User login
Sunlight and suicide
Ever since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I have associated a bright, sunny day with disaster. I vividly remember what a beautiful morning that was -- a crystal blue cloudless sky, low humidity, and a cool, comfortable temperature. Who could be unhappy on such a marvelous day?
On the other hand, my experience living in a northern climate taught me that winter was another story. Getting up in the dark to go to school or work was a miserable experience, followed by coming home in the dark and endless hours of biting cold and bitter nights. I was not surprised to learn later in my residency training about seasonal affective disorder and about the effects of light on mood. With this background, I felt primed to write a column about a new study, "Direct Effect of Sunshine on Suicide" (JAMA Psychiatry 2014 Sept. 10 [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1198]).
In this study, investigators looked at public records of confirmed suicides in Austria between January 1970 and May 2010.They gathered 40 years of daily sunlight data from 86 meteorological stations. The amount of sunlight was defined as the duration of time that light intensity was higher than 120 watts per square meter, which apparently is the amount of light typically seen just after sunrise or just before sunset. Using this information, they compared daily suicide rates with the average daily duration of sunshine. Since sunlight varies in both duration and intensity over the seasons, the researchers used statistical methods to compensate for this, which distinguished this work from previous similar suicide studies. The authors then compared suicide rates by gender and method.
There were 69,462 suicide deaths, the majority through violent means such as hanging, drowning, shooting, or jumping. Only a quarter of the deaths were through nonviolent means such as poisoning. A significant correlation was found between the daily suicide rate and the daily duration of sunshine, but the surprising result was that sunshine appeared to have both a provocative and a palliative effect. Suicide rates climbed with increasing sunshine during the 10 days leading up to a suicide for suicides as a whole, for suicide through violent means, and for women. Sunlight had no effect on suicides for nonviolent deaths.
As a group, there was a negative correlation with deaths for the 14-60 days prior to a given suicide. Violent suicides were less likely during this time. The effects of sunshine also were specific to gender. There was a negative correlation, or apparently a protective effect, for men but not for women in the preceding 14-60 days.
Many physiologic reasons explain why light can affect mood, such as disruption of circadian rhythms and altered melatonin levels, or disturbances in serotonin or monoamine systems. There have also been social explanations for why suicides show seasonal variation. The "winter blues" have been explained by the stress of holiday preparation and its associated high expectations, family conflict, and increased alcohol use around this time. The authors concluded that one reason sunlight may increase suicide rates is that sunlight may improve motivation before lifting mood, giving a person the impetus to act on self-destructive impulses.
How this relates to the use of light boxes to treat seasonal affective disorder remains to be seen. Traditionally, this intervention is favored because of the relatively few associated hazards and side effects compared to pharmacotherapy. This risk-benefit ratio may need to be reassessed as more studies address the sunlight-suicide connection. Still, given that these devices are not Food and Drug Administration‑regulated or approved, I doubt we will be seeing the equivalent of a “black box” warning anytime in the near future.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work.” The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson's employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
Ever since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I have associated a bright, sunny day with disaster. I vividly remember what a beautiful morning that was -- a crystal blue cloudless sky, low humidity, and a cool, comfortable temperature. Who could be unhappy on such a marvelous day?
On the other hand, my experience living in a northern climate taught me that winter was another story. Getting up in the dark to go to school or work was a miserable experience, followed by coming home in the dark and endless hours of biting cold and bitter nights. I was not surprised to learn later in my residency training about seasonal affective disorder and about the effects of light on mood. With this background, I felt primed to write a column about a new study, "Direct Effect of Sunshine on Suicide" (JAMA Psychiatry 2014 Sept. 10 [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1198]).
In this study, investigators looked at public records of confirmed suicides in Austria between January 1970 and May 2010.They gathered 40 years of daily sunlight data from 86 meteorological stations. The amount of sunlight was defined as the duration of time that light intensity was higher than 120 watts per square meter, which apparently is the amount of light typically seen just after sunrise or just before sunset. Using this information, they compared daily suicide rates with the average daily duration of sunshine. Since sunlight varies in both duration and intensity over the seasons, the researchers used statistical methods to compensate for this, which distinguished this work from previous similar suicide studies. The authors then compared suicide rates by gender and method.
There were 69,462 suicide deaths, the majority through violent means such as hanging, drowning, shooting, or jumping. Only a quarter of the deaths were through nonviolent means such as poisoning. A significant correlation was found between the daily suicide rate and the daily duration of sunshine, but the surprising result was that sunshine appeared to have both a provocative and a palliative effect. Suicide rates climbed with increasing sunshine during the 10 days leading up to a suicide for suicides as a whole, for suicide through violent means, and for women. Sunlight had no effect on suicides for nonviolent deaths.
As a group, there was a negative correlation with deaths for the 14-60 days prior to a given suicide. Violent suicides were less likely during this time. The effects of sunshine also were specific to gender. There was a negative correlation, or apparently a protective effect, for men but not for women in the preceding 14-60 days.
Many physiologic reasons explain why light can affect mood, such as disruption of circadian rhythms and altered melatonin levels, or disturbances in serotonin or monoamine systems. There have also been social explanations for why suicides show seasonal variation. The "winter blues" have been explained by the stress of holiday preparation and its associated high expectations, family conflict, and increased alcohol use around this time. The authors concluded that one reason sunlight may increase suicide rates is that sunlight may improve motivation before lifting mood, giving a person the impetus to act on self-destructive impulses.
How this relates to the use of light boxes to treat seasonal affective disorder remains to be seen. Traditionally, this intervention is favored because of the relatively few associated hazards and side effects compared to pharmacotherapy. This risk-benefit ratio may need to be reassessed as more studies address the sunlight-suicide connection. Still, given that these devices are not Food and Drug Administration‑regulated or approved, I doubt we will be seeing the equivalent of a “black box” warning anytime in the near future.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work.” The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson's employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
Ever since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, I have associated a bright, sunny day with disaster. I vividly remember what a beautiful morning that was -- a crystal blue cloudless sky, low humidity, and a cool, comfortable temperature. Who could be unhappy on such a marvelous day?
On the other hand, my experience living in a northern climate taught me that winter was another story. Getting up in the dark to go to school or work was a miserable experience, followed by coming home in the dark and endless hours of biting cold and bitter nights. I was not surprised to learn later in my residency training about seasonal affective disorder and about the effects of light on mood. With this background, I felt primed to write a column about a new study, "Direct Effect of Sunshine on Suicide" (JAMA Psychiatry 2014 Sept. 10 [doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1198]).
In this study, investigators looked at public records of confirmed suicides in Austria between January 1970 and May 2010.They gathered 40 years of daily sunlight data from 86 meteorological stations. The amount of sunlight was defined as the duration of time that light intensity was higher than 120 watts per square meter, which apparently is the amount of light typically seen just after sunrise or just before sunset. Using this information, they compared daily suicide rates with the average daily duration of sunshine. Since sunlight varies in both duration and intensity over the seasons, the researchers used statistical methods to compensate for this, which distinguished this work from previous similar suicide studies. The authors then compared suicide rates by gender and method.
There were 69,462 suicide deaths, the majority through violent means such as hanging, drowning, shooting, or jumping. Only a quarter of the deaths were through nonviolent means such as poisoning. A significant correlation was found between the daily suicide rate and the daily duration of sunshine, but the surprising result was that sunshine appeared to have both a provocative and a palliative effect. Suicide rates climbed with increasing sunshine during the 10 days leading up to a suicide for suicides as a whole, for suicide through violent means, and for women. Sunlight had no effect on suicides for nonviolent deaths.
As a group, there was a negative correlation with deaths for the 14-60 days prior to a given suicide. Violent suicides were less likely during this time. The effects of sunshine also were specific to gender. There was a negative correlation, or apparently a protective effect, for men but not for women in the preceding 14-60 days.
Many physiologic reasons explain why light can affect mood, such as disruption of circadian rhythms and altered melatonin levels, or disturbances in serotonin or monoamine systems. There have also been social explanations for why suicides show seasonal variation. The "winter blues" have been explained by the stress of holiday preparation and its associated high expectations, family conflict, and increased alcohol use around this time. The authors concluded that one reason sunlight may increase suicide rates is that sunlight may improve motivation before lifting mood, giving a person the impetus to act on self-destructive impulses.
How this relates to the use of light boxes to treat seasonal affective disorder remains to be seen. Traditionally, this intervention is favored because of the relatively few associated hazards and side effects compared to pharmacotherapy. This risk-benefit ratio may need to be reassessed as more studies address the sunlight-suicide connection. Still, given that these devices are not Food and Drug Administration‑regulated or approved, I doubt we will be seeing the equivalent of a “black box” warning anytime in the near future.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of “Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work.” The opinions expressed are those of the author only, and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson's employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
Assessing coercion among hunger strikers: A primer
Oh, I’m so glad I’m not a correctional psychiatrist in California right now. Late last week, nearly a quarter of the inmates in the entire state prison system began a unified, declared hunger strike. I’ve evaluated and worked with individual prisoners on a hunger strike before, but nothing on this scale.
Fortunately, standards and policies are in place that a jail or prison can rely upon when managing the individual hunger striker. Common elements of this policy would include a formal notice to custody and to the medical department about an inmate’s declared hunger strike.
Even without formal notice, a policy might require both the medical and psychology departments to be notified when an inmate refuses a set number of meals. At that point, a mental health referral is made to rule out psychiatric illness such as psychosis or depression and to assess the inmate’s competency to refuse food, hydration, or medical procedures. The medical department would assess the inmate to determine his nutritional status on a regular basis through daily weights and laboratory values. As the strike progresses, the inmate may require inpatient medical monitoring of hydration status. In extreme cases, a correctional facility may seek a court order to feed an inmate involuntarily.
Throughout this process, the facility uses a multidisciplinary approach to continuously educate the inmate about the medical consequences of starvation, to assess ongoing mental capacity, and to monitor the patient’s willingness to consent to medical care. The correctional clinician also may be asked to talk to the inmate about what he would want done if he lost the capacity to make medical decisions.
Force-feeding of prisoners carries obvious ethical and practical consequences for the correctional clinician. On the one hand, we are obligated to respect individual autonomy and freedom, but we are appositely required to protect individual health and safety. Because of the potential for behavioral contagion, hunger strikes also can lead to unrest in the facility and further consumption of health care resources. Institutional safety is a dual concern for the correctional clinician.
The 2006 World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers contains international guidelines for the management of hunger strikes. A key component is an assessment to determine whether a mental impairment undermines the inmate’s ability to make health care decisions. In that case, the inmate is a patient rather than a hunger striker, and the clinician must provide treatment rather than allow deterioration or death. Conversely, if the decision to fast is made free of disability or coercion, the Declaration of Malta bars forced feeding as unethical.
The Malta guidelines also state that "physicians need to satisfy themselves that food or treatment refusal is the individual’s voluntary choice. Hunger strikers should be protected from coercion. Physicians can often help to achieve this and should be aware that coercion may come from the peer group, the authorities, or others, such as family members."
There’s the dilemma. In the case of mass hunger strikes such as the current one in California, the strike is a political movement designed to force the state prison system to modify its use of long-term segregation. The strike was planned in advance through social media and is fueled by the support of individual celebrities and advocacy organizations. Considerable public attention and scrutiny have been given to the strike by online and traditional media. A single prisoner’s decision to strike may be attributable to his individual beliefs and values but now could also be tied to overwhelming peer intimidation and public pressure. It would be unethical for a clinician to allow a vulnerable prisoner to place his health at risk as a result of coercion.
To my knowledge, no procedures or guidelines exist to help the clinician assess the voluntariness of a hunger strike, so I’m going to propose an assessment. In my opinion, a coercion assessment would include consideration of the inmate’s history as well as current functioning within the facility. I would look for factors that might make him more vulnerable to harassment or intimidation, such as small physical stature, serious mental illness, intellectual disability, history of peer-on-peer victimization, or placement on protective custody. I would review his history of previous institutional protests, if any, such as a documented history of formal protest through the administrative grievance system, pro se lawsuits or individual hunger strikes.
I would also ask the following questions: When did you decide to strike? What led to this decision? Has anyone on the tier talked to you about your decision? What about your family? What would have happened if you hadn’t joined the strike? Have others on your tier refused to fast? What happened to them? What do you hope will happen as a result of this strike? Has anyone offered you any privileges or made any threats related to your decision to strike?
Depending upon the results of this evaluation, the inmate could be offered protective custody, transfer to another facility, or movement to a tier – where inmates are not participating in the strike.
In light of the public attention given to mass hunger strikes lately, anyone working in a jail or prison now should be prepared to handle a coercion assessment.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011). The opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
Oh, I’m so glad I’m not a correctional psychiatrist in California right now. Late last week, nearly a quarter of the inmates in the entire state prison system began a unified, declared hunger strike. I’ve evaluated and worked with individual prisoners on a hunger strike before, but nothing on this scale.
Fortunately, standards and policies are in place that a jail or prison can rely upon when managing the individual hunger striker. Common elements of this policy would include a formal notice to custody and to the medical department about an inmate’s declared hunger strike.
Even without formal notice, a policy might require both the medical and psychology departments to be notified when an inmate refuses a set number of meals. At that point, a mental health referral is made to rule out psychiatric illness such as psychosis or depression and to assess the inmate’s competency to refuse food, hydration, or medical procedures. The medical department would assess the inmate to determine his nutritional status on a regular basis through daily weights and laboratory values. As the strike progresses, the inmate may require inpatient medical monitoring of hydration status. In extreme cases, a correctional facility may seek a court order to feed an inmate involuntarily.
Throughout this process, the facility uses a multidisciplinary approach to continuously educate the inmate about the medical consequences of starvation, to assess ongoing mental capacity, and to monitor the patient’s willingness to consent to medical care. The correctional clinician also may be asked to talk to the inmate about what he would want done if he lost the capacity to make medical decisions.
Force-feeding of prisoners carries obvious ethical and practical consequences for the correctional clinician. On the one hand, we are obligated to respect individual autonomy and freedom, but we are appositely required to protect individual health and safety. Because of the potential for behavioral contagion, hunger strikes also can lead to unrest in the facility and further consumption of health care resources. Institutional safety is a dual concern for the correctional clinician.
The 2006 World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers contains international guidelines for the management of hunger strikes. A key component is an assessment to determine whether a mental impairment undermines the inmate’s ability to make health care decisions. In that case, the inmate is a patient rather than a hunger striker, and the clinician must provide treatment rather than allow deterioration or death. Conversely, if the decision to fast is made free of disability or coercion, the Declaration of Malta bars forced feeding as unethical.
The Malta guidelines also state that "physicians need to satisfy themselves that food or treatment refusal is the individual’s voluntary choice. Hunger strikers should be protected from coercion. Physicians can often help to achieve this and should be aware that coercion may come from the peer group, the authorities, or others, such as family members."
There’s the dilemma. In the case of mass hunger strikes such as the current one in California, the strike is a political movement designed to force the state prison system to modify its use of long-term segregation. The strike was planned in advance through social media and is fueled by the support of individual celebrities and advocacy organizations. Considerable public attention and scrutiny have been given to the strike by online and traditional media. A single prisoner’s decision to strike may be attributable to his individual beliefs and values but now could also be tied to overwhelming peer intimidation and public pressure. It would be unethical for a clinician to allow a vulnerable prisoner to place his health at risk as a result of coercion.
To my knowledge, no procedures or guidelines exist to help the clinician assess the voluntariness of a hunger strike, so I’m going to propose an assessment. In my opinion, a coercion assessment would include consideration of the inmate’s history as well as current functioning within the facility. I would look for factors that might make him more vulnerable to harassment or intimidation, such as small physical stature, serious mental illness, intellectual disability, history of peer-on-peer victimization, or placement on protective custody. I would review his history of previous institutional protests, if any, such as a documented history of formal protest through the administrative grievance system, pro se lawsuits or individual hunger strikes.
I would also ask the following questions: When did you decide to strike? What led to this decision? Has anyone on the tier talked to you about your decision? What about your family? What would have happened if you hadn’t joined the strike? Have others on your tier refused to fast? What happened to them? What do you hope will happen as a result of this strike? Has anyone offered you any privileges or made any threats related to your decision to strike?
Depending upon the results of this evaluation, the inmate could be offered protective custody, transfer to another facility, or movement to a tier – where inmates are not participating in the strike.
In light of the public attention given to mass hunger strikes lately, anyone working in a jail or prison now should be prepared to handle a coercion assessment.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011). The opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
Oh, I’m so glad I’m not a correctional psychiatrist in California right now. Late last week, nearly a quarter of the inmates in the entire state prison system began a unified, declared hunger strike. I’ve evaluated and worked with individual prisoners on a hunger strike before, but nothing on this scale.
Fortunately, standards and policies are in place that a jail or prison can rely upon when managing the individual hunger striker. Common elements of this policy would include a formal notice to custody and to the medical department about an inmate’s declared hunger strike.
Even without formal notice, a policy might require both the medical and psychology departments to be notified when an inmate refuses a set number of meals. At that point, a mental health referral is made to rule out psychiatric illness such as psychosis or depression and to assess the inmate’s competency to refuse food, hydration, or medical procedures. The medical department would assess the inmate to determine his nutritional status on a regular basis through daily weights and laboratory values. As the strike progresses, the inmate may require inpatient medical monitoring of hydration status. In extreme cases, a correctional facility may seek a court order to feed an inmate involuntarily.
Throughout this process, the facility uses a multidisciplinary approach to continuously educate the inmate about the medical consequences of starvation, to assess ongoing mental capacity, and to monitor the patient’s willingness to consent to medical care. The correctional clinician also may be asked to talk to the inmate about what he would want done if he lost the capacity to make medical decisions.
Force-feeding of prisoners carries obvious ethical and practical consequences for the correctional clinician. On the one hand, we are obligated to respect individual autonomy and freedom, but we are appositely required to protect individual health and safety. Because of the potential for behavioral contagion, hunger strikes also can lead to unrest in the facility and further consumption of health care resources. Institutional safety is a dual concern for the correctional clinician.
The 2006 World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers contains international guidelines for the management of hunger strikes. A key component is an assessment to determine whether a mental impairment undermines the inmate’s ability to make health care decisions. In that case, the inmate is a patient rather than a hunger striker, and the clinician must provide treatment rather than allow deterioration or death. Conversely, if the decision to fast is made free of disability or coercion, the Declaration of Malta bars forced feeding as unethical.
The Malta guidelines also state that "physicians need to satisfy themselves that food or treatment refusal is the individual’s voluntary choice. Hunger strikers should be protected from coercion. Physicians can often help to achieve this and should be aware that coercion may come from the peer group, the authorities, or others, such as family members."
There’s the dilemma. In the case of mass hunger strikes such as the current one in California, the strike is a political movement designed to force the state prison system to modify its use of long-term segregation. The strike was planned in advance through social media and is fueled by the support of individual celebrities and advocacy organizations. Considerable public attention and scrutiny have been given to the strike by online and traditional media. A single prisoner’s decision to strike may be attributable to his individual beliefs and values but now could also be tied to overwhelming peer intimidation and public pressure. It would be unethical for a clinician to allow a vulnerable prisoner to place his health at risk as a result of coercion.
To my knowledge, no procedures or guidelines exist to help the clinician assess the voluntariness of a hunger strike, so I’m going to propose an assessment. In my opinion, a coercion assessment would include consideration of the inmate’s history as well as current functioning within the facility. I would look for factors that might make him more vulnerable to harassment or intimidation, such as small physical stature, serious mental illness, intellectual disability, history of peer-on-peer victimization, or placement on protective custody. I would review his history of previous institutional protests, if any, such as a documented history of formal protest through the administrative grievance system, pro se lawsuits or individual hunger strikes.
I would also ask the following questions: When did you decide to strike? What led to this decision? Has anyone on the tier talked to you about your decision? What about your family? What would have happened if you hadn’t joined the strike? Have others on your tier refused to fast? What happened to them? What do you hope will happen as a result of this strike? Has anyone offered you any privileges or made any threats related to your decision to strike?
Depending upon the results of this evaluation, the inmate could be offered protective custody, transfer to another facility, or movement to a tier – where inmates are not participating in the strike.
In light of the public attention given to mass hunger strikes lately, anyone working in a jail or prison now should be prepared to handle a coercion assessment.
Dr. Hanson is a forensic psychiatrist and coauthor of "Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work" (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011). The opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not represent those of any of Dr. Hanson’s employers or consultees, including the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or the Maryland Division of Correction.
