Guest Blogger Dr. Jesse Hellman on The Penn State Matter

The news media has published numerous pieces exploring various aspects of what happened at Penn State. The sports culture, the prestige of the program, the money it brought into the university, the parallels with the Catholic Church, and so on. What kept action from being taken by administrators after an employee allegedly witnessed a violent crime? What kept that employee from stopping a violent act? What kept him from taking further action later?

The media has looked at various aspects of these questions, but two aspects have received little attention: Is there a difference between the way men and women react to these events, and are there factors that actually inhibit men from taking action in these circumstances?

Here is a "thought experiment:"  What would happen if the alleged crime were different-- if, for example,  a man had walked in on someone violently raping a ten year old female child? Would he have reacted the same, observing but not interfering, reporting it up the line, but not taking subsequent action? What would have happened if one of the administrators who learned of this had been a woman? My thesis is that it would have been very different if it had been a little girl, and that women involved as administrators would have been far less likely to ascribe this to "horse play," look the other way, and remain passive after reporting it up the line to superiors.

A man coming across a heterosexual rape, whether of an adult or a child, would know immediately that this is a terrible crime and would have immediately stopped it. It would be clear that the police should be involved. I wonder whether the homosexual act, even with a child, arouses feelings in men that actually inhibit action, that make it easier to turn away and rationalize not taking action. It is something that is harder to confront, to even think about. To the psyche it is perhaps the most forbidden of crimes, worse than incest.

Again, the purpose of this post is to discuss the general principles, not the individual actions at Penn State, of this subject. What are the Psychological Factors that inhibit Action when Evil is
Encountered?

The History of The Duck, etc....

Those of you who are regular Shrink Rap readers know we are rather attached to the image of the yellow rubber duck.  It started with an article on Emotional Support Animals that was in the New York Times right after we started our blog, and we latched on to the imagine of airline passengers who brought ducks (one dressed in clothing) on to flights, and then Clink began her years-long hobby of animating ducks!  And of course there was the lovely reader, DrivingMissMolly, who donated a flock of ducks to Heifer International in our behalf.  The duck appears on our blog, it was the subject of heated debate and designated committee meetings when our book was in press (see They Nixed the Duck!) and it's on our logo in the print version of our column on Clinical Psychiatry New.  We distribute candy ducks at all Shrink Rap public events. 


Needless to say, I was quite pleased to see an article in this morning's New York Times Magazine on the history of rubber ducks.  In "The Rubber Duck Knows No Frontiers,'  Hilary Greenbaum and Dana Rubinstein write:

This yellow, doe-eyed icon — a preferred bathtub ornament of toddlers and royals alike — would have never existed were it not for Charles Goodyear. The Massachusetts inventor discovered the chemical process that renders rubber more malleable (and thus appropriate for toys) by, as legend has it, inadvertently dropping a mixture of rubber and sulfur into a potbelly stove. Goodyear, who died in 1860, never benefited from this discovery, but his vulcanization process revolutionized the rubber trade.

Greenbaum and Rubinstein go on to note:

Still, it was only when Ernie, of Bert and Ernie fame, took a bubble bath with a rubber duckie in 1969 that the toy became inescapable. According to Tim Carter, a senior producer at “Sesame Street,” the story goes like this: Someone gave a rubber duckie to a “Sesame Street” writer named Jeff Moss, who put it in his bathroom window. One night while taking a bath, Moss looked over and had an epiphany. And “Rubber Duckie” subsequently reached No. 16 on the Billboard chart. “It wasn’t until ‘Sesame Street,’ ” says Charlotte Lee, a Seattle-based engineering professor who holds the Guinness World Record for the largest collection of rubber duckies, “that a rubber duck became a special thing.”  

For those who would like a psychodynamic interpretation of Ernie's relationship with his duckie, Shrink Rap provides one Here. 
--------------------
In other Shrink Rap events:

• Clink has an article up on Shrink Rap News on how social media does a lousy job of representing Forensic Psychiatry.  Please do read What Follows Is Fiction: What Orson Welles Can Teach Us About Social Media.   
• We enjoyed our book signing at Baltimore's Ivy Book Shop on Friday evening and met some great people.  We posted a photo of ourselves with author Gilbert Sandler-- he says he needs all the help he get.  He's a charming man!  Do visit our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/shrinkrapbook to see event photos, and do click the link to "follow" us on Facebook for the latest Shrink Rap updates.
• We are podcasting later today, we should have new episodes of My Three Shrinks up in the coming weeks.
• Jesse tells me he's planning to submit a guest post about factors that keep people from reporting heinous crimes, so do check back later today.  The events at Penn State seem to have everyone stirred up.

All About Me!

Psychotherapy is, by it's nature, a narcissistic endeavor.  That's not to say that the patient is a narcissist, but the journey itself is meant to focus on patient's interior life, and it's not always about the greater good.  In my last post, several commenters said they feel uncomfortable talking about themselves or worry that their therapist will mistakenly think they are narcissistic because they that talk about themselves in therapy.  


It's not at all unusual for people to express some discomfort about talking about themselves in therapy, or to comment, "all I do in here is complain,"  or "You must get tired of hearing people complain/talk about their problems, etc...."  


I won't talk for other psychotherapists because I only know how I feel.  It seems to me that the mandate of therapy is for the patient to talk about the things they have been thinking about.  The truth is that most people think about themselves and issues of the world are interpreted by individuals as they impact them.  Some people have lives that are very much focused around their immediate circle of events, the pain of their emotions, the distress of interactions with family, neighbors, friends, and co-workers.  Others may spend time discussing how the people around them are behaving in unproductive ways, and some people focus on their concerns about broader political issues that are important to them.  Most people don't come to spend their entire psychotherapy sessions discussing world events,  problems in developing nations, the European economy, climactic issues in other parts of the country, or other world events unless these things directly impact them, or they are things they are spending a lot of time thinking about.  


I like hearing about people's problems.  I may empathize or sympathize or say things I hope will provide some sense of support, or perhaps offe an interpretation that will give the issue a broader meaning in the context of the patient's life, but I don't generally feel burdened by other people's problem.  I am too busy feeling burdened by my own problems, and for the sake of my job, I get the luxury of being able to turn off my own problems and focus on someone else's internal world for 50 minutes out of the hour.  I like this and I get paid for it. 


Do I ever think a patient is narcissistic?  Well sure, if they tell story after story where they seem completely unable to see that another person might have a different point of view, or repeatedly recount events where they've behaved with complete disregard for the feelings of others or respect for the law.  For most of the people, most of the time, I think they're just people who come to therapy and they talk about themselves because that's what therapy is about.  Am I bored?  No.  Do I ever wish a session would end and I could finish the day and go home and change out of work clothes and chill out and think about my own stuff?  Yes, but that doesn't mean I find my patients boring, or that I don't care about them, or that I don't like listening , or that I don't like them.  I think it means that sometimes I'm human.

Mostly, I listen and try to be helpful.  I don't spend a lot of time judging.  (I can't say never because I'm a human being and human beings sometimes judge each other and you may think a psychiatrist should never do that but do write me when you've examined the content's of someone's heart and you've found the perfect non-judgmental person; I would like to have coffee with them.)

If you're worried that you're psychiatrist thinks you're too self-involved because you talk about yourself in therapy, you might want to find something else to worry about.  ;- )  (Roy will be back soon to translate my emoticons). 


And just a quick fyi: the definition of narcissism per wikipedia:
Narcissism is a term with a wide range of meanings, depending on whether it is used to describe a central concept of psychoanalytic theory, a mental illness, a social or cultural problem, or simply a personality trait. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, "narcissism" usually is used to describe some kind of problem in a person or group's relationships with self and others. In everyday speech, "narcissism" often means inflated self-importance, egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others. In psychology, the term is used to describe both normal self-love and unhealthy self-absorption due to a disturbance in the sense of self.

Is it Ever Okay to Lie?

We've been having a great discussion over on the post Tell Me.... An Ethical Dilemma.  The post talks about a young man who wants to know if he can check "no" to a question about whether he has a psychiatric disorder if his illness is not relevant to the situation.  The comments have been fascinating -- do read them-- and very thought-provoking.


One reader asked, " If a patient asked if they were boring you, and they were, would you say yes?"

This is a great question, and of course the right thing to do is to explore with the patient what meaning the concern has to him.  But is that all?  I'm not very good at doing the old psychoanalyst thing of deflecting all questions, and mostly I do answer questions when they are asked of me.  This can present a really sticky situation because one can not think of any clinical scenario in which it would be therapeutic to have a therapist tell a patient, 'Yes, you're boring, OMG are you boring,' or 'No, in fact, I don't like you.'  And not answering could be viewed as negative response by the patient --if you liked me, you'd tell me, so clearly you don't like me.  So if the exploration of the question doesn't take care of the issue, and the patient continues to ask, what's a shrink to do?

I'm not in favor of lying to patients, therapy is about having an honest relationship, but our readers have given some great examples.  If a gunman asks for your money, is it okay to lie and say you have none?  Is it okay to lie about whether you've been the victim of sexual abuse on a job application (one reader saw this!).  Just because someone asks, do you need to answer truthfully?  Of course, you can be truthful and say you don't plan to answer that question, but so many times, the assumption is that the answer must be Yes because if not, you'd have nothing to hide.


Psychiatrists don't owe it to their patients to be totally transparent.  Shrinks have the right to their privacy, and professional boundaries dictate that it's wrong to share your problems with your patients (even if they ask). 


That being said, it still can feel very uncomfortable on the shrink side of a couch when a boring patient asks if they are boring.  What would you say?

Trading Stacks for Page Views

Whoa, I think this news marked a turning point for medical educators:

Here's an article on ZDNet.com about the Johns Hopkins medical library shutting down for good. No more bricks-and-mortar, wandering the stacks, paging through paper medical research. I spent a fair amount of time in real, physical medical libraries during my training. I have to say, being able to log in from the comfort of the living room couch and download any PDF I need is the way to go. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but feel a twinge of nostalgia.




**********************
And now for something completely different. I thought you might enjoy our new animated mascot!

Come Meet the Shrink Rappers at the Ivy Book Shop on Friday, November 11

JHU Press Night at the Ivy Book Shop on November 11

Meet some of the Press’s local authors and get a jump on holiday shopping at the Ivy Book Shop’s JHU Press Night on November 11, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  The event at the popular independent book store in north Baltimore is free and open to the public, and refreshments will be served. 

More than a dozen JHU Press authors will be on hand to meet guests and sign books, including: Gil Sandler (Home Front Baltimore); Cindy Kelly (Outdoor Sculpture in Baltimore); Mike Gesker (The Orioles Encyclopedia); Charley Mitchell (Maryland Voices of the Civil War); Michael Olesker(The Colts’ Baltimore); Fraser Smith (Here Lies Jim Crow); Bryan MacKay (Baltimore Trails); Ed Papenfuse (Maryland State Archives Atlas of Historic Maps of Maryland); Frank Mondimore and Patrick Kelly (Borderline Personality Disorder); Sara and Jeff Palmer (When Your Spouse Has a Stroke); Dinah Miller, Annette Hanson, and Steve Daviss (Shrink Rap: Three Psychiatrists Explain Their Work).  

The Ivy Book Shop is located at 6080 Falls Road, in the Lake Falls Village shopping center at Falls Road and Lake Avenue in Baltimore. 

For more information, call The Ivy Book Shop at 410-377-2966. 

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?

I Still Don't Need To Talk

Three years ago in a post called I Don't Need to Talk I blogged about the evidence for and against critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) for preventing PTSD. Back then I suggested that CISD should not be mandatory for people who experience trauma for two reasons: most people don't develop PTSD after trauma and get better on their own even without therapy, and there was increasing evidence to suggest that CISD may make some people worse.

Today a story came across my Twitter feed (thanks USMCShrink!) about the medical response to the Japanese tsunami. Apparently psychological debriefing was strongly discouraged by Japanese mental health authorities for the reasons I just mentioned.

I think this is the leading indicator that attitudes are changing toward the role of psychiatry in disaster response preparedness.  It also may mean that we might have to change how we approach the mental health care of veterans. I've talked to a lot of vets who were required to go through post-deployment debriefing. Did it help? Did it hurt? Are we doing the right thing? While treatment should be offered to people who really do develop disorders, in this case preventive intervention may not be so preventive.

Privacy, Please?

Anon commented on my last blog post about clinical uses for Siri on my new iPhone:

"From the details in your contacts, it knows your friends, family, boss, and coworkers. "

That was from Apple's web site, regarding Siri. If you are using Siri for clinical purposes, know that Siri tells Apple everything. Siri--usly, how do you protect patient confidentiality if Siri/Apple knows so much? Sure, paper files can be stolen, so can cell phones. E files are vulnerable to all sorts of breaches. But what would you do if your iphone 4S fell into the wrong hands with all that clinical related stuff on it? Not quite the same as asking Siri where the closest dry cleaner is.

I find it kind of interesting what people worry about.  I have hundreds of contacts in my phone.  My husband is labeled no differently than my co-workers, than my friends. than my patients.  I'm not sure what it means to have one's iPhone "fall into the wrong hands."  I live in Maryland, so I'm not sure what Apple in Cupertino would do with my information, maybe send iPhone advertisements to my contacts? 


The issue of clinical information is  something I hadn't thought about.  I downloaded an app yesterday specifically for GoogleDocs, and it imported all my documents.  We wrote our book on this, so every chapter and every revision is now accessible on my phone, not to mention my posts for Clinical Psychiatry News and an unpublished novel or two.  I downloaded the app so I would have the option to dictate patient notes.  This would leave clinical information potentially accessible via a cloud or on the phone.  I'm not sure it's all that interesting.  My notes are usually pretty boring.  But I did think that I would print them and then delete, rather than have to deal with keeping charts in order in cyberspace.


I guess I find it interesting that people worry about issues of confidentiality with total strangers in places where it's hard to imagine a use for what is likely to be pretty boring information.  On the other hand, we live in a world where electronic medical records now exist in all types of venues.  I work at a large hospital.  I can access the records of any patient seen there, and if I go to a physician there, his notes about me will go onto the EMR. At this juncture, outpatient psychiatry notes are not on the EMR, just a record of the fact of the appointment (which does say "community psychiatry," and the psychiatrists add their medications, but this will change soon, I'm sure, and psych notes may well be part of the hospital's coming new system.  The patients are not asked, and the doctors they see have access to all records without getting prior permission.  There are very specific rules about whose records a healthcare worker may look at, and people have been fired for looking at their neighbor's records, but someone has to catch you.  This means that a patient would have to ask someone with access to the system to see who had accessed their records, realize that one of those people was not someone involved with their care (Hey, that's my new boyfriend!) and then complain to the hospital and initiate some type of complaint (I think).  There is nothing inherent in the system that prevents one person from looking at the medical records of their coworkers, boss, ex-husband,  or even their doctors, aside from their own conscience and the fear of being caught (and reprimanded).  At this point, and for this reason, I have chosen not to get care at the institution where I work.  


Our state is also working on a system, called CRISP, that lifts medical records from all providers to a centralized system.  You can opt out, but you don't need to opt in: do nothing and your healthcare information goes in.  I opted out, and I got a letter telling me they would keep my information in case I changed my mind.  Wait, so presumably my doctor will be feeding my information into this cloud, without asking my permission?  I don't really know how this will work-- from the shrink standpoint-- because no one has contacted me about putting my professional records into this system, and since my records are all handwritten on hard copy charts, I don't know how this would play out. 


Somehow we've come to think that electronic medical records will mean better care.  I could be wrong, but I'm not really sure why we think that.  It seems to me that the burden this will place on the physician to attend to the devices and the demands of this type of documentation, will consume time and detract from time with the patient.  As is, I've noted it takes about 5 times as long to send an e-script as it does to write a prescription, starting with the fact that the e-system my hospital uses logs me out every 7 minutes.  I'm told this can't be modified, and I'm not aware of any doctor who sees patients faster than every 7 minutes.  Secondly,  an electronic system is only as good as the information it propagates, and I've seen lots of mistakes in the electronic medical records.  The internist notes that the patient is seen by psychiatry and takes Restoril.  Wait, my patient is taking Restoril?  I didn't know this..oh, I think he meant Risperdal.  By my calculation, the number of lives saved by electronic information that is provided when the patient can't provide it himself, will about equal the catastrophes from the propagation of incorrect information.  


So I should be worried that Apple can see my contacts?  My brother, who is an original Caltech computer geek, told me recently that since I have a webcam, it's possible that someone could hack my computer and watch me through my camera.  At first, I was alarmed at the possibility, but then I thought about this for a moment and said, "Why would someone want to watch me type?"  Nothing that exciting is happening here.  Sometimes I don't wear makeup, here and there I stick out my tongue and lick my lips, and okay, in front of the computer, when I'm writing, I kind of talk to myself.  If this might interest someone...

I seem to have my own list of things to worry about.  That someone might hunt my patient information out from the cloud just hasn't yet made my list. 

How Does Siri Help the Mental Health Clinician?

Next week,  it will be my turn to write our article for the Clinical Psychiatry News website.  Over there, we try to have our writing more specifically aimed at an audience of psychiatrists.  I'm going to be writing an article on Siri and the Psychiatrist....in honor of my new iPhone 4s and the "personal assistant" function named Siri.  Okay, I'm obsessed.  Everyday, I find new things it can help me with.  Today, I asked it, "What's the meaning of life."  What, you don't ask your cell phone the finer existential questions?  Siri answered, "All available evidence suggests chocolate."  Wow!  How old is Liza Minelli?  65 years, 7 months, 20 days.  Calculate a tip? No problem.  Convert Celius to Fahrenheit?  A cinch.  And she takes dictation.  "Siri, please text Pt A 'Your lab results are fine.'"  "Siri, please email Jesse, 'Will you write a new guest post for Shrink Rap?' "  Okay, Siri flubs on this....I can't get her to learn that it's Shrink Rap and not Wrap.  I downloaded a Google Documents App so I can dictate....patient notes, my memoir, a few novels, a Shrink Rap post here and there, To Do lists for Roy....  I think I'm set.


So, I'd like your help.  What useful things are you doing with Siri?  How has your iPhone made life as a clinician better? 

Happy Halloween!

For today's Halloween post I thought I'd share a bit about the forensic aspects of haunted houses. I didn't think there was such a topic until I stumbled over a law review article by Daniel Warner entitled, "Caveat spiritus: a jurisprudential reflection upon the law of haunted houses and ghosts." [28 Val. U.L. Rev. 207].

For the purposes of the law, haunted houses are a kind of property problem known as a "psychologically impacted property." According to Warner, this is real estate tainted with troubled pasts: murders, felonies or suicides. The question is, when you have a house like this are you required to disclose the past to the buyer?

According to the 1983 California case Reed v King, you do. This apparently was the first case addressing the issue. A buyer tried to get out of a house deal after she found out that a woman and her four children had been murdered there ten years before. The court agreed that she had a point because the seller failed to disclose this. After this many states passed laws protecting sellers and their agents from claims over "psychologically impacted property." The problem being, of course, that things like poltergeists and other creatures can't be detected in your typical home inspection.

Then again in 1991, a man bought a house in New York and later found out the previous owner had failed to disclose the presence of a ghost, something well-known in the community. The house was even featured regularly on neighborhood ghost tours. The buyer's wife was very uncomfortable with this even though the seller reassured them after the fact that the ghost was friendly. The court ruled in the buyer's favor, stating that even though the house wasn't haunted 'in fact', the judge decided it was haunted as a matter of law. (The news story about it can be read here.)

So who ya gonna call? According to Mary Pope-Handy, licensed realtor specializing in haunted property, the first person to call is a spiritual professional who may be able to convince the "discarnate" to move on. Unless, of course, you bought the house because you knew it came with a ghost.

Whether or not they work, they're getting cheaper.

Over on Thought Broadcast, Steve Balt has a nice, disillusioned post about whether clinical psychopharmacology is a pseudoscience.    By the end of the post, I was ready to take down my shingle and go home.  I liked Steve's graphic so much (the little pill bottle guy juggling those mood stabilizers) that I stole it.


On another pharm note,  there are several popular medications that have recently gone off-patent or will soon go off-patent, allowing for more competitive pricing as generics become available.  Among them, several big-buck psychiatric medications, including Lexapro, Seroquel, Zyprexa, and Concerta. 

What I Learned Part III

• More on social media and medicine today. One survey of a surgery department showed half of residents and faculty had public Facebook accounts and a third posted professional information.
• People are using "mindfulness" therapy to treat sex offenders. No studies on efficacy.
• Offenders with bipolar and psychotic disorders are twice as likely to have more than two additional arrests than non- SMI offenders.
• Some criminal defendants try to claim that the government is a corporation, and that they should be tried under contract law rather than criminal law. This is sometimes called a "straw man defense" and may prompt judges to request a competency assessment.
• Defendants who graduate from mental health courts demonstrate improved life circumstnaces with regard to housing, quality of life, symptoms and compliance. Some studies have shown mental health courts to result in improvement for as many as 78% of defendants.
• Court ordered custody evaluators are more likely to recommend paternal custody if the mother is poor or has a history of psychiatric admissions. They are more likely to recommend maternal custody if the father has a history of arrests.
• No suicide prediction tool has a predictive validity greater than 3%.
• Forty percent of patients given opioids for non-cancer pain misuse their meds, 5% become addicted.
• In the UK people with ASPD may be subject to multiagency public protection agreements, sharing information between government agencies.

Coming up tomorrow:
      Correctional risk management and the forensic sciences sampler. Good luck to everyone without power in the snow!

What I Learned Part II

Psychiatry residents on the APA listserv were surveyed about their experiences with social media. 9.7% of residents had gotten friend requests from patients. The remaining residents were asked what they would do if they got such requests. 85% of residents said they would automatically ignore them. 15% said they would discuss the request with the patient, then decline it. Less than 3% of residents received any training about proper social media use in residency. Half admitted googling their patients.

One poster presented the results of a one year study of four major media outlets: the New York Times, the LA Times, USA Today and Fox News. The outlets were culled for articles related to mental illness and violence. The stories were scored according to how many contained one of the follow true facts about mental illness and violence:
1. The majority of mentally ill are never violent.
2. People with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators
3. People with mental illnesses are more likely to be violent against themselves than against others
4. When violent, they are more likely to victimize family than strangers.
Fewer than five percent of the articles contained any of these facts.

The state of New York has successfully used electronic monitoring and regular clinician feedback to reduce the use of polypharmacy in the state prison system.

All state prison systems were surveyed regarding their policies regarding pornography. Of 43 responding states, all banned material that represented a risk to institutional safety and security. There was high variability regarding allowed visual or verbal depictions of sexual acts. There is no published data to support any policy link between prison safety and the presence of pornography.

Crisis intervention training for police is thought to be helpful to reduce incidents of violent outcomes when responding to acutely mentally ill people, but the content of the training varies between program and lacks consistency. There also needs to be more outcome studies to learn if these programs do actually divert mentally ill people out of the criminal justice system.

The PCL-R is coming under pressure as a risk prediction tool. There was a great pro-con debate about this presented by a panel of Broadmoor Hospital psychiatrists. Although interrater reliability is 0.8, there is still significant variance in scores and this could be enough to cause inconsistency when using cutoff scores to determine readiness for release from their severe personality disorder program. It stood out as a risk prediction tool in the 1990's because it was the only one of its kind, but newer tools are being developed with better ROC-AUC scores.

Lastly, multiple personality disorder is coming back. In spite of recent books such as Sybil Exposed, Creating Hysteria and I'm Eve, which document the role the therapist played in the creation or course of the disorder, one presentation today still featured a criminal defendant thought to suffer from multiple personality disorder. This presentation would have been much more effective had there been another expert presenting the potential pitfalls of examining criminal defendants for this disorder. The psychiatrist in this presentation fell into many of those pits: he presented a videotape of the interview in which he asked probing and leading questions (admitting at one point he had to "dig" for symptoms for 20 minutes before the defendant reported any!), and occasionally referring to the defendant as a "patient" rather than as a defendant---clear evidence of bias. The redeeming feature of the presentation was an overview of case law regarding competency and insanity and MPD.

In 2006 there were 4000 civilly committed sex offenders in the US. In this panel they took maps of several large cities in New York, overlaid a map of schools and school bus stations, then overlaid a map of available housing. Finally, the last overlay was a map of legal exclusion zones---boundaries of areas that were legally "off-limits" to convicted sex offenders. This illustrated, at least in Buffalo, New York, that there was literally no place for a sex offender to legally live within city limits. Then they overlaid a map of reported home addresses of sex offenders: 90% were living in restricted areas. There is increasing evidence to suggest that sex offender registration and living restrictions may increase recidivism.

So that's the second conference day. I also enjoyed the computer committee's presentation, which was a two hour geek-fest off all things tech and forensic. It's something you just have to witness to appreciate, sorry. Lots of cloud-based software for document management and report-writing. Not relevant to most Shrink Rap readers but fun for me.

What I Learned Part I

Regular readers know that every year I tweet and blog from the conference of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. This group of forensic psychiatrists consists of about 1800 of the country's practitioners. Topics are quite diverse and sometimes rather unusual. It's a lot of fun. Here's just a small smattering of factoids I picked up yesterday:

• The "sovereign citizen" defense can prompt a competency eval, but is not a delusion. The sovereign citizen movement is a recognized subculture of people who believe the government has no jurisdiction over them.
• Of 200 defendants cleared by DNA, one-fourth had confessed to the crime.
• According to FBI uniform crime reports, between 2001 to 2009 2.2% of police murders took place while responding to calls involving a mentally ill person.
• The collection and selling of serial killer memorabilia is also a venue for potential fraud.
• President Peter Ash gave an interesting and useful Presidential address about juvenile violent offenders. Persistent juvenile offenders tend to become more impulsive with age, not less. They commit an average of 30 to 70 previous offenses before they are caught for the index violent offense. They differ from adult violent offenders in that they tend to act in groups rather than alone, they commit impulsive rather than planned violence, and their criminal activities tend to be more diverse than adults. There is a .3 correlation between juvenile psychopathy scores and later adult psychopathy, but this only accounts for ten percent of the variance. Translation: most violent juvenile offenders do not become violent adults. Nobody knows for sure why.
• There was frequent discussion of the hazards and pitfalls of involvement in social media, including discussion about using it to impeach or undermine witness credibility. So far though, when questioned nobody had actually seen this happen to an expert witness. Concern seems to be out of proportion to reality.

HIGHLIGHT OF THE DAY:

My favorite part of this first conference day was the luncheon speech by Pete Earley. Mr. Earley is a former Washington Post report and New York Times bestselling author who's son has a serious mental illness. His book Crazy is required reading in my training program. The book is a description of life inside of one state's broken forensic mental health system. He is passionate and compassionate, and a vigorous and outspoken advocate. The audience was clearly captivated by what he had to say, and at sometimes it was frankly hard not to stand up and shout 'amen'! when he made his points. (Take home quotes for me: "Never give up hope! People get better!" and "A single person can change the system.") I was thrilled to finally meet this very warm man whom I admire. And I'm not just saying this because he wrote a blurb for our book!

SUB-HIGHLIGHT:

I attended a presentation about psychiatrists in the media. The panel presented an interesting categorization of activities: psychiatrist as scientist (presenting and interpreting studies), educator, storyteller, celebrity commentator and curbside therapist. I was surprised and flattered to see the home page of Shrink Rap, and the cover of the book, as an example of "psychiatrist as educator" in the media. I'm glad to see we seem to be accomplishing something helpful.


So that's the first day. You can follow me on Twitter (see the sidebar). If you're here at the conference and want to #OccupyAAPL, drop me a note!