 |
| Will Self- author. |
Psychiatrists:
the drug pushers
Is
the current epidemic of depression and hyperactivity the result of
disease-mongering by the psychiatric profession and big pharma? Does psychiatry
have any credibility left at all?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/03/will-self-psychiatrist-drug-medication
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/03/will-self-psychiatrist-drug-medication
BY WILL SELF
A
psychiatrist who once "treated" me used to recite
this rueful little mantra: "They say failed doctors become
psychiatrists, and that failed psychiatrists specialise in drugs."
By drugs this psychiatrist meant drugs of addiction – and his "treatment"
of me consisted of prescribing Temgesic, a synthetic opiate, as a substitute
for the heroin I was more strongly inclined to take. So, he undertook this
role: acting, in effect, as a state-licensed drug dealer; and he also
attempted a kind of psychotherapy, talking to me about my
problems and engaging with my own restless critique of – among many other
things – psychiatry itself. Together we conceived of doing some sort of project
on drugs and addiction, and began undertaking research. On one memorable
fact-finding trip to Amsterdam, we ended up smoking a great deal of
marijuana as well as drinking to excess – I also scored heroin and
used it under the very eyes of the medical practitioner who was, at least
nominally, "treating" me.
All
of this happened more than 20 years ago, and I drag it up here not in
order to retrospectively censure the psychiatrist concerned, but rather to
present him and his behaviour as a perversely honest version of the role played
by his profession. For what, in essence, do psychiatrists specialise in, if not
mood-altering drugs? Or, to put it another way, what do psychiatrists have
to offer – over and above the other so-called "psy professions"
– beyond their capacity to legally administer psychoactive drugs, and
in some cases forcibly confine those they deem to be mentally ill?
Psychiatry
is undergoing one of its periodic convulsions at the moment – one that
coincides with the publication by the American Psychiatric Association of the
fifth edition of their hugely influential "Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM–5)
– and I think we should all take the opportunity to join in the profession's
own collective navel-gazing and existential angst. After all, while the
influence of the talking cures is pervasive in our society
– running all the way up the scale from anodyne advice dispensed on daytime TV
shows, to the wealthy shelling out hundreds of pounds a week to pet
their neuroses in the company of highly qualified black dog walkers –
psychotherapy and psychoanalysis remain essentially voluntaristic undertakings;
only psychiatry deals in mandatory social care and legal sanction.
Besides, only psychiatry partakes of the peculiar mystique that attaches
to medical care. We may dismiss the opinions of all sorts of counsellors and
therapists, secure in the knowledge that their very multifariousness is
indicative of their lack of overall traction, but psychiatry, dealing, as it
claims, with well-defined maladies – and treating them with drugs and
hospitalisation – exerts an enormous pull on our collective self-image. Just
what the nature of this pull is, and how it has come to condition our
understanding of ourselves and our psychic functioning, is what
I wish to unpick.
Full-blown
mental illness is an extremely frightening phenomenon to observe – let
alone experience. And much of the debate that surrounds the efficacy of
contemporary psychiatry is warped by the knowledge – lurking in the wings of
our minds – that we wish to have as little as possible to do with it. We may
understand rationally that psychosis isn't a contagion, yet still we turn
aside from the street soliloquisers and avoid the tormented gazes of those
being "cared for in the community". Arguably, the response of those
who treated a trip to Bedlam to view the madmen and women as
an entertainment had the virtue of at least being a form of contact.
At their peak, mental hospitals such as Bedlam (and formerly known as
"lunatic asylums") housed over 100,000 inmates, many of whom
had been confined for behaviours that today would be regarded as
lifestyle choices, such as socialism or sexual promiscuity.
The hospitals were also dumping grounds for patients who we now know to
have had organic brain diseases. It's sobering for those on the left to realise
that the first politician to commit to their abolition was Enoch Powell.
By the early 1990s many long-stay inmates had been returned to
the outside world, but their lives were for the most part still
grossly circumscribed: living in sheltered accommodation and visited by mental
health teams, confined not by physical walls but by the chemical
straitjackets of neuroleptic drugs.
An
engraving of a bedridden patient at the New York City Lunatic Asylum Hospital
in the late 1860s. Photograph: Stock Montage/Getty Images
Still,
if you wish to visit Bedlam you can do so. The locked mental wards of our
hospitals present a terrifying spectacle of seriously disturbed patients
shouting, yelping, gurning and shaking – I know, I've seen them. And it's
the much-repressed knowledge that this is going on that helps, I would argue,
to prevent too much criticism of the psychiatric profession. Just as we are
quietly grateful to prison officers for banging up criminals, so too we are
grateful for psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses for providing a
cordon sanitaire between us and flamboyant insanity. Yet while the regime under
which those diagnosed with mental pathologies has changed immensely in the
last half-century, the prognosis remains no better. Some say that it is
manifestly worse, and that psychiatry itself is to blame. But the truth is
that hardly anyone – apart from the professionals, whose livelihoods
depend on it – can either be bothered to wade through the reams of scientific
papers concerned with the alternative treatment regimens, or understand the
different methodologies arrived at to assess competing claims.
Early
in Our Necessary Shadow, his
lucid, humane and in many ways well-balanced account of the nature and meaning
of psychiatry, Tom Burns, professor of social psychiatry at Oxford University,
makes a supremely telling remark: "I am convinced psychiatry is a major
force for good or I would not have spent my whole adult life in it." This
is a form of the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc
("After this, therefore because of this"), and it seems strange that
an academic of such standing should so blithely retail it because, of
course, if we reverse the statement it makes just as much sense:
"Having spent my whole adult life as a psychiatrist I must maintain the
conviction that it is a major force for good." After all, the alternative
– for Burns and for thousands of other psychiatrists – is to accept that
in fact their working lives have constituted something of a travesty: either
locking up or drugging patients whose diseases are defined not by organic
dysfunction but by socially unacceptable behaviours. Burns has the honesty
and integrity to admit that the major mental pathologies – schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder, depression inter alia – cannot be defined in the same way as
physical diseases, and he cleaves to the currently fashionable view of
psychiatry as seeking to understand mental maladies through the tripartite lens
of the social, the psychological and the biological. He also states that he
sees the role of psychotherapy as central to the practise of psychiatry –
and in this he dissents from the more mainstream "biological" model
of treatment that has been in the ascendancy since the 1970s.
But
what Burns cannot quite bring himself to do is give up the drugs.
In a 333 page book (complete with a glossary, a bibliography and an
index), there are just three references to the most commonly prescribed
psychiatric drugs: the SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (such
as Prozac and Seroxat). When he does consider the SSRIs, he notes that they may
indeed be overprescribed (as of 2011 46.7m prescriptions had been written in
the UK for antidepressants), and in particular that they may be used to
"treat" commonplace unhappiness rather than severe depression. What
he doesn't venture near are the systematic critiques of antidepressants – and
neuropharmacology in general – that have emerged in recent years. The work of Irving Kirsch, whose meta-analysis
of SSRI double-blind trials revealed that in clinical terms – for a broad
spectrum of depressed patients – SSRIs acted no better than a placebo, is
something Burns doesn't want to look at. He also doesn't wish to examine too
closely the underlying "chemical imbalance" theory of depression
on which the alleged efficacy of the SSRIs is based, presumably because he
knows that it's essentially bunk: no fixed correlation has been established,
despite intensive study, between levels of serotonin in the brain and
depression.
Antidepressant
tablets. Photograph: Jonathan Nourok/Getty Images
I've
swerved into consideration of antidepressants because I believe the exponential
increase in their use is a function of the problem of legitimacy that
psychiatry currently faces. Psychiatrists, of course, tell the public that the
vast majority of these drugs are prescribed by general practitioners – not by
them. But what has made it possible for someone recently bereaved or
unemployed to have a prescription written by their doctor to alleviate
their "depression", is, I would argue, very much to do with
psychiatry's search for new worlds to conquer, an expedition that has been
financed at every step by big pharma. Put bluntly: unable to effect
anything like a cure in the severe mental pathologies, at an entirely
unconscious and weirdly collective level psychiatry turned its attention to
less marked psychic distress as a means of continuing to secure what
sociologists term "professional closure". After all, if
chlorpromazine (commonly known as Largactil) and other neuroleptics don't cure
schizophrenia – any more than lithium "cures" bipolar illness – then
why exactly do you need a qualified medical doctor to dole them out?
The
proliferation of new psycho-pharmacological compounds has advanced in lock-step
with the proliferation of new mental illnesses for them to "treat".
As Ian Hacking observes in a review of DSM–5 in the current London
Review of Books, the first DSM – published in 1952 – and its
successor in 1968, were heavily influenced by the psychoanalytic theories then
dominating psychiatry in the US. In 1980, with DSM–III there came a
step-change. Hacking traces this to the efficacy of lithium in managing mania:
"Now there was something that worked … clear behavioural criteria were
necessary to identify who would benefit from lithium." James Davies
begins his book, Cracked: Why Psychiatry Is Doing More
Harm Than Good, with an examination of how these
behavioural criteria were arrived at by the compilers of DSM–III and its
subsequent incarnations. You may be thinking that all this is so much
arcane knowledge – and wondering why we in Britain should be preoccupied by a
diagnostic manual published in the US. But in fact the ICD (International
Classification of Diseases) used by British doctors is compiled in the same way
as the DSM – indeed most NHS psychiatrists favour the latter over the former.
In the US it's simple: your insurance won't pay out unless you are diagnosed
with a malady detailed in the DSM, but in Britain we have a less tangible
– but for all that pervasive – form of socio-medical discrimination: no sick
note – and no social benefits – unless what ails you conforms to the paradigms
set out in DSM.
The
focus of Davies's critique is that the criteria for what constitutes ADHD
(attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), or autism, or indeed depression,
are not arrived at by any commonly understood scientific procedure, but
rather by committee: psychiatrists getting together and pooling their
understanding of how patients with these maladies
"present" (in the jargon). Under these circumstances it becomes
somewhat easier to understand how the tail can begin to wag the dog: rather
than arriving at a commonly agreed set of symptoms that constitute a gestalt –
and hence a malady – psychiatrists become influenced by what
psycho-pharmacological compounds alleviate given symptoms, and so, as it were,
"create" diseases to fit the drugs available. This in itself, Davies might
argue, explains why there are more and more new "diseases" with
each edition of the DSM: it isn't a function of scientific acumen identifying
hitherto hidden maladies, but of iatrogenesis: doctor-created disease. So,
while it may well be general practitioners who do the doling out, psychiatrists
are required to legitimate what they are doing and provide it with the
sugar-coating of scientific authenticity. It's a dirty, well-paid and
high-status job – but someone has to do it, no?
The
vast number of "hyperactive" children in the US prescribed Ritalin is
so well attested to that it's become a trope in popular culture – just like the
SSRI-munching depressive. But these are our version of low-level "care in
the community", the sad are becoming oddly co-morbid (afflicted with the
same sorts of diseases) with the mad. Davies treads a familiar path in his
critique of the influence of the multinational pharmaceutical companies on the
structure and practice of psychiatry. If you aren't familiar with the fact that
almost all drug trials are funded by those who stand to profit from their
success then … well, you jolly well should be. You should also be familiar
with the extent to which university research departments and learned journals
are funded by those who stand to profit – literally – from their presumed
objectivity. The money generated by the SSRIs in particular is vast, easily
enough to warp the dynamics and the ethics of an entire profession, and
indeed I would agree with Davies that it has in fact done just this.
The sections of his book that deal in particular with the way big pharma
has moved into markets outside the English-speaking world and effected
a wholesale cultural change in their perception of sadness (rebranding it,
if you will, as chemically treatable "depression"), simply in
order to flog their dubious little blue pills, make for chilling reading.
Actually,
Burns would agree with some of this critique as well; and recall, he's a
psychiatrist who fervently believes that his profession has been, and continues
to be, a force for good. Davies is a psychologist, and to the outsider the
fierceness of his attack might be dismissed as part of a turf war among
the psy professions (Irving Kirsch is a clinical psychologist as well).
However, I don't think it helps anyone to see the current imbroglio
as simply a function of late capitalism in its most aggressive aspect. I'm
afraid I have to mouth the old lily-livered liberal shibboleth at this
point and observe that, yes, we are all to blame; and our responsibility is just
as difficult for us to acknowledge because we are largely unaware of it.
We don't consciously collude in the chemical repression of the psychotic (and
Davies produces quite convincing statistics to support the view that those
with psychosis actually recover better if they aren't medicated at all), any
more than we consciously collude in the fiction of depression as a chemical
imbalance that can be successfully treated with SSRIs.
Instead,
what both clinicians and patients experience is quite the reverse: we feel
absolutely bloody miserable, we can't get up in the morning, we are dirty and
unkempt, and we go along to our GP and are prescribed an antidepressant, and lo
and behold we recover. My GP, who has just retired, and who is a wise and
compassionate man who I absolutely trusted, told me that he prescribed SSRIs
because they worked, and I believed him. That they worked because of the
overpoweringly efficacious curative power we believe doctors and their nostrums
to possess rather than because of any real change in our brain chemistry was
beside the point for him – and I suspect it's beside the point for the vast
majority of patients as well. By the same token, Burns is at pains to stress,
contra-DSM, that the great strength and skill of the practising psychiatrist
lies in being able to intuit diagnoses by empathising with patients. Diagnosis,
for Burns, is an art form – not a science. By his own account I've little doubt
that he's a good and effective psychiatrist who can make a real difference to
the lives of those plagued by demons that undermine their sense of self. One
of my oldest friends is a consultant psychiatrist who I've actually seen
practising in just this way, with preternatural flair and compassion.
In
both their cases, however, I feel about them rather the way I do about the last
archbishop of Canterbury: I consider Rowan Williams to be a wise and spiritual
man mostly despite rather than because of his Christianity; and I think many
psychiatrists are good healers mostly despite rather than because of the
medical ideology of mental illness to which they subscribe.
Interestingly
there is one large sector of the "mentally ill" that
Burns believes are manifestly unsuitable for treatment – drug
addicts and alcoholics. He points to the ineffectiveness of
almost all treatment regimens, possibly because the cosmic solecism of treating
those addicted to psychoactive drugs with more psychoactive drugs hits home
despite his well-padded professional armour. Elsewhere in Our Necessary
Shadow he seems to embrace the idea that self-help groups of one kind or
another could help to alleviate a great deal of mental illness, and it struck
me as strange that he couldn't join the dots: after all, the one treatment that
does have long-term efficacy for addictive illness is precisely this one.
Psychiatrists
are notoriously unwilling to endorse the 12-step programmes, and argue that
statistically the results are not convincing. There may be some truth in
this – but there's also the inconvenient fact that there's no place for
psychiatrists, or indeed any of the psy professionals, in autonomously
organised self-help groups. Burns agrees with Davies that our reliance on
psychiatry, and by extension, psycho-pharmacology, may well be related to our
increasingly alienated state of mind in mass societies with weakened family
ties, and often non-existent community ones. Surely self-help groups can play a
large role in facilitating the rebirth of these nurturing and supportive
networks? But Burns seems to feel that just as we will always need a
professional to come and mend the septic tank, so we will always need a
pro to sweep out the Augean psychic stables. I'm not so sure;
psychiatry has been bedevilled over the last two centuries by
"treatments" and "cures" that have subsequently been
revealed to be significantly harmful. From mesmerism, to lobotomy, to
electroconvulsive therapy, to Valium and other benzodiazepines – the list of these
nostrums is long and ignoble, and I've no doubt that the SSRIs will soon be
added to their number.
Sooner
or later we will all have to wake up, smell the snake oil, and realise
that while medical science may bring incalculable benefit to us, medical
pseudo-science remains just as capable of advance. After all, one of the
drugs that Irving Kirsch's meta‑analysis of antidepressant trials revealed
as being just as efficacious as the SSRIs was …
heroin.
Psychiatry, drugs and the future of mental healthcare
Letters Page Responses:
Psychiatry, drugs and the future of mental healthcare
- The Guardian, Wednesday 7 August 2013
Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft anti-depressant pills.
Photograph: Jonathan Nourok/Getty Images
Will
Self (The drug pushers, 3 August)
wrongly accuses Tom Burns of post hoc ergo propter hoc because he
asserts that he is "convinced that psychiatry is a major force for good or
I would not have spent my whole life in it". Looking back over 40 years as
a psychiatrist, I agree with Burns. I call to mind countless people with
schizophrenia who would not have recovered completely before neuroleptic drugs
were available, the people with bipolar illness whose attacks became less
severe because of treatment with lithium, and there is solid scientific
evidence for both these assertions. There are countless people with depressive
illnesses whose episodes become of shorter duration because of treatment with
antidepressants. It is true that they only have a placebo effect in mild depressions,
but Nice has confirmed that they have a therapeutic effect in both moderate and
severe depression.
Like Burns, I also paid major importance to psychotherapy and social
interventions, but the contribution of drugs should not be so lightly
dismissed.
David Goldberg
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
David Goldberg
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
•
Many psychiatrists reading Self's critique of their profession will feel a
twinge of recognition at his observation that we do our best despite, rather
than because of, the prevailing psychiatric ideology. In truth, many of us
ignore it and in so doing find ourselves in the unsettling but fascinating no
man's land that lies between the lines that Self draws, with the forces of
"medical science" ranged against the bad guys of "medical pseudo
science". The real truth, as ever, is far more interesting than the dull
dichotomies he purveys.
As
any sentient shrink will admit, people have a stronger hunger for certainty
than for knowledge. All of us – psychiatrists included – go to some lengths to
fend off the confusion that uncertainty brings; one word for this daily act of
self-deception is "consciousness". Our drugs may not help as much as
we might hope, but few would assert that they have no part to play, whatever
their mechanism of action. Similarly, the censure of the DSM III classification
and its successors simply echoes the criticism of the bewildering Freudian maze
that came before it. As Self apologetically notes, yes, we are all to blame. We
get the treatments and classifications that we deserve because, until we
embrace a richer idea of what it means to have a mind, they are about as good
as it gets.
The
anthropologist Mary Douglas observed that the "the division between the
reality of the external world and the gropings of the human psyche have
allocated real knowledge to the physical sciences and mistakes to the field of psychology".
In much of his work, Self has shown a talent for making his readers comfortable
with the idea of being uncomfortable. By embracing the division of which
Douglas warns, he says more about our fears than our imagination.
Mark Salter
Consultant psychiatrist, City and Hackney Centre for Mental Health
Mark Salter
Consultant psychiatrist, City and Hackney Centre for Mental Health
•
Will Self's arguments are welcome. Previous criticisms include those of the
late Loren Mosher in his open letter of resignation to
the American Psychiatric Association in 1998: "Unfortunately, the APA
reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug-dependent society…
psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies."
In 1970, Mosher set up Soteria House which offered a community based non-medical
alternative to hospital. This showed better overall outcomes than conventional
psychiatric units; people who never received neuroleptic drugs did especially
well. It closed in 1983 for lack of funding. Mosher's vision, however, lives
on. Inspired by his visit in 2003, a UK-wide Soteria network was formed and is
on the way to opening Soteria houses where there is strong local interest. It
also aims to promote other humane non-coercive, non-medical alternatives, while
arguing strongly for the right to choice.
One
alternative approach using minimal or no medication is the "open
dialogue" model: initiated in Finland it has been shown to have the best
outcomes in the western world. The Soteria Network regularly receives desperate
stories of coercive, drug-heavy treatments and pleas for information as to
where they can find alternative sanctuary and support. It would be wonderful if
Self's article prompted sufficient groundswell to generate much-needed
innovation in services offering new hope for real recovery.
Margaret Turner
Secretary, Soteria Network
Margaret Turner
Secretary, Soteria Network
•
There is already stigma attached to taking antidepressants. In adding to it,
Will Self does a disservice to psychiatrists, GPs and to people such as myself.
Severe clinical depression runs through four generations of my family with
clear genetic links. I witnessed the debilitating effects of my mum's
depression, it took away her ability to empathise with family and friends, led
to prolonged anguish and isolation, and destroyed her life. For me, SSRIs play
a crucial role in treating my depression and preventing relapse. Taking them
frees me to relate to others, make a positive contribution to our world, and
enjoy my short and precious life.
Trish Oliver
Exeter
Trish Oliver
Exeter
•
Self is right that psychiatry is in the throes of an identity crisis, its
social role uncertain, its distinctiveness from psychology and neurology
unclear, its scientific underpinnings primitive. But rather than hand-wringing
nihilism, Self could familiarise himself with emerging new paradigms.
Relational neuroscience shows how the subtleties of trauma and disturbed early
parent-child relationships inscribe themselves in the brain and genome,
predisposing to psychiatric disorder, but potentially reversible with
environmental support and psychotherapy. Drugs such as oxytocin can help too, a
natural hormone that boosts the capacity for bonding and optimism. Psychiatry
offers a unique and privileged window into the inner life of the self; its role
as midwife to self-healing and recovery from trauma and loss is endlessly
moving and inspiring. Young doctors, listen to minds as well as hearts. Here is
still a continent to conquer.
Jeremy Holmes
Consultant psychiatrist; visiting professor, school of psychology, Exeter University
Jeremy Holmes
Consultant psychiatrist; visiting professor, school of psychology, Exeter University
