Category Archives: Schizophrenia

Marijuana and Schizophrenia – Part II

By Dr David laing Dawson

It struck me recently the reason marijuana has been such a popular recreational drug is that while it causes distortions in perception (time passing, speed, sound, colour, light, music, intensity, memory, touch, focus etc) thanks to THC, it also contains differing amounts of CBD, a potent anti-anxiety, anti-arousal agent.

Usually such distortions in perception, especially for the naïve user, would lead to anxiety, arousal, sometimes fear and panic, and could obviously hasten along an evolution to psychosis. And some people do report very negative experiences after smoking a joint.

Clearly it is the CBD portion of the drug that allows those perceptual distortions to be pleasurable.

I am absolutely sure that marijuana does not cause schizophrenia, but it could easily hasten it along, especially with heavy use. On the other hand CBD is an effective, and so far apparently safe, anti-anxiety drug and possibly safer for controlling anxiety than prescription lorazepam.

But, as I have pointed out to teenagers who asked for marijuana prescriptions to quell the pain of a breakup, impending exams, getting a part-time job, they should and need to be experiencing anxiety. Some anxiety is necessary for growth, for learning, for engaging with the world.

Many boys who smoke daily from, say age 16 to 23, are still obviously, in many ways, 16 when you meet them at 23.

CBD yes as a good medicine.

Marijuana in moderation, at least until achieving some level of maturity.

Advertisements

Marijuana and Schizophrenia

By Marvin Ross

pot
Courtesy of pixaby.com

Now that marijuana is legal in Canada and in many US states, understanding the role of this substance in the development of schizophrenia is even more crucial. Schizophrenia has long been thought to be associated with pot smoking but the causality has been in doubt.

In my book, Schizophrenia Medicine’s Mystery Society’s Shame published in 2008, I cited the research that was current at that time.

The classic study was that of a long term follow up of Swedish conscripts aged 18-20 in 1969-70. A total of 50,087 young people representing over 97% of that country’s 18-20 male population reported on their use of cannabis, other drugs and on several other social and psychological characteristics. The researchers then looked at hospital admissions for schizophrenia amongst this group. It was found that cannabis was associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia. The greater the use then the greater the risk. The researchers concluded that there was no question but that the link between the two was causal. Cannabis use caused schizophrenia and the link was not explained by the use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits.

However, it has also been hypothesized that schizophrenia leads to a greater use of marijuana likely because people are trying to medicate themselves. A number of years after the above study was published, Scottish researchers looked at all the studies that had been done on the link between cannabis and schizophrenia between 1966 and the end of 2004. That study agreed with the original findings. Early use of cannabis does appear, it said, to increase the risk of psychosis and that cannabis is an independent risk factor for both psychosis and the development of psychotic symptoms. Again, it has been argued that prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia lead to an increased use of marijuana. Then, while the disease is developing, being stoned speeds up the developing deficits of the disease.

Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker and New York Times reporter Alex Berenson recently wrote about the correlation between marijuana use and violent crime. Gladwell cited a National Institute of Medicine research report and Berneson produced a book on the topic called Tell Your Children: The Truth about Marijuana, Mental Health and Violence.

Marijuana researchers objected strenuously to the link of marijuana to crime and I tend to agree. But Gladwell also linked pot use to schizophrenia and that too set off the marijuana researchers. Ziva Cooper, one of the authors of the National Academy of Medicine report, objected to the association of marijuana with schizophrenia. She said that the National Academy did find a link between marijuana and schizophrenia but that they also found a link between using cannabis and improved cognitive outcomes for people with psychotic disorders.

Now that I can also believe but the researcher is mixing apples with oranges. Marijuana is comprised of THC which is the hallucinogenic and CBD which is not. It is the THC that can push people to psychosis and when smoking pot, you do not know how much of each is in the joint. And, of course, the potency of pot today is much greater than it was in my day.

According to a research update in Psychiatric Times “Cannabidiol (CBD), the second most active ingredient in marijuana, has been hypothesized to have antipsychotic effects—in contrast to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which may promote or worsen psychosis”. Recent research in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that “CBD has beneficial effects in patients with schizophrenia. As CBD’s effects do not appear to depend on dopamine receptor antagonism, this agent may represent a new class of treatment for the disorder”.

However, people should be aware that when you smoke a joint or nibble an edible, you have no idea how much THC or CBD is in the product.

And, as the brain continues to develop till about the age of 25, those under that age should be cautious particularly if they have a family history.

Time to Relegate Anti-Stigma to the Garbage Heap – Part Two

By Dr David Laing Dawson

There is a moment for most of us sometime in second year University studying linguistics, humanities, philosophy, psychology when questions of truth, reality and delusions become quite interesting. Is there really a difference between the man who believes the CIA is watching him (assuming they are not) and the man who believes Jesus turned water into wine without the aid of grapes and fermentation.

Is what we call a delusion just a lived experience no different than a thousand other unfounded beliefs the rest of us live by? Is it just a social judgment by which we differentiate?

The answer is no. Though it may not be readily apparent to other than a family member or someone who has spent years treating schizophrenia.

First of all the delusion, the false belief of the schizophrenic is almost always tormenting: being watched, controlled, denigrated, persecuted. And when it is not that, when it endows the schizophrenic with a power to right these wrongs, it is dangerous.

And secondly, most clearly differentiating a delusion from an ordinary unfounded belief is the accompanying cognitive deficit.

This is not a cognitive deficit that shows up on an IQ test. This is rather a more subtle and complex social information processing deficit. It is a deficit in the ability to stay grounded in this social moment including having a governing awareness of the effect we are having on others and of the consequences of what we say and do. It is this deficit that differentiates the disheveled man ranting about God on the street corner and the Jehovah’s witness knocking politely on my door.

Schizophrenia is a brain illness for which we have effective treatment.

And as Marvin points out, stigma is not reduced by railing against it. When the subject of the stigma is a frightening illness, stigma is reduced by naming that illness, understanding that illness, and ensuring that it is treated.

Time to Relegate Anti-Stigma to the Garbage Heap

By Marvin Ross

I am so terribly tired of all the effort and money spent on fighting the stigma of mental illness. I don’t really think it is that much of a problem. What is a problem is discrimination – the fact that mental illness does not get the health funding that it should when compared to other illnesses. There is a lack of beds, a lack of community supports, a lack of support for family caregivers and I could go on.

I feel a bit like Howard Beal did in the classic 1976 film written by the brilliant Paddy Chayevski and I am mad as hell. His famous line can be seen here

A couple of things have set me off. The first was the appointment to the Order of Canada of Professor Heather Stuart who holds the Bell Mental Health and Anti-Stigma Chair, the world’s first anti-stigma research chair at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. I’ve met Heather, have corresponded with her a number of times, and years ago I backed her getting a grant from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario to conduct a study of stigma by health professionals against those with schizophrenia so I’m pleased for her to win recognition. Sadly, her efforts to promote anti-stigma do not improve the treatment for anyone.

As an advocate in Kingston Ontario continually tells me, the streets of downtown Kingston are filled with ever increasing numbers of obviously untreated mentally ill. Maybe Heather should get off her endowed chair and try to get them some help.

The other event this week was told to me by a Toronto advocate who notified me of a bioethics lecture at the University of Toronto entitled Reflection on Mental Health Stigma, Narrative, and the Lived Experience of Schizophrenia (you have to activate Adobe Connect to see it). The presenter was a PhD candidate in philosophy at York University in Toronto.

To his credit, the lecturer admits the existence of anasognosia and that people with schizophrenia do have cognitive deficits. However, he suggests that many people fear those with schizophrenia. I think many of us do if they are not treated and are in active psychotic states. He does seem to suggest that doctors should accept the delusions that people have and not ignore their lived experiences. He also suggests that people are told that there is no recovery.

What he did not seem to differentiate between was treated versus untreated and that is crucial. It is true that recovery to a totally healthy state is not normally possible but many people can and do recover to live as reasonable lives as possible. And some don’t. That is the reality.

The notion that people fear those with schizophrenia and distance themselves needs to be qualified. Maybe some do but they are not in the majority. Those people will also fear and distance themselves from people diagnosed with cancer or some other serious and chronic ailment. They are not in the majority. Most people are sympathetic and many will tell you of relatives or friends who also suffer. Despite some tragic examples involving the police, the majority are incredibly sympathetic and understanding.

I remember one case years ago when a man with schizophrenia took off (as often happens) and the police found him miles away from his home. As he was over 21 and not declared incompetent, the police could not take him back to his family but the officer phoned his father 3 hours away and told him he would keep an eye on his son till the father got there. He did, provided cell phone updates and kept it up even when his shift ended so the family could be reunited.

When David Dawson was shooting his feature film on schizophrenia, Cutting For Stone, we needed a police cruiser in the middle of the night for one scene. Two cruisers showed up for us and one of the cops commented that if any group needed more exposure it was people with schizophrenia.They were happy to accommodate (available on Amazon for streaming) and I got a chance to ride in the front with the sirens blaring.

Many people with schizophrenia are willing to expose themselves to the public by telling their stories in books. Many of them I’ve published thanks to the willingness of people like Sandra Yuen MacKay, Erin Hawkes-Emiru, the late Dr Carolyn Dobbins, and Sakeena and Anika Francis. Others have done the same in books and blogs like Christina Bruni, The Unashamed Schizophrenic and others. Some have exposed themselves in documentaries like the ones in the film The Brush The Pen and Recovery directed by David Dawson (available on Amazon for streaming).

The same goes for those with bipolar disorder like Victoria Maxwell and many others including a new book called Mad Like Me. This one was originally submitted to me but I turned it down for a number of reasons. The author, however, did take some of my suggestions, rewrote it and had it published. Or, a book that I reviewed in these pages called Shatterdays Bipolar Lives

I often receive requests from people with schizophrenia offering to tell their stories as I did last night from a gentleman in California. His e-mail to me stated “I have been contemplating writing this manuscript for several years,and have decided to now ,because I feel there is no shame in having a mental illness, as it is no different than having a disease such as Epilepsy. I wrote this book to be in an advocate/activist position to be able to speak for those who cannot. If my book, my story, can help just one person, one family, it will have been more than worth the effort of writing it.”

I think it would be well worth it for mental health agencies to run writing workshops for people with mental illnesses.

But, let me circle back to the issue of stigma. Who in their right mind would not be fearful of a dishevelled ranting, untreated schizophrenic wandering down the street. I almost hit one the other day when he suddenly walked out into the traffic of a busy street impervious to the traffic.

The best solution to this stigma was offered by Dr Stuart’s partner, the psychiatrist Julio Arboleda-Flórez, He wrote:

The lesson to be drawn from these papers is simple: helping persons with mental illness to limit the possibilities that they may become violent, via proper and timely treatment and management of their symptoms and preventing social situations that might lead to contextual violence, could be the single most important way to combat the stigma that affects all those with mental illness. While most myths about mental illness can be traced to prejudice and ignorance of the condition, enlightened knowledge does not necessarily translate into less stigma unless both the tangible and symbolic threats that mental illness poses are also eradicated. This can only be done through better education of the public and of mental health service consumers about the facts of mental illness and violence, together with consistent and appropriate treatment to prevent violent reactions. Good medication management should also aim to decrease the visibility of symptoms among patients (that is, consumers) and to provide better public education programs on mental health promotion and prevention.

Guest Blog What Goes Through My Head When I Diagnose A Child With Schizophrenia

By  Dr Jennifer Russel, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Vancouver, BC

Reposted from Huffington Post with permission from Dr Russel and for the parents of those with schizophrenia for the Christmas Season.

I know what it’s like for people and families facing harrowing, life-altering illnesses to receive the nourishing support they need from those around them. My husband survived pediatric cancer. At age 14, he developed chest pain, a cough and was eventually diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Disease. After surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, he achieved remission and has been well ever since.

The psychological effects of his cancer still haunt us. His mother has made me promise to call her and wake her up if he is ever in an Emergency Department — she still lives with fear to hear those words again, “Your son has cancer.”

My husband often speaks of the support he received from family, friends and his school during this very difficult time. Unfortunately, these helpful responses aren’t what the families of my patients receive.

As an adolescent psychiatrist, I have spent the last 10 years working on inpatient psychiatric units, where I have diagnosed and treated adolescents with what was initially psychosis, and later diagnosed as schizophrenia. I have had to sit face to face with mothers, fathers, aunts, grannies, brothers and sisters, and tell them that their teenager — the same one that cuddled up to them at night, baked cookies and scored the winning goal in soccer — has schizophrenia, a lifelong chronic condition which has robbed their child of their mind, their ability to differentiate what is real and what is fantasy.

Even once we have treated the frightening positive symptoms (hallucinations and delusions) the vast majority of patients are left with lifelong negative symptoms (apathy, inability to experience pleasure, lack of motivation, decreased or blunted emotion and decreased speech) in addition to significant cognitive decline. By the time these parents have come to me, their child has often been ill for some time. Despite this, for many this diagnosis comes as a surprise.

No one wants to hear, “Your child has schizophrenia.”

I have spent considerable time reflecting on how to deliver this news. Is there a right or best way to tell a parent about their child’s schizophrenia? How can I be supportive, empathic and hopeful, yet honest and direct? I try to imagine — how would I want to be told the news?

What continues to shock and sadden me is what happens after parents leave my office. Too often when they call their families and friends, they discover that they, particularly the mothers, are blamed for their child’s schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder.

All of the mothers of my patients have been blamed (at some time or another) for their child’s illness by people they encounter, and even by health care workers. Yes, this still goes on. It is time that we stop Mother Blaming, and we focus on what we know is true about schizophrenia — that it is a brain disorder, where there is too much dopamine active in the brain.

Although we don’t know the exact cause, scientific evidence does tell us that parenting, even bad parenting, does not cause schizophrenia. We all (myself included) have parenting moments that we would like to take back or “do over.” Although we should take the time to reflect on these moments, and work to do better, we should do so with the knowledge that they do not cause schizophrenia.

I say this because the holidays are coming up. When a child gets diagnosed with cancer, which often has better outcomes than schizophrenia, the family is embraced with love. They are showered with care packages, hampers, food delivery schedules and spa gift cards. Go Fund Me campaigns are even started. When a young person is diagnosed with schizophrenia, the family is often isolated, shamed, ignored and silently shut out of the community. Sometimes I wonder if people think that psychosis is contagious.

What these families need is to be embraced, loved and cared for in the same way we care for parents whose children have other serious illnesses. It’s time to stop blaming, and start caring. This holiday season, as you prepare to celebrate, please take a moment to think about how you can support a loved one who is or has a family member suffering from a serious mental illness. Think about what that parent could be going through, and care in the best way you know how.

 

 

 

 

Coming in January: Mind You The Realities of Mental Illness A Compilation of Articles from the Blog Mind You

We have decided to publish a book on the best of our mental illness blogs over the past 4 and a bit years. The book will be available in print and e-book formats everywhere in early 2019.

Below is the introduction:

We began this blog in October 2014 in order to provide commentary on the state of mental illness and its treatment for the lay public. What we provide is a viewpoint from that of a psychiatrist with many years of experience (David Laing Dawson) and a family member of someone who does have schizophrenia (Marvin Ross). Aside from his personal experience (or lived experience as it is commonly referred to), he is also a medical writer, advocate and publisher of books that take a unique look at mental illness.

To date, we have had close to 75,000 views and have been read in 151 different countries since 2014.

We also write on other topics but these are the ones on mental illness covering topics like recovery, treatments, suicide, addictions, and alternative treatments (or pseudo science).

When we began, we had this to say of our purpose:

 Welcome to the launch of Mind You. While we intend to post on mental illness,mental health and life, we decided on the name Mind You to reflect that not everything is black and white. There are ideas and opinions but then mind you, on the other hand, one can say…….

And that is what we would like to reflect. Ideas about mental illness,health and life that can be debated and discussed so that we can come to a higher understanding of the issues. And, we have separated out mental illness from mental health because, despite their often interchangeability, they are distinct.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness defines mental illness as a medical condition that disrupts a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a  diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life. Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder.

On the other hand, the World Health Organization defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community. That is quite different from mental illness.

Unfortunately there is a tendency to confuse these and organizations like the Mental Health Commission of Canada have a tendency to talk about mental health issues and problems which are not the same as mental illnesses.

 Both Dr David Laing Dawson and I (Marvin Ross) will be posting on a regular basis on a variety of topics.

The posts we have selected for this volume are the most widely read over the past 4 years.

Mind You, ISBN 978-1-927637-31-9, 193 pages distributed by Ingram

 

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.”

Reminiscences of Hockey and Schizophrenia

By Marvin Ross

This past week Johnny Bower, the 93 year old former great goalie for the Toronto Maple Leafs, passed away. One of the comments made of him was his charitable work along with the fact that he was goalie the last time the Leafs won the Stanley Cup. I’m old enough to remember that it was so long ago.

His passing twigged my memory of the time that the Hamilton Chapter of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario were the recipients of the charity of old hockey players. I’m not sure when this began but I became involved in the chapter in the late 1990s and was chair for a few years. The largest and most successful fund raising event was the annual National Hockey League (NHL) Alumni Association golf tournament put on for us at a course north of Toronto.

The moving forces were our executive director at the time and Keith McCreary who was one of the founders of the NHL Alumni. Sadly, both are no longer with us. I attended two of the golf tournaments in 2000 and 2001 and Johnny Bower was there along with many of the hockey greats from my childhood. I certainly remember Red Kelly, Dennis Hull, Eddie Shack, at least one of the famed French Connection line for the Buffalo Sabres, and numerous others.

What struck me was their incredible generosity. Some donated memorabilia to be auctioned off and all of them were more than happy to peel off $50 and $100 bills to enter the many raffles that were held. Hockey players of that era did not make the big bucks that they do today as Dennis Hull mentioned in his after dinner stand up comedy routine. He commented that today’s players earn more in a day than most of the guys in that room made in their entire careers. But their generosity to a disease that most of them probably knew very little about was remarkable.

Another guest who was much beloved by the hockey crowd was Michael Burgess who often sang the national anthem at Leaf games and who played Jean Valjean in Les Mis. The players all loved his rendition of Danny Boy which he did that evening. The link above is to his singing on Youtube.

Also incredible was one mother who positioned herself on the first tee and subjected each and every foursome before they teed off with her lecture on the horrors of schizophrenia and the need for more treatment, family support and research. She was not a young woman but stood in the sun and heat for hours without either a pee break or a drink break so that she would no golfer would forget what they were supporting.

That night, I drove home with our executive director and what was left over from the day along with about $10,000 in cash for the bank when I was stopped in a police road block looking for impaired drivers. Fortunately, I had cut myself off early in the evening.

That was September 10, 2001 and we all know what happened the next day 9/11 that changed the world forever.

But, the moral of the story is that there are good people out there who can understand serious mental illness and do their bit to make the lives of those who suffer just a tiny bit better.

schizcover  For more on schizophrenia, see Schizophrenia Medicine’s Mystery Society’s Shame and other Bridgeross titles

Mark Vonnegut, Schizophrenia and Mother Blaming

By Dr David Laing Dawson

Mark Vonnegut, the son of Kurt, had (has) a psychotic illness. In his autobiographical novel he explained delusions in this way: if you were being chased by a pack of wild dogs, wouldn’t you rather think that somewhere there was a hound master who could call them off if he chose to do so?

I have always thought he was right, at least with respect to delusions. They are explanations for experiences that, in the case of mania, cannot be explained within the accepted laws of physics; in the case of schizophrenia, cannot be explained by a diminished social perceptual and information processing system; and, in the case of dementia, cannot be explained by a diminished cognitive apparatus.

The invented explanations are usually quite simple and usually involve blame in either a positive sense (God has granted me…) or a negative sense (the CIA is…). The target for blame (or perceived source) in a delusion is always standard fare. The source of extraordinary power and well being is God; the causes of failure, constraint, weakness, control, are parents, the police, a disease, or Aliens. The methods are always contemporary:  in pre-industrial  cultures, by curses, spells, hexes, and evil eyes, through the 20th century by radar and radio waves, and now through a variety of electronic devices, bugs, and micro implants. And as per the topic of a recent blog, note that parents make that list.

But beyond an explanation of delusions, this wish for a hound master who could, if he chooses, call off the dogs of hell, is really quite universal. Historically we have used, or fallen into, just such an explanation for every sin, illness, climatic event, and tragedy that befell us. And, almost always, we have been wrong.

But this need, this psychological human brain imperative, continues. The value of this trait of the human brain (mapping, organizing, understanding) lies in the advancements of science. We want to understand why things happen as they happen. The downside to this need, this wish, is the continuing enthrall of astrology, a myriad other nonsense fads and conspiracy theories, and the wish to find someone to blame  for schizophrenia.