  Tyrer goes on to say that he sees no connection between stigmatization and discrimination and psychiatry’s lack of direction.

Let me suggest that at many levels this is the perception of a lack of direction.  The psychiatrists I know are trained to high levels of competency, technically skilled and care about what happens to their patients.  They successfully treat mental illness, save lives, correct misdiagnoses, and improve the lives of millions of people.  What they do every day differs considerably from what is written in the American press.  The sensational and inaccurate headlines can only be countered by aggressive political activity against all of the distortion that is typically being passed about psychiatrists.  For a moment, I was going to write that this is an American phenomenon, but then I recalled the work of Claire Bithell in the UK,  showing that coverage of psychiatry was less often than other specialties and when it did happen it was four times as likely to be negatively framed.

How about at least getting the word out that this trend exists and it biases people at all levels including the people who are responsible for funding treatment?  Here in the US, an unrealistically negative press feeds into a health care system that is set up to exploit patients with mental illness and the mental health professionals trying to treat them by providing disproportionately less funding.  It was so blatant that a parity law had to be passed to attempt to counter that discrimination.  But even as I type this note, large health insurance companies are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for specific treatment settings, therapies, and drugs recommended by psychiatrists.   Nothing helps their cause more than propaganda against psychiatrists. 

  

So let’s break the deadlock of continuing to obsess about the future of a specialty when the current practitioners know what they are doing and treat people as successfully as they get treated by any other specialists.  This is not about the difference between psychotherapy or medications or treatment philosophies.  This is about the difference between a stroke and a psychiatric disorder.  I have had to educate many practitioners about that difference over the years, always when they were misdiagnosed with a mental illness.  Some of those practitioners were neurologists.  That is proof of an unique skill set that nobody else in medicine seems to have and for psychiatry that is just the tip of the skill set iceberg.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA   

Myths in the Huffington Post

Let me start out by saying that I have a low opinion of the Huffington Post largely because of its rhetorical approach to psychiatry.  Tales about the pharmaceutical company corruption of psychiatry, ongoing articles about the myth of mental illness, references to very poorly done research that supposedly discredits psychiatry, the idea that the DSM is either a manual for everyman instead of clinical psychiatrists or a book written to manipulate the general public - the Huffington Post has it all and then some.  Interestingly, the Huffington Post lists these postings under "Science" when it is clear that nobody there seems to know the first thing about science or how it differs from personal opinion.  From what I have seen, listing yourself as an authority on science apparently makes it so on the Internet.  "Rhetoric/Politics" would be a much more accurate heading.

Enter Allen Frances commenting in blog form.  I have already responded to one of the Dr. Frances editorials that seem to pop up everywhere.  I find the whole process of taking a scientific debate within a professional society into a public forum somewhat appalling.  In this case, the rhetorical device of applying a decision made about an entirely different process - withdrawing a paper that the author believes was incorrectly done due to a methodological error ( one that is common to much psychosocial research) to the DSM process seems rhetorical to me.  That occurs after the process has been thoroughly politicized in the media.

The arguments themselves are either red herring or they make it seem like the very public decrying of the DSM process has shamed the APA into not declaring grief and psychosis risk to be diagnoses.  The public will never know what the APA process would have decided on these issues and of course every critic wants to take credit for exposing the APA as a group of money grubbing scoundrels whose only mission in life is to appease Big Pharma or generate huge revenue for the organization.

I wish I could count on the public to be as skeptical of these opinions as they are of other political opinions.  Unfortunately after 25 years of practice, I can say with certainty that only a few people know what a psychiatrist is or how they are trained.  Today there is more misinformation than ever about psychiatry via the Internet.

As a reminder, the DSM is for clinical psychiatrists and psychiatric research.  Reading criteria without the associated training is not the same thing as making a diagnosis.  There are many nonpsychiatric mental health professionals and many nonpsychiatric physicians.  In fact, the bulk of psychotropic medications in this country are prescribed by nonpsychiatric physicians.  Access to psychiatrists is tightly controlled by managed care companies and state governments. It is difficult to see a psychiatrist initially and over time.  These same managed care organizations control who is admitted to and discharged from inpatient psychiatric units and the type of care provided there.

The idea that the APA is an omnipotent organization with the power to manipulate and control the provision of mental health care through out the USA is a myth of massive proportions.  The idea that the DSM is a potential tool for that manipulation is another.

You can probably read about that first on the Huffington Post.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Historic WWII Era Film on PTSD

An historic film by John Huston on PTSD is available at: 

http://www.filmpreservation.org/preserved-films/screening-room/let-there-be-light-1946 

This is an actual film of veterans being treated. Very interesting film from an historic and psychiatric perspective. Also interesting from a propaganda perspective. One of my first teachers in psychiatry was a WWII psychiatrist who went through an expedited residency in order to treat combat neurosis.  The attached notes about the making of the films is also interesting in terms of the way it is structured, the total footage shot to get this final cut version and why this particular facility was used. 

As an example Huston comments on the treatment process at the hospital he chose for the film: " The hospital admitted two groups of 75 patients each week, and the goal was to restore these men physically, mentally and emotionally within six to eight weeks, to the point where they could be returned to civilian life in as good condition—or almost as good—as when they came into the Army…  "  Just doing the arithmetic, with what we know about the scale of WWII, that would suggest that most veterans with PTSD never got treated.

He also commented on the goal of the film: "[The purpose] was to show how men who suffered mental damage in the service should not be written off but could be helped by psychiatric treatment….".  That message seems to continuously escape the politicians responsible for war making and repairing the damage afterwards.

The original film was suppressed by the Army and the US Government who suggested that privacy considerations were the reason.  All the men in the film had signed releases for the filming, but at one point those releases disappeared.  During an attempted screening of the film, military police showed up and confiscated a copy.  The author of the Film Notes suggests a few reasons for the suppression of the film as well as discussing the innovative and artistic points.

From a psychiatric standpoint, the use of drug therapy by psychiatrists in film was cutting edge.  According to Gabbard and Gabbard the first film depictions of drug therapy occurred in 1947 (Possessed) and 1949 (The Home of the Brave).  In their book they mention Let There Be Light (1946) as the third depiction of narcosynthesis.  It  also reminded me of The Snake Pit (1948) in that the psychiatrists are portrayed as being generally effective.

From a cultural and political standpoint, the film and Huston’s intentions stand in contrast to the atmosphere today where psychiatrists are portrayed in the media as inept tools of pharmaceutical companies who thrive on prescribing ineffective treatments.  In the film notes section, Huston describes the transformation of some of the patients as “miraculous”.  At some level, there has to be skepticism on the treatment effort and outcomes.  For example, there is an overall lack of aggression and severe depression in the veterans filmed for this project.  In my experience in several different VA facilities those are common problems as a result of combat stress exposure.

As a kid walking 5 blocks to elementary school every day, I encountered veterans with clear problems that were explained to me at the time as being “due to the war.”  In some cases more specific etiologies were suggested like: “he got malaria in the war”.  That was in the late 1950s.

As a civilian, I had no idea what exposure to combat stress could do until I was a psychiatric resident working in a VA hospital.  By that time we had already been through the Vietnam War and any consideration of the impact that war had on veterans was secondary to the over-the-top politics associated with an unnecessary war.

Maybe things would have been a lot different if the Army had allowed a broad release of this film.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Gabbard K, Gabbard GO.  Psychiatry and the Cinema. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, (1987) p 70-71. 

Adult ADHD treated by Internists

I caught this eye-opening quote in the AMNews the other day: "ADHD is common enough that the average internist has 20-80 patients with this disorder".  The physician interviewed for the article suggest getting collateral data, making the diagnosis over several visits, getting an adequate family history, using a screening instrument and not prescribing stimulants on the first visit.  The final pearl in this column is:"Any patient who gets mad that you are not prescribing a stimulant after one visit should be a red flag."  With about 150,000 internists and another 130,000 family physicians that represents a lot of adults being treated for ADHD.

The physician suggested approach in this case is fairly comprehensive and includes corroborating symptoms in childhood and adolescence, obtaining collateral information, and using a standardized checklist. There is no mention of screening for addiction, discussing prior exposure to stimulants, or the use of performance based testing as opposed to diagnostic checklists. There is also the frequent scenario of a clinic that is set up to do expensive test batteries referring patients to physicians for the purpose of prescribing stimulants and advising the referred patient that they have in fact made the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

These are not insignificant problems given the flood of stimulants available on college campuses these days and at least one cultural viewpoint using stimulants as "cognitive enhancers" rather than medications to treat a specific diagnosis. There is also no accounting for clinician to clinician variability in terms of who is prescribed stimulant medication. The largest dividing point is persons with a history of addiction and the associated politics of believing that a stimulant should not be denied anyone with the appropriate diagnosis as opposed to a person with an addiction being placed at risk by stimulant prescription.

The best approach is a network of interested clinicians who have access to uniform diagnostic and treatment methods and who are dedicated to consistent treatment practices that include not treating at least some people with stimulants and using non-stimulant approaches to the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Christine S. Moyer.  Orchestrating Drug Management.  American Medical News.  May 21, 2012. 55(10): 12-13.

Sahakian B, Morein-Zamir S. Professor's little helper. Nature. 2007 Dec 20;450(7173):1157-9.

DSM5 - NEJM Commentaries

I highly recommend the two commentaries in the New England Journal of Medicine this week.  The first was written by McHugh and Slavney and the second by  Friedman.  Like Allen Frances they are experienced psychiatrists and researchers and they are likely to have unique insights.  I may have missed it, but I am not aware of any of these authors using the popular press to make typical political remarks about the DSM.  Those remarks can be seen on an almost weekly basis in any major American newspaper.

McHugh and Slavney focus interestingly enough is the issue of comprehensive diagnosis and opposed to checklist diagnoses.  It reminded me immediately that the public really does not have the historical context of the DSM or how it is used.  It also reminded me of the corrosive effect that managed care and the government has had on psychiatric practice with the use of "templates" to meet coding and billing criteria in the shortest amount of time.   Finally it reminded me of the bizarre situation where we have managed care companies and governments combining to validate the concept of a checklist as a psychiatric diagnosis and court testimony by experts suggesting that it is negligent to not use a checklist in the diagnostic process.

McHugh and Slavney summed up in the following three sentences: “Checklist diagnoses cost less in time and money but fail woefully to correspond with diagnoses derived from comprehensive assessments. They deprive psychiatrists of the sense that they know their patients thoroughly. Moreover, a diagnostic category based on checklists can be promoted by industries or persons seeking to profit from marketing its recognition; indeed, pharmaceutical companies have notoriously promoted several DSM diagnoses in the categories of anxiety and depression.” (p. 1854)

In my home state, the PHQ-9 is mandated by the state of Minnesota to screen all primary care patients being treated for depression and follow their progress despite the fact that this was not the intended purpose of this scale and it is not validated as an outcome measure.  The PHQ-9  is copyrighted by Pfizer pharmaceuticals.

The authors go on to talk about the severe limitations of this approach but at some point they seem to have eliminated the psychiatrist from the equation. I would have concerns if psychiatrists were only taught checklist diagnoses and thought that was the best approach, but I really have never seen that. Politicians, managed care companies, and bureaucrats from both are all enamored with checklists but not psychiatrists. They also talk about the issue of causality and how that could add some additional perspective. They give examples of diagnoses clustered by biological, personality, life encounter, and psychological perspectives. Despite its purported atheoretical basis, the DSM comments on many if not all of these etiologies.

Friedman's essay is focused only on the issue of grief and whether or not DSM5 would allow clinicians to characterize bereavement as a depressive disorder. That is currently prevented by a bereavement exclusion and DSM-IV and apparently there was some discussion of removing it. He discusses the consideration that some bereavement is complicated such as in the situation of a bereaved person with a prior episode of major depression and whether the rates of undertreatment in primary care may place those people at risk of no treatment.

There can be no doubt that reducing a psychiatric diagnosis to a checklist loses a lot of information and probably does not produce the same diagnoses. There is also no doubt that the great majority of grieving persons will recover on their own without any mental health intervention. Both essays seem to minimize the role of psychiatrists who should after all be trained experts in comprehensive diagnoses (the kind without checklists). They should be able to come up with a diagnostic and treatment formulation that is independent of the DSM checklists. They should also be trained in the phenomenology of grief and the psychiatric studies of grief and realize that it is not a psychiatric disorder.  If they were fortunate enough to be trained in Interpersonal Psychotherapy they know the therapeutic goals and treatment strategies of grief counseling and they probably know good resources for the patient.

The critiques by all three authors are legitimate but they are also strong statements for continued comprehensive training of psychiatrists. There really should be no psychiatrist out there using a DSM as a "field guide" for prescribing therapy of any sort based on a checklist diagnosis. Primary care physicians in some states and health plans have been mandated to produce checklist diagnoses.  The public should not accept the idea that a checklist diagnosis is the same as a comprehensive diagnostic interview by psychiatrist.

That is the real issue - not whether or not there is a new DSM.

George Dawson, MD DFAPA

McHugh PR, Slavney PR. Mental illness--comprehensive evaluation or checklist?

N Engl J Med. 2012 May 17;366(20):1853-5.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1202555?query=TOC 

Friedman RA. Grief, depression, and the DSM-5. N Engl J Med. 2012 May

17;366(20):1855-7.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1201794?query=TOC

Why Allen Frances has it wrong

Allen Frances has been a public critic of the DSM process and as an expert he frequently gets his opinions out in the media.  Today he has an op-ed piece on the New York Times that is a more general version of a more detailed post on the Health Care blog.  His main contention is the stakeholder argument and that is that there are too many stakeholders both public and professional to allow the American Psychiatric Association to maintain its "monopoly" on psychiatric diagnosis.  I will attempt to deconstruct his argument.

He discusses the earlier DSM versions as revolutionizing the field and the associated neuroscience but then suggests that diagnostic proliferation has become a central problem and the only solution is political arbitration.  What about the issue of diagnostic proliferation?  The number of diagnostic entities per DSM are listed below:

DSM-I, 268 entities

DSM-II, 339 entities 

DSM-III, 322 entities

DSM IIIR, 312 entities

DSM-IV, 374 entities

DSM-V,  370 - 400 entities (depending on final form)

In terms of the total diagnostic entities, I have not seen any stories in the media pointing out that the total number of diagnoses may end being less than DSM-IV.  I have also not seen any discussion of major diagnoses where that is clearly true, such as the elimination of schizophrenia subtypes.   Other issues on diagnostic proliferation that are not discussed are the other required diagnostic system in medicine - the International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision or ICD-9.   The recent modification the ICD-10 has undergone a revision and the total number of diagnoses has increased from 14,000 to 68,000 diagnosis codes.  A fourfold increase.  The number of potential codes for a fractured kneecap has gone from 2 to 480 or more than the total potential codes in DSM5. 

I have also not seen any discussion of the role of psychiatrists in making a psychiatric diagnosis.  Psychiatric diagnosis does not depend on looking up a diagnosis in a catalog of symptoms.  It involves being trained in psychopathology and knowing the patterns of these illnesses.  The patterns of psychotic disorders and the other main diagnostic groupings have basically been unchanged across DSMs.  Psychiatrists make clinical diagnoses based on these major groupings and not the total number of diagnostic entities.

Further evidence that the total number of diagnostic categories is unlikely to have any impact on the number of people diagnosed with mental illness in any given year comes from the distribution of diagnostic codes in an outpatient setting. For 2006-2007, there were approximately 58 million ambulatory care visits for mental disorders. 92% of those visits were for 10 major diagnostic categories that have not changed in recent DSM revisions. It is not likely that new diagnostic categories will significantly impact the remaining 8% or 4.8 million visits per year.

In a study more specific to psychiatry, the number of psychiatric ICD-10 codes used in Danish Psychiatric Central Registry.  The data  represented 1,260,097 diagnoses from 1,041,589 discharges of 653,754 patients from in- and outpatient treatment episodes.  Forty nine of the diagnostic codes accounted for 75% of all the diagnoses (Munk-Jørgensen, et al). 

The "medicalization of normality" is another argument.  The media routinely runs stories about the percentage of the population that is "mentally ill" based on DSM diagnoses.  One of the common stories is the estimate that as many as 50% of the population has a DSM diagnosis over the course of the year.  There is never a critical look at that statistic.  The first dimension is whether any percentage should be too high or too low.  For example, would anyone be surprised to learn that 100% of the population has a medical diagnosis in the previous year?  With a high prevalence of gastroenteritis and respiratory infections - probably not.  The second dimension speaks directly to the issue of threshold for an illness.  One of the key papers in this area shows that although the one year prevalence using DSM criteria may be high, limiting the diagnoses to severe disorders reduces the prevalence to 8%.

The use of high prevalence numbers for mental illness based on DSM diagnoses also ignores the extensive Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) work that estimated lifetime prevalence.  Readers are generally not told that the methods used include addictive disorders and neurological disorders that cause cognitive impairment.  Would anyone doubt that 32% of adults would report a psychiatric disorder that included an addiction or cognitive impairment at any point in their lifetime?

Similarly there has been the repeated criticism that psychiatrists were going to start treating grief like clinical depression.  I have never seen that approach anywhere in my career spanning psychopathology seminars, journal articles, and continuing education courses.  Any psychiatrist with a clue knows the difference between grief and depression and at some point they have probably been tested on that difference.  What psychiatrists know that is not public knowledge is that a small number of grieving people actually develop a depression that is indistinguishable from clinical depression and it may have to be treated that way.  Knowing the difference is part of psychiatric expertise and you really cannot write it down as sentences in a manual.  In fact, it is a grave  mistake to equate a manual of diagnostic criteria with the clinical expertise and methods of psychiatry.

Dr. Frances correctly points out that the other common media theory that DSM diagnoses are driven by the pharmaceutical industry is a myth.  He continues on to suggest that the public and other mental health professionals somehow have a stake in the DSM and that organized psychiatry has frozen them out.  He concludes: “Psychiatric diagnosis is too important to be left exclusively in the hands of psychiatrists.”  I don’t understand how the specialty who invented the technology, who is trained and tested on it, and who is focused on a comprehensive view of psychopathology that extends beyond it should somehow give way to political considerations.  As he points out – there are always political considerations – even in science.  I would suggest that there is no such thing as “independent scientific review” of anything that psychiatry does.  There are many ways to address issues of professional bias in terms of including a diagnosis or not.

The arguments against the DSM and psychiatric influence vary across the usual spectrum of there being no such thing as a psychiatric diagnosis to there are too many diagnoses to the fact that psychiatric diagnoses are nonspecific.  There is no practical way to incorporate that spectrum into a diagnostic manual that is designed for psychiatrists to make clinical diagnoses and do research.  The single most important fact that is left out of these debates is that psychiatrists are effective in treating serious mental illness and they are undoubtedly more effective now than they have been in the past.  That is the only reason we need a DSM and that is why it stays squarely in psychiatry.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA  


Frances A.  Diagnosing the DSM.  New York Times May 11, 2012.

Frances A.  DSM5 begins its belated and necessary retreat.  Health Care Blog May 10, 2012.

Kessler RC, Avenevoli S, Costello J, Green JG, Gruber MJ, McLaughlin KA,

Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Merikangas KR. Severity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication adolescent supplement

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012 Apr;69(4):381-9.

Munk-Jørgensen P, Najarraq Lund M, Bertelsen A. Use of ICD-10 diagnoses in Danish psychiatric hospital-based services in 2001-2007. World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):183-4.

Regier D, Kaelber CT.  The Epidemiological Catchment Area Program:  Studying the Prevalence and Incidence of Psychopathology. in  Textbook in Psychiatric Epidemiology eds.  Ming T Tsuang, Mauricio Tohen, and Gwnedolyn EP Zahner.  John Wiley and Sons, 1995. p141.

Schappert SM, Rechtsteiner EA. Ambulatory medical care utilization estimates for 2007. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 13(169). 2011. (see Table 7.)

Radicals and Reformers for Managed Care

I was struck by a post on the Critical Psychiatry blog this AM.  Duncan Double discusses his experience at a meeting of the radical caucus at the APA on Sunday.  His main argument was the need to abolish psychiatric diagnostic systems - specifically the DSM, but he mentions that you can apparently provide psychiatric services without an ICD diagnosis in the UK.  But then he makes this astonishing comment: " The American psychiatric system has become very dependent on DSM for billing purposes, but I'm sure the insurance companies could develop an alternative system unrelated to DSM. "


I am positive that the American insurance industry would like nothing better than to establish their own "alternative system unrelated to the DSM'.  In fact, they are doing it already with a host of measures that they can use to basically deny care or dismantle systems of care.  The managed care industry in the US has selectively discriminated against psychiatric services for the past 20 years to the point that most states have little service availability.  The motivation for managed care is clear - shift hundreds of billions of dollars away from providing care to persons with mental health and chemical dependency problems and into the pockets of the insurance industry.  We are talking about an industry where the CEOs can make an annual salary of millions of dollars and in a famous case the CEO received a $1 billion dollar bonus.


Stated in another way, the "American psychiatric system" is no system at all.  There is hardly any availability of psychotherapy services.  Most people are restricted to a handful or less of 15 minute visits with a psychiatrist every year.  The length of stay in hospitals is appallingly short by UK or European standards and people are asked to leave if they are no longer "suicidal".  It is psychiatrists on the one hand being severely restricted in attempting to provide care and a predatory insurance industry trying to make disproportionately more money off policy holders with mental health problems on the other.   The government is not a passive player in this effort with most state governments abdicating their role in caring for the indigent and the uninsured often by using managed care tactics.  All of this happens independent of any DSM or ICD diagnosis.  At the national level, there is a long list of interests who favor the same tactics in order to maintain leverage over doctors and the clinical care advocated by doctors.


Critical psychiatry would rather "Occupy American Psychiatric Association" rather than "Occupy Wall Street" .    I guess we can add them to the managed care  list.  That is exactly the type of reform that the politicians want.

Vision Quest "6 minutes" - Why We Watch Sports

Another clip that goes a long way toward explaining why we watch sports, go to concerts, read good books:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZeaZ3rZumg

In this clip Louden Swain, a high school wrestler preparing for the match of his career goes to see why Elmo the cook who he works with took the evening off of work to go to his wrestling match.  Elmo's soliloquy here about sports still strikes me as the best single reason why I watch sports.

I have never seen it studied, but it seems that there are several reason for why sports play a central role in society.  The social elements are apparent and many people see themselves as a larger community tied to a particular team.  I used to be  New York Yankee fan, despite the fact that I did not set foot in New York City (or the state of New York) until I was about 26 years old.  My father was a Yankee fan and so was I, so identification is important.  Somewhere in my late 20's I realized that a certain team winning was no longer important.  I started watching "This Week in Baseball" just to watch all of the best plays.  I tuned in to see Nolan Ryan pitch.  I watched the Tour de France and the Olympics to see the best athletes in the world compete.  I can still remember my excitement as I watched Johann Olav Koss in the 1,500, 5,000, and 10,000 meter events at Lillehammer. It was the first time that they had a motorized camera following the speedskaters. We learned that he had some last minute technical problems with the blade angle on his skates but Koss's form was perfect.  I was ecstatic.  I had become Elmo.

I have never seen a study that looked at the percentages of people who watch sports for the purposes of seeing a certain team win versus those who are looking for the best possible human performances.  But for the later - there is no better explanation than Elmo's soliloquy in this clip.

George Dawson, MD. DFAPA

A Consciousness Based Model

One of the criticisms of psychiatric treatment in particular drug therapies is that essentially nothing is known about psychopathology, neurobiology, or human genetics and therefore claiming that drug therapy is treating a pathological state is erroneous (1). "Chemical imbalance" can be used as a red herring along the way and I will try to address that in a later post.  In that post, I also hope to address the issue of disease states and whether or not they need to be strictly measurable.

For now, I want to discuss a model that I have used in clinical practice for the past decade that addresses both the issues of recovery and whether or not the drug altered state or treating an underlying pathological state is really the issue.  Let me start by saying I think it is irrelevant for the purposes of treatment.  I am first and foremost a clinical psychiatrist and not a researcher and my priority is at all times patient care.   My goal is to treat alterations in a person’s conscious state and restore their level of functioning with medications and/or psychotherapy that have been shown to work.   My goal is also not to introduce any new problems such as sedation, mood changes, rage, perceptual problems, ataxia, false memories, vertigo, or any number of subjective changes commonly seen as "side effects".

I found that the best way to proceed is to have an explicit discussion of the person’s conscious state and whether it has undergone any transformation associated with the reasons why they are seeing me.  I focus on the typical stream of consciousness that occurs each and every day and how it may have changed over the previous weeks or months or years.   I ask about whether or not getting back to that conscious state is a reasonable goal.  I point out that the phenomenology associated with a person's cognitive and emotional changes (2) can be followed in at least two dimensions at once - the psychopathological and the normal.

There are obviously problems with my approach. The subjective assessment of a psychopathological state and the subjective assessment of the baseline conscious state are difficult to do and they take time.  There are a large number of markers of psychopathological states but not so many for normal conscious states.  I often end up discussing broad outlines that include the typical stream of consciousness, fantasies, daydreams, defense mechanisms, distracting thoughts and typical thought patterns in certain situations such as driving into work each day.   I also ask about a global assessment and whether at any point during treatment the person feels like their original conscious state has been restored.   It adds another goal to treatment that is focused on restoring the self rather than just treating symptoms.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Moncrieff J, Cohen D.  How do psychiatric drugs work?  BMJ. 2009 May 29;338:b1963.

2: Andreasen NC. DSM and the death of phenomenology in america: an example of unintended consequences. Schizophr Bull. 2007 Jan;33(1):108-12. Epub 2006 Dec 7.