Tag Archives: asylums

Anti-Psychiatry

By Dr David Laing Dawson

As a personal addendum to Marvin’s piece:

In the years before I studied medicine and then entered psychiatry, the mental hospitals, the Asylums, were full. I believe the largest in North America housed about 13,000 patients. There were no effective treatments (with the exception of ECT) though many things were tried, from field work and prayer to cold baths, spinning chairs, and insulin coma. These Asylums themselves grew from an increasing social awareness, acceptance of social responsibility, and recognition of the need for the state to look after the intellectually, cognitively, emotionally, and socially disabled among us. (roughly 1850 to 1990)

The doctors, the Alienists, and then the psychiatrists were given wide latitude to hold, to keep, and to treat.

Curiously I do not recall any active anti-psychiatry movement then or through the years 1960 to 2000 (with the exception of Scientology). And it was through those years that actually effective treatments were developed. And by effective I mean scientifically proven to be effective.

I can now prescribe something that quells mania in a few days, that pulls someone from a stuporous depression in two weeks, that reduces panic attacks, that eliminates the excruciating pain of agitated depression, that tempers debilitating obsessions and compulsions and that gradually returns the insane to a state of sanity – if my patient will let me.

And it is now, again curiously, at a time when psychiatrists do have effective tools to treat mental illness and when they are very restricted in any use of these treatments without explicit consent and when those Asylums have been reduced to a tenth the capacity they once had, that an anti-psychiatry movement has developed.

I have to conclude that the motivation for this anti-psychiatry movement is not the welfare of others but of professional rivalry and fear. And like some other attitudes today (anti-vaccination, anti-global alliances, pro-alternative medicine, anti-fluoridation), it has to be based on memory loss – that is, a profound memory loss of childhood death from diphtheria, WWI & II, the crippling polio epidemics of the 1950’s, the rotten teeth of the average kid in 1930, and the wards of catatonic or raving and tormented souls in the lunatic Asylums, and, before that, in the jails and stockades, tied to poles, or expelled from villages.

Of course there is much to discuss in the liberal arts and social sciences about how societies have defined normal and abnormal, and all the forces at play in each Era, and about the uses and abuses of power, and about the benefits of capitalism (all effective modern medicines have been developed within capitalist systems) and the horrors of unregulated capitalism.

And these (along with the philosophy of science and the successes and limitations of the disease model of human ailments) can all be discussed and investigated within schools of social work and medicine in an academic fashion without prejudice. In fact, a really good academic question to ask would be: Why is there now a strong anti-psychiatry, anti-vaccination movement? Is it related to the anti-science zeitgeist of Trump world? Is it a failure to teach real history? Is it fear of a loss of the sense of a perfect God-made homunculous within each of us? Is it the fault of the internet? Have our entertainments (think Dr. House, Hannibal Lecter, and Jack Nicholson receiving ECT) overwhelmed our perception of reality?

Or is it just some social workers and psychologists wanting more power and status?

 

Advertisements

A Psychiatrist Critiques Open Dialogue

By Dr David Laing Dawson

We humans are a strange and contradictory species. While most of us are willing to take any number of potions and pills to limit the effect of the common cold, to boost our energy levels, to ward off aging, sore joints, and failing libidos, and a great many of us are willing to consume dangerous liquids, pills, and injectables to ameliorate the anxiety of knowing we are vulnerable, mortal and inconsequential life forms, and some of us decide to undergo toxic chemotherapy for a ten percent better chance of survival, there are others of us (perhaps not different people) who would deny (proven effective) antipsychotic drugs to someone suffering the devastating and dangerous symptoms of psychosis, of schizophrenia.

Even if some form of two year intensive counseling/therapy/group therapy worked as well as four weeks of Olanzapine, what on earth would be the justification for withholding the Olanzapine?

To be fair we have been here before. We have all, including psychiatrists, wanted to see, to understand, mental illness, both in mild form and severe form, as adaptations and temporary aberrations of the workings of the mind. And, by extension, amenable to persuasion, love, kindness, respect, and a healthy life style. In the Moral Treatment era of the mid to late 1800’s that healthy life style was based in Christian principals of routine, work, duty, etiquette, and prayer in a pastoral setting. For someone with a psychotic illness this undoubtedly would be preferable to the imprisonment that came before, to the massive overcrowded mental hospitals that grew and grew after the industrial revolution, and even, for many, preferable to the mental health systems of 2015. But it did not treat or cure psychosis.

Through the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s many notable psychoanalysts tried treating schizophrenia with their own particular form of “open dialogue”. I read many of their books and case histories. And while they are fascinating explorations of the human condition and equally interesting attempts to find meaning within madness, it did not work, at least not as a treatment to alleviate suffering and disability.

And then in the sixties and early seventies we experimented with therapeutic communities. When I listen to the staff of Open Dialogue in Finland talking about their program I can imagine my colleagues and I saying the same things about our experience in Therapeutic Communities of the 1960’s. It was humbling, as close to a level playing field as possible, a marvelous learning experience for staff, a laboratory of interpersonal and group dynamics, an open, respectful environment for patients, but it was not an effective treatment for psychotic illness, at least not without the addition of anti psychotic medication.

Harry Stack Sullivan, a psychiatrist working before the introduction of chlorpromazine wrote that “schizophrenics are not schizophrenic with me.” And what he meant, I think, was that, with a little skill, plus respect, patience, a non-judgmental attitude, knowing when to talk and when to listen, knowing what to avoid and what to ignore, one can have an enlightening and pleasant conversation (dialogue) with someone suffering from Schizophrenia. But that conversation is not a lasting treatment or cure.

It is also notable, I think, that the psychiatrist and director of Open Dialogue in Finland, in interview, acknowledged that she prescribes neuroleptic medication for “about 30 percent” of their patients. Now, from what I know of human nature and our tendency to round our figures up or down depending on the social moment, maybe that is 35 to 40%. And given the way they work as a 24 hour on call mobile immediate response team, with no filters for severity or urgency, even if only 30% receive neuroleptic medication, it sounds about right. In truth then, Open Dialogue in Finland is NOT not using neuroleptic medication to treat people with severe psychotic illness.

I have no doubt that they have created relationships and a social environment for their patients in which less medication is necessary to help them survive and function. I think it is the same thing our ancestors did in the moral treatment era, and again, what we did in some therapeutic communities of the 1960’s.

Open Dialogue also reminded me of some other experiments with around-the-clock, immediate response teams preventing hospitalization and achieving better results than hospitalization. When I explored some of these in the 1970’s and 1980’s wondering if they could be reproduced outside of their funded clinical trials I found young idealistic doctors and nurses quite willing at that time in their lives to be on call 24/7 without extra pay, with limited personal life during the course of the experiment. We could approximate these programs in real life but we could not replicate them.

We have ample reason to not trust big pharma and their incessant push to expand their customer base, but let us also be aware of both history, and the realities that surround us, of the many people with psychotic illness now back on the streets, in the hostels and jails, of the need for better mental health care systems, and the need for better cost effective treatment, and of the many people for whom our current medications have been both sanity and life-saving.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back – Mental Illness Treatment Over the Past 150+ Years – Part V of IV

David Laing DawsonBy Dr David Laing Dawson

Since writing Part IV, I’ve read E. Fuller Torrey’s American Psychosis. So there is my historian tracing the manner in which the personal struggles of politicians, the belief systems of leading professionals of the time, egos, idealism, personal tragedies, and, of course, power, politics, and money brought about the disastrous transformation and destruction of the mental illness treatment system from 1963 to present time in the US.

Canada is always a slightly more cautious, reticent, little brother too often lead astray by his risk taking, grandiose big brother. We are not as enamoured with the profit motive; we have evolved a somewhat different social contract; our minimum wages and safety nets are better; our Federal Government dare not (thanks in large part to Quebec) tamper with social and health programs long the responsibility of our provinces (or initiate something unilaterally that would undermine or destroy Provincial Programs). So we still have most of our mental hospitals, and they are mostly linked and associated with our community programs. Our psychiatric leaders and teachers remained a little more grounded in the observations of Dr. Kraeplin than the fanciful extrapolations of Drs. Freud and Laing. We realize, I hope, that privatizing our garbage collection (providing we retain sensible unions) might be both fiscally and socially responsible, but privatizing the care of the mentally ill is not.

Yet in our own slow and cautious way we are following the same path as the US. Completely discredited ideas about the causes, treatments, and “prevention” of serious mental illness, once promoted by the Psychoanalysists who designed the American Community Mental Health Programs of 1960 and 1970 are finding their way into our commissions and planning groups. Our linguistic avoidance of ‘illness’ in favour of ‘issues’ and ‘health’ is just another form of denial of the knowledge that, unfortunately, God help us, no matter how well we conduct our lives, we (and our children) can still be stricken with serious diseases of the body and brain. And, our cherished belief in inclusiveness, our understandable distrust of authority, even of scientific authority, and our wishful thinking and politeness, often allow equal voice to the speakers of nonsense on our commissions and task forces.

Much of the care of the seriously mentally ill has shifted to psychiatry programs and inpatient units of our General Hospitals. These are not for-profit institutions, but neither are they asylums; short stays are the goal; turn-over is rapid, and the doors we unlocked in the 1970’s are once again locked. (Security becomes paramount when the unit is situated on the fifth floor of a General Hospital next to the surgical suite and the Pediatric ward.) Overwrought privacy laws allow health personnel to avoid the onerous task of talking with families and other caregivers. Time consuming and difficult appeal processes facilitate psychiatrists prematurely discharging very ill people who are not, strictly speaking, imminently dangerous to self or others.

We too now have mentally ill homeless, and jails and prisons with burgeoning populations suffering from mental illness.

(I remember being mildly astonished, in perhaps 1990, to find that an Ontario Ministry of Health task force, seeking to determine the optimal number of psychiatric inpatient beds per 100,000 population, was using the State of Georgia as a benchmark. Not The Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, but Georgia. It is sometimes difficult to resist American enthusiasm.)

We have had the opportunity of adopting some of the good and effective programs pioneered in the U.S. (the ACT programs) and avoiding some of their bad ideas; we are developing a number of programs to help the police (now often front-line mental health workers by default) in many jurisdictions; we have some means of mandating forced community treatment for those who remain at risk (though it is underutilized).

Still, our development of community programs to service the seriously mentally ill has definitely not kept up with de-institutionalization. We seem to be, once again, inexorably following the misguided steps of our big brother to the south.

But, we have not destroyed our mental illness treatment system, merely hobbled it. So, in theory at least, as a country with a smaller population than California, we should be able to fix it.