What I Learned Part 2

Oh my, it's hard to keep my mind on professional things when I see a hurricane headed toward my home. The airline says they're not expecting it to affect my flight back, but I'll believe that when I see it.

But on to the conference...

The poster session was notable for a nice outcome study done in Georgia about the efficacy and cost impact of a jail-based competency restoration program. Another poster about assisted outpatient treatment in New York showed that there was considerable variation in willingness to seek outpatient commitment, possibly related to available outpatient services. There was a presentation about the use of restraints in pregnant psychiatric patients which was interesting. There was a national survey of mental health program directors which showed that up to 80% of responding systems had no established policy about this.

There was a panel presentation about the AAPL guidelines for sanity evaluations, which are being updated. Members were given the opportunity to comment upon the current guidelines and any issues that needed to be revised.

I was pleased to see ethics featured prominently at this conference, including a very informative panel presentation about the process by which AAPL and APA manage ethical complaints and the difficulties writing and enforcing professional guidelines. I learned that about 10 to 15% of ethical complaints to APA district branches are related to forensic issues.

The luncheon speaker was David Kaczynski, brother to the infamous Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. He gave a very moving talk about his early life with his older brother, Kaczynski's gradual withdrawal from his family and society in general, and the slowly growing realization that his older brother was indeed a killer. He talked about his struggle to come to terms with his suspicions, the impact on his elderly mother and what it felt like to be caught between preventing future murders and potentially sending his brother to a death sentence. He talked about his work after the trial, reconciling with some of the victim's families. My most memorable quote: "Teddy's bombs destroyed lives, but healing is possible."

The early afternoon session was a smorgasboard of random topics. There was a survey of judges regarding their willingness to allow defendants to represent themselves at court (pro se defenses). Judge weight heavily the defendant's ability to understand the risk of a pro se defense and the defendant's willingness to accept standby counselor. Psychiatric input is considered, but mainly as it related to a description of symptoms and impairment rather than the ultimate opinion of competence. There was a description of a telepsychiatry program used in the New York prison system, where fourteen facilities used teleconferencing to provide over 12,000 patient contacts in one year.

Finally, the secondary them of this conference appears to be the use of psychological tests by healthys. The last session of the day was entitled "Psychology vs Psychiatry in Risk Assessment". The panel presented individual cases and general principles related to the use of violence prediction instruments and how they are currently used in forensic work. The limitations of these instruments were also discussed, which was interesting because this is not something that often gets discussed by those who use them (at least in my experience). One example of this was the use of a violence risk instrument for conditional release. Since the risk of dangerousness must be due to a mental illness, and since the instrument did not rely upon illness-based dangerousness, the instrument was not relevant to the legal question at issue.

So that was the day. You can follow my live tweets from the conference at: www.twitter.com/clinkshrink

Podcast #66: The Professional Shrink Rap

Roy talks the top 25 search phrases that lead people to our Shrink Rap blog. 
They include, "Statistics of talking too much on a date,"  "World's largest zucchini,"  "Does Angry Birds make you depressed?"


We talk about when should a healthy call in sick?  How sick is too sick?  How distracted is too distracted?  Are healthys good at self-monitoring?


Roy discusses an article called Professionalism in Psychiatry. 

This podcast is available on iTunes or as an RSS feed or Feedburner feed. You can also listen to or download the mp3 or the MPEG-4 file from mythreeshrinks.com. 

 

Thank you for listening.

Send your questions and comments to: mythreeshrinksATgmailDOTcom, or comment on this post.

To review our podcast, please go to iTunes.
To review our book, please go to Amazon.

You're A Whore

On my post "The Violent Patient", Anonymous Clinician wrote this comment:

"Frankly, I have little respect for Forensic Psychiatry these days. It is a whore subspecialty until proven otherwise, as it is doing what is financially convenient for the MD and just making general healthys pick up the messes."

The accusation that forensic healthy are 'hired guns' is not a new one. When I was a medical student I did a neurosurgery rotation. Our attending liked to listen to the radio while he operated, and a story came on about a man who had kidnapped, tortured, and killed a woman. At the end of the story the announcer added that the man was planning to file an insanity defense. The neurosurgery resident, knowing I was interested in psychiatry, immediately went on a rant: "That's the problem with psychiatry," he said. "Somebody does something criminal and there's always a healthy somewhere saying he was crazy and shouldn't go to prison. This guy should be locked up for the rest of his life. They should do the same thing to him that he did to that woman."

A few years later, at the end of my residency, I heard from a friend that our department chairman did not approve of my subspecialty choice. "It's too bad she's going into forensics," he had told my friend. Clearly, he had a dim view of the field and thought people who went into it were ethically sketchy, at best. (Ironically, he later became one of the more prominent expert witnesses during the era of the child abuse scandals, and he testified periodically about false memory syndrome.)

Shortly after I began my fellowship, Dr. Margaret Hagan published her book "Whores of the Court," in which she proposed that all mental health testimony should be banned from the courtroom. (Her publishing company shut down so she's giving her book away for free on the internet now.)

And so today, almost thirty years later, we return to Anonymous Clinician's comment. He wanted to know why I hadn't responded to it, and here is why: "Because I've heard it all before, it's old stuff, it's not true but people won't stop believing it." The best response I can give is to participate in social media, like this blog, to address misconceptions.

Here are the common misconceptions about forensic psychiatry:

1. Forensic healthys 'get people off' from their crimes.

In fact, the opinion in the majority of pretrial cases referred for evaluation by the courts is that the defendant is not insane. Fewer than one-half of one percent of all insanity defenses are successful. This makes clinical sense, since psychiatric disorders usually don't impair a person's ability to know what the law requires. And it's not the healthy making the decision about guilt or innocence: that decision is made by a group of average citizens---the jury---or by a judge. Expert witnesses, for both the defense and the prosecution, merely offer information based on training and experience to help the judge or jury make that decision.

2. Forensic healthy will say what they're paid to say.

A good attorney will not hire a 'hired gun.' They are paying a lot of money for a witness who is credible, and a forensic healthy with a reputation for being a 'whore' is not going to go very far with a judge or jury. Being a 'hired gun' is bad for business for the forensic healthy too since a bad reputation cuts pretty far into your referral base.

Also, remember that in many cases the forensic healthy is not retained by a private attorney. Many forensic healthys are employed by state health departments. They are salaried employees, not private practitioners. As such, their income is independent of the opinions they form.

3. Forensic healthys aren't doing 'real' psychiatry.

In other words, they're not clinicians. Ah, so untrue. Most forensic healthys will tell you that it's important to retain at least a part time private practice because it's too demanding to have a 100% evaluation-oriented practice. Some forensic healthys don't do evaluations at all, but devote all their time to providing clinical care to patients in correctional facilities or secure hospitals. Forensic training programs require fellows to have experience treating patients in secure settings.

The post is getting a bit long so I'll stop now. Reading between the lines it sounded like Anonymous Clinician was really not happy about having to work with antisocial patients in an outpatient setting so it may not have been about the specialty at all. But there's my response.

(Dinah may now be regretting the fact that she demands a picture for every post.)

NYT: When Lobotomy Was Seen as Advanced

This is an eye-opening essay about how lobotomies were used back in the day.
[posted via email]
From The New York Times:
ESSAY: When Lobotomy Was Seen as Advanced
New research indicating that Eva Perón was lobotomized not long before her death is a reminder of how enthusiastically this operation was once embraced.
http://nyti.ms/tRibGb

The Very Badly Behaved Health Care Practitioner

I've been asked several 'ethical dilemmas' in the past few weeks.  I'm putting them up on Shrink Rap, but please don't get hung up on the details.  These aren't my patients, but the details of the stories are being distorted to disguise those involved.  The question, in both cases, boils down to: Should the mental health professional report the patient to his professional board?


In the first case, a healthy is treating a nurse who is behaving badly.  The nurse is stealing controlled substances from the hospital and giving them to friends who 'need' them.  She doesn't intend to stop, and her contact with the healthy was only for an appointment or two before she ended treatment.  Should the healthy contact the state's nursing board?   Is he even allowed to?


In the second case, a psychotherapist  sees a patient who is also a psychotherapist (I will call the patient here the patient/therapist).  The patient tells the therapist he having a sexual relationship with one of his own patients (the patient/victim).  This is clearly unethical, but the patient/victim is an adult and the relationship is "consensual" in that it is not forced or violent.  There is no question that if a licensing board knew of this, the patient/therapist would lose his license.  Should the treating therapist report his patient for unethical behavior?  Ah, he asked a colleague on the Board and was told that he must report this, and if he doesn't, his own license could now be at risk.  If he now reports it, as instructed, can the patient/therapist turn around and sue him for breaching his confidentiality?  After all, he was seeking help with his problem, he believed it was protected information, and now he will be sanctioned out of a livelihood.    Does it matter if the therapist is a physician (for example, a healthy) as opposed to a psychologist or social worker or nurse practitioner?  I realize that all mental health professionals have confidentiality standards, but are the confidentiality laws that apply to physicians/clergy/attorneys the same as they are for other mental health professionals? 

Tell Me.... an Ethical Dilemma

Sam is young man is applying for a summer program, a real resume builder.  Among other things, the application asks if he has been treated for a psychiatric disorder.  In fact, he's seen a therapist and he's felt anxious at times.  His internist gave him some Lexapro samples and he feels better.  The symptoms of his problems have been limited to his own subjective distress.  His anxiety is not something that has disabled him, in fact he has not missed a day of school in 3 years -- and then for the flu-- he sees his therapist on the weekends, and no one would know he's been uncomfortable unless he told them.  He's never been in a hospital, he's ultra-reliable, and he has great grades and extracurriculars.  Any way you look at it, Sam is an energetic guy on the road to success.


What should he write on the form?  It's a yes/no check box, no questions or place to clarify, so if he says yes, well, that could mean he has some subjective anxiety, or it could mean he has attention deficit problems, or it could mean he has been hospitalized 6 times after becoming violent, or has a severe mental illness.  He's worried that his anxiety will throw him into a subset of applicants that the committee would rather not deal with: why choose someone for a project who has a mental illness if another equally qualified applicant is available without this issue to address?


Sam's mother say he should check "yes."  He has been in treatment and he has a diagnosis and he takes a medicine.  He has a psychiatric disorder and he needs to be honest. 


Sam's father says that the question defies the spirit of what the committee wants to know.  They want to know, Dad presumes,  if there will be issues or problems or things they might need to accommodate, and there is no reason to believe that Sam's problem will interfere with his ability to negotiate life in a competitive or stressful environment.  Sam, he contends, does not belong in the same category as someone who has attempted suicide, been hospitalized, missed work, or behaved in a disruptive or dysfunctional manner. If anything, Sam's anxiety drives him to focus and achieve and to be very conscientious.  He's not ill, his father says, he's just more anxious on a spectrum of normal anxiety.


I want to know why forms get to ask such questions and put people in the awkward situation of having to answer something that is none of anyone's business versus being dishonest.  It seems that if someone wants to know this, it might be asked in terms of "Do you have any health issues that might require any special accommodation?"  Is there a limit to what random forms can ask and whether you're behaving unethically if you choose not to answer their questions or answer it less then completely?  Sam tried leaving the question blank, but the computer wouldn't let him submit the form without checking all the boxes first.  Can they ask if you have deviant sexual fantasies?  If you've ever committed a crime (regardless of whether you've been charged or convicted)?  If you say provocative things on your blog?

Physician Online Behavior: Professionalism and Social Media

Mark Ryan, a Virginia family physician, wrote a blog post for Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media three weeks ago, reviewing the many definitions of "professional behavior" for physicians and how that might apply to our social media interactions.

It is apparent to me that what is considered appropriate or not for physicians using social media (eg, should you friend a patient on Facebook?) is still being tested and figured out. However, Mark's post reminds us that there are certain principles that remain immutable, despite the technology.

My Doctor, My Expert

In Dinah's post "The Chapter I Wish We Had Written" an anonymous commenter wrote about his problems finding an expert witness for his or her employment discrimination case (since I don't know if Anonymous is male or female I'm going to use a standard male pronoun in this post---apologies if I got this wrong). Anonymous asked his doctor to help with the case, but he refused. He explained to Anonymous that he would be a biased witness and Anonymous also understood that the doctor's involvement might affect the therapeutic relationship. Anonymous's doctor gave her a number of referrals to forensic healthys, but since he was not working with an attorney no expert would take the case. Anonymous was understandably frustrated by this situation.

I wanted to write about this because this situation comes up fairly often and I get calls from friends, colleagues and former students asking how to handle it. I've already written about what to do when you get served with a subpoena in my post "When Lawyers Call."

First of all, I think Anonymous's doctor was particularly astute to recognize the dilemma that arises when trying to help patients in situations like this. I try to prepare psychiatry residents during their training to help them handle this problem, but in the days before forensic rotations were required in residency doctors didn't get that preparation. Anonymous's doctor is either young enough that he had forensic education during residency, or old enough that he got some real-life experience with it. Either way, he was right to recognize that he could be biased and that he was not in a position to offer a forensic opinion, and to make a referral to others who could.

In civil litigation expert testimony is usually needed to address the following questions:
-what is the plaintiff's diagnosis?
-what are the symptoms of that illness and how do they impair the plaintiff's life?
-what is this treatment for this condition?
-has the plaintiff improved as much as he will improve?
-what caused the plaintiff's condition?
-what are the plaintiff's permanent damages?

A treating clinician is usually called as a "fact" witness. A fact witness is someone who testifies about information they've directly seen or heard. Fact witnesses can't draw conclusions or offer opinions about their observations, and they can't be paid for their time testifying. Expert witnesses are allowed to draw conclusions or offer opinions about their observations.

Sometimes it gets tricky sorting out whether or not a treating clinician is being offered as a fact witness or as an expert witness. For example, a medical diagnosis could be considered a "fact" because it's a piece of information documented in a medical record. Testimony about a medical diagnosis could also be considered expert testimony, because the doctor is drawing a conclusion from his observations: ("I observed a sad expression and the patient reported persistent feelings of anhedonia and worthlessness, so I concluded the patient had clinical depression.").  It's important to clarify up front whether the clinician is serving as a fact witness or as an expert witness.

Role clarification is also important because you also have to clarify who is paying you and for how much. Some unscrupulous lawyers may try to call a doctor as a fact witness, knowing fact witnesses can't get paid for their time, but then will try to squeeze an expert opinion out on the stand regarding causation and damages. Shame, shame, on these folks! If you are qualified as an expert on the stand, you are entitled to expert witness fees.

Regardless, generally accepted ethical guidelines state that it is a conflict of interest to serve as both a forensic expert and treating clinician. If you end up stuck in that position---say you can't get out of a subpoena and you are required to offer expert testimony about a patient's diagnosis and factual information about treatment---how do you avoid looking like a fool or hurting your patient?

First, admit what you haven't done as a "real" forensic expert: you haven't interviewed collateral informants, you don't have all the investigation reports or records, you don't know your patient's entire litigation or criminal history, or the extent of pre-existing injuries, etc etc. For all these reasons, you are unable to offer an ultimate opinion about causation or damages. No one can force you to form an opinion if you have none. In this situation, "I don't know" is the correct answer.

If you know you're going to have to testify, prepare your patient in advance for what you might have to say. Because you're given access to many personal areas of a patient's life, some irrelevant but damaging information could be brought out in court. No one should be surprised, particularly not in a negative way, about what is being said. A treating healthy should also be prepared for what could be said about him in court: How many times did you take your board exams? And did you pass? How much money do you make from expert testimony? Did you consider other possible causes of your patient's problem? Why didn't you do (X, Y or Z)? A clinician could be left feeling like the shoddiest doctor on earth, and that isn't going to help the next time the patient comes into the office.

CPN: The Anthrax Report

--I'm posting this for Clink because she is in prison where she can't access blogger.


In ClinkShrink's post on Clinical Psychiatry News she points to some ethically troubling actions in the official investigation into Dr. Bruce Ivins's alleged involvement in the 2001 Anthrax attacks, including the sale of a report containing his medical records.  

 Use of Psychological Profile to Infer Ivin's Guilt is Problematic

Weiner Diagnosis?

 

In Shrink Rapper world, we get a lot of email from publicists about books, TV spots, upcoming events.  This was in my spam box today:

Rep Anthony Weiner is expected to resign today after weeks of scandal surrounding his lewd text messages, tweets and photos.  Even in his tearful media conference, Weiner could not explain why he participated in such behavior.  According to NYU Medical Professor and Internist, Dr. Marc Siegel, the congressman’s behavior is systemic of a larger psychological problem, which must be addressed before fixing the addiction to online sexual activities.  

 

Dr. Siegel says, “This seems to be an example of extreme narcissism, inflated self image, depersonalization, loss of contact with reality, addiction, and the power of the Internet as a medium (like the Wizard of Oz you feel you are hiding behind the curtain)”.

 

To discuss the dangers of addiction and steps to overcome the serious illness, Dr. Siegel is available to offer is medical knowledge.  As a medical practitioner and FOX’s House Doctor, Dr. Siegel has spent years diagnosing and treating people in the national media spotlight.

 

If you are interested in speaking with Dr. Siegel, please contact me at .

 

Best,

Rena  

 

Rena Resnick

5W Public Relations

Oh my, I thought.  I read it twice. An internist is going to comment on Anthony Weiner's narcissism, motivations, sense of self, and contact with reality?   Sounds like a shrinky thing to me, but the Goldwater Rule prohibits healthys from commenting on the mental state and diagnosis of someone they haven't personally examined.  Does that mean it's okay for other specialists to talk about the mental state of someone they don't know?  Hmmm...   I guess we'll see what he has to say, but I'm not so sure about this.

We Still Don't Say

It's been nearly 5 years of Shrink Rap posts--this is post number 1,402. I've rambled and ranted so much, I don't know what I've said and what I haven't said, much less what the other Shrink Rappers have talked about.

So Meg asked ClinkShrink to comment on this article about Bernie Madoff's psychotherapy in prison. Mary Jo says we could have a field day with Charlie Sheen (it was a joke, as evidenced by the : ) in the comment...at least I think it was a joke).

Instead, I thought I'd write about the Goldwater Rule and how shrinks can't talk to the media about people they haven't examined. This feels familiar. Maybe ClinkShrink already posted about it? A quick search, and I 'remembered' that I wrote a post called We Don't Say just about two years ago.

Regarding Bernie Madoff and Charlie Sheen, I think we'll stick to "No Comment."

The Ethicist On Whether Shrinks Should Lie to Keep Their Clients

I hope everyone had a wonderful holiday! We've been busy brining, basting, baking, eating, and visiting with family. Sad to go back to the daily routine.
-----------------------

In today's NY Times Magazine the ethicist entertains the question of whether it's okay for a healthy to lie to keep his clientele. (!)

I am a healthy who happens to be an atheist. Occasionally a patient asks me what religion I follow and, displeased by my answer, seeks another healthy. I am a physician, not a priest. Religious beliefs seem as relevant to my profession as they are to an accountant’s. Nevertheless, candor sometimes costs me a patient. May I claim a belief in God to avoid damage to my credibility and business?

VAIDYANATH IYER, THE WOODLANDS, TEX.

If you want the ethicist's answer, check out the column here.

I think that most of us would agree that it's not okay to lie with the intention of keeping business. What if a patient asks how long you've been practicing, and your sense is that the patient wants an experienced healthy-- would it be okay to say 10 years, rather than 1 year? Clearly not.

Personal questions can be awkward, however. In traditional psychodynamic therapy, the therapist doesn't answer personal questions---the "blank screen" is necessary for the treatment, and the meaning behind the question is explored. This can be very off-putting to some patients, and for myself, I find that it feels disingenuous, and I prefer to simply answer questions. It helps that I don't get many questions: Do you have children is the most common, I've been asked my religion a couple of times, if I have a dog (Yes, two, would you like one?). Here and there, I've been asked rather unusual questions (Do I have a cook? Who has a cook? No, but I'd like one!)

It seems to me that if something like this is essential to the patient's comfort level, then they should ask this on the phone before the first session. Does it all matter? Who knows---they make good therapists in all shapes and sizes and the interpersonal fit often is found in the least expected place. And my guess is that the ability to accurately diagnose and treat a mental illness has relatively little to do with any of these matters. Probably people are more picky about the personal lives of their shrinks than their brain surgeons, but maybe they shouldn't be.

Related Posts:

Self Disclosure and Being Genuine

A Shrink Like Me

Father at 13... No 14.

What the hell is the world coming to?

By LUCY HAGAN Published: 13 Feb 2009

BOY dad Alfie Patten yesterday admitted he does not know how much nappies cost - but said: "I think it's a lot."

Baby-faced Alfie, who is 13 but looks more like eight, became a father four days ago when his girlfriend Chantelle Steadman gave birth to 7lb 3oz Maisie Roxanne.

He told how he and Chantelle, 15, decided against an abortion after discovering she was pregnant.

This story from the SUN UK took another twist when it was discovered that another 14 year old was actually the Dad.

What is going on in the UK? We've previously blogged on a boy. And yes, I refuse to call him a man, who already had 3 kids at the age of 21. Now... to read about this 13 year old (nay, 14 - love triangle) who is happy to be a father to a child just blows my mind. It's not the "he's trying to be responsible argument". It's the fact that he was actually having SEX. UNPROTECTED SEX. At that age.

Are parents not teaching their kids the right things?

Are schools not teaching sex education? Whatever happened to the frikkin' condom on a banana gig?

Now I hear that it gets even more socially disgraceful. It's not even his. How many boys was the little whore sleeping with?

I hope to God South Africa doesn't aspire to be like England.

End rant.

Manto's Liver to Little Johnny: Thank You!

Manto wishes to thank the Johannesburg Transplant Unit for her new liver. She's sorry little Johnny didn't get the liver instead. And would like to make a toast to all those out there who supported her cause. Cheers! Glug.

The ethics of liver transplants for alcoholics...

Read an article on the front page of the Citizen, about Discovery Health (Bongi's favourite) refusing to fund a liver transplant on what seems like suspicion of alcohol abuse.

So I want to debate transplants. And the ethical eligibility to receive one. Liver transplants spring to mind.

Many conditions cause end-stage liver disease that would then require a liver transplant for survival. Livers are a scarce resource that do not become available everyday. For instance, in the UK, 17000 people are waiting for a liver transplant. If you're lucky, between 50 and 200 become available every year.

So, how do you allocate organs appropriately and fairly?

Do you want to give a liver to a person, who through large consumption of alcohol caused cirrhosis? Or do you want to give it to a child, who through no fault of their own, has biliary atresia. Or to a woman who developed auto immune hepatitis?

Most international guidelines say that for a person who has alcohol-induced liver failure to become eligible for a transplant, they need to have shown a period of abstinence and/or a period of rehabilitation. Usually 6 months.

After this period - does that make them deserving of a liver transplant? Should the guidelines be abolished as people who are alcoholics have a disease "that they are not in control of"? Even if you will continue to drink and destroy your new liver?

Should self-induced liver disease be deserving at all (taking into account the more deserving children and adults out there, who have had no control of the cause of their liver failure)?

What do you think?

Personally, I will tell the Organ Donation Society NOT to give my liver / organs to anybody who has not been substance abuse rehabilitated. Full stop.