Psychiatric Diagnosis

Several months ago I wrote about the advantages of seeing psychiatric problems on a spectrum rather than independent categories. And that it is also essential to look at the whole person: there is currently a terrible tendency in medicine and in psychiatry to reduce people to the neurotransmitters in their brains, which is not just a very limiting way of seeing an individual, it’s just plain rude.

One of the reasons why it is essential to look at the whole person is that the agenda of a physician and of a person asking – or being sent – for help may be entirely different. A doctor may want the voices to go away, and for the person to stop being fearful about the things that the TV is saying to them. The person may want help with making sense of their experiences. If someone believes that they are feeling this way because they’ve been abandoned by God, you can pour medications into them until you are blue in the face: they will not help the core problem. Yes, of course you can re-balance their dopamine, serotonin, GABA and acetylcholine receptors. But if their core belief has to do with abandonment, your efforts are unlikely to be crowned with success.

These issues came up again when I had the privilege of speaking to a meeting of the National Alliance of the Mentally Ill in Natchez, Mississippi last week.

There were all the usual questions about advances in mental health, and on the chances for recovery. My answer to that one is always the same: the chances for recovery from any mental illness – including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder – are better than they have ever been. The largest single barrier is expectation. If doctors, psychologists and therapists assume that nothing can be done apart from controlling symptoms, then it is unlikely that people will get better. We all know what will happen if we start the day assuming that’s it’s going to be terrible.

I’d like to highlight two blogs – here and here – that were started by the same person after she had recovered from a psychotic episode. She contacted me after my earlier posts. She has an excellent website which she started after an exchange with two psychiatrists who said essentially the same thing:
“If the person can be cured, then it is NOT schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that has no cure.”

This is not true: but rather than being an indictment of psychiatry, it’s an indictment of bad psychiatry. We have a great deal of evidence that the brain is a highly plastic organ, and that many of the typical changes seen even in unmedicated people with the illness can return toward a normal pattern. This shouldn’t be a surprise: it has been known for many years that at least a third of people who carried a diagnosis of schizophrenia recover completely. To say that the recovery indicates that the original diagnosis was wrong is an extraordinary piece of circular reasoning.

The statement also implies that the writer doesn’t see a difference between healing, treatment and cure, which for me are three different interactions.

There is also another point that I made in Natchez: psychiatric diagnoses are still descriptive and are therefore largely at the level of the rest of the medicine of 100 years ago, when a person might be diagnosed with “dropsy,” “anasarca” or “icterus.” Terms now rarely used because we understand the underlying pathology. In the same way terms like schizophrenia will eventually give way to descriptions based on the biological, psychological, social and spiritual issues going on in a person.

Because the diagnoses are descriptive, getting too worried about the precise one is unlikely to be helpful. I once had a family become very angry with me. Their son had seen many specialists, who had all offered different diagnoses. After many day’s observation and exhaustive investigations, the one that I came up with did not please them. Because I wanted to treat their son as a human being with a problem that had responded to an antipsychotic and therapy, but they wanted him to have a less intimidating diagnosis. I tried in vain to explain that these were all just descriptors, and the important thing was that he was getting better with our treatment.

The reason for making a diagnosis at all is so that we can communicate, that it may guide treatment and allow us to offer some advice about prognosis. If someone has a heart attack, it is usually not too difficult to diagnose it. The reason for the diagnosis is not so that we can write it on a form or so that we can label someone, but because it can help guide us.

I certainly don’t agree with every one of points made in the articles that he’s posted, but that’s just fine. Active debate is always better than ignoring each other. Or as Winston Churchill once said, “Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war.”

On the main points in these blogs, I think that we are in complete agreement:

1. Even without drugs it is possible to induce mania and psychosis in just about anyone: sleep deprivation, arousal and sensory overload will usually do it in a few days. If someone has a family history of psychiatric problems it will likely take half as long. If they have a personal history it might take a quarter as long.
2. Recovery should be the aim for anyone with a psychiatric problem.
3. Recovery is not necessarily the same as cure.
4. Not all people diagnosed with “psychiatric problems” have them: some are having genuine spiritual experiences: I’ve seen many people going through kundalini and other types of spiritual awakening who had been given psychiatric diagnoses. I used to get some raised eyebrows when I had a string of referrals from clergy and spiritual teachers that usually read something like, “I don’t know if this person is psychotic or possessed. Please could you see them and advise me.”
5. The quest for meaning and purpose is essential to our humanity. I have seen some of the most damaged of people with large traumatic holes in their brain trying to extract meaning and purpose from what had happened to them. Psychotic, manic, depressed and cognitively impaired, but still trying to work out the meaning for them personally.

The major psychiatric illnesses can be very hard to help: I regularly see everyone else’s problems when I travel: 45 countries and 47 states at last count. But it’s very unusual to find someone for whom we can do nothing.

But I never let clinicians give up: the people who come to us for help deserve better than that.

And for people who got through the process on their own, I congratulate you. But I beg you, please don’t suggest to everyone that they can do the same thing. Many need outside help that addresses all five dimensions of their being.

Categorical and Dimensional Diagnoses

I recently had the great pleasure and privilege of speaking to a group of health care providers in Monteagle Tennessee, and an interesting question came up. The sick citizens of Tennessee are having a hard time now because of the problems with TennCare. This problem is not new, and is not only happening in Tennessee. There is no malice or lack of compassion involved, it is simply a matter of $$$.

And because we need to have a diagnosis in order to apply for reimbursement, the discussion soon turned to the matter of psychiatric diagnosis. It’s pretty well known that I have lectured on the subject of psychiatric diagnosis all over the world: it was actually one of the reasons that I was first invited to come to the United States. The problem is this. When we classify an illness, we can either think of it as a “category,” like strep throat or a heart attack: an illness that has clearly defined margins. Or we can think about it as a “dimension.” So instead of seeing illness as a separate entity, we think of health and illnesses as lying on a spectrum, running all the way from being healthy and well, through mild degrees of just not feeling “right,” to being severely ill. Reimbursement requires categorical diagnoses, even if they do not reflect clinical reality.

This second – dimensional – way of thinking is particularly useful when we are thinking about psychological problems. The world is full of people who are a little bit obsessive, or who get bad mood swings. But they are not bad enough to be called an “illness.” In fact, having some of these traits can be enormously beneficial: they have continued in the population because they have a survival advantage. If I need to have surgery, I sincerely hope that my surgeon will be mildly obsessive, rather than discovering a few weeks later that he had forgotten to do something he should have!

When I am teaching about schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, I discuss how they lie on a spectrum that passes through so-called schizoaffective disorder, cluster A personality disorders – schizoid, schizotypal and paranoid – to schizophrenia. (You may be interested in looking at the blog entry for May 24th here). I also make the point that I can make just about anyone psychotic. Come and live in my research center for a week, where you will not be allowed to eat or sleep; you will have to drink 30 cups of coffee a day and take up smoking. I can guarantee that most people will develop some symptoms. If you have a family history of mental illness it would not take a week, but perhaps 3-4 days. And if you have a personal history of mental illness, it could take no more than a day or two. The key is arousal. People experiencing high levels of arousal may well start to experience manic, depressive or psychotic phenomena. The types of symptoms that are experienced are determined by background, environment and genes. This sort of “reactive” psychosis is completely different from the other end of the spectrum, where, particularly in males, there are demonstrable abnormalities in the brain – shifts in laterality and progressive loss of grey matter in specific regions, with swelling in other – many of which are present before the onset of full-blown psychosis, and before exposure to medications. Though some of the older antipsychotic medicines may make the situation much worse.

In January of 2005, some of my colleagues in Edinburgh, Scotland, published an important paper after studying people at high risk of developing schizophrenia. Many of these high-risk people did not develop the illness, although some had transient and partial symptoms. We know that some family members – the carriers of the genes – may also suffer from some symptoms of the illness. This shows us how genes do not control everything: many people suffer from mild cases because their environment or personality helped protect them from developing a full-blown illness. In other words: biology is not destiny. These findings also give us important clues as to how we may be able to reduce the risk of an illness expressing itself.

Diagnoses are not always cut and dried. Medical professionals are sometimes unable to reach a definitive diagnosis, needing to wait and see how things develop. Having specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of tough cases, family members sometimes become very upset because their loved one does not have a clear diagnosis. Psychiatric diagnosis is still primarily clinical and often needs time to clarify. Although there are many demonstrable neurological disturbances in people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, even the most sophisticated brain scans are still not at the stage where we can make diagnoses.

If we think in terms of dimensional diagnoses that reflect clinical reality, it helps us to understand the range of symptoms that people can experience. It also speaks to the point that I have made time and again: symptoms are signs, and they are signs that can be generated in the body, in the mind, in relationships (not just because some might be stressful), and they may have subtle system or spiritual origins. Successful treatment needs us to identify the origins in an individual and to work with all the five main dimensions of the individual.

And by the way, we have succeeded in helping virtually all of our seriously mentally ill patients back to living the kind of lives that they want: jobs, relationships and so on. So this is not an academic discusssion, but instead something supremely practical

Technoratic tags:diagnosis category dimension bipolar disorder schizophrenia schizotypal personality disorder recovery spirituality