Category Archives: Psychiatry

RIP Dr Fred Frese

By Marvin Ross

The world just lost another advocate for serious mental illness. Dr Fred Frese was a psychologist with schizophrenia and an active promoter of better care for the seriously mentally ill. He had been a board member of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and one of the founders (along with Dr E Fuller Torrey) of the Treatment Advocacy Center.

I met Fred, and his wife Penny, when they gave a talk at the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia in the late 1990s and did a profile of them for one of the medical papers that I wrote for. Both of them were incredible speakers. Fred first got sick when he was an officer in the US Marine Corps guarding the largest repository of nuclear weapons in the US.

He became quite paranoid and was eventually transferred to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington where, he said, may of his fellow psychiatric inmates were high ranking officers. While a patient there and elsewhere, he pursued his education and obtained a PhD in psychology. He joked that he went from being an involuntary patient in one hospital in Ohio to becoming its chief psychologist years later.

He commented that he continued to study because people with mental illness simply cannot find work. His sense of humour was evident when he talked about dating his wife. They had gone for a long walk in the woods and it was then that he decided to tell her that he had paranoid schizophrenia. Not the best place to do that, he commented. She did not run off screaming, they married and had four children.

Dr Frese has always been a strong supporter of involuntary treatment when it is necessary (as it often is) and for the fair treatment of those who are ill.

He explains his position in this presentation below:

As he said in the video clip below, he refuses to be ashamed of his illness and that he is not recovered (despite all his credentials) but is in recovery.

I should also mention that Fred was very generous with his time and was an active supporter of the late Dr Carolyn Dobbins (another psychologist with schizophrenia) and was gracious enough to write a very good blurb for Katherine Flannery Dering’s book, Shot in the Head.

Those of us who advocate for improved services for the mentally ill will have to step up our efforts to make up for Fred’s loss.

Advertisements

Blue Dreams – the Story of Psychiatric Drugs

By Marvin Ross

I’ve just finished reading Blue Dreams The Science and the Story of the Drugs That Changed Our Minds and it is the most balanced accounting of psychiatric meds that I’ve ever read. Lauren Slater is a psychologist and someone who has taken psychotropic medication for bipolar depression for most of her life. She has been in and out of hospitals many times so she speaks from both experience and academic awareness.

She starts out with a very detailed account of how chlorpromazine, the first anti-psychotic, came to be and gradually made inroads against the psychoanalysis that was prevalent at the time. What surprised me was that there were psychoanalytic neurologists who considered Parkinson’s to be the result of psychology and not brain chemistry. She then moves on to give the history of the first anti-depressant, imipramine.

As a political aside, both of those drugs were first used in North America by Dr Heinz Lehmann in Quebec. He came to Canada as a refugee fleeing Hitler. His colleagues arranged a ski vacation for him to Quebec as a ruse so he left Germany with his skis and all his luggage. A lesson for the Donald on the value of refugees.

Her discussion of lithium is quite interesting as its use goes back many years for all manner of ailments but it was slow to be accepted by medicine for psychiatry because there cannot be a patent on a naturally occurring substance. No money can be made and so, to this day, no one has ever bothered to try to find out what it does to the brain or how it works. A sad condemnation of science and of the profit motive in drug development.

Ms Slater began suffering depression at quite a young age and was eventually sent to see a psychiatrist in her early teens. She saw the doctor three times per week. After about 6 years of no progress, her doctor put her on imipramine which had recently become available but it did not help and gave her terrible side effects. When Prozac became available, she was switched to that and she spent 17 years taking it.

This is what she had to say:

“Both before and while I was on imipramine, my emotions were wild and I was whipped between states of utter despair, whirling anxiety and unstable ecstacy that allowed me to pull all-nighters writing lengthy tomes that later, in the sober light of another day, lacked what I felt at the time of composition had been a poetic essence. I was also a revolving-door mental patient in and out of the hospital admitted and discharged five times between the ages of thirteen and twenty-four, with not much hope for a full future……”

“Prozac turned my life around and did it fast, one two.”

“On SSRIs, however, I have been able to stay out of mental hospitals, to write nine books, to bear two babies who are now adolescents with their own keen interests and proclivities to manage with their own interests, to manage a marriage and then a divorce, and, just as important, to nurture a circle of friends.”

Unfortunately, over the years she has had to increase the dose until Prozac became ineffective and she had to switch to other medications. And, the drugs had a severe impact on her health causing her to gain weight and to develop diabetes. But, she said, that was the price she had to pay for sanity.

While she has been helped by pharmaceuticals as have many people, she is very critical of psychiatry and its theories which are quite simplistic. I was surprised to learn that despite the dopamine theory of schizophrenia, it turns out that those with this disease can have a wide range of dopamine levels and the levels are not related to the presence of the disease or its severity. The same applies to serotonin in the case of those with depression. Prescribing is a guessing game and there are doctors who prefer certain drugs and that is what they prescribe based simply on their preferences and not the science of why a certain drug works. However, drugs that dampen or increase levels of these neurotansmitters do help with the symptoms but psychiatry still has no clue about etiology.

This ideological adherence to certain drugs is one that I encountered a number of years ago. I pitched a story to a psychiatry/neurology newspaper on research done comparing the side effect profile of the older anti-psychotics with the new atypicals. The pitch was accepted and I submitted the story which showed that the newer drugs had just as many side effects as the older ones. The editor called and told me the research was preposterous and should never have been accepted as a presentation at a psychiatry conference. They refused to run the story but paid me anyway because they had accepted my pitch (in error I was told).

Of course, we all now know that the research was correct.

One interesting fact she mentions is that even with drugs like Prozac, the rates of depression are increasing. The reported incidences of depression have increased a thousandfold since the introduction of anti-depressants. She suggests that this might be the result of an American society that emphasizes individualism and has very few safety nets like universal health care. Sociological studies have shown that depression increases with isolative societies.

It would be interesting to compare rates of depression over time between the US and other western countries that are less individualistic like Canada and Western Europe.

I was pleased to see that while she references my old opponent, Robert Whitaker, she discounts his views. Yes, anti-depressants do cause changes in the brain as he points out but then, untreated depression (and schizophrenia) cause changes in the brain and the patient when untreated, is not able to manage.

Psychiatry and our knowledge of the brain is still in its infancy and we can only hope that greater progress is coming.

The Failure in Police Reactions to Emergencies – Amended After Toronto

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Within the span of a few days the Hamilton Police demonstrated good judgment and remarkable restraint keeping two unruly mobs apart on Locke Street, saved a little girl’s life with quick compassionate action, and killed a teenager, a boy obviously in the throes of some kind of psychotic episode.

Why do they perform so well, even heroically, in some circumstances, and so poorly, tragically, in others?

I am not asking the question rhetorically, for the question may be worth serious consideration.

The first of these three situations was the most dangerous. It could easily have erupted into violence followed by five years of lawsuits.

The second required quick, focused action despite the horrifying sight of a child being caught under a moving train.

The third required a calm assessment of imminent danger (there was none) and then a calm slow approach.

In the rush to arrive at an unfolding situation each officer will develop heightened arousal. Stress hormones, adrenalin, breathing pattern, heart rate, blood pressure will all be aroused. This is commonly called the fight / flight response, but it is a complex system of brain/body arousal that allows for increased awareness of danger, heightened ability to focus, increased startle response, decreased pain sensation, decreased attention to ‘unimportant’ internal and external stimuli (e.g. time, hunger, thirst, chirping birds, other people), and heightened reflexes.

For the little girl with the severed limb this served her well. The officer reacted quickly and with full focus and efficiency without external distraction.

For the containment of the two mobs there had been enough planning, preparation, structure, and organization that each officer was able to quell or override their fight/flight response and diffuse the potential for violence.

Not so in the third example. The officers arrived in fully aroused state and entered the situation with heightened reflexes and heightened fear. Guns were drawn, triggers pulled.

Each circumstance is different. But in all the unnecessary police shootings of the past few years there has been one consistency: Police arrive in a rush on a call labeled as dangerous in some way. They are in a state of heightened arousal. They do not pause. They do not collect their thoughts or information. They do not pause in safety to slow heart rate, breathing, to scan the environment. They are hyper focused. They push forward. There is no thought of backing up.

In this state a cell phone can be seen as a gun. Awkward movements and slow response to commands can feel dangerous and threatening. The fact that no third party is at imminent risk does not register.

In a recent police shooting in the U.S. you can hear the heightened arousal, the full fight/flight response in the voices and breathing of the officers.

I have to conclude that some things are missing from police training. The first would be a pause upon arrival at the scene to determine if there is indeed a truly imminent threat to a third party. (Not a suicide threat, refusals, waving of arms, bizarre behavior, bad language, verbal threats – but a truly imminent threat to a third party. Is there anyone else on the street car, in the back yard, nearby in the field, nearby in the park, in the arrival lounge?). The second is the option to hold, rest, backup, breathe, take the time to dampen the state of arousal one is in at that moment, and then and only then proceed in a sane, calm, safe fashion.

And all that I suggest was done by the Toronto police officer when he confronted the driver of the van that had just wreaked havoc on Yonge St killing 10 and injuring many others. When the officer arrived, no one was in imminent danger. He even had the presence of mind to return to his cruiser and turn off the siren as it was distracting and preventing the officer and the subject from hearing one another. That also gave  him time to calm his nerves. At times, he backed away and, presumably when he realized that he was not in danger himself, he advanced and the suspect gave up.

We can only hope that this incident will serve as a training tool for others who might find themselves in a similar situation.

More on The Continuing Proof of the Efficacy of Anti-Psychotics

By Dr David Laing Dawson

The narratives from the proponents of Open Dialogue remind me of the narratives arising from the psychoanalysts working in private psychiatric hospitals in the United States in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Many case studies were available and even books written on the subject.

In the late 1960’s we were unlocking the doors of the mental hospital in Vancouver and applying therapeutic community principles. The principles and ideas of the therapeutic community can be found in the activities of the Open Dialogue program. And before that they can be found in the practices of small hospitals from the Moral Treatment Era of the 1850’s to 1890’s, and again, briefly, in some mental hospital reforms shortly after WW1 and before the Great Depression, albeit, in each case, within the language and pervasive philosophies of the time.

In the late 1960’s we had already discovered how wonderfully effective chlorpromazine could be in containing mania and reducing the psychotic symptoms of schizophrenia.

So in this context, knowing the evidence, the clear evidence of chlorpromazine being the first and only actually effective treatment for psychosis, and lithium for mania (beyond containment, sedation, shelter, kindness, protection, food, routine grounding activities, time and care) it behooved us to look closely at the claims of the psychotherapists who were writing such elegant and positive case studies from the American private hospitals.

So I read them.

They were interesting reading, detailing the relationship of therapist and psychotic patient, interpreting the content of the psychosis, and the painstaking time consuming process of building a relationship, working to help the patient view the world in a different manner, and always, through the pages of these reports, it was said great progress was being made. And they all ended with something like (this is the one I remember best) “Unfortunately, despite showing so much progress, patient X assaulted a nurse and had to be transferred to the State facility.” Curiously, as with many “studies” I read today, despite the obviously bad outcome, a paragraph is added at the end extolling the progress made (before the unfortunate outcome) and recommending we stay the course.

There are many interesting explanations for the continuing anti-medication (for mental illness) philosophies. (Note that almost nobody objects to taking medication for other kinds of suffering and illness). Marvin and I have written about a few – the preciousness of the sense of self, the wish that there be an immortal mind that can outlive a brain, the fear of being controlled, distrust of Big Pharma, professional jealousies, and turf wars. But writing the above reminds me of another reason this irrationality persists.

It was clearer to me then (1960’s/1970’s) than it is now, because we really wanted to find ways of helping without medication: It is much more ego gratifying to mental health workers of all stripes when our patients get better simply because of our presence, our words, our care, ourselves, than if we just happen to prescribe the right medication.

I remember well a patient, a professional, a few years ago, thanking me for helping him overcome a severe depression. “Nah,” I said, “I just managed to prescribe the right medication for you.” “No, no,” he said. “It was more than that.”

All right. There are a few moments when I can be attentive, thoughtful, kind, and even find the right words. But to try doing that alone while withholding medication for severe mental illness would be malpractice, cruel, egotistical, even sadistic.

 

The Continuing Proof of the Efficacy of Anti-Psychotics

By Marvin Ross

Despite the protestation from the anti-psychiatry advocates, medication for schizophrenia works and another study has just been published to support that position. A new study based on a nationwide data of all patients hospitalized for schizophrenia in Finland from 1972 to 2014 found that the lowest risk of rehospitalization or death was lowest for those who remained on medication for the full length of time.

The risk of death was 174% to 214% higher among patients who never started taking antipsychotics or stopped using them within one year of their first hospitalization in comparison with patients who consistently took medications for up to 16.4 years.

It should be pointed out that this is real life data rather than a clinical trial involving a total of 8,738 people.

What is particularly significant for me in this study is that it is from Finland which is the home in one isolated part of that country (Lapland) to the alternative Open Dialogue espoused by the anti-psychiatry folks including journalist Robert Whitaker of Mad In America fame. Whitaker claims that 80% of those treated with Open Dialogue are cured without need for drugs.

I wrote about Open Dialogue very critically back in 2013 in Huffington Post and pointed out that there is very little research to demonstrate its efficacy. I actually asked a Finish psychiatrist, Kristian Wahlbeck who is a Research Professor at the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, in Helsinki about Open Dialogue.

This was his answer:

“I am familiar with the Open Dialogue programme. It is an attractive approach, but regrettably there has been virtually no high-quality evaluation of the programme. Figures like “80 per cent do well without antipsychotics” are derived from studies which lack control group, blinding and independent assessment of outcomes.”

He went on to say that:

“most mental health professionals in Finland would agree with your view that Open Dialogue has not been proven to be better than standard treatment for schizophrenia. However, it is also a widespread view that the programme is attractive due to its client-centredness and empowerment of the service user, and that good studies are urgently needed to establish the effectiveness of the programme. Before it has been established to be effective, it should be seen as an experimental treatment that should not (yet?) be clinical practise.”

As for the claim that psychiatric hospital beds in Finland have been emptied, he said “in our official statistics, the use of hospital beds for schizophrenia do not differ between the area with the Open Dialogue approach and the rest of the country.”

My blogging associate, Dr David Laing Dawson also wrote about Open Dialogue in this forum with very skeptical view. He stated that the director of the program admitted that about 30% of the patients in Open Dialogue are prescribed medication so arguing that medication is not used is not correct.

At the time my article appeared in Huffington Post, someone on Mad In America agreed with me that there was insufficient evidence on the efficacy of Open Dialogue and said that a US study was set to begin in, I think, Boston. I did find a completed study on Open Dialogue done by Dr Christopher Gordon. His study involved 16 patients and he states at the outset that

“Since this was not a randomized clinical trial and there was no control group, we cannot say that these outcomes were better than standard care, but we can assert that they were solidly in line with what is hoped for and expected in standard care.”

In the paper that is in a legitimate psychiatric publication, he states that of the 16, two dropped out and a further 3 had disappeared at the end of the study so no data is available for them. This is a study of 11 people who completed the one year term.

He then points out that:

“Of note, four individuals had six short-term psychiatric hospitalizations (two involuntary).”

and that:

“three of the six individuals who were not on antipsychotics at program entry started antipsychotics. Of the eight already on antipsychotics, four had no change in their medication, and four elected to stop during the year. Both groups of four had similar outcomes and continued to be followed in treatment. Shared decision making and toleration of uncertainty contributed to these choices.

Hardly the success he suggests if the goal was to help them get well without medication.

But, coming up at the end of May in Toronto we have a conference with Robert Whitaker and others on Shifting the Narrative on Mental Health from the psychiatric disease model to the relational/recovery model, and on the challenges that are stacked against that eventuality.

Now I would say that the challenges against that shift are science but they define it as “The challenges and resistances to progressive change are of an ideological, macro-economic nature guaranteeing a protracted and difficult struggle for recovery advocates.”

Dwayne Johnson and Heroic Narratives

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Within the same time frame I was reading Marvin’s blog on the Mental Health Commission and the associated commentary, Dwayne Johnson’s story of depression popped up on multiple news sites. None of the sites gave much detail and I remain unsure if he suffered bouts of what we used to call “clinical depression”, and before that “endogenous depression” or if he simply suffered some difficult discouraging periods in life when his football career and a relationship ended.

In these brief news items Dwayne’s story is shaped as the narrative of an “heroic struggle”.

And I realized that most such stories are shaped and told in that form. It is a classic narrative form, and one we all want to hear.

Facing great odds, our hero, perhaps after learning some life lesson (humility, confession, love, trust, openness) battles his way through to success, health, and happiness. His weapons are will power, strength, hope, perseverance, and a little help from his friends.

It is the narrative form in the story of A Beautiful Mind’s John Nash. And it is the narrative form when the story is told about a victim of cancer.

The difference is that when we read the story and see the pictures of someone’s struggle with cancer, we know he or she has undergone one or many courses of radiation or chemotherapy, that he or she is still undergoing treatment.

The focus of the story may be on the courage and optimism of the patient, their loving  family, a special group of supportive friends, a cancer support group, or all that the patient is able to accomplish despite their illness – but we never lose sight of the fact of medical treatment for cancer.

It is good to bring mental illness out of the shadows. It is good to tell our stories. But we need to drop the euphemisms of mental health issues, and (a new one for me) mental health “situations”, and we need to include the fact of medical treatment for serious mental illness, because we don’t assume it as we do with cancer narratives. In fact, a very popular heroic struggle narrative is “I overcame my (illness, depression) without resorting to medication.”

This heroic struggle narrative has shaped the recovery movement; it has clearly influenced members of the mental health commission.

And who would bother watching a show, or reading a story with a tagline of: “A man develops depression, goes to his doctor; the doctor treats his depression and he gets better.”

This is not to denigrate the role of courage, optimism, hope, and support required to live with a chronic illness, or recover from an acute illness. But…

Update:

Another day, April 5 to be exact, and it seems it is OCD Day with several news items and videos appearing. Much is shared in these articles and videos, distinguishing crippling OCD symptoms from mild everyday forms of compulsions and obsessions. Psychological treatment is also explained, exposure and desensitization therapy. But not once, not once in the articles and videos I watched was it explained that there are medical pharmacological treatments that work with great success for about 90% of sufferers. Not once is this mentioned.

One of these medications has been around since the 1960’s, though at the time we didn’t know how effective it was for OCD and psychological/psychoanalytic thinking about the illness dominated.

I am not sure who or what is to blame for this. But for the psychologists who were interviewed to not mention this readily available medical treatment is akin to naturopaths not mentioning antibiotics when discussing the treatment of pneumonia.

Paradoxically, Jack Nicholson starred as a novelist with OCD in “As Good as it Gets” 20 years ago. At the end of the movie Nicholson’s character decides to be a better man and go back on his medication. Critics were not happy with that ending, and it did ruin the “heroic struggle” narrative. It was, as the third act of a story, very unsatisfying. “What? To quell his OCD all he had to do was take his medication?”  Well, yes.

 

Is This The End of the Mental Health Commission?

By Marvin Ross

In December, I wrote a blog pointing out that the Mental Health Commission of Canada should be disbanded. Those of you who follow my writing on Huffington Post know that this has been a constant theme of mine over the past few years. Last Fall, the Federal Health Minister set up an inquiry into what they called Pan Canadian Health Organizations (PCHOs). These are federally mandated groups established to carry out specific tasks in health across the country when, in fact, health care comes under provincial rather than  federal jurisdiction.

The review was to evaluate the role and relevance of these groups in advancing federal health policy objectives and meeting national goals. One of the PCHOs is the Mental Health Commission and my advocacy colleague Lembi Buchanan and I submitted a brief on the Commission through the Best Medicines Coalition.

With amazing speed for a government report, the findings were just released. Much to our delight, the Commission recommended that the Mental Health Commission either be ended or radically altered.

The basic premise for health care in the 21st Century as outlined by the World Health Organization and endorsed by most countries including Canada is that it be people centred. “It puts people at the centre of the health system and promotes care that is universal, equitable, and integrated. The framework emphasizes a seamless connection to other sectors, notably those focused on the social determinants of health. This framework also promotes providing a continuum of care that requires high-performing primary care.”

The conclusion the reviewers reached about the Mental Health Commission of Canada is that “Mental health is now “out of the shadows”. The integration of mental health care services into the core of Canadian health systems requires a different type of leadership, capable of driving a bottom-up approach in which patients and families, providers, researchers, and the broader mental health community come together to break down silos.”

As a positive, the report states that “The MHCC has been particularly effective in developing strategies around mental health, along with initiatives and campaigns to increase awareness and reduce stigma. It has made great strides in delivering on its objectives and helped to bring mental health “out of the shadows at last.” It has also created valuable contacts and built trust among its closest stakeholders.”

It did develop a mental health strategy mostly ignored and it did help to raise the awareness of mental illness. However, the report states that:

“The need to build greater capacity in Canada on mental health is still as pressing today as it was when the MHCC was established. What has changed, however, partly as a result of the advocacy work undertaken by the Commission, is the overarching policy goal. What Canada needs today is the complete and seamless integration of mental health into the continuum of public health care. What Canadians want is public coverage of proven mental health services and treatments, beyond physicians and hospitals. To be successful, those services must be integrated with primary care and supports for physical health, rather than isolated from them. We came to the conclusion that MHCC, in its present form and with its current orientation, is not the best instrument to achieve the objective of integrating mental health into Medicare.

They then state that these goals might be achievable if the MHCC changed itself but suggest that to accomplish this they would have to engage “health leaders at provincial and territorial levels in joint decision-making over service funding and quality standards; a different “knowledge base” in support of evidence-informed advice and performance evaluation; and a different, more flexible, and less centralized structure.”

This, in fact, is one of the many criticisms I’ve made over the years. The MHCC churns out papers but has zero influence in decision making and that is exactly what is needed. Policy papers are fine but they need to be implemented and the MHCC has yet to accomplish that from what I’ve seen. The report concludes in its section on the MHCC that “It is because mental health is so critically important to Canadians- and their governments- that a new approach is now needed.”

I was impressed with the team tasked with this job and I’m impressed with the speed in which it produced its report (October 2017 to March 2018). Let us hope that the Health Minister implements the recommendations.

And, a documentary we did on schizophrenia

Donald Trump is Helping My Psychiatry Practice – An Open Letter

Dear Donald from Dr David Laing Dawson

As much as I dislike your intrusion into my thoughts and my life several times every single day, Donald, I must say you are a gift to clinical work. No longer do I have to rely on obscure references, examples that may or may not be known to my patients; no longer do I need to dream up ice breakers to relax an anxious family; no longer do I need to struggle to find a topic that will provoke an emotional reaction in a silent, sullen teenager; no longer do I need to search for a way of introducing the topics of narcissism, empathy, sociopathy, and adolescent cognitive development.

Just today I asked a 17 year old how he thought he might react if he were outside the Florida school while the shooting was occurring. He thought for a few seconds and then said he would probably take cover and call the police. Seventeen Donald, and he has already outgrown that adolescent fantasy of yours you told the governors. Or at least he has reached a level of cognitive development when he understands those common male heroic rescue fantasies are just that, fantasies.

At what age does one still boast about these superhero fantasies? I suspect thirteen, fourteen maybe. And then, usually, a little more self awareness creeps in. I was able to congratulate my patient on being more thoughtful and mature than the President of the United States. He didn’t think it was much of a compliment.

An anxious family, a parent with unruly or sullen child seeing a psychiatrist for the first time: I’m getting cautious one-word answers; I throw “Donald Trump” into this and the parents and the child all start talking with hand gestures, vivid facial expressions.

The mother tells me the 14 year old boy stole money from her purse. The boy launches into his defense, following the exact pattern of Donald’s tweets that very morning: Denial, fake news, someone else did it, you shouldn’t leave your purse out, I don’t get an allowance, my sister did it, you never blame her, she gets away with lots, you don’t like me, you’re unfair.

I point out the similarity. The mother smiles; the boy is insulted.

The teen girl over thinks everything. It is part of an OCD/anxiety problem. She is so worried and conscious of what she might say, and what she has said, that she avoids talking to all but family. I tell her I would like to inject her with a half ounce of Donald Trump. And there we have an extreme opposite to her problem that we can talk about.

The parents are very upset their child lies. I talk about lying, for a child, is natural, and how a developmental task for the child and teen, aided by their parents, is learning, by adulthood, when to lie or obfuscate a little bit, and when to tell the truth. At this age, the boy’s lying does not mean he’s going to grow into a Donald Trump or a career criminal.

It’s a measure of severe depression when someone does not have the energy to become animated by the topic of Donald Trump.

It’s a measure of excess idealism when a teenager is extremely distressed, outraged, horrified by the very mention of the name.

And there was a time when a fairly large percentage of teenagers, unable to answer any questions on current events, politics, governance, would explain, “It doesn’t effect me; I’m not interested in it.”

But they all now pay some attention to American Politics. They know your name and they all react. So there is one demographic the better for your existence: teens and youth. Let’s hope they maintain their awareness and idealism.

How to Achieve Medication Compliance

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Anosognosia is an unwieldy word meaning lack of insight, or, literally in translation, `without- disease- knowledge`.  In the case of some brain injuries or stroke the brain may become quite specifically unaware of what is missing. The part of the brain that would perceive this is damaged. With mental illness, schizophrenia, bipolar, the apparent lack of insight  or denial of obvious impairment or implausible grandiosity may be more nuanced and variable. It may be part defensive in nature; it may be more a denial of the consequences imagined; it may be more about the power relationship at hand. Some of it may be merely human, the unwillingness to give up a longstanding belief, whether that be of the second coming,  CIA surveillance and persecution, or of being chosen, special, destined for greatness.  Some of it may be a distorted form of the normally complex parent – adult child relationship.

But almost every family with a severely mentally ill member must deal with, at least once, that time when the ill member claims to be fine when obviously not, and refuses to take medication or go for an appointment to the doctor.

How to approach this. What options do you have. Below is an outline for talks I have given on the subject:

Stage 1

  • Calm and slow
  • Non-threatening (posture, position (e.g. side by side), distance, tone, pace)
  • Aim for a negotiated reality. (not the acceptance of your reality)
  • i.e. He may not be willing to admit he is ill or delusional or needs medication but may be willing to agree that he is in trouble, anxious, not well, in pain, not sleeping, and that in the past the pills have helped with that. He may by his behavior be willing to take pills or come for an appointment as long as he doesn’t have to admit to need or illness.
  • Gently find out what he or she fears.
  • Gently find out what his objections are.
  • Allay these objections and seek a “negotiated reality”.
  • Stay away from labels, declarations, and you defining his reality.
  • Offer pill with glass of water without saying anything.

Stage 2

Family intervention, same tactics as above but with whole family or available members, or a specific family member with influence.

Stage 3

Ultimatums. (You can`t live here unless…..)

But before doing this you should assess the level of risk (provoking violence, and/or leaving and putting self at risk). Discuss in family plus with a professional. Must also assess realistically your tolerance for confrontation, anxiety, worry, guilt. And ultimatums are only effective if truly meant, if you are truly willing to carry through with the ultimatum. If the ultimatum works, do not reiterate it unnecessarily.

Stage 4.

Form 1, J.P., Court order, Police intervention.

Before doing this decide on desired outcome, assess odds of achieving this desired outcome as best as possible (i.e. is there a treatment that works? Will they keep him or her long enough? Does the trauma of this kind of intervention justify the long-term outcome?)

Having decided on desired outcome, use all resources to achieve this. Learn the wording of the Mental Health act to get desired outcome. Use this wording to your advantage. Find family mental health friendly lawyer. Discuss with the health professionals who will be receiving the family member.

Family Doctors and Psychiatric Medication

By Marvin Ross

I’ve heard this more than once but family doctors who wonder why their patient with a serious mental illness is on the psychiatric medication they are on when they seem to be fine.

And so, they suggest that the patient either go off the meds or start to taper them with, of course, disastrous outcomes. The latest case I heard was of a woman I know with stable schizophrenia who has been stable for many years. This is a woman for whom it took years to stabilize and get her to the level she is now.

The patient in question is so in favour of medication that she has been active giving lectures to health care students and other professionals on the importance of them for stability.

But then, her family doctor wondered why she was on the dose she was on. He told her that as you get older, your metabolism slows and you do not need as much medication as before. She agreed to start lowering her dose with the expected result. She slowly became more psychotic to the point where her family had to to go to court to have her hospitalized and forced back on medication.

She is now back to normal stabilized on her meds but considerable time and anguish was wasted on something that did not need to happen.

Of course, my anti-psychiatry critics will suggest that she was addicted to the medications and that her descent back into psychosis could be predicted by her body reacting to the poison that was cut off. That, of course, is nonsense. She needed the medication and when it was taken away, her illness returned. In one of his earlier blogs, Dr Dawson mentioned that when psychosis returns, the individual develops the same delusional thoughts as they originally had. That happened in this case.

Regardless of the illness, if you are on medication, you are doing well, and there are no side effects, then why mess with it. One psychiatrist I quoted in one of my writings pointed out that it is so difficult and time consuming to find the right medication at the proper dose to help a patient, why mess with it when it is found.

Unless there is a really good reason to do so, continue with your dose.