User login
A few miles from New York City’s “Million Dollar Blocks” in Brownsville—single city blocks where the state spends more than a million dollars per year to incarcerate people who once lived there—is the one of the busiest psychiatric emergency rooms in the country. Through the doors come people with “behavioral disturbances” who may be a risk to themself or others and who might have a psychiatric disorder that causes functional or cognitive impairment. Sometimes, a clear-headed individual will rattle off an impressive list of diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety), chronic, not in remission, on medication, which makes one wonder if a dartboard would provide better diagnostic accuracy. Without the construct validity that our colleagues in other specialties have to support our diagnoses, what is first and foremost a medical specialty has been expanded to a catch-all for what ails the human condition.
Being comfortable with uncertainty
Hyperbole aside, speculative pathologizing is risky business. Our conjectures could be influenced by personal bias and also are subject to the surrounding social climate. By watering down the field, our sins run the gamut of incorrectly diagnosing and stigmatizing a vulnerable patient to failing to protect the public from a mentally ill individual. Psychiatry, as it turns out, is not for the faint of heart.
I often am surprised at the number of medical students—it seems more than in past years—who are curious about psychiatry. I tell them one must be comfortable with some degree of uncertainty. Neurologists, for example, are far more certain of their uncertain, mysterious diseases. Likewise, internists resolutely say “idiopathic” without batting an eyelash. Psychiatrists, however, on the whole, are inclined to be an introspective and self-critical bunch. Extrapolated to the field at large, it creates a divisiveness not seen in other medical specialties. Psychiatry has its factions that are fortunately, are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes the twain can and do meet.
With flexible explanatory models come flexible roles in health care. We take on the shape of administrators, directors of clinical service, and policy advocates. Psychiatry, by assuming the mantle of phenomenology, naturally intersects with the areas of human rights, philosophy, and law. Without regard for our considerably influential positions, it is tempting to overstep our bounds as a medical provider. We are, woefully, powerful.
Refocusing community psychiatry
The well-intentioned public psychiatry movement, borne out of deinstitutionalization, endeavored to treat patients in a least restrictive, community-based setting with a focus on rehabilitation and integration. In practice, however, community psychiatry takes on a less rosy view. More often used as a Band-Aid for crime and problems associated with increasing socioeconomic divide, community psychiatry has been rebranded as mental health services for the indigent. Subverting the rights of this doubly vulnerable population is astonishingly easy when paired with a risk-averse litigious environment. “Danger to self or others” becomes our mantra; we unwittingly become ill-trained policemen.
I suggest we narrow the scope of psychiatry and we resist opining on social ills and conflating them with nebulous mental ills. Violent behavior, although troubling, is not a psychiatric symptom and unintentionally correlating it with psychiatric diagnoses does our patients a disservice. When we override an individual’s civil liberties with involuntary hospitalization or involuntary treatment, perhaps it is helpful to consider if we would do the same if the patient had more resources. It is a heavy burden to pretend that we can fix public policy with medications, therapy, and hospitalization. Not only should our actions safeguard the rights of our patients, but also the integrity of our field. In doing so, we might enjoy a less controversial place in health care.
A few miles from New York City’s “Million Dollar Blocks” in Brownsville—single city blocks where the state spends more than a million dollars per year to incarcerate people who once lived there—is the one of the busiest psychiatric emergency rooms in the country. Through the doors come people with “behavioral disturbances” who may be a risk to themself or others and who might have a psychiatric disorder that causes functional or cognitive impairment. Sometimes, a clear-headed individual will rattle off an impressive list of diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety), chronic, not in remission, on medication, which makes one wonder if a dartboard would provide better diagnostic accuracy. Without the construct validity that our colleagues in other specialties have to support our diagnoses, what is first and foremost a medical specialty has been expanded to a catch-all for what ails the human condition.
Being comfortable with uncertainty
Hyperbole aside, speculative pathologizing is risky business. Our conjectures could be influenced by personal bias and also are subject to the surrounding social climate. By watering down the field, our sins run the gamut of incorrectly diagnosing and stigmatizing a vulnerable patient to failing to protect the public from a mentally ill individual. Psychiatry, as it turns out, is not for the faint of heart.
I often am surprised at the number of medical students—it seems more than in past years—who are curious about psychiatry. I tell them one must be comfortable with some degree of uncertainty. Neurologists, for example, are far more certain of their uncertain, mysterious diseases. Likewise, internists resolutely say “idiopathic” without batting an eyelash. Psychiatrists, however, on the whole, are inclined to be an introspective and self-critical bunch. Extrapolated to the field at large, it creates a divisiveness not seen in other medical specialties. Psychiatry has its factions that are fortunately, are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes the twain can and do meet.
With flexible explanatory models come flexible roles in health care. We take on the shape of administrators, directors of clinical service, and policy advocates. Psychiatry, by assuming the mantle of phenomenology, naturally intersects with the areas of human rights, philosophy, and law. Without regard for our considerably influential positions, it is tempting to overstep our bounds as a medical provider. We are, woefully, powerful.
Refocusing community psychiatry
The well-intentioned public psychiatry movement, borne out of deinstitutionalization, endeavored to treat patients in a least restrictive, community-based setting with a focus on rehabilitation and integration. In practice, however, community psychiatry takes on a less rosy view. More often used as a Band-Aid for crime and problems associated with increasing socioeconomic divide, community psychiatry has been rebranded as mental health services for the indigent. Subverting the rights of this doubly vulnerable population is astonishingly easy when paired with a risk-averse litigious environment. “Danger to self or others” becomes our mantra; we unwittingly become ill-trained policemen.
I suggest we narrow the scope of psychiatry and we resist opining on social ills and conflating them with nebulous mental ills. Violent behavior, although troubling, is not a psychiatric symptom and unintentionally correlating it with psychiatric diagnoses does our patients a disservice. When we override an individual’s civil liberties with involuntary hospitalization or involuntary treatment, perhaps it is helpful to consider if we would do the same if the patient had more resources. It is a heavy burden to pretend that we can fix public policy with medications, therapy, and hospitalization. Not only should our actions safeguard the rights of our patients, but also the integrity of our field. In doing so, we might enjoy a less controversial place in health care.
A few miles from New York City’s “Million Dollar Blocks” in Brownsville—single city blocks where the state spends more than a million dollars per year to incarcerate people who once lived there—is the one of the busiest psychiatric emergency rooms in the country. Through the doors come people with “behavioral disturbances” who may be a risk to themself or others and who might have a psychiatric disorder that causes functional or cognitive impairment. Sometimes, a clear-headed individual will rattle off an impressive list of diagnoses (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety), chronic, not in remission, on medication, which makes one wonder if a dartboard would provide better diagnostic accuracy. Without the construct validity that our colleagues in other specialties have to support our diagnoses, what is first and foremost a medical specialty has been expanded to a catch-all for what ails the human condition.
Being comfortable with uncertainty
Hyperbole aside, speculative pathologizing is risky business. Our conjectures could be influenced by personal bias and also are subject to the surrounding social climate. By watering down the field, our sins run the gamut of incorrectly diagnosing and stigmatizing a vulnerable patient to failing to protect the public from a mentally ill individual. Psychiatry, as it turns out, is not for the faint of heart.
I often am surprised at the number of medical students—it seems more than in past years—who are curious about psychiatry. I tell them one must be comfortable with some degree of uncertainty. Neurologists, for example, are far more certain of their uncertain, mysterious diseases. Likewise, internists resolutely say “idiopathic” without batting an eyelash. Psychiatrists, however, on the whole, are inclined to be an introspective and self-critical bunch. Extrapolated to the field at large, it creates a divisiveness not seen in other medical specialties. Psychiatry has its factions that are fortunately, are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes the twain can and do meet.
With flexible explanatory models come flexible roles in health care. We take on the shape of administrators, directors of clinical service, and policy advocates. Psychiatry, by assuming the mantle of phenomenology, naturally intersects with the areas of human rights, philosophy, and law. Without regard for our considerably influential positions, it is tempting to overstep our bounds as a medical provider. We are, woefully, powerful.
Refocusing community psychiatry
The well-intentioned public psychiatry movement, borne out of deinstitutionalization, endeavored to treat patients in a least restrictive, community-based setting with a focus on rehabilitation and integration. In practice, however, community psychiatry takes on a less rosy view. More often used as a Band-Aid for crime and problems associated with increasing socioeconomic divide, community psychiatry has been rebranded as mental health services for the indigent. Subverting the rights of this doubly vulnerable population is astonishingly easy when paired with a risk-averse litigious environment. “Danger to self or others” becomes our mantra; we unwittingly become ill-trained policemen.
I suggest we narrow the scope of psychiatry and we resist opining on social ills and conflating them with nebulous mental ills. Violent behavior, although troubling, is not a psychiatric symptom and unintentionally correlating it with psychiatric diagnoses does our patients a disservice. When we override an individual’s civil liberties with involuntary hospitalization or involuntary treatment, perhaps it is helpful to consider if we would do the same if the patient had more resources. It is a heavy burden to pretend that we can fix public policy with medications, therapy, and hospitalization. Not only should our actions safeguard the rights of our patients, but also the integrity of our field. In doing so, we might enjoy a less controversial place in health care.