BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


psychotic behavior and its detection

 
 
Ria
17:14 / 27.01.02
I branched this topic off from the trans 101 one on Ganesh's request...

on that thread I had suggested that rather than a therapist look at canditates for hormone replacement therapy and eventual therapy that a little group of intelligent TG people could do just as well. Ganesh said that they could not detect psychotic thoughts and actions like schizophrenia which might exist with such a canditate.

I maintain that it takes empathy and intelligence rather than a degree and that the group would do just as well.

for those who don't know Ganesh works as a professional in the psych. field.

Ganesh said that not all schizophrenics conform to the common stereotype of the raving crazy and I brought up a case of a friend with Asperger's misdiagnosed as schizophrenic.

so... I would like to know what kind of subtle signs that a layperson would miss... and as I read will do a thought experiment and imagine myself as that layperson though not not nessecarily comment...

(note that I say psychotic behavior and actions rather than psychosis. to me this does make a difference.)

[ 27-01-2002: Message edited by: Ria ]
 
 
Ganesh
17:31 / 27.01.02
Firstly, I don't think a degree and "empathy and intelligence" are mutually exclusive. I'm also talking more than just "detection" of the presence of illness, but exploration of its nature (whether it fits ICD or DSM criteria for schizophrenia, psychotic depression, etc.), its type and severity, whether it's bothering the individual sufficiently to require treatment (pharmacological or otherwise), what variety of treatment would be a) most effective and b) best tolerated (in terms of likely side-effects), whether or not a section of the Mental Health Act is appropriate/necessary. Also important to know more generally which conditions can mimic psychotic illness but should be treated differently, both acutely (diabetic hypos, encephalitis, etc.) and chronically (learning disabilities, severe OCD, etc.)

The formal training takes around eight years in total, five years for the medical degree and at least three for the postgraduate Membership. What's more important than the book-learning part is the clinical element. More important still is experience in talking to many individuals with different forms of psychosis. I'd estimate that I've come into contact with approximately a thousand psychotically-ill people since graduating (not all of them in the context of my career...) generally had the time and space to explore their delusions pretty thoroughly.

Fishing hypothetical signs and symptoms out of the hat for you to "imagine" whether you'd miss them or not seems a rather futile experiment, Ria. I'm not sure exactly what it will or won't prove.
 
 
Ria
20:21 / 27.01.02
I would like very much to know about schizophrenics who don't come across obviously as schizophrenic... tell me about some of your experiences with realizing that a person had it after you had known them for a while. how did you know, how the schizophrenia manifested itself and so on, so that I can expand my knowledge base on schizophrenia.
 
 
Ganesh
11:59 / 28.01.02
You want anecdotes?

Well, generally, the situation rarely arises that schizophrenia manifests itself in someone I've known a while: it's far more likely that they've been referred to a psychiatrist because they've been acting in a way which concerns friends and relatives, and a "reason" or "cause" is being sought. Depending on their degree of paranoia, the individual might have confided their own theory of what's going on (spirits of the dead, telepathy, picking up radio waves, etc.) but often, they're too afraid or disordered to tell anybody what's going on. Not infrequently, the initial "withdrawal" stages of schizophrenia is misdiagnosed as depression or drug misuse - and often one or both of these is also present. So yeah, if they're too paranoid to talk, it ain't easy. Trying to base a diagnosis of psychosis on someone's outward actions alone is possible but extremely dodgy; generally, one needs at least some access to their thought processes too.

(I'm not sure why we've stuck on talking about schizophrenia, as opposed to psychotic states in general, but I guess I'll stick with it.)

What's also difficult is knowing how much the person has changed of late: easy if one has access to reliable corroborative accounts from friends/family ("In the last month or two, he's stopped going out altogether") but in their absence, one has to try to determine whether their current state represents an acute episode of illness, drug intoxication, organic illness (head injury, diabetic hypoglycaemia, etc.) or whether they've always been a paranoid type of individual and this is their personality. So... lack of reliable information on "premorbid personality" makes things harder.

Other diagnostic dilemmas include apparent delusions and/or auditory "voices" in the presence of depression, drug/alcohol intoxication or withdrawal, learning disability (and I'll include the autistic spectrum here), physical illness (some examples above), serious physical or mental stressors (bereavement, abuse, extreme fatigue, chronic poverty), body dysmorphic disorders (when is one's conviction that one has an enormous nose/too many limbs psychotic?), different cultural norms and odd personality types.

Only in the textbooks does schizophrenia present "classically"; in real-life situations, it's almost always muddied by at least one of the above problems. They can present similarly to or coexist with schizophrenia.

The psychiatrist's role within society is both his strength and his weakness. He's trained medically, so is aware of the interactions of physical and psychiatric (if the two can really be separated) symptoms, the pharmacodynamics of medications and their side-effects - but is perceived as a doctor/authority figure with all the benefits/problems/"baggage" that brings. Legally, he's in a position to enforce treatment upon those who need it - but needs to be aware himself of a) the abuse potential of the Mental Health Act, and b) the tension this creates with those who fear being "locked up".

I'm not sure if that begins to answer your question, Ria...

[ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Ganesh
12:12 / 28.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Ria:
Ganesh said that they could not detect psychotic thoughts and actions like schizophrenia which might exist with such a canditate.


No, I did not. I said that, while individuals vary in terms of "natural empathy", formal training and experience were important in the diagnosis and treatment of psychotic illnesses - and that lay people generally lacked this training and experience. Without being too patronising, I still maintain that, while friends, colleagues and peer group may be extremely sensitive to changes in an individual - detecting oddities - they're generally not in a position to know what to do next. And if it's someone they've just met, they typically lack the theoretical/experiential framework to put that person's oddities in an appropriate context.

quotenote that I say psychotic behavior and actions rather than psychosis. to me this does make a difference.)

Subsequently edited in by yourself. Beliefs and perceptions can be classified "psychotic", actions cannot. I'm not at all sure what you mean by "psychotic behaviour and actions".

[ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
alas
14:30 / 28.01.02
I don't know if it will help bring some common language to this thread, but as I was posting on
the genderfuckyou thread (p.7), I realized that this thread might be the more appropriate place for my thoughts. It does seem to me that the underlying debate, here, has to do with the question of the privileged position of science/medicine in relation to "reality" in our current culture. It would seem to me that Ria fundamentally questions that privileged access and that Ganesh defends it, more or less.

But I sense there's some common ground, here, that isn't being found at the moment. I keep thinking of Foucault, and wonder where both of you stand on his ideas--Birth of the Clinic, the Order of Things, and History of Sexuality vol 1, esp.?

<edited for clarity, I hope--alas.>

[ 28-01-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
grant
18:23 / 28.01.02
By the way, hasn't there been a move lately towards physical, chemical tests for schizophrenia?
 
 
The Monkey
09:42 / 29.01.02
Having just taken a basic Neurosci class, I don't recall hearing about a specific testing process, only theories about neurotransmitter circulation, specifically dopamine, in different parts of the brain. I don't even remember which brain regions are being considered.
 
 
QUINT
09:42 / 29.01.02
Schizophrenia, Parkinson's, Dopamine, diet, brain chemistry, other.

Psychosis, violence, small animals, unwillingness to consider the possibility in young children.

Schizophrenia, onset, delusions, forms.

Misdiagnosis is not a reason to dismiss medical professionals, but rather a demonstration of the difficulty of what they do.

Ria, you can't ask a practicing doctor for specific personal experiences. He's not allowed to tell you. And may I turn the question around and ask you why you're determined against the profession? What's your personal experience?
 
 
Ganesh
09:42 / 29.01.02
quote:Originally posted by grant:
By the way, hasn't there been a move lately towards physical, chemical tests for schizophrenia?


It's one of the Holy Grails of psychiatry. There are frequent "moves towards", particularly in terms of brain scanning but as yet, no abnormality's been found which correlates strongly enough to clinical symptoms to even approach being applicable as any sort of diagnostic test.
 
 
Ganesh
09:42 / 29.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Hamstring Dialect:
Psychosis, violence, small animals, unwillingness to consider the possibility in young children.


No. Strictly speaking, that's psychopathy - an enduring disorder of personality. One of the problems around the stigmatising of psychotic illnesses is that the word "psychotic" is frequently used to mean "psychopath", when they're actually separate entities.
 
 
Ganesh
09:42 / 29.01.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:
It does seem to me that the underlying debate, here, has to do with the question of the privileged position of science/medicine in relation to "reality" in our current culture. It would seem to me that Ria fundamentally questions that privileged access and that Ganesh defends it, more or less.


Yeah, I read your post, Alas, and essentially agreed with your points about psychiatry working within a system and having to remain very aware of its place within that system, and the possible (and historical) abuses of its position.

Given that human experience of reality is so subjective, there can be no absolute hard-and-fast lines separating "sane" and "insane"; rather, there are (shifting) statistical guidelines (the ICD and DSM) within which one must remain flexible enough to weigh up all the variables and always allow the possibility that one is mistaken.

I'm not saying that that role should be the province of psychiatrists alone but, as things currently stand, the psychiatrist is in a unique position (in terms of familiarity with the accepted means and "norms", as well as overall experience of other people's realities) to contribute to any discussion of what is and isn't "mental illness" - and is legally empowered to treat where such is determined to exist.

quote:But I sense there's some common ground, here, that isn't being found at the moment. I keep thinking of Foucault, and wonder where both of you stand on his ideas--Birth of the Clinic, the Order of Things, and History of Sexuality vol 1, esp.?

I'm afraid <admission of ignorance> I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with Foucault's ideas, so it's difficult to comment. Is it something I should track down and read?

[ 29-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
alas
10:52 / 29.01.02
i don't have time at the moment to go deeply into Foucault, but you might want to wander around this site. (It's my favorite Foucault starting place on the 'net, mainly because they have Foucault trading cards and action figures . . . ).

in brief: i think foucault is the primary basis for virtually all thinking in queer theory, BUT he's difficult to read: the magnitude of what he's doing is hard to see in his individual books--I think. A good, fascinating intro to his works is a book called Bodies and Pleasure: Foucault and the Politics of Sexual Normalization by Ladelle McWhorter--philosopher, cool person, great writer.

She's doing an autobiographical exploration of Foucault, which is really weird because he was so strongly anti-confessional, and her life is pretty fascinating: although it's not the central issue of the book, she was thrown into a mental hospital when she was in her teens (Alabama, US, 1970s) to "cure" her of being a lesbian.

anyway, the book is very engaging--I couldn't put it down; read it in two nights, staying up til 3 AM--and offers a great intro to Foucault--a good resource for the secondary works, etc. Oh--hey, I just checked and amazon has 13 sample pages.

cheers,
alas
 
 
QUINT
12:47 / 29.01.02
Oh fuckit. I thought I finally had those the right way around.

I thought 'psychopath' was used interchangably with 'sociopath' to mean someone who was unable to empathise with others and had trouble with moral choices (hence most of the business and legal community are 'borderline psychopathic' according to that exciting tellie prog) and 'psychotic' was someone subject to violent moods.

Help.
 
 
Ganesh
13:10 / 29.01.02
Weeell, not to revive Rage's old thread but, basically, "psychopath" and "sociopath" are the same thing.

"Psychotic" has a fairly specific clinical meaning (presence of delusions, hallucinations, thought disorder) which has escaped into lay usage and become corrupted. I've heard it used to denote unpredictable physical violence and the looser phenomenon of being generally "distanced from reality". Both of which bring its meaning closer to the catch-all abbreviation "psycho", frequently used to mean either.

All of which adds to the stigma surrounding psychotic illnesses. The fact that "schizo" is now a playground insult to rival "psycho" doesn't help...

[ 29-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Ria
16:13 / 29.01.02
quote:Originally posted by Hamstring Dialect:
Misdiagnosis is not a reason to dismiss medical professionals, but rather a demonstration of the difficulty of what they do.

Ria, you can't ask a practicing doctor for specific personal experiences. He's not allowed to tell you. And may I turn the question around and ask you why you're determined against the profession? What's your personal experience?


I hardly asked Ganesh for anyone's home phone number, dates of birth or names.

future blackmailers please note: since age 8 or so I have seen countless psychiatrist... only once possibly because of my own volition, to deal with my problem with procastination..., gone to a 'special' school for the neurologically warped (including borderline retarded), criminally-inclined, "emotionally disturbed", two visits totally nearly six months in a private mental institution in 1985 and 1988 respectively, which stood to make a lot of money off me and did.

why schizophenia? because I have seen it and it seems more objective and more neurological-based than other life events which I see in the DSM. at the age of 16 or so I observed a fellow student start off unexceptional and get more and more schizophrenia. BTW somebody did something because when I ran into him on the street he seemed not schizophrenic any more to my relief and I guess to his also.

Ganesh, it does seem like a pointless thread for me to have started (for the reasons that I started it) because the people who you cited you had seen as not TG* people evaluated for craziness but rather probable (as opposed to possible) crazies from the very beginning.

* -- for how this relates to the TG 101 discussion you can check back there.
 
 
Ganesh
16:33 / 29.01.02
I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, Ria, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this:

quote:Ganesh, it does seem like a pointless thread for me to have started (for the reasons that I started it) because the people who you cited you had seen as not TG* people evaluated for craziness but rather probable (as opposed to possible) crazies from the very beginning.

In the transgender thread, we started off talking about whether or not it was necessary for a psychiatrist to be included in the assessment of individuals wanting hormonal and/or surgical modification. I argued that it was important to have a psychiatrist there because they'd be better suited to excluding those people whose motivation stemmed from - for example - acute psychotic disorders, as opposed to long-term, enduring transsexual drives.

We got into a more general discussion of whether or not a psychiatrist was any better at diagnosing/treating mental illness than, say, anyone else. You argued that they weren't; I disagreed. Hence this thread - and I'm sorry, I still don't quite know what discussion you'd like here.

I'm sorry to hear about your own background; it certainly goes some way to helping me understand your viewpoint, even if I don't actually agree with much of it. Not knowing your full history and background, it's difficult to make comment on your own experiences (and I'm not sure whether you want me to) - but I would say that most psychotic illness, even schizophrenia, can follow a relapsing-remitting course, so it isn't particularly surprising that your friend didn't appear "schizophrenic" when you met him in the street.
 
 
Ria
16:58 / 29.01.02
hola, Ganesh, I did not mention my friend to "prove" anything. if anything it would show that psychiatry works. because ISTR that he then went to an institution after the point where he started to act blatantly strange. (he got stranger and stranger.)

I have the kind of understanding of how psychiatry works that a black emigree might have who lives in, say, England, has of racist. not only did it not help but it injured. the only times I ever received help the professionals (ack! hate using this work in this context) who helped did not do so outside of their roles. in other words when they did not get paid for it.

I will re-phrase my incomphrensible statement once I have logged once and done a chore then come back.
 
 
Ganesh
17:16 / 29.01.02
Okay. And my experience (within, it must be said, a completely different health-care system - which may be extremely relevant to our discussion here) has been quite different.
 
 
Ria
18:12 / 29.01.02
the worst of my experiences happened when the US had a different health care system anyway, thank you for bringing up that issue. still the attitudes do come entirely out of economics.

and I'll amplify my points by saying because I forgot to before that my second stay in an institution caused the bleakest period of my life which lasted two years at the very minimum.

this and my first stay in an institution I count as the worst events in my life.

anyway, quoting me:

"Ganesh, it does seem like a pointless thread for me to have started (for the reasons that I started it) because the people who you cited you had seen as not TG people evaluated for craziness but rather probable (as opposed to possible) crazies from the very beginning."

translated: in this thread you have talked about self-selected people or people selected by friends or relative as seeking help as opposed to a random selection of adults, say, and it interested me to read some anecodotes as to how a therapist might discover psychosis in a person who did not show signs of it.

just as in the TG thread you brought up the topic of TG people who aside from their gender dysphoria may have psychosis.

because of this self-selection (or selection by others) to even glean anecdotal evidence seemed besides the point. maybe other people can discuss whatever spin-off questions or issues come about from this though as we already have.
 
 
Ganesh
18:29 / 29.01.02
Alright. Essentially, then, my experience with those people would fall into two camps:

1) Out-patients I was seeing in my capacity as a psychiatrist but initially for something non-psychotic (such as mild-to-moderate depression) - which later developed into full-blown psychosis. These are few and far-between; I can only really think of two, maybe three situations when I've been there since the start, as it were. In those cases, it's been depression which has shaded gradually into psychosis (becoming convinced respectively that they're putrefying inside, that they're dead and that a nest of bees has been implanted in their chest).

and

2) Individuals I knew in a non-psychiatric capacity who became psychotic. These are even rarer: while I've been aware of friends' very temporary/transient drug-induced psychoses (and, on one memorable occasion, my own), I can only really recall one occasion when a work colleague suddenly became acutely psychotic. That was rather sudden but, as he promptly went off long-term sick, it was difficult to follow.

So... the situation doesn't often arise that a "coincidental" psychosis develops. As I've said, it's more usual that I'm referred people I know nothing about and am seeing for the first time; I carry out an initial interview which lasts around one hour. If they're floridly unwell, it's difficult for them to hide that for a full sixty minutes. If their psychosis is more persecutory in nature, however, it's possible for them to hold extremely bizarre beliefs (the beehive in the chest, for example) but clam up, remaining guarded in interview. Those are the ones that are trickier to detect.
 
 
w1rebaby
19:00 / 29.01.02
quote:"Psychotic" has a fairly specific clinical meaning (presence of delusions, hallucinations, thought disorder)

I'm interested in this issue. A list I'm a member of has a number of bipolar people, some of whom say they've suffered "psychotic episodes". (They are obviously not psychopaths or sociopaths.)

It's a bit off to expect you to provide a full description, but do you know of any links or good references on the issue? There's an awful lot of contradictory crap on the web about mental health and I like to get recommendations before I just believe what I get from Google.

Is "psychosis" just a term for a set of conditions, like "neurosis", or does it have a more specific focus?

(I've had doctor friends tell me that they think "schizophrenia" is a pretty useless catch-all category, basically meaning "wierd in some way that we can't put in any other category"...)
 
 
Ria
14:01 / 31.01.02
thank you elaborating, Ganesh, you told me much of what I had asked for you to.

thing about psychiatric institutions, only crazy people could avoid feeling paranoid after having spending time in them. you live in an environment where people really do record your actions in books, really do watch you and confer about you formally behind your back. and in my case I had a phobia about police and police car that went on something like five years.

(I went in the first time a cop guarded a doorway to make sure I wouldn't go through it so that they could bundle me in an ambulance. the second time after a psychiatrist had stopped by my mother's place at her insistence to interrogate me, a cop in a car stopped me on the sidewalk.)

[ 31-01-2002: Message edited by: Ria ]
 
 
Ganesh
20:28 / 31.01.02
You make a very good point about the paranoia-inducing atmosphere of most psychiatric in-patient units. It's difficult to know how this could be improved upon, though, given the specifications. At the very least, those involved in making decisions about "diagnosis" should bear in mind the generally dehumanising milieu...
 
 
Ganesh
09:57 / 01.02.02
quote:Originally posted by w1rebaby:
It's a bit off to expect you to provide a full description, but do you know of any links or good references on the issue?


In a word, no - I'm not really up on what's available over the Internet. Put simply, "psychosis" generally means the presence of delusions, hallucinations and/or thought disorder. Which just gives you three more things to find definitions for. If I get more time, I'll try to transcribe something from the phenomenology texts.

[quote(I've had doctor friends tell me that they think "schizophrenia" is a pretty useless catch-all category, basically meaning "wierd in some way that we can't put in any other category"...)[/QUOTE]

Overstating the case. Schizophrenia remains at least slightly "catch-all" because no straightforward objective diagnostic test exists; it's diagnosable only through recognistion of particular clusters of symptoms.

There's a somewhat controversial diagnostic category - 'Simple Schizophrenia' - which seems, on the face of it, to be exactly what you suggest. In practice, though, it's considered extremely iffy and (in the UK, at least) rarely used.
 
 
Ria
16:24 / 01.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
You make a very good point about the paranoia-inducing atmosphere of most psychiatric in-patient units. It's difficult to know how this could be improved upon, though, given the specifications. [...]


and with out-patient interviews because of the power that therapists have to have people put away. you could improve the system by re-distributing the power in a circle horizontally rather than vertically.

religion makes sinners. psychiatry makes failures.
 
 
Ganesh
17:08 / 01.02.02
So how would you restructure things, Ria?
 
 
Ria
18:47 / 01.02.02
well R.D. Laing set up in a group home called Kingsley Hall which ran on mutual principles. aside from this institutions (not thatkind of institution) like the women's centers which exist now but for all genders, integrating thinking-feeling (i.e. mental health) issues with other aspects of life, so that you could drop in for legal advice or to trade labor or whatever or stop in at a support group too. this would get around the stigma issue.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Ria ]
 
 
Ria
18:52 / 01.02.02
and on a more reform level allow out- and in-patients to grade the services they receive. in the US if test scores at a school fall below the average a board will try to remedy that. my point: psychiatric facilities have inadequate quality control.
 
 
Ganesh
20:33 / 01.02.02
Both reasonable points (although I seem to recall R D Laing's therapeutic community deteriorating somewhat, latterly...) and I'm particularly interested in the idea of patient feedback, since I've just started a research project in this area.
 
  
Add Your Reply