April 27th, 2011 by AnneHansonMD in Health Tips, Opinion
No Comments »
Sideways Shrink posed a great question recently in a comment on my post “When A Thick Skin Helps.” The question was whether or not physicians are allowed to hit a patient who tries to assault them.
Certainly, physical assaults on patients are not the standard of practice in psychiatry or any other medical specialty. Psychiatrists do undergo some training about physical management of violent patients: I remember in residency we had to get trained in “take down” and restraint procedures. As a group we practiced applying pressure point joint locks on each other in order to make a patient break a grip on us, and to do two person restraints to hold someone immobile until security could arrive. None of this involved any “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”-type kung fu moves, there was no kicking or hitting or loud kiai karate yells. There was a lot of talk about the importance of being as least forceful as possible. Frankly, I’m not sure how much of that I would have remembered if I had ever been in a position to have to use it. The few times when I was actually assaulted by patients the incidents happened so fast there really wasn’t anything I could have done. (OK, so the little manic lady who hit me with a stuffed dog really couldn’t count as an assault, and she was already restrained in a geri-chair to begin with.)
But the real question is: will a doctor get into trouble for defending him or herself? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Shrink Rap*
March 14th, 2011 by Dinah Miller, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
Gardiner Harris had a [recent] article in the New York Times called “Talk Doesn’t Pay So Psychiatrists Turn to Drug Therapy.” The article is a twist on an old Shrink Rap topic, “Why your Shrink Doesn’t Take Your Insurance.” Only in this article the shrink does take your insurance, he just doesn’t talk to you.
With his life and second marriage falling apart, a man said he needed help. But the psychiatrist, Dr. Donald Levin, stopped him and said: “Hold it. I’m not your therapist. I could adjust your medications, but I don’t think that’s appropriate.”
Dr. Levin sees 40 patients a day. And he’ss 68 years old. This guy is amazing. There’s no way I could see 40 patients a day for even one day. He’s worried about his retirement, but I wouldn’t make it to retirement at that pace. (Should we make a bet on whether Dr. Levin has a blog?)
The article has a whimsical, oh-but-for-the-good-old-days tone. In-and-out psychiatry based on prescribing medications for psychiatric disorders is bad, but the article doesn’t say why. In the vignettes, the patients get better and they like the psychiatrist. Maybe medications work and psychotherapy was overemphasized in the days of old? The patients don’t complain of being short-changed, and if Dr. Levin can get 40 patients a day better for — your guess is as good as mine, but let’s say — $60 a pop, and they only have to come every one to three months, and there’s a shortage of psychiatrists, then what’s the problem? Why in the world would anyone pay to have regular psychotherapy sessions? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Shrink Rap*
March 8th, 2011 by AnnMacDonald in Health Tips, Research
No Comments »
Teenagers and young adults who use marijuana may be messing with their heads in ways they don’t intend.
Evidence is mounting that regular marijuana use increases the chance that a teenager will develop psychosis, a pattern of unusual thoughts or perceptions, such as believing the television is transmitting secret messages. It also increases the risk of developing schizophrenia, a disabling brain disorder that not only causes psychosis, but also problems concentrating and loss of emotional expression.
In one recent study that followed nearly 2,000 teenagers as they became young adults, young people who smoked marijuana at least five times were twice as likely to have developed psychosis over the next 10 years as those who didn’t smoke pot.
Another new paper concluded that early marijuana use could actually hasten the onset of psychosis by three years. Those most at risk are youths who already have a mother, father, or sibling with schizophrenia or some other psychotic disorder.
Young people with a parent or sibling affected by psychosis have a roughly one in 10 chance of developing the condition themselves — even if they never smoke pot. Regular marijuana use, however, doubles their risk — to a one in five chance of becoming psychotic.
In comparison, youths in families unaffected by psychosis have a seven in 1,000 chance of developing it. If they smoke pot regularly, the risk doubles to 14 in 1,000. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Harvard Health Blog*
February 8th, 2011 by GarySchwitzer in News, Research
No Comments »
Reuters Health reports that more than a quarter of Americans taking antidepressants have never been diagnosed with any of the conditions the drugs are typically used to treat, according to new research published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. An excerpt:
“We cannot be sure that the risks and side effects of antidepressants are worth the benefit of taking them for people who do not meet criteria for major depression,” said Jina Pagura, a psychologist and currently a medical student at the University of Manitoba in Canada, who worked on the study.
“These individuals are likely approaching their physicians with concerns that may be related to depression, and could include symptoms like trouble sleeping, poor mood, difficulties in relationships, etc.,” she added in an e-mail to Reuters Health. “Although an antidepressant might help with these issues, the problems may also go away on their own with time, or might be more amenable to counseling or psychotherapy.”
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
January 29th, 2011 by Peggy Polaneczky, M.D. in Opinion, Research
3 Comments »
Here’s yet another study showing that abortion does NOT lead to future psychiatric problems. From The New York Times:
The New England Journal of Medicine has taken on one of the pillar arguments in the abortion debate, asking whether having the procedure increases a woman’s risk of mental-health problems and concluding that it doesn’t. In fact, researchers found, having a baby brings a far higher risk.
The study, by Danish scientists (and financed in part by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which supports research on abortion rights), is the most extensive of its kind to date. It studied 365,550 Danish women who had an abortion or gave birth for the first time between 1995 and 2007. Of those, 84,620 terminated their pregnancies and 280,930 gave birth.
In the year after an abortion, 15.2 out of 1,000 sought psychiatric help (defined as admission to a hospital or clinic), which was essentially the same as the rate of that group (14.6 per 1,000) in the nine months before the abortion. In contrast, among women who went on to give birth, the rate at which they sought treatment increased to 6.7 per 1,000 after delivery from 3.9 per 1,000 before.
Why do first-time mothers have a lower overall rate of mental illness both before and after pregnancy than those who choose termination? The researchers suggest that those who have abortions are more likely to have emotional problems in the first place. Compared with the group who give birth, those who have abortions are also statistically more likely to be struggling economically, and to have a higher rate of unintended pregnancies.
And why do first-time mothers seem to nearly double their risk in the year after giving birth? That is likely to have something to do with the hormonal changes, decreased sleep, and increased stress of parenting, which women who terminate do not experience.
Can we please talk about something else? Like maybe how to help these young women with the issues and unmet contraceptive needs that led to unplanned pregnancy in the first place?
*This blog post was originally published at The Blog That Ate Manhattan*
Sideways Shrink posed a great question recently in a comment on my post “When A Thick Skin Helps.” The question was whether or not physicians are allowed to hit a patient who tries to assault them.
