What Would You Do? What Would You Want?

Courtesy of CNN, here are a couple real-life scenarios I thought I'd share with you. Both of these videos represent the kind of cases that a psychiatrist confronts in an emergency room. I'd like you to put yourself first in the position of the patient: suppose you've been sick before, but never this sick (let's take it for granted none of this is due to drugs for now). You have an advance directive in place that says you absolutely don't want treatment even if you're a danger to yourself (again, for the sake of the exercise it's an enforceable advance directive). You never addressed danger to others in your advance directive because you never anticipated it could get this bad.

What would you want done?

If you were the doctor, what would you do?


Now for the second scenario. Is there anything about this situation that might make your wishes or opinions different from the first one? What's the difference? And if none, why not?



Thank you in advance for thinking about these problems. All of you who commented on my Emancipated Patient post have taught me something and I'm grateful. I'm putting this up to learn more about your ideas, opinions and wishes. Please keep talking.

Guest Blogger Dr. Jesse Hellman: More Thoughts On Rachel Aviv's Article on Involuntary Treatment

Jesse has wanted to do a guest blog post for a while now, and The New Yorker article finally got him blogging. I wrote a brief post yesterday, but he does a more thoughtful analysis of this complicated and provocative issue. Clink is off somewhere.. I am looking forward to hearing her thoughts after the holiday.
__________________________

In “God Knows Where I Am” Rachel Aviv sees the protagonist Linda’s
refusal of treatment as an expression of her illness. The moral
impasse she describes for our profession, though, is real: denial of
the need for treatment, or of one’s illness, can be an expression of
that illness; the refusal of treatment can also be a valid position
which we understand and support.

Mental functioning can be variable, at times better and at times
worse. At times the craziest thoughts are held in check, or do not
manifest themselves, while at others they hold total sway. The
underlying assumptions of our society are shared by us, and these
shape our reaction to the illness that Linda has. Other societies,
with different traditions and philosophical underpinnings, are
comfortable with very different stances.

Before Linda was discharged from the hospital the staff did everything
they could to dissuade her, and to provide for her safety. She
rejected every effort to provide housing and support. The hospital
argued that she was too sick to make decisions which even included not
allowing the staff to notify her sister and daughter. After her death
the family sued, stating that insufficient effort had been made to
protect her. The hospital then argued she was not sick enough to
justify stronger measures. What was true?

When we look at a complex issue, or event, we naturally can only see a
part, and our response is shaped both by what we see as well as the
assumptions we carry. What weight to we place on independence versus
the rights of others? What extrapolation can we make to an unusual
thought, in that do we see it as the harbinger of insanity or of
artistic creativity? Do we value religious musings or find them
suspect?

Aviv lets us see that while a part of Linda’s functioning might have
been creative, artistic, perceptive and so on, it was increasingly
shaped by an imagination which was not tempered by reality. It was as
if she was in a dream but could not awake, a dream which increasingly
dominated the most important parts of her ability to survive.

So what is the proper role of society when confronted by such illness?
What if her fantasies had shifted from thinking spies were all around
her to imagining the world could only be saved if she were to shoot
her congresswoman?

The Unwilling Patient: New Yorker Article

In balancing rights against needs, though, psychiatry is stuck in a kind of moral impasse. It is the only field in which refusal of treatment is commonly viewed as a manifestation of illness rather than as an authentic wish.
-- Rachel Aviv, God Knows Where I Am, The New Yorker, May 30, 2011

In the May 30th issue of the New Yorker, Rachel Aviv writes about the plight of a woman who does not believe she has bipolar disorder, or any psychiatric illness for that matter. It's a poignant and tragic article about a woman who is incarcerated for a crime, spends a year and a half in jail before she is found incompetent to stand trial, then goes to a psychiatric hospital where she remains until she is discharged with no plans for housing, money, follow-up, or notification of family--- it's not that the hospital wouldn't offer any help, it's that the patient wanted her freedom and would not allow interventions. Aviv gives examples of the woman's psychosis as a motive for her behaviors. Free, she finds a vacant farmhouse and breaks in. She is fearful of being re-captured, and remains hidden in the farmhouse, subsisting on 300 apples. She journals, she appreciates nature, and she reads books she finds in the attic. In mid-January, three months after her release from the hospital, and 39 days after she ate the last apple, she dies of starvation. Her body was not found until May.

Aviv's article focused on two aspects of the psychiatric system: the emphasis on the patient's insight as a focus, even requirement, of treatment, and the issues of involuntary treatment in patients who aren't posing an imminent threat of violence. I couldn't quite tell where Aviv stood on these issues--she seemed to waiver from condemning a system of forced care, to condemning a system that would let an ill patient leave untreated with no money and no notification to family members. She definitely does not like that the system would have provided for housing for this patient, but the patient wouldn't sign the requisite forms because they noted that she had a mental illness, a fact she did not agree with. Aviv mentions the concept of "thank you theory" --the idea that once patients get well they will agree that the treatment was in their best interest. She notes that only about half of patients who are involuntarily hospitalized later believe it was necessary. It's a difficult statistic to work with--because it means the other half did believe that treatment was necessary, so how, as a society, do we know what we should do? She talks about advance psychiatric directives.

I'd like to share parts of the article, but I had to buy the issue online to read it and it doesn't seem to let me copy and paste. You can listen to a podcast with the author on The New Yorker's website at:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/05/30/110530on_audio_aviv

---

Read more here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/30/110530fa_fact_aviv#ixzz1NbdWI6sM
So really, this is a ClinkShrink article. Maybe she can read it and post again?

Like Looking in a Mirror

Sometimes, I treat people who have the same problems I have in my personal life. It's hard. Oh, it's really hard. If I'm really distraught about something and a patient calls seeking treatment with a similar life circumstance, I will sometimes turn them away and recommend another shrink. But I don't always screen so carefully on the phone, and often "I'd like to make an appointment," will simply get a time and date.

The feelings get really complicated here.

If I feel I've had a role in creating my circumstances, then I wonder as my patients seek my counsel, Who am I to be making any suggestions, much less giving advice? Why are you looking to me, I've screwed up the same situations. Oh, you say, Dr. Jeff said on KevinMD that Psychiatrist's Shouldn't Give Advice, but you know, some of us do, and even when we don't, our feelings are often relayed through the questions we ask or the comments we make or don't make, or perhaps by the expressions on our faces, even if we don't say "You should do X." I told a friend once that I feel uneasy, guilty even, in these situations, and he replied, "How do you think I feel?" Did I mention he does family work and was in the midst of a stressful divorce? And I have yet to ask a colleague who also does family work how he managed during the years his own children wouldn't speak to him. Oy, life can be tough, for shrinks just like everyone else.

So perhaps I listen to someone talking about his most personal feelings about a situation, and you know, if I've been there before, perhaps it's good that I can empathize. If I'm in the middle of it, sometimes I listen and the patient's words seem so unreasonable, so unjustified, and yet I recognize them as being exactly my own--it's like having my own anxieties bounced off a wall only to ricochet straight back into my face.

Do I tell the patient that I've been in the same place before? Generally, no. Therapy is about his problems, not mine, and I think in these situations my empathy is clear. I say things that are more poignant and resonant than I might in circumstances where I feel removed. And patients never ask if I've been in the exact same place. On some of the harder things-- things that have no precise quick and easy answer-- I've taken to saying, "Not only don't I know what will fix this, I don't know anyone else who does have the answer." This I can say because I've done my own searching.

I hope I'm reassuring and comforting to people who find themselves in the same places I dwell. Certainly, tripping over a few stones on the path makes one walk a little more gingerly and judge a little less harshly those who walk more slowly. Mostly, though, I worry that I'm a little bit of a fraud just for being in the room.

This Medicine Might Kill You, But....

We all believe in Informed Consent and ClinkShrink likes to write about it. See Is It Malpractice to Lie...or better yet, read our book when it comes out where Clink talks all about the history of Informed Consent and many other such things. And one of the things people get angry at doctors for (? and shrinks in particular?) is when they have side effects or adverse reactions, and the doctor hadn't told them this might happen. People seem to get really mad about this, especially on blogs or on anti-psychiatry sites (sorry, no links here, find your own anti-psychiatry sites).

So I've wondered, does it matter if a patient is forewarned that they may get a side effect? There are many icky responses people have to meds, some are not very common, and sometimes it's hard to tell if it's the medicine causing the problem. And side effects can be uncomfortable, are they less uncomfortable if you were forewarned? You need a procedure and they make you sign a form saying that you know you could get an infection, hemorrhage, or die. Everyone has to sign or no procedure. If something bad happens, you can still sue, but if you're dead, you're dead. It's become so rote that it almost lacks meaning.

I do tell people about the more common side effects of medications. The pharmacist gives them a longer list. Google has it all for the curious, and I certainly don't discourage Googling, I sometimes suggest it. But I've wondered, does informed consent change things? Here's what my non-scientific observations have revealed.

There a medication that is associated with a rash that can be fatal. I tell people this, and the precautions they need to take to avoid croaking---slow titration, stop med/call if there is any rash at all. A shrink friend prescribed the medication to a patient who had a rare ?never heard of reaction and ended up in an ICU with liver toxicity and nearly died. The patient didn't die, made a full recovery, but the shrink was pretty traumatized and said she wouldn't use the medication again. After my friend's patient had this problem, I told every patient I prescribed this medication to this story. No one flinches. No one has said, "I don't want to take that medication that nearly killed someone." On the other hand, if I say, "This medication is associated with weight gain in some people," the resistance becomes huge. Even though weight gain is gradual and can be monitored, and I tell people they must get weighed twice a week and we can stop the medication if their weight increases by 4 pounds (that's my non-scientific cutoff for beyond the realm of fluid fluctuations). And I know skinny people who take lithium and zyprexa and stay skinny; not everyone gains weight. And I know people who feel so much better that they are willing to tolerate some weight gain.

Just my thoughts this chilly Saturday morning. By all means, tell us your stories.

Identity Crisis!

So I was born a Gemini. It's been part of my identity, always. I'm not much for astrology, and I don't check my horoscope, but it's something everyone knows about themselves, and sometimes it's fun. And interestingly enough, Gemini fits me to a tee.

Here, see if you agree. From Ganeshaspeaks.com:

Ruled as they are by the Planet Budha (Mercury), Mithuna ( Gemini ) exhibit a delicious brand of mercurial energy. They are quick thinking, quick-witted and fast on their feet. It's their curiousity and cleverness that make them such a hit at cocktail parties. But they are not just good talkers - they also love to listen and learn. However, any social setting is good enough for a Mithuna ( Gemini ) since these folks are charming, congenial, and love to share themselves with their friends. Mithuna ( Gemini ) mind drives them to talk, to converse and it is not always just idle chatter. They need more and more information to feed their intellectual inclinations. They probe endlessly for more information as the more it collects the better. They are supremely interested in developing their relationships. Sharing that knowledge later on with those they love is also a lot of fun. Mithuna ( Gemini ) are bright, quick-witted and is at the centre-stage in any party. Although rational and practical, they also have a surplus of imagination. However the fact that they are unsure which twin will show up half the time they are often considered fickle and restless. They can be moody and act on simple whims. While their effusiveness may be misconstrued as scheming by some, Mithuna ( Gemini ) generally have their hearts in the right place. It is this ample energy, which can also paint them as scatterbrained and unfocused but, behind all that restlessness, they are usually busy filing all that information away. Funny, brimming with life, full of ideas, adorable, inconsistent, capricious, superficial, they are a bundle of maddening contradictions. They may deal in everything and are 'know-alls', but at the same time they also have the ability to master skills. Mithuna ( Gemini ) are versatile and have an amazing grasp of the subject they choose, although it may not interest them for long. They prize intellect and consider it to be the key to all things. At work, they are the clearest of thinkers, suggesting logical and well-thought-out ideas which make them an asset to any team. Their greatest strength lies in their ability to communicate effectively and to think clearly. Adventures of the mind are what the Twins are all about. Bestowed with a cheerful face easily detectable from signs of anxiety, tension or unhappiness the Gemini face is a dead give-away when they try to hide sorrow behind their brand of wit and humour. If even for a short while, romancing a Gemini is likely to be interesting, adventurous and fun, but the fickle, almost uncaring attitude will manage to break many hearts before they finally settle down. Although affectionate Mithuna ( Gemini ) can be extreme flirts, But be sure that the partner shares the Mithuna ( Gemini ) sense of humour. Mithuna ( Gemini ) never stray if the family life is satisfying. However it is best not to rush headlong into marriage; give adequate thought before popping the question.

So apparently, Parke Kunkle, some guy in Minnesota (homeland of ClinkShrink, no less) decides that it's all wrong. Everything is off. Now I'm a Taurus. But I'm not a Taurus, I'm a Gemini. They want to stick me and ClinkShrink under the same stars? No way.

And here are the new dates:
Here are the new zodiac dates:

Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11
Pisces: March 11-April 18
Aries: April 18-May 13
Taurus: May 13-June 21
Gemini: June 21-July 20
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23-29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20

Have you been blown away, too?

What will this mean in psychiatric practice? Will everyone's personality change? Will people come to talk about the shift between who they are and who they thought they were? Will they fight back? I know that I'm staying a Gemini.

My Three Shrinks Podcast 51: Vegan Gingerbread Cookies

For this podcast I brought some homemade vegan gingerbread cookies that I baked using a recipe from the Steph Davis blog. I'm also looking for a good sugar cookie recipe that doesn't use refined sugar or all-purpose flour. If you've got one, send it along.

We discuss my post Is it malpractice to lie? which involves a surgeon sued for malpractice for allegedly lying to a patient regarding his professional background. We wonder how much, if any, information physicians may some day be obliged to disclose to their patients prior to treatment.

There is a new type of research being done, called "in silica" research, in which people write computer programs to model behavior. We talked about computer models of suicide and how this can replicate suicide epidemics in real life. Roy is inspired to talk about a computer program that models how guys choose urinals in public restrooms, and how people stand in elevators.

We never got to the FAA policy discussion or the cell phones in therapy topic. That was saved for our next podcast.

Last but not least, Dinah takes her dog Max to the new office. Who knew that dogs could be terrified of elevators??

****************************

This podcast is available oniTunes or as an RSS feed orFeedburner feed. You can also listen to or download the .mp3or the MPEG-4 file frommythreeshrinks.com.

Thank you for listening

Send your questions and comments to: mythreeshrinksATgmailDOTcom

Is It Malpractice To Lie?

I came across this interesting malpractice case via the HealthLaw Twitter feed which I've been following for a while now. The case is Willis v Bender, a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case out of Wisconsin.

In this case a surgeon was sued by his patient following complications from a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (gall bladder removal). Before the procedure he explained the risks of the surgery to her, and she also asked him questions about his experience and success rate with the procedure. She asked additional questions about whether he had ever been sued for malpractice or had any action taken against his medical license. He answered no to both questions and added that he had an almost perfect success rate with the surgery. Well, bad things happened. The patient suffered a perforated intestine and an infection. She later found out that the doctor had lost a patient during this same procedure, and that he was disciplined for the board as a result of that case.

At trial the jury found in favor of the doctor because even the plaintiff's expert couldn't say that the complications were the direct result of improperly performed surgery. Even properly done surgery of this type carried the risk of perforation, bleeding and infection. The plaintiff also alleged that the doctor failed to give her informed consent because he gave false information about his personal background. The trial court wouldn't allow the informed consent issue to be raised because in Wisconsin the law only required that physicians tell patients the material risks of proposed treatment. There was no affirmative duty to disclose professional background information even when asked.

So the plaintiff appealed.

The 10th US Court of Appeals reviewed various similar informed consent cases and found that courts took different views on whether or not lying to a patient about a physician's background could be considered a breach of informed consent. Some courts held that doctors could be found liable only if they lied regarding the risks of the proposed treatment. In this case, the appellate court decided that the patient should have had a chance to make the argument, and sent the case back for retrial on that issue.

We'll see what ends up happening on retrial, but I thought this was an interesting emerging area of law. What if the issue wasn't technical incompetence? How much "personal background" should a doctor have to tell a patient before treatment can begin? Medical school grades? Failure to pay income tax? Should doctors be required to disclose to patients the fact that they've been treated for mental illness themselves?

Googling and Oogling

We've been talking about Psychiatrists and Facebook here on Shrink Rap and it got me thinking about psychiatry and technology. I always think of the internet as kind of public turf. Can it be "wrong" to Google someone? It's not illegal, it's not hard, and the stuff is all in the public domain. People will sometimes mention they've Googled me to find my phone number. I don't often Google patients, but once in a while. Someone once told me about their brother's murder in an international scandal and it sounded a bit weird, so I Googled (--the brother had been murdered and there was some mention of the international issue). But is "wrong?" I'm perplexed.

In a Psychiatric News story from July, Jun Yan writes in Psychiatrist Must Beware the Perils of Cyberspace:

Recently, APA's Ethics Committee gave a brief recommendation on whether it is ethical for psychiatrists and residents to Google their patients: "'Googling' a patient is not necessarily unethical. However, it should be done only in the interests of promoting the patient's care and well-being and never to satisfy the curiosity or other needs of the psychiatrist" (Psychiatric News, May 1).

On the other side of the coin, patients may Google their psychiatrists and not only uncover their professional credentials but also dig into their personal information, opinions, and attitudes. Many psychiatrists have blogs, Facebook pages, and a chat-room presence that patients could uncover, sometimes anonymously.

Jacob Sperber, M.D., discusses the ethical and therapeutic pitfalls that appear when psychiatrists and patients Google each other. Credit: David Hathcox

"Patients and psychiatrists secretly Googling each other raises all kinds of legal, ethical, ideological, and personal concerns," Jacob Sperber, M.D., director of the psychiatry residency training program at NCUMC, told the audience. He believes that searching and gathering information about a patient behind the patient's back potentially violates the patient's autonomy and dignity and breaks the trust the patient has in the psychiatrist. It may be a violation of the patient's privacy, even if the psychiatrist's intention was to provide "zealous care."

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Why is it okay for a patient to Google me, but not okay for me to Google them out of curiosity? Shouldn't there be some control over what's up on the internet about us (meaning all of us humans)?

What do you think?

You May Go Now.

I've learned something important from....reading the comments posted to our blog, listening to people talk, being a person who talks....No one likes to feel their concerns are being dismissed (myself included).

It's a recurrent theme in the comments that are sent to us, especially with regard to medications: a reader has a concern about a medication, feels it isn't working or that the side effects are too severe, and either their doctor does not address their concerns in a way that feels validating or the reader perceives that the doctor does not understand....since I'm not there, I can't say which is happening, but the feeling on the part of our readers is clear.

And just so you know, I've been on both ends of the discussion. I once lowered the dose of a medication, found it to be just as effective at a very low dose, and was told this was a "homeopathic dose." I didn't really know what that meant. In my terms, I had a headache that felt very real to me, and after taking a very low dose of a painkiller, my headache was gone. I wanted the least possible medication, so I stuck with the low dose. I'm not sure what was meant by the comment, but I heard it as the dose I was taking was so low it couldn't really be helping and I must have been imagining it's efficacy. This was my interpretation; the doctor may well have said it was simply to comment on how low the dose of medication was and not as a statement related to either the realness of my symptom or the realness of my response. I suppose I would have preferred to have heard that I must be rather sensitive to the effects of the medication, the "homeopathic dose" comment rubbed me the wrong way.

I've learned there a patients who have unpredictable and unexpected responses to medications. Some people tolerate huge doses of medications, others don't tolerate even small doses. Sometimes people have weird responses, and we don't really know what to make of it. My favorite example of this happened many years ago-- a patient told me he saw "trails" of light when he turned his head which he attributed to the Serzone I prescribed. Okay, that's weird, I'd never heard of that type of side effect from ANY medication. I didn't know what to make of it. The next week, I saw a case report in a journal of three cases of "visual trails" induced by Serzone. Go figure.

So why don't doctors just take patients' word when they say they are having a specific symptom: be it from an illness or from a medication? Why don't doctors hear when patients say they are very sensitive or not and need very high or very low doses of medications? More and more, I think we do.

Why not always?
Here are some reasons:
--Sometimes doctors are dumb.
--Sometimes doctors are egotistical.
--Sometimes doctors are frustrated. Especially if a medication helps an illness but causes awful side effects. And it's not just doctors. Family members will want patients to stay on their medications because they are less irritable, more functional, easier to get along with...even though the medicines cause side effects.
--Sometimes patients lie. This is especially true when controlled substances are involved: So a patient says that he's anxious and absolutely the only thing that helps is 6 mg a day of Xanax and he feels slighted that the doctor doesn't just take it at face value and prescribe it. Or believe that he's dropped the pills down the sink? Or never gotten them from his 90 day mail order company
--Some people are very suggestible and develop many side effects that they've read about. I really do wish there was a way of saying this without the word "suggestible" having a pejorative feel. Can't it just be? In medical school, I once heard someone say you can tell if a patient is simply saying "yes" to everything if they said their hair hurts when they pee (hair can't feel).
--Sometimes patients complain of things we've just never heard of .happening before. I don't think these problems should be dismissed, and I've taken to telling patients that I'm not in their body/head and they really need to be the one to determine if the benefit from the medication outweighs the side effects. This can be a difficult decision in the time while they are waiting to see if the medication is going to be effective.
--Sometimes patients misinterpret their doctor's comments. I'm often told I think such-and-such when in fact I don't think that at all. My doc might be surprised to hear I took the "homeopathic" comment to mean any thing other than 'my, what a low dose you responded to."

Finally, I've learned that patients can have very high expectations of their doctors. People often write in angry that their docs didn't warn them about specific side effects, and they'll mention a side effect to a medication I've never even heard of. It doesn't mean I don't think it happened, it just means it's not the usual for a psychiatrist to warn a patient, hey MedX could make your nose turn green and swell.

I think in psychiatry, we're all still just finding ourselves. So many of these medications are so new, and they efficacy and side effects varies so very much from person to person. Why does one patient get better with no side effects at all from the very first medication, while someone else is on maximum doses of 5 medicines at once, and still another patient has intolerable side effects to a tiny dose of anything?

The Silent Psychiatrist

This morning, I woke up and got ready for work. Time to go and I called to the kid to come. Only nothing came out. Nothing. I felt fine, but I'd lost my voice. Completely, barely a whisper emerged.

It was just before 8. Kid announced she felt sick and went back to bed. I fetched the carpool kids (--the issues of what to do about carpoolers when one's own child is sick could be its own entire blog). My first patient was for 9:00 and it seemed like too short notice to cancel. I did croak out cancellation calls to the next couple of patients with the thought that they might have a hard time conducting the session without my input; some people don't come in and just talk spontaneously, they look to me for direction, a little more than I sometime wish and a lot more than my voice could tolerate today.

As shrinks go, I talk a lot. As people go, I talk a whole lot. I think I'm probably in the top ten percent for talkativeness in the general population, though I quiet down when ClinkShrink tries to monopolize the podcast.

So suddenly, I couldn't talk. I figured it would be a good experiment, or at least a good blog post. I listened and I let the sessions flow a little more organically. There were places I'd normally interrupt to ask questions-- I didn't. At the end of the session, I asked how it went. The first patient said it was fine once he realized I felt okay (I felt fine). With that, I called the rest of my patients and left the choice to them-- a couple came, a couple didn't. There was one session I'd wondered about, and I did end up having to do a fair amount of talking/croaking.

I wondered if I would be a better therapist-- I sometimes think I talk TOO much. I don't think it was better. I don't think it was particularly worse, either. I'll be happy when I can just talk again. Camel says to rest my voice, Roy says to gargle with salt water. Off to hot tea with honey now. Thank you for letting me croak here.

The Human Experiment

There are things to do about symptomatic distress in addition to medications and therapy. I often encourage people to make themselves their own human experiments. There are a few things we can change easily: we alter our diets, sleep, exercise, and the assorted "substances" we ingest. I sometimes suggest to people that they do 2 week trials and see if something helps. Is your life better if you stop drinking for a couple of weeks, exercise mor or less, give up food additives, decrease the carbs in your diet, cut out or add caffeine? Pick a variable, change it for a time, and see if you feel better.

That being said, I've been having some trouble sleeping. I decided I'd take my own advice and change some things. Oh, but you know, I'm an impatient sort of soul, and I decided to change a few things all at once. They didn't seem like big things: I decided to cut out all alcohol and caffeine from my diet, to set the alarm for earlier in the morning and get up and exercise in the hopes of exhausting myself. I started on a Monday, not a day of the week I typically drink alcohol anyway, and also not a day I usually have time to exercise. And caffeine, well...a cup of java in the morning, maybe two, and a Diet Coke with dinner, maybe another during the day or maybe not. And I've gone months at a time without Diet Coke. I like it, but it's not the hardest thing to give up. Have I noticed that I feel better or sleep differently without soda? No. But this time, I'm giving up coffee, too.

5:45 AM, the alarm goes off, and 4 miles later, I begin my day, without coffee. No caffeine. No chocolate. No diet coke.
6:15 AM Tuesday, and this is a day I normally exercise. Only I'm dragging, and it was an uninspired work out. By afternoon, I'm feeling really lousy. My head aches. I'm tired and fatigued, and I really can't sleep that night. It's the sleep deprivation, I think, getting up earlier than I usually do, after a night when I've had trouble falling asleep. Ugh.

By Wednesday morning, my head has ached for 2 days, and while I'm caffeine & nutrisweet free, I'm now downing Tylenol and Motrin but my head still hurts. It finally occurs to me that I'm in caffeine withdrawal. But I was never addicted! How can I be withdrawing? I look this up and realize this can last for up to 9 days. Suddenly it seems sort of ridiculous that I've changed multiple variables at once, and even worse that I've given up caffeine cold turkey.


So Caffeine Withdrawal is an official DSM psychiatric diagnosis. From the Johns Hopkins Medicine:

The researchers identified five clusters of common withdrawal symptoms: headache; fatigue or drowsiness; dysphoric mood including depression and irritability; difficulty concentrating; and flu-like symptoms of nausea, vomiting and muscle pain or stiffness. In experimental studies, 50 percent of people experienced headache and 13 percent had clinically significant distress or functional impairment -- for example, severe headache and other symptoms incompatible with working. Typically, onset of symptoms occurred 12 to 24 hours after stopping caffeine, with peak intensity between one and two days, and for a duration of two to nine days. In general, the incidence or severity of symptoms increased with increases in daily dose, but abstinence from doses as low as 100 milligrams per day, or about one small cup of coffee, also produced symptoms.

Wednesday morning, I have a half a cup of coffee. Within a half hour, my headache is gone and my energy level is normal, I feel like myself again. I go for a swim and sit in the hot whirlpool for a while, ahhhhh.....

I've learned a thing or two about being my own human experiment.

Love Me, Love My Tats

Recently one of our readers wondered what I thought of a study that was recently reported in Scientific American Mind. It was a study that was done in a forensic psychiatric hospital, looking at the correlation between tattoos and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Briefly, they examined 36 inpatients for the presence or abscence of tattos and then did semi-structured interviews to assess them for antisocial personality disorder. Unsurprisingly, they found that people with tattos were more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and to have histories of substance abuse and suicide attempts.

My first thought when I read this report was: "This was a forensic fellows' research project."

Psychiatrists in training to be forensic psychiatrists are encouraged to do some type of research project during their fellowship. Since the fellowship only lasts for a year, it can be difficult doing any kind of in-depth or groundbreaking studies. The tattoo project is not a ground-breaking study. The main reason it probably got published was because it was done on forensic inpatients (although Scientific American Mind confuses them with prisoners, they aren't). The research subjects were patients, not prisoners. They were committed to the hospital after being found legally insane (therefore, not a criminal at all) or incompetent to stand trial (mentally unfit to go to court, therefore their guilt is undetermined).

The most interesting aspect of this study was the one that was not addressed at all in the paper:

How did they determine that the patients, all of whom by definition were seriously mentally ill, were competent to give informed consent to a research project?

This question is at the cutting edge of forensic psychiatry these days, a field which is concerned with competency assessments and capacity for decision-making. There are particular ethical difficulties that arise when the research is being conducted on institutionalized subjects like patients and prisoners. I've already blogged about this in detail in my post Guinea Pigs Behind Bars. (Be sure to check out the link to the guinea pig costume web site. I still love it.)

You can download the entire study by clicking on the pdf link at the Wiley web site here.