Ronald W. Pies, MD

Hired guns.” “Whores.” “Greedy, insensitive bastards.“ These are some of the more printable epithets used to describe psychiatric physicians who (allegedly) have “sold out to Big Pharma.”

As a general proposition, most scientists and physicians prefer sharpness to fuzziness, at least when it comes to defining terms. I generally share this view, as regards psychiatric diagnosis, but only up to a point. That point is defined by the well-being of my patient - and sometimes, this may call for a “fuzzy” diagnosis.

Psychosurgery. For some, the word connotes all the promising therapeutic applications of modern neuroscience; for others, it connotes all the baneful excesses of unregulated pseudoscience.

The press reported it in various ways-either as a “brutal gang rape” or, more forensically, as a “21/2-hour assault” on the Richmond High School campus. Any way you look at it, the horrendous attack on a 15-year-old girl raises troubling questions for theologians, criminologists and, of course, psychiatrists. How do we understand an act as brutal as rape? What factors and forces in the rapist’s development can possibly account for such behavior? And how on earth do we explain the apparent indifference of the large crowd that watched the attack in Richmond, Calif, and allegedly did nothing to stop it-or even, to report it?

The debate within the medical profession over “conflicts of interest” (COIs) has often been shrill, and sometimes seems to be based on misunderstandings or myths about what COIs entail. In this psychiatrist’s view, it is helpful to step back from confident proclamations, acknowledge that the issues involved are complex, and aspire to some semblance of humility. Nobody has cornered the market on “the right way” to deal with COI in the realms of medical research, publication, and education.1 At the same time, as Alan Stone, MD, has noted (personal communication, August 27, 2009), ethical considerations lie at the heart of any debate on COI-in particular, the ancient dictum, “Do no harm.” Indeed, ethicist James M. DuBois has pointed out a direct connection between some types of COI and harm to the general public: “Mental health consumers are at risk when studies that involve questionable scientific and publication practices are translated into therapeutic practice.”1(p205)

Some would ask whether the psychiatric system at Ft. Hood adequately assessed the mental state of Army Maj Nidal Malik Hasan, the man accused of yesterday's shooting rampage on the base.

The press reported it in various ways-either as a “brutal gang rape” or, more forensically, as a “2½-hour assault” on the Richmond High School campus. Anyway you look at it, the horrendous attack on a 15-year old girl raises troubling questions for theologians, criminologists, and, of course, psychiatrists.

You have read the blogs and seen the placards a dozen times: doctors prescribe too many “drugs” for too many patients. Psychiatrists, in particular, are popular targets of politically motivated language that seeks to conflate the words “medication” and “drug”-thereby tapping into the public’s understandable fears concerning “drug abuse” and its need to carry out a “War on Drugs.”

What safeguards does Psychiatric Times build into its review policies to avoid conflicts of interest (COIs)? Do these policies apply to the “supplements” sometimes mailed out with the regular publication?

The editorial board and staff of Psychiatric Times wish to announce, with much regret, the retirement of Max Fink, MD, from our journal’s editorial board. Dr Fink-who is emeritus professor of psychiatry and neurology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook-has been a valued member of our board since 2002, and a regular contributor to the journal for many years before that.

>I greatly enjoyed Dr Ron Pies’ editorial “What Should Count as a Mental Disorder in DSM-V?”1 in which he encouraged framers of DSM-V to critically examine the boundaries of mental illness and to more carefully distinguish between diseases, disorders, and syndromes. As I have noted elsewhere, current plans to integrate a “spectrum” approach into DSM-V require a careful consideration of these issues that must be defensible to critics of diagnostic expansion within psychiatry.2

After a stellar academic career of 44 years, Dr Domeena Renshaw has announced her retirement from Loyola University, where she has been professor of psychiatry and behavioral neurosciences. We are sad to say that Dr Renshaw will also be retiring from the editorial board of Psychiatric Times, on which she has served diligently for many years.

We at Psychiatric Times wish to note, with great sadness, the passing of our colleague and editorial board member, Dr Gene Usdin, at the age of 87.

Mr A is a 73-year-old resident of a nursing home, where the irate aides describe him as “a liar and a troublemaker.” Mr A’s “stories” were regarded by the staff as deliberate mischief on his part.

In a highly charged environment in which reports of potential conflicts of interest between physicians and pharmaceutical companies dominate the headlines almost daily, we want to point out that the supplements that were mailed with this month’s issue of Psychiatric Times were based on meetings funded by drug companies. The supplement on treatment-resistant depression, which was sponsored by Lilly USA,includes an article that focuses on the company’s drug Symbyax.

What exactly is a “mental disorder”? For that matter, what criteria should determine whether any condition is a “disease” or a “disorder”?

Regular readers of Psychiatric Times know that we have been engaged in a comprehensive review of our “conflict of interest” (COI) and disclosure policies, which now include posted disclosure statements from all our editorial board members. So far as we are aware, Psychiatric Times is the only major psychiatric journal to require this of its editorial board, as well as of our regular writers.

My friend Paul Genova’s protean life is not easy to wrap in the winding sheet of an obituary. Paul-who died on December 13th of complications from multiple myeloma-was a man of many talents and sensibilities.

Suppose your new patient, Mr. Jones, tells you he is feeling “really down.” He meets all DSMIV symptomatic and duration criteria for a major depressive episode (MDE) after having lost his wife to cancer 2 weeks ago. Should you diagnose major depressive disorder?

A 52-year-old female college professor was referred to a psychiatrist by a nurse practitioner at the college health clinic. The referring diagnosis was “adjustment disorder with depressed mood versus atypical depression with somatization; rule out fibromyalgia.”

In our own time, many so-called conflicts of interest (COI) boil down to temptation, as James DuBois,3 professor and department chair of health care ethics at Saint Louis University, notes in his excellent chapter on this subject. A physician-researcher is tempted to slant the results of his or her study in order to maintain funding from a medical technology company.

It's often said that the word "crisis" is expressed in Chinese by two characters representing "danger" and "opportunity." In truth, the Chinese word for "crisis" (weiji) is better translated as "danger" (wei) and "crucial moment" (ji).

The adage has it that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is evident from this revealing portrait of neurologist Walter Freeman--the originator of the infamous "ice pick" lobotomy--that good intentions without sober analysis can indeed have hellish consequences.

Here is the conundrum: You have completed treatment with a fascinating and complex patient. Mr A has bipolar depression, Marfan syndrome, and hypothyroidism. You not only managed to navigate around the rocks of his medical problems, but you also managed to stabilize Mr A's bipolar disorder using a combination of lithium (Eskalith, Lithobid), thyroxine, and interpersonal therapy. You would now like to share your experience with colleagues, so you write up the case history; then suddenly, you are seized with misgivings.

In part 1 of this essay, I argued that individual freedom is not only compatible with determinism but dependent on it. I also argued that freedom is not an "either/or" condition. Rather, actions may be more or less free, and therefore, more or less "responsible," depending on a number of contingent factors, yielding various degrees of freedom. Psychiatrists, I suggested, can be most helpful in so far as we can describe, study, and categorize these degrees of freedom and the psychopathological conditions that undermine them. In part 2, I elaborate on the "naturalistic" model of freedom and autonomy and suggest how it may be applied to psychiatric disorders and medico-legal determinations of culpability.

Book review

Up Against the Wall

There were only 3 Jewish students in my high school, and I was one of them. In the small, western New York town where I grew up, most people were tolerant. But a small clique of anti-Semites made life tough for us Jewish kids. Most of the time, we just shrugged off the jokes and insults or came right back at these louts with a snappy retort. Sometimes, the bigotry grew more menacing.

The construct of bipolar spectrum disorder remains a work in progress. Its precise boundaries are still a matter of considerable debate. Some psychiatrists are convinced that it is widely overdiagnosed. It is possible that depending on the clinician and the clinical setting both views are correct.

On Taking the Helm