two sides to every story…

Posted on Thursday 19 April 2007

I just watched the evening news where NBC was criticized for airing the material from Cho. And I got a comment here and on email about my supporting their airing. So I’ll just elaborate on why I, at least, would support making it public. First, the objections are that it’s playing into the killer’s wishes, that it may stimulate copy-cats, and that it’s insensitive to the families. Those are all good points, and I’ll not try to argue with them.

My immediate reaction was that this was the work of a severly mentally ill person. That was because of my career as a Psychiatrist. I "smelled" it out of familiarity with chronic psychosis and paranoia. I’m sure other mental illness professionals felt the same way. But the general population did not smell it for very understandable reasons.

So I think showing those tapes has two positive and important functions. First, people need to know that illness when they see it, and they need to know why it is so dangerous. Second, the Cho’s of America are underserved by our mental health systems. We treat mental illness in the community, not in hospitals. But there are a small group of people who need to be hospitalized for a long time because they don’t respond. They may not be eminently dangerous, but they are as potentially as dangerous as Cho. Such people need to be followed closely for their own sake and the sake of others. I want the public to know about the "hole" in our systems of care and to become a force in addressing solutions.

Finally, when something like this happens, our fantasies of what’s in the mind of the perpetrator are often modelled on the versions from Grade B movies – some evil "fiend." Cho was something else – a desparately ill, internally tortured person who needed to be in an environment where he was safely contained, respected, and offered treatment that might have helped him. I don’t think that showing what Cho really was is worse than our projections of what we thought he was.

And yet, were I the parent of one of those kids, I might be mad that those tapes were released. I wouldn’t want to be confronted with my child’s killer until I was ready and made that choice myself. I actually wish NBC had consulted the parents, not to ask them to make the decision, but as a way of honoring their grief – perhaps allowing them to participate in deciding when, and in what format, the information should be released.

Mickey @ 6:28 PM

exasperating…

Posted on Thursday 19 April 2007

I’ve been trying [seriously] to understand why watching this hearing was so uncomfortable to me. I kept coming and going, turning it down, turning it up, audibly moaning to my wife’s amusment. I’ve come up with three specific things:

First, when Gonzales was not being evasive or picky or not recalling, in other words when he was being cogent about what he was being asked, he was espousing a principle that was odious to me. He was saying that a U.S. Attorney’s performance was not being evaluated based of the cases before him/her, but on whether their numbers were high on cases that fit the President’s Agenda. That’s never been my understanding of how the Justice Department works.

Second, there’s a memo from a November 27th meeting in which they discussed how they were going to deal with any flack they got from firing these people. One way was to never say anything about the details, or how those details related to any particular staff member. And they’ve done that. They defend the firing of these eight Attorneys, but to my knowledge, we have no idea how they were chosen for firing – not any of them. It’s as if the list appeared as a virgin birth out of the cosmos.

Third. Gonzales was incredibly picky about the details of the Senator’s questions – things like "that was not a phone call, it was a conversation." Yet, he gave not one single detail himself about anything. Everything was principles or repeated comments about "processes." One wonders if he even works in the Justice Department, much less runs it.

But I think the part that made it so excruciating was something general – that he never answered a question,. he answered the "meaning" of the question. He reminded me of an interview David Frost did with James Earl Ray in the dark ages. When Frost asked a question, Ray would say, "well, if I say this, you’ll think that. And if I say this other thing, you’ll think that other thing." Then he’d pause for a moment [obviously trying to decide what he wanted us to think] and then give an answer. That’s what Gonzales did. He refuted meanings rather than answering questions.

In my years as a Psychiatrist, I came to see that as a sign that the person was essentially trying to ward me off. In my role then, I knew what to say. "You want me to believe this" and say what they were pushing. Then I’d say, "Everything you’re saying is an attempt to get me to think something you want me to think, rather than an attempt to give me the facts so I can reach my own conclusions. Why are you doing that?" If it continued, I simply moved on to something else. Why bother to play such games.

Listening to Gonzales was like that. It’s reasonable for him to feel defensive. Those people were after blood. But he was more than defensive, he sounded like a criminal trying to hide a crime, or worse, say there was not even a crime to hide. He was "play acting" and the only time it felt like a real hearing was when several of the Senators called him on it. I particularly enjoyed Dianne Feinstein rolling her eyes and looking exasperated.

How much longer do we have to endure these people?

Mickey @ 4:41 PM

cspan…

Posted on Thursday 19 April 2007

Watching Alberto Gonzales is excrutiating. I can’t recall exactly what bothers me about it, but, I think it’s a fair question and I accept responsibility. I’ve made my mistakes and I’m committed to correcting my mistakes. The American people need to know that I didn’t mean to not recall why listening to him is so damned excrutiating.

Gonzales is saying that the firing the Attorneys because they weren’t pushing the President’s Agenda is fine. It’s not slightly fine. It’s aggregious!

Mickey @ 1:56 PM

show it….

Posted on Thursday 19 April 2007

Now I’m reading people chiding NBC for showing this Cho video. I say show it over and over. Maybe it will alert people to the fact that people with his illness do exist as they always have, and that ignoring them is no way to deal with them. Paranoid people run from care. They see health professionals as torturers, while they’re psychotic. It’s part of the illness. But that doesn’t mean we should run away from them.

In former times, Psychiatrists were called "Alienists" pointing to the "alien" appearance people with this illness. I say, show Cho’s video as long as anyone wants to watch it. Maybe some good will come of this horrible event and we’ll have more attention paid to the need for readily available care for such people. Maybe we’ll stop pretending they don’t exist and will relook at how to manage the cases that don’t either find their way in to, or respond to, our existing systems.

Mickey @ 12:13 PM

Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia…

Posted on Thursday 19 April 2007

"As for why what was wrong with Cho remains mostly un-named in the Press? I haven’t a clue…"

As soon as I asked that question in my last post, I recognized that I might know the answer. By the time effective medication became available for the treatment of Psychotic illnesses, Schizophrenia in particular, the problem of mental illness was huge. Gigantic hospitals with thousands of patients had become expensive but poorly maintained warehouses for the desparately ill. The antipsychotic medications provided a key to open the door and allow many of the severely afflicted to live in society. The Community Mental Health movement flourished, and the "snake pits" our mental hospitals had become began to close. But antipsychotics don’t cure Schizophrenia. They treat symptoms. There remain a larger than we would like group of patients for whom this illness is still a life stopper.

Now, there are no long term treatment facilities, or in some cases, holding facilities for the treatment failures. They live on the streets, in the jails, or are taken care of by their families. People don’t talk much about patients who don’t get well. We live in a "get-well" world. If it’s so hard for professionals to come forward and say the obvious, "Cho had Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia," it must mean that things have become such that it’s not even talked about any more. If it can’t even be said now, it’s little wonder that no one said it when he was alive or took enough notice to take the appropriate steps to relieve his suffering as much as possible and protect both him and society from the ravages of his illness.

So Cho, a man with deteriorating Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia, a man who needed to be medicated and perhaps confined, was left to experience his torment in a dorm room, crazy, until he announced in his bizarre way that he couldn’t take it any more. A mental health system that cannot deal with a full spectrum of outcomes to treatment is no system at all. Cho wasn’t dealt with because we apparently don’t do that anymore. We only deal with people who can get better. Cho stands as a dramatic and painful example of the plight of the desparately mentally ill [alongside Son of Sam, the Unibomber, and countless others].

So let’s name it – Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia. It can’t be addressed without a proper name… 

 

Mickey @ 9:35 AM

the video…

Posted on Wednesday 18 April 2007

Having watched the videos from Cho on NBC news, there’s something that’s not being said. This is Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia. This endless diatribe against un-named persecutors, his attempt to use escalating metaphors to describe his own torment, his talking about being forced to do this, his description of himself as a martyr, are all the dialogue of a psychotic process that has been present for a long period of time. Note also, in spite of occasional grimaces that it’s delivered in a monotonous almost emotionless rant. I came into Psychiatry after the advent of the antipsychotic drugs so I wasn’t around during the era when chronic cases such as this were very common, but I saw enough such people to know what I was seeing on those tapes.

There are some parameters that have been reliably used to predict the outcome. One is the pre-morbid adjustment. The better adjusted the person prior to the onset of the ouvert symptoms, the more likely it is for there to be a favorable outcome. From what we hear, Cho has always been a withdrawn loner, a social isolate. Another predicter of outcome is the kind of onset. People who have a rapid and flagrant initial outbreak of the illness tend to do better than people who seem to just drift into their illness. There are any number of symptomatic forms of Schizophrenia. The type with the worst prognosis [outcome] is Paranoid Schizophrenia. So Cho’s lifelong withdrawal, the insidious deterioration suggested by his history, and the predominance of his Paranoid symptoms are all negative signs.

In an era before any treatment was available, Cho would have likely been sent to the State Hospital where he would have lived out his life. In a modern era, he’s the kind of case that’s hardest for mental health systems to deal with. He would be unlikely to seek or comply with treatment. Paranoid symptoms are the least responsive to medications. He would frighten people, but would be unlikely to be kept by a modern hospital. He would not be eminently dangerous nor particularly treatable. He was so withdrawn and remote that the only way his internal torment would be apparent would be in his writing.

In spite of their tortured experience and constant paranoid preoccupations, such people often describe feeling dead inside, and have a pervasive flatness within called anhedonia – the absence of pleasurable emotions. Schizophrenia is an illness. There’s no evidence that it is the result of psychological forces, or volition. It can occur in almost any circumstances, in every culture. It’s "cause is unknown" in spite of herculean efforts to find a biological basis for the illness. And with cases such as Cho, cases that are so devastating, the advances in treatment in the latter half of the last century are miraculous compared to the centuries before.

Schizophrenic people are no more likely to kill than the general pupulation. That said, when they do, they often do so in a bizarre fashion like Cho, or Son of Sam, or the Unibomber. This man was too sick to leave unchecked in a college milieu. I don’t have any idea what would have happened if he’d been expelled, but he obviously couldn’t manage being there. For all anyone knows, he could have come back from home and done the same thing. But there was no reason in the world to allow him to stay in a situation that he obviously couldn’t manage. It sounds to me like he slipped through the cracks because he was mostly quiet, and no one could figure out what to do either with him or for him. The outcome is an unspeakable tragedy.

What now? College Campuses will live in a heightened state of awareness for all time for such cases, and will act definitively. Cho will become a symbol of how wrong it is to overlook one. As for why what was wrong with Cho remains mostly un-named in the Press? I haven’t a clue…

Mickey @ 9:51 PM

after all these years…

Posted on Wednesday 18 April 2007

Mickey @ 12:08 PM

SCOTUS…

Posted on Wednesday 18 April 2007


In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld a nationwide ban on “partial birth” abortion, “marking a shift on the high-profile issue and underscoring the impact of President George W. Bush’s two high court appointments.” The justices “refused to invalidate the 2003 law even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother’s health. The court also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution. ”

UPDATE: In the majority were swing vote Anthony Kennedy, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.
UPDATE III: Justice Clarence Thomas authored, and Justice Antonin Scalia joined, a 137-word concurring opinion, which appears to have the sole purpose of stating: “I write separately to reiterate my view that the CourtÂ’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.”
At the core, I’ve always considered Birth Control and Abortion Medical issues – something to be decided by individuals and their physicians. To my mind, the act of conception is over-ruled by a woman’s desire to raise a child. I don’t know anyone in my profession that thinks otherwise. The central force in healthy development is being a "wanted" child. But I don’t see my perspective as the only one around. What bothers me about what’s happening now is that it’s not part of a thoughtful debate, it’s a religious conviction, and it’s a political hook that dominates our American landscape. At times, I feel like saying, "Let them win." It’s too expensive to even fight on this battlefield. We’ll raise money to send women who are pregnant and desire to terminate their pregnancies to another, more sensible country. But I know it wouldn’t matter. They’d just brand such women as criminals. So we have to live with a group that has only one issue or two, [if you throw in Gay Marriage].
 
My reason for highlighting this decision, however, is to point to the vote – 5 to 4. Anthony Kennedy plus the Bush bloc vote of  Roberts Alito Thomas Scalia. Very disturbing…
 
Mickey @ 11:20 AM

remembering Foley?

Posted on Wednesday 18 April 2007


Former Congressman Mark Foley has spent more than $250,000 of his campaign funds on lawyers since he was exposed for having inappropriate sexual conversations with minors online. The law allows Foley to pay Zuckerman Spaeder LLP from his pot of over $1.5 million in campaign funds that he had amassed prior to the scandal.  Federal politicians can spend campaign money on their legal defense if they are facing charges relating to their conduct in office.
Foley is not the only figure in the scandal to run up a hefty bill with his lawyers using campaign funds. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has racked up over $130,000 in legal fees, Federal Election Commission filings show.  Some lawmakers and aides involved in the scandal said they had warned Hastert and his staff about questionable behavior by Foley years before sexually suggestive electronic conversations between Foley and young male pages surfaced.
And retired lawmaker Jim Kolbe from Arizona took a big hit in legal fees, paying out $120,000 in cash from his old campaign war chest to Wilmer Hale. The law firm employs former White House counsel Reginald Brown, whom Kolbe retained in December to represent him in twin investigations by the House Ethics Committee and the Department of Justice.
Former House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has paid out $47,500 in legal fees from his campaign coffers recently. A staffer told ABC News the fees are unrelated to his role in the Foley scandal; he has been engaged in a legal battle with  Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., whom Boehner has accused of acting illegally in connection with a surreptitious recording of a 1997 conversation among GOP lawmakers.
Legal fees also piled up for Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., former head of the House GOP’s political arm, who was also implicated in the scandal. Reynolds, like Boehner, said he warned Hastert about Foley after he learned of the questionable e-mail sent to a former page, which Hastert has denied.  Reynolds has paid over $21,000 in legal fees from his campaign account.

One figure from the scandal shows no legal fees being paid from his campaign war chest: former House Page Board Chairman Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., who the House Ethics Committee blasted for failing to properly investigate early warnings about Foley.

Why remember? First, it does seem an odd loophole for the use of campaign funds – designed to support corruption. You get to collect all this money to run for office or as a slush fund when you’re busted. But my main reason for including it is to highlight how many, and how regularly, scandal is just part of this Republican Reign. We joke about "Scandal Fatigue Syndrome," but it’s not terribly funny.

The Congressman in charge of child pornography is a Gay man making passes at Congressional Pages. The Department of Justice has been turned into a political arm of the Republican Party – firing its own appointees for not towing the line. The C.I.A. is marginalized in favor of a Neoconservative Zealot – Douglas Feith. Our Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, opposes the existence of the U.N. Our President lies to get us into a misbegoten war. The Vice President is an Oil Executive on the take. And the central operative is a Sociopath expert in dirty politics. And we know we’re not even close to the bottom of this cesspool. So why remember Foley? Because he’s part of the weighty evidence that we have a government that operates like the ones we used to make fun of as corrupt "Banana Republics."

Mickey @ 8:55 AM

a great tragedy…

Posted on Wednesday 18 April 2007

The Virginia Tech story is worse than I thought. This was not an Acute Psychotic Episode. Cho was a chronically psychotic man who had telegraphed his profound illness everywhere he went. In the reports, it’s yet to be said that he was evaluated by a professional, though that’s hard to believe. The saddest report was Lucinda Roy’s interview on Good Morning America. She was the Department Chairman who tried to walk him to Student Health, and then actually called the Police. She said that they said their hands were tied because he hadn’t actually made any threats to hurt anyone. That’s absurd and doesn’t sound like the whole story. Assessment of dangerousness in the mentally ill rests on different criteria than simply what the person says. By all reports, Cho didn’t talk to people. How could one rely on what he said? Cho was sick enough to have been taken for a Psychiatric examination. To wit:
"It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating," poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN Wednesday.

"I know we’re talking about a youngster, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings," she said. "There was something mean about this boy. It was the meanness – I’ve taught troubled youngsters and crazy people – it was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

Giovanni said her students were so unnerved by Cho’s behavior, including taking pictures of them with his cell phone, that some stopped coming to class and she had security check on her room. She eventually had him taken out of her class, saying she would quit if he wasn’t removed.

Lucinda Roy, a co-director of creative writing at Virginia Tech, said she tutored Cho after that.

"He was so distant and so lonely," she told ABC’s "Good Morning America" Wednesday. "It was almost like talking to a hole, as though he wasn’t there most of the time. He wore sunglasses and his hat very low so it was hard to see his face."

Roy also described using a code word with her assistant to call police if she ever felt threatened by Cho, but she said she never used it.
We used to teach about something called "the praecox feeling," named after Kraepelin’s original name for the illness – Dementia Praecox. It’s a powerful feeling one gets around actively Psychotic people. Dr. Roy obviously felt it. Cho’s classmates obviously felt it [not wanting to "set him off" when discussing his plays in class]. While all States are focused on keeping people out of Mental Hospitals, partially for financial reasons and partially for benevolent reasons, I am unaware of any State that would not have procedures in place for evaluation of someone such as Cho given the number of alarms that were being set off.

I was saying that no one was at fault earlier – meaning no one was at fault for Cho’s illness – but I was not right. There were warning signs going off throughout this young man’s life. If it turns out that he really was never evaluated by someone with mental health experience, Virginia and Virginia Tech have a lot of work to do on the procedures for Emergency Psychiatric evaluations. While this is not a time to blame anyone for this tragedy, it is a time to learn as much as possible about what’s wrong that this chronically psychotic person was allowed to roam free on the campus, buy guns, and ultimately kill 32 other people.

Lucinda Roy in the hero in this story. She knew this young man was quite ill and stood on her head to get him helped. The Cook Counselling Center at Virginia Tech has a procedure for such students who won’t visit them voluntarily, but it’s unclear if they ever sought out Cho. Dr. Roy even removed him from the classroom and the environment of other students. Young adulthood is a time when mental illnesses flower into being – eating disorders and Schizophrenia among them. There will be millions of dollars spent and man-hours expended counselling these students now, but the center of the problem remains what to do when a psychotic student is detected. It’s a question that needs to be answered in a definite way. Looking at the Virginia Mental Health web site, there’s a statement about this tragedy and the forces being mobilized to deal with it. But below that, there’s a cheery statment about new community based programs for recovery and transition. A power point presentation shows how effective their programs are in reducing inpatient bed utilization and length of hospitalization. Good for them. But not all psychotic people "recover." The great flaw in our mental health initiatives is in not leaving room for the people who don’t respond to treatment. Such people have no place.

Schizophrenia, madness, psychosis are part of the human condition – always have been. In history, people with madness were removed from society. – often mistreated. And it’s clear that simply removing such people from society doesn’t do much for the afflicted – they deteriorate when warehoused in Institutions. When effective treatments became available, these Institutions were closed. The tragedy was that the services needed to replace these huge State Hospitals have dwindled away. The elements of an effective system include Evaluation facilities, Treatment facilities, and Ongoing Care facilities. In this country, we are deficient in all three areas. In a modern world, we know what to do. What we don’t know how to do is maintain the appropriate systems in the face of inevitable budget cuts.

The legal issues are clear. In this country, one has the right to be free in society with two exceptions, breaking the law and dangerousness due to mental illness. In either case, citizens have the right to due process to protect their rights. Even before Cho’s crime, he appears to have given plenty of signs that he was dangerously ill. If he was evaluated and someone made a mistake, that’s sad but understandable. All of us who have been involved in these systems have made similar mistakes, in both directions. It’s an inexact science and the mistakes are inevitable and hard to live with. But if he was never evaluated at all, that’s a system failure of mammoth proportions. It’s okay to be wrong. It’s not okay not to even have a look…

UPDATE: At least someone looked in 2005:
In 2005, two female students complained separately to the campus police department about contacts Cho was having with them in person and on the telephone, Flinchum said.

"No threat was made," Flinchum said, adding that neither student pressed charges, and one labeled the contact "annoying."

In the first case — in November 2005 — officers referred Cho to the university discipline system. The next month, at the request of the second female student, officers met with Cho to ask him not to contact her again.

Hours later, a friend of Cho’s called campus police to say he seemed suicidal, Flinchum said. Police then contacted Cho again and persuaded him to undergo an outside psychiatric evaluation. Officials said they did not send Cho to the campus counseling center because staff there do not have the authority to involuntarily hospitalize patients.

Cho was admitted to Carilion St. Albans Psychiatric Hospital in nearby Radford, Va., on Dec. 13, 2005. Officials said they believe Cho entered the hospital voluntarily. They would not say how much time he spent there, citing privacy rules.
Mickey @ 7:33 AM