Showing posts with label psychiatry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychiatry. Show all posts

Bipolar Screening - People with Bipolar Know It When We See It

Psychiatrists and people with bipolar both have told me that my book captures what the manic experience is like.

Reviewers tend to say either, She must have written it when she was manic. Too bad her editor didn't fix it. One star. Or: She must have written it when she was manic. So glad her editor didn't fix it. Five stars.

Which gets me thinking: Doctors say bipolar is really hard to diagnose. But if people who have it know it when we see it, what if we wrote a screening tool? Bear with me here. I'm thinking something like this:

They say: A distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood.

What we hear is: Are you abnormal?

To which we answer: No. I mean, duh.


So what if they said: Has there ever been a time when everybody around you just didn't understand why the world was so great or why you felt so good? Or has there ever been a time when everybody around you was massively irritating?

Diagnosing Bipolar - Doing Better to Prevent Suicide

How can I be a better psychiatrist for you?

Frankly, I was gobsmacked by that question. It came in response to reading my book, Prozac Monologues: A View from the Edge. The book is a comedic memoir of misdiagnosis and a self-help book for bipolar. It is both uproariously funny and brutally frank about my suicidal episodes, usually at the same time.

There are two directions to go with that question. This particular psychiatrist cares about both.

What kind of behaviors and qualities could he display that would make the relationship more helpful? Honestly, not all psychiatrists are interested in this question. I don't do relationships; I use psychopharmacology to treat psychiatric disorders, a psychiatrist once told me. Well, that had the benefit of clarifying things.

How can I improve my diagnostic skills? Nevertheless just about any psychiatrist wants to get the answer to the puzzle right, even the ones who treat patients as no more than a puzzle.

The End of Miracles - A Review

What is it like to have depression with psychotic features?

What is a day like inside a psych ward?

What is the psychiatrist thinking?

Sometimes the best way to explore questions like these is in a story. So here is Prozac Monologues' first review of a novel.

Monica Starkman is a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan whose expertise includes psychosomatic disorders, stress, and women's issues around fertility, miscarriage, and obstetrics. In her debut novel, The End of Miracles, she turns her clinical experience to the story of one woman, Margo Kerber, a long-infertile woman who finally conceives, tragically miscarries, and then... unravels.

Mental Health Care as our Institutions Fail

There are twelve psychiatrists in Zimbabwe for a population of 16 million people. When Dixon Chibanda, one of the twelve lost a patient to suicide because she could not afford the $15 bus fare to get to her appointment, he did not blame her for breaking the appointment. He came up with another system to deliver mental health care. He trained grandmothers.



Antipsychotics and Loss of Brain Matter

What are antipsychotics doing in your brain besides preventing psychosis? This is a report on a study conducted from 1991 to 2009 that looked at that question.

Here is the context:

Progressive brain volume changes in schizophrenia are thought to be due principally to the disease. However, recent animal studies indicate that antipsychotics... may also contribute to brain tissue volume decrement. Because antipsychotics are prescribed for long periods for schizophrenia patients and have increasingly widespread use in other psychiatric disorders, it is imperative to determine their long-term effects on the human brain.

Before I get to what the study revealed, here is the investigator, National Medalist of Science winner, Nancy Andreasen.



Trading Symptom Relief for Side Effect Relief

Why do people stop taking their psych medication?


Psychiatrists spend a lot of time on this question. They used to call it noncompliance. Then they figured out that the word fed the power struggle between doctor and patient. Now they call it nonadherence. Me, I am not convinced that the word change reflects an attitude shift on doctors' parts, i.e., that they have changed their attitudes toward noncompliant patients, have abandoned the power struggle themselves, and instead want to partner with their patients. I suspect the word change is a cosmetic shift designed to change the patient's attitude.

Psychiatric Times regularly publishes articles on why patients don't take their meds and best practices for improving adherence. Suboptimal adherence is pervasive among individuals with chronic health conditions, including psychiatric disorders... However, many mental health practitioners ascribe nonadherence to the mental illness itself.

Physician-Assisted Suicide for Mental Illness - It's Complicated, or Not

Two years ago, Mark Komrad attended and presented at a symposium in Belgium on physician-assisted suicide for people with mental illness. Komrad is a clinical psychiatrist, ethicist, and faculty member at Johns Hopkins. He just finished a 6-year tenure on the APA Ethics Committee and helped craft the current APA position on Medical Euthanasia for non-terminally ill patients. [That position joins the AMA to say, in a word, Don't.]

Komrad reported back on his experiences to PsychiatricTimes.com. You can read or listen to the his entire report here. This post quotes the parts that particularly struck me from a suicide prevention perspective.

In 2002 Belgium legalized euthanasia by physician (typically by injection) at the request of patients, and removed any distinctions between terminal vs. nonterminal illness, and physical vs. psychological suffering. As long as the condition is deemed "untreatable" and "insufferable," a psychiatric patient can be potentially eligible for euthanasia. There is a consultative process that basically needs a minimum of two doctors to agree about the patient's eligibility. Also, the patient gets to weigh-in on whether their condition is "treatable." Since the patient has the option to refuse treatments, this refusal may create an "untreatable" situation.

Got Bipolar 2? Chris Aiken Can Help

If you want to know best practices for treating bipolar, "bipolar not so much," recurrent depression, "more than depression," "something-about-this-depression-treatment-just-isn't-working," read  Chris Aiken.

When I needed a subtitle for my book, I tried really hard to sell my publisher on What if it's more than depression? - a subtle reference to Bipolar Not So Much by Aiken and Jim Phelps, who is another of my mental health go-to resources. I flatter myself that Prozac Monologues is the companion piece, written from the other side of the prescription pad. The publisher had something else in mind, but if you find one book useful, you will like the other.

When my new nurse practitioner talked me into a chart review by the cookie cutter psychiatrist employed by the practice, the recommendation came back, Abilify and Zoloft. I said, No thanks, and sent her an article by Aiken. I hope it helps my NP get over her Free-Range Bipolar on Aisle 2 (i.e., non-medicated) panic before my next appointment. Aiken reports that Social Rhythms Therapy (my lifeline for years) can be as effective as medication, without the sedating effects that would have ended my writing career. Not to mention most other reasons to get up in the morning. Or even capacity to get up in the morning.

Anosognosia and Amador

Anosognosia. It means lack of insight. But from the mouth of Xavier Amador, it’s his ticket. He tells you he knows why your son or daughter won’t take meds. And you are desperate for the answer, aren’t you. Because schizophrenia is a terrible disease and your beloved child is sick and won’t take the meds. The meds would make everything alright. So you are desperate and Xavier Amador throws you a lifeline, a promise that once you understand this unpronounceable word, you can learn how to get your child to take the meds.

He must be right, right? Because he is a psychologist and he can pronounce it. And then the kicker, he also loved somebody with schizophrenia, and he says he got him to take the meds. So NAMI invites him to give the spotlight lecture, and for the rest of the convention, parents hear every other presentation through the filter of this new word that they cannot pronounce.

Here is how you pronounce it:



But really, why bother? It means lack of insight. But you have heard of lack of insight before. And you can pronounce lack of insight. So those words don’t have the power to claim you and get you to buy his book like anosognosia can.

Actually his advice is not bad, once you get past the power play. Stop fighting your sons and daughters, stop trying to convince them that they are sick. Instead, build a relationship.

Listen: reflectively with respect and without judgment
Empathize: strategically with emotions stemming from delusions and anosognosia
Agree: find areas of agreement - abandon the goal of agreeing the person is sick
Partner: on those things you can agree on -- not being ill




I like that advice and have given you a clip of the best part of the presentation.

Now if you will permit a word of advice about relationship-building from somebody who has a mental illness and occasionally does not recognize when her symptoms are showing - ask us why we don’t take our meds.

I met a new friend at last month's NAMI convention. I explained that I wasn't going to this presentation, I had heard it a number of years ago. Then I said, "Ask us why we don't take our meds." She said her son says they make him feel terrible. Bingo.

Now it's true, sometimes people with schizophrenia have delusions that make reality testing difficult. Sometimes people with bipolar in a psychotic or manic state do not recognize that state. I have on occasion rejected my spouse's concerns about my hypomania. And some of us do go off our meds in these temporary states.

But NAMI does a disservice to family members by giving them this fancy word that substitutes for believing what their loved ones tell them. These meds suck. They cause ballooning weight gain, leading to heart disease and metabolic disorders which shorten our poor pathetic lives by ten years on average. They evaporate our sex lives (not that parents want to hear about their children's sex lives.) They fog our brains and drain our energy, leaving us with lives that are not worth living.

Nobody talks about what Nancy Andreasen discovered after fourteen years worth of brain scans of people with schizophrenia -- the more antipsychotics you take, the more brain volume you lose. National Medal of Science recipient, one of the world's foremost experts on schizophrenia, yes, Dr. Andreasen remembered to control for things like severity of illness and alcohol/illicit substance use. Neither affected the results. It was level of dose and length of treatment. The more antipsychotics you take, the more brain volume you lose.

[Funny thing, soon after she published her preliminary results, her funding evaporated.]

A conversation about why we should take our meds anyway really has to include an acknowledgement of the fact that these meds suck. True acknowledgement, not some sort of mental crossing of fingers behind the back, with the all-knowing family members chanting Amador's magic power potion, anosognosia, under their breath.

Half the people who won't take their meds think they are not sick. Those are Amador's numbers and I won't dispute them. And if you don't already know that delusions are not the sort of thing that somebody can be talked out of, then I suppose he does a service to tell you that. But are you sure that's why your loved one doesn't take the meds? He's got a whole ballroom filled with people who now believe it, and who take any other protestation to the contrary as proof of anosognosia.

Okay, that's my first objection to NAMI's sponsorship of Xavier Amador's presentation at not one but two of the three NAMI conventions I have attended. Dammit. His half truths.

The second is that his presentation is a parlor trick. Really, two parlor tricks. The first is that unpronounceable word by which he's got you. He has established the power of his credentials over you. He is the expert.

The really disturbing parlor trick is his demonstration of what a delusion is. He gets a volunteer from the audience. Then they do a role play. The volunteer answers questions about his/her spouse. Then Amador does an "intervention." He tells the volunteer that s/he has been stalking said "spouse," who is not actually married to the volunteer after all. The marriage is a delusion. The volunteer has violated no-contact orders, and they are going to get the person help. There are people just outside the door who are going to take him/her to the hospital. This goes on for a while, demonstrating that Amador is indeed not able to convince the person that the so-called spouse is a delusion. Voila! Anosognosia.

Now one interesting thing about this demonstration is that we are to take it as a demonstration of the power of delusion. But in fact, the volunteer is not deluded. The volunteer genuinely is married to his/her spouse, and ends the demonstration still sure of the fact.

What Amador has actually demonstrated is called gaslighting. The volunteer does not fall under the spell, does not forget the spouse. But the audience does. The audience is convinced that this demonstration demonstrates something more than mental cruelty, that they have learned something about the power of delusion, which, again, never existed in the first place. And he knows that this parlor trick is harmful, because at its conclusion he gives the volunteer advice about how to recover from it.

But there are those who do not fall under the spell, those who have seen it before, in some other psychologist or psychiatrist's office during a professional visit. That's why one person left last month's demonstration sobbing, and why I spent an afternoon in concentrated self-care after my exposure to this presentation years ago.

Here is an example: I call my psychiatrist to get help for symptoms I am having from withdrawal from Effexor. She says I don't have withdrawal symptoms, because it is not possible to become addicted to Effexor in the short time that I took it. I persist, I am having the withdrawal symptoms described in the literature and need help. Now who do you believe? She, after all, has a PhD in psychopharmacology as well as her MD. And I am a self-confessed mental case who insists on stopping this medication that she thinks I should be taking.

I took my wife with me to my last appointment with that psychiatrist, so she could report what happened in the office to my therapist who had slapped a new diagnosis on me based on my own reports.

Amador is not that psychiatrist. He is the trigger for the reliving of that psychiatrist because he uses the same techniques:

1. Establish the extreme power differential, in one case her academic degrees over my addled mental state, in the other his five-syllable word over the uninformed audience who cannot wrap their tongues around it.

2. Take the moral high ground of compassion, trying to help, a position over the other.

3. Say whatever the hell you want.

4. Refer any protestation back to #1.

Yes, there is a kernel here. Stop fighting your loved one. Build the relationship. But the parlor tricks do real damage. Isn't it time to retire this presentation from its position as the major Friday night presentation at NAMI conventions?

[By the way,  to add some context: adherence runs at around 50% for people taking high blood pressure medication.]

still from tv show M*A*S*H* from IMGflip.com
graphic of Zombie by Jean-nöel Lafarge, used under the Free Art License
still from the movie Gaslight from vox.com


Spirituality, Mental Illness, and the Wellness Paradigm

Spirituality has a troubled place in the psychiatrist's office. A recent PsychiatricTimes.com article explores the complex reasons. The discomfort starts in "the traditional psychoanalytic view of religion being almost a culturally sanctioned form of neurosis" and continues through the modern diagnostic schema, "it is not uncommon to have delusions with religious or spiritual elements." While the DSM, the manual that guides diagnosis of psychiatric ailments takes care not to label as delusional any thought that is part of the cultural framework of the patient, this fig leaf seems to beg the question - is the patient's culture built on delusion?

Neurotic or delusional - which would you rather?

Honor the physician

The issue is made thornier by the recent development in Christianity that pits faith against science. And I cannot stress enough - this is a recent (also North American) development. Alas, what was once a minority voice within American Christianity has gained political and cultural power and, in this country at least, threatens to drown out the traditional Jewish and Christian view, as expressed in the Book of Ecclesiasticus:

Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him, for the Lord created him; for healing comes from the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king. The skill of the physician lifts up his head, and in the presence of great men he is admired. The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them.

Again alas, not a lot of sensible around these days. I don't even want to give you the link to the page that headlines, Psychiatry is a vicious enemy of Christianity and the Bible. In bold type, no less. One can hardly blame doctors for suspecting those who make them choose between religion and the gifts that God gave them.

Now there are plenty of psychiatrists who recognize this choice to be nonsense, among them one of the psychiatrists interviewed in the article above. While president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, Paul Summergrad "convened a gathering of clergy, other faith leaders, patients, and patient advocates with a group of distinguished psychiatric leaders. [Their] first goal... was to establish a dialogue and recognize common goals. [Their] work group developed a guide for faith-based leaders, which can be found and downloaded... from the APA website. "

A Guide for Faith-based Leaders

This guide has good stuff in it, and I commend it to faith leaders. But there is something about it that bugs me. It bugs me in most stuff that I have read written by people who approach spirituality from a scientific point of view. It is found in their description of wellness.

Wellness means overall well-being. For people with mental health and substance use conditions, wellness is not simply the absence of disease, illness, or stress, but the presence of purpose in life, active involvement in satisfying work and play, joyful. relationships, a healthy body and living environment, and happiness. It incorporates the mental, emotional, physical, occupational, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of a person's life. Each aspect of wellness can affect overall quality of life.

There is a graphic that demonstrates each of these aspects as separate items, presumably of equal weight, with Wellness at the center.

Well, what's wrong with that? I am just not sure that spirituality can be turned into an item among others. I am a priest. Spirituality is my life. But I can't figure out how to use it to promote my wellness. God uses me. I have no idea how to use God. And frankly, I suspect those who do.

Wellness vs. Wholeness

What would that graphic look like if theologians created it? For one, at least for this one, Wellness would not hold central position. Wholeness would. Not exactly the same thing. Wholeness is how to describe spiritual health. It is a translation of the Hebrew shalom or Arabic salaam. It means the kind of peace that comes from completeness and includes the completeness or justice of the community. It does not depend on financial, environmental, nor physical health. How one addresses either presence or lack of financial, environmental, and physical health is a measure of spiritual health.


Doctors are about the business of maximizing wellness. That is their job and, from a spiritual perspective, their calling. That's fine, and this wellness paradigm is fine. Except for the spirituality part. Spirituality is a different paradigm.

Well, I have only stated my starting point here. Perhaps this sounds like nonsense to you? Spirituality is peddled today as something to make you feel good. Okay, let me put it out there. Feeling good, as a life goal, is the goal of a spiritual peanut.

This blogpost will just have to become a book. I would like your help. What are the questions you would like to explore about spirituality and mental illness? Like, can you be whole and mentally ill? Does prayer really work, and how? Does it make a difference what you believe? Add a comment. Thanks.

cartoon from @lectrr

photo of St. Luke (patron of doctors) window by author

Antidepressants and Suicide: A History

Do antidepressants prevent suicide, or do they cause it?

Yes.

Well, maybe.

It's a no-brainer, right?  People who commit suicide are depressed.  Take away the depression, and how better than with an anti-depressant, and you decrease the risk of suicide.

So what's with the question?  Here is the story:

History of Antidepressants

Suicide Immoral? WTF?

Guilty pleasure: Eavesdropping on psychiatrists talking with each other about us loonies. Like many guilty pleasures, it is not always good for my well-being. But I am endlessly curious. And it has yielded a number of blogposts in the OMGThat'sWhatTheySaid thread.

My go-to source for blog material is Psychiatric Times. It reports the latest news and research in Loony Land. It reflects on the practice of psychiatry. Sometimes it turns to mud wrestling. Oh, the good ol' DSM days!

A couple months ago, one of the editors, Ron Pies wrote a brave (foolhardy?) editorial inspired by Jennifer Michael Hecht's book, Stay: A History of Suicide and the Philosophies Against It. Intending to provoke, he titled it, Is Suicide Immoral?  Let the rumble begin.

Saving Normal - At What Cost?

Rest In Peace, John Ferguson

John Ferguson was executed by the State of Florida on Monday, August 5 at 6:17 p.m. ET.  He killed eight people thirty years ago, and many people can't get too excited about his own death.  I understand that.  As a Christian, I am grieved that my nation kills people to show that killing people is wrong.  But I get it.

The civilized world does not get it.  The United States of America is a member of an elite club, forty-three nations that have executed people in the last ten years (brown in the map below, along with China, Syria, Libya, North Korea -- our good buddies, all of them).  We bear the distinction of being the only member from among the developed nations.


We do place limitations on the death penalty.  Our constitution, since its first passage, prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, the eighth amendment.  Over the years, the Supreme Court has ruled that all forms execution are cruel and unusual, except for lethal injection, the method that Florida used to kill John.

American Medical Association on the Death Penalty

Saving Normal -- The Diagnosis Game

For readers unencumbered by the facts of the matter or any understanding of them, Allen Frances' book Saving Normal is an entertaining romp through the world of psychiatric diagnosis which will support your deepest held suspicions: that there are a few seriously wacko people out there who are very different from the rest of us, but for the most part, mental illness is a sham and you need to just snap out it.

Not to tip my hand, or anything.

The claims made without benefit of facts will take some time to sort through. And a later post will support part of Frances' agenda. In fact, support it enthusiastically. But not this one.

The APA's Cocktail Party, 2009

Doctors' Prejudice Against Mental Illness

One in four people in the United States meet the criteria for a diagnosable mental illness in any given year.  About half will develop a mental illness sometime in their life.  Allen Frances, editor in chief of DSM-IV wants fewer people, only those with the most serious illness, to be diagnosed to spare them the stigma of the diagnosis.  The chief mechanism to achieve his goal would be to change the DSM criteria, so that fewer people qualify.

This series began by introducing Dr. Frances, whose work has inspired it.  It continues to address the topic of stigma, what it means, where it comes from, how to respond.  Last week I defined terms, adding one that expands our frame.  Briefly, Merriam-Webster says that stigma is a mark of shame or discredit; while prejudice is injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights.

I think it is important to distinguish between the two.  To do so, one has to clarify the context.  Stigma, when used by somebody who is the object of stigma, is the internalization of somebody else's prejudice. When it is used by somebody else, stigma is a mechanism of diversion that calls on the object of one's own prejudice to bear the responsibility of that prejudice.

So is Allen Frances trying to protect those whom he calls the worried well from being marked with shame or discredit?  Or is he creating a diversion that calls on people who are suffering to bear the responsibility for somebody else's prejudice?

DSM-5 - Passé Before Published

Most of Allen Frances' ranting against DSM-5 bounces back to hit his own DSM-IV just as well.  He acknowledges this in the preface of Saving Normal, which he says is part mea culpa.  You could sum his argument against DSM-5 as It's DSM-IV, only more so!  We could all find some consensus around that line.

So while I am not pleased with this man's rants [did you pick up on that last week?], I do not come to praise DSM.  To keep us all on the same page, I am reposting my piece from November, 2011.  What I wrote below referred to DSM-IV.  Most of it applies to DSM-5, as well.  The differences between the two do not a difference make in my own critique.  The fatal flaw in DSM-5 is that it is DSM-IV's little brother.  That's what Thomas Insel is talking about...

Introducing Allen Frances

Allen Frances was the editor of the DSM-IV, first published in 1990.  He is now the fiercest critic of its next major revision, the DSM-5.  For over three years, he has been blogging weekly to this end at Psychology Today.  This week I will summarize his steady drumbeat.  I hope soon to publish an open letter to him.

Frances' complaint in a nutshell is that the DSM-5 creates fad diagnoses and changes criteria of older diagnoses to medicalize a whole range of normal behavior and miseries.  The link lists these problem diagnoses and a number of the following points, in an article published all over town last December.

These issues have been discussed widely, in public and private circles.  I am not qualified to address each point, though I did give a series over to one of them, the bereavement exclusion.  The best of the batch, if I do say so myself, is Grief/Depression III - Telling the Difference, which got quoted in correspondence among the big boys.

Flight of Ideas

Pride of lions
Fleet of ships
Host of angels...

Flight of ideas.

It's a lovely phrase.  Isn't that what ideas do -- fly?

I think so.  But evidently, not everybody.


A Visit from the Goon Squad

I was looking to meet new people in my new home town, and went to the library's book club.  The selection for my second meeting was Jennifer Egan's A Visit from the Goon Squad.  Sex, drugs, rock and roll, and, oh yes, suicide -- these characters were my tribe!  No, I haven't lived their lives.  More to the point, I have asked their questions.

I wasn't sure how Egan's characters would be received in this group of middle-aged and older women.  I didn't know the book club members yet, but they seemed pretty respectable.  Then again, I can seem pretty respectable, too.  I expected a lively discussion.

Nope.  No lively discussion.  No discussion at all.  They were so dismayed, they were speechless.  The librarian resorted to reading reviews.

Defending DSM-5 -- Sort Of

Good mental health reporting takes research, careful analysis, nuance and a whole lot of work.  And in the end, it doesn't sell newspapers.  Which is why you see so much bad mental health reporting, even where you thought you'd find better.


[I like to think that opening sentence explains why I post no more often than once a week.  I work to provide a quality product.  But that is for you to judge.]

The long awaited publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Edition V has generated a blizzard of easy-to-whip-off articles with sensationalist headlines, just the thing for you to share on Facebook on a boring weekday afternoon, and get a nice Ain't it awful rant going among your friends when, really, you should be doing your life.

The Spectre of the Butterfly Net

Most of these articles follow the same tired theme, Psychiatrists are out to diagnose half the population, turning normal human conditions into mental illnesses, because they are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to put the nation on medication.

These articles write themselves.  Pick any diagnosis that the DSM-V has dared to update from a work last revised nineteen years ago, add a quote from the disgruntled old man who was editor-in-chief of said nineteen-year-old document, which only barely tinkered with the 1980 edition anyway, plug in a statistic on drug sales, and there you have it.

Next, pick another diagnosis, substitute a humanistic psychologist for the disgruntled old man, and you are good to go with next week's article.

I, who love links, am not going to link to any of this trash.

Now I have my problems with the DSM.  But I do have some sympathy for its revisers, caught in the middle of a sea change, trying to update a system that will be tossed into the deep within the decade, and would have been already, if we spent any halfway reasonable amount of money on research.

For now I will do my own op ed piece and offer for your consideration the following assertion, based on my own experience in the system and reports of friends who have been at this a whole lot longer:

There are no psychiatrists running around on the streets, chasing toddlers with temper tantrums, trolling funeral parlors for grieving widows, whipping up business.  People!  There are not enough psychiatrists to deal with the loonies already identified.  They do not need you!

You don't get to see a psychiatrist and submit to trial by DSM until

  • denial
  • snapping out of it
  • hiding
  • behavioral modification
  • herbal remedies
  • and prayer

have not worked, and there is no choice but to go where you do not want to go, in the face of your drinking buddies who all tell you, You'd have to be crazy to see a psychiatrist.

Well, maybe you are.  Maybe you are on the knife's edge.  Be prepared to stay there a while longer.  It will take three months to get an appointment.  Longer, if you don't have insurance.

Seriously, they don't need you.

Diagnosis is Your Best Friend

Do you know anybody who has suffered for years with some unidentified illness, bouncing from doctor to doctor, treatment plan to treatment plan, feeling crazy and out of control, because there is no reasonable explanation for these vague, though debilitating symptoms that come and go, and your friend begins to think that you all think he/she is crazy and not really sick at all?  Lyme Disease, Fibromyalgia, TBI, MS, ALS, Lewy Bodys...

The day that person receives a diagnosis, even a difficult one, is a day of rejoicing.  Now he/she knows, can make plans, can learn about the illness, follow a course of treatment, maybe even find one that helps.

Diagnosis, if it is the right diagnosis, even if it is more serious than the previous diagnosis, even if you really, really don't like the diagnosis, is the first step toward recovery.

I mean, think about it.  If you get out of breath climbing a flight of stairs, do you listen to your friends tell you to rest mid-flight?  Or do you go to a doctor who might tell you that you have a blocked artery?  Is the doctor drumming up business?  Or is he/she saving your life?

Mental Illnesses are Made of Normal Experiences

Let's break out some dialectical thinking.  I know, it's hard.  That is why mental health reporters for USAToday and even the New York Times don't ask you to do it.  Prozac Monologues does ask you to do it.  But we can take it slow.

First, what is dialectical thinking?  It is when you hold two truths that seem to contradict each other in your mind at the same time.  Truth is not about either/or.  It is mostly both/and.

So our first statement is this:

Mental illnesses are made of normal experiences.  Everybody gets sad.  Everybody gets angry.  Everybody gets up in the morning sometimes and just can't get started on the day.  Everybody who walks by a group of scary people thinks they are saying bad things.  Everybody catches something out of the corner of the eye that isn't really there.  Everybody throws something against the wall.  Everybody persists in believing something that is false.  Everybody has an occasional impulse to jump off the bridge.

The symptom lists of the DSM are filled with behaviors that everybody does.

News Flash:  Us loonies inhabit the same planet as everybody else.

That is the first truth in our venture into dialectical thinking.  And it is the source of all those headlines about how the DSM is turning normal behavior into mental illness.  How is this for a thought -- mental illness really is not that weird after all.

The Suffering of Mental Illnesses is not Normal Suffering

But.  Here is the other statement to hold in your mind while remembering the first one:

There is a difference.  You get a diagnosis of some sort of mental illness when a whole lot of normal experiences and a whole lot of normal suffering pile up beyond your ability to function in a normal world.

That's it.  If you are not at the end of your rope, you do not have a mental illness.  Rather you are having a bad day, or week, or year.  If you are functioning well in the world, you do not make an appointment with a psychiatrist, and do not receive a diagnosis.  And the psychiatrist is just fine with that, because he/she doesn't have time to see you anyway.  The DSM is not about you, and does not try to be about you.  So leave it alone and let it help those of us who need its help.

When your loved one dies, you will not be diagnosed with depression just because you are going through a normal grieving process.  A normal grieving process looks like depression, but only on the surface.

If what you have is Major Depressive Disorder, then you don't go through a normal grieving process.  You don't think about your loved one; you don't remember the good times; you don't share those scandalously funny pokes in the ribs during the funeral; you don't cling to your sister; you don't even get mad at the person who deserted you by dying.  You just sit under a black cloud and think about how miserable you are.  So you do not get better, and -- get this -- you do not do normal grieving, until you get treated for your depression.

Grieving widows are in no danger from the DSM, if their grieving really is normal.

When your child throws a temper tantrum, you don't run out for a diagnosis of Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder.  A badly behaved child has good days and bad days.  If the parents are consulting with school and other resources and genuinely working on the issue, things get better.  When they have tried every recommendation in the book, when they fear for their lives, when the child is out of control and scared and miserable about his/her own behavior, and this has gone on for years...

then it is insulting, it is cruel and it is simply not helpful to tell these parents that there is nothing wrong with their child and that the doctor's attempts to figure it out are part of some grand conspiracy that threatens to medicalize normal behavior.  If you don't know, if you have not walked in their shoes, then shut the hell up.

Naughty children are not diagnosed in the DSM, if they can get better without it.

Diagnosis of Mental Illness is Not Easy

The DSM V does not make diagnosis easier.   Yeah, well -- diagnosis of any sort got more complicated when they threw over the four humours theory.

There is more to say in the DSM's defense.  I will get to it.  It will make me work and make you think.  And I don't imagine you will share it on Facebook.

Oh well.  My ad revenue never did pay the mortgage.

flair from Facebook.com

Anniversary - Prozac Monologues

Do you take antidepressants for depression and you are not getting better?  Do they make you agitated, anxious, insomniac?  Have you heard it often takes a while to find the right med, so you keep trying, you brave little soldier, you?

My friend, today you tapped your ruby slippers together, and Google brought you here.  Maybe not to your home, but to mine.  What follows is the back story to Prozac Monologues.  But first things first:

Stop.  Stop trying.  Go no further until you have taken the MDQ, Mood Disorder Questionnaire, right here at this link, and have asked a friend or housemate who knows you really well and loves you enough to tell the truth to fill it out for you, as well.

Popular Posts