Jung At Heart Archive January 2008

Shrinks on television

I have been looking forward to the new HBO series, "In Treatment", since I first heard about it some months ago. I will be watching and will post my thoughts about each episode the next day.

I have toyed with teaching a course for our local Senior College about therapy in the movies because so many times what is portrayed is laughable, even when, as in movies like Good Will Hunting, the movie shrink shows some good work. Actually my favorite movie therapists are the comic ones -- from Grosse Pointe Blank, Analyze This,  and of course, What About Bob?.  I have high hopes that this time something much closer to therapy as I know it, both as a patient and a therapist is what I will see. 

Something to ponder

A break today from the mental health system battles.

I have always when teaching referred to The psyche, not your or my psyche but never really thought about why. I imagine it is because that is the way I heard it said by others. So I was delighted yesterday when I read the following :


I should also say that the psyche is sometimes used as a synonym for mind, but is generally a very different concept... for Jung generally speaking, mind is a largely rational and Cartesian container in the head, but the psyche "is no more inside us than the sea is inside the fish," (Commentary on the Secret of the Golden Flower), that the psyche surrounds us as a lifeworld, partly personal and largely anonymous and collective. That is why Jung once pointed out ... that he did not refer to your psyche or my psyche, but THE psyche.-- (Roger Brooke)

Delicious  phrase --"psyche surrounds us as a lifeworld"

The problems of diagnosis, again

I keep coming back to this issue, even though I don't really have a horse in this race, as I do not accept third party payment and am thus rarely called upon to assign a DSM IV diagnosis. But it is one of the major problems in the field and it has great impact on how people view their problems and how best to tackle them. So I keep gnawing away at it.

Today, Furious Season's Phillip Dawdy has another good piece on this problem from the bi-polar angle. I urge you to read it. And to read as well this article on Paul Minot's blog, Candid Psychiatrist -- I should try to contact him as he in in Maine and not that far from me. Dawdy quotes Minot from elsewhere:

"Bipolar disorder isn't actually a disease.

It's a collection of signs and symptoms lumped together in a diagnostic classification that has no basis or assumption of causation. There is no known neurochemical abnormality associated with "bipolar disorder", and patients with this diagnosis certainly have a plethora of different problems, all lumped together in one convenient/dumb diagnostic classification."

I would expand that to include depression and most of what any of us see in our practices. The problem is as usual a complex one. There are economic forces at work with pressure from the insurance companies to develop easily regulated treatment protocols, from patients who want their treatment paid for with their insurance, from psychiatrists who have their own issues of identity within medicine, from drug companies wanting customers for their products. And there is precious little space anywhere for reflective consideration of the process and what it means.

I wrote here about the problem of what constitutes remission and the permanence of any psychiatric diagnosis. What does it mean to tag a child with a diagnosis indicating mental illness, a tag that will follow that child throughout his or her life. One of the vignettes in the Frontline episode, "the Medicated Child" struck me -- the young girl who has been identified as bi-polar for years now can only think of herself and her moods, the normal moods of adolescence, first in terms of her "illness", which has become a primary part of her self identification. Who might she be, might she become if she didn't think so quickly of herself that way?

When I was working in community mental health, we worried about the stigma of mental illness, of what neighbors would think of the people we saw who came for help with their family issues. But we didn't think about what it means, the personal stigma, any of them might attach to themselves and that I suspect is a far more pernicious consequence of labeling. We want to imagine that we have waved away stigma by identifying problems as "diseases" thereby making them medical issues rather than moral failures or weaknesses. But what does it mean to identify oneself as a disease, e.g. "I am bi-polar"? 

All of the economic issues are valid and important and must be wrestled with. But there is something deeper and perhaps of more consequence here and that is how we think about ourselves and what it means that we are so willing to embrace this notion of "I am my illness" as an identity. Minot, in another of his pieces, talks about demoralization. What happens to the sense of self when one becomes a disease? Does  that not make the person no longer someone who can act herself to change her life, but rather one who must rely on expert assistance to get by? How do we help people become more effective and personally empowered by operating this way? Or is it the point to make us powerless and passive that we might be better consumers?


Well look at this!

As reported on WebMD

A 12-week course of talk therapy may help curb the often debilitating symptoms of panic disorder -- including intense fear, chest pain, heart palpitations, and shortness of breath.

The new findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association in New York City and published in the American Journal of Psychiatry.

The psychodynamic psychotherapy regimen used in the study was so successful that the American Psychiatric Association is in the process of changing its guidelines to reflect the new findings, according to researcher Barbara Milrod, MD. Milrod is an associate attending physician at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center and an associate professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City.

Now, so far as I know, it is not really big news that therapy is effective for panic and other anxiety disorders. That has been shown for many years. What makes this report remarkable is that the therapy employed in the study was NOT cognitive behavioral therapy, but good old fashioned, much maligned psychodynamic psychotherapy!

The twice-weekly sessions are focused on the symptoms of panic disorder as well as garnering insight about the various unconscious factors that may have caused the panic disorder to develop in the first place. Such focus on the unconscious is the basic underpinning of psychoanalysis.

In the new study of 49 people with panic disorder, more than 70% of those in the talk therapy group showed significantly less anxiety and other panic symptoms as measured by a standard scale assessing panic symptoms. By contrast, just 39% of those participants who received applied relaxation training showed an improvement in their symptoms.


60 Percent Of Psychotherapy Clients ... 

I've seen references to this article in many places in the last week or so:

60 Percent Of Psychotherapy Clients Felt Therapy Didn't End On Time

Sixty percent of private practice dynamically oriented psychotherapy clients felt that their therapy either lasted too long or ended too soon, according to recent research conducted by Prof. David Roe, Head of the Department of Community Mental Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences at the University of Haifa. "While there is widespread agreement that an ideal termination of psychotherapy occurs naturally, with an agreement of the timing between therapist and client, our research reveals that more often than not -- this does not happen" said Prof. Roe...

The results of the study show that only 40% of the clients felt that the therapy ended at the appropriate time, 37% felt that it ended earlier than it should have and 23% felt that the therapy went on for too long.

The sample size, 82 former patients, is adequate but not huge, so I would be reluctant to draw sweeping conclusions from it. In addition, the study was done in Israel, where it may well be that psychodynamic therapy is more widely used than it is now in the US and where external constraints, like managed care, are less a factor. In any case, it is an interesting finding.

I don't have in mind when I start work with someone how long we will work together. There are so many factors that enter in to that equation that it seems pretty impossible to know at the outset how long the journey will be. When I start with someone new, I always mention that this work is a relationship and that it is helpful if and when they feel like stopping or feel anything they are uncomfortable about to talk about it. And when I have the opportunity to, I suggest when someone starts to talk about leaving, that we talk about it together, if only for purposes of saying good bye.

Some people come a few times, get what they want or decide that the way I work is not for them, and so they leave early, sometimes before we really have much chance to begin. I invite them to discuss it with me when this happens and sometimes they do. But this kind of termination is more likely to come in a letter or a phone call than face to face. With these patients, there is often a feeling of unfinished business for me, but I do not pursue them and always respond that my door is open should they decide to return. Which in many cases they do.

There is also a significant number of patients who do their work in episodes. They will come for a while, stop for a while and then return again, sometimes repeating the cycle several times. I often have people contacting me again after several years saying they want to come back to do some more work. This is often very rich and engaging work.

Money is not a reason for ending, at least in my experience, because the fee is always negotiable. I have worked with people with whom we have adjusted the fee downward, even radically so in periods of financial difficulty. But if the patient really wants to do the work with me, we can find a way. I am able to do this, though, because I do not accept third party payment and so can negotiate the fee with each person separately.

I've thought often about the fact that there are whole books written on the first session in psychotherapy and very little on the last session. We are more comfortable writing about and talking about beginnings than we are about endings. And when the ending is in the control of the therapist and the patient, rather than an external entity, it can be hard to know when it is time to stop. Because it is a relationship. And   good relationships are hard to leave. So we do our best to find our way through the issues that ending raises for us, both patients and therapists. 

When someone starts talking with me about ending, I see it as a process rather than an event and suggest that we take at least a few sessions to take a look at where we are and where we have been. Sometimes both of us know that the work is not really ready to end, but that some element of discomfort has arisen which makes leaving easier to contemplate than working it through. I raise that as a question and if I have some idea of what might be going on, I gently try to bring that into our view. Sometimes, more often than not really when there is something hidden that needs discussion, that is enough to get the work flowing again and we go on. Sometimes we discover that even though the work is not completed, it is time for a break and we do a review and then say goodbye -- for now. And sometimes, because we have really done our work together, it is simply time to end because we have reached as far as we need to. And we reminisce a bit, laugh, and say goodbye. 

I know when someone leaves, I may never hear from or see them again. That is part of this work. I carry them inside me, I remember them all. Sometimes I get an email or a card or a letter form someone I saw long ago. I am always delighted at this opportunity to learn how they are doing. But most people leave and go on about their lives and I neither ear from nor see them again.

It's a bit of an odd business, psychotherapy is.



"Do you lie to your therapist?"

That was the headline for the article in the New York Times blog, an article springing from a piece by John Grohol of PsychCentral. My impulse was to respond, "Of course!" -- because I think this is a normal thing in the course of therapy. 

I touched on this issue in my earlier post on secrets. But it seems worthwhile to me to say a bit more about how I see and experience this in my practice.

As Grohol says, 

You pay a therapist for the time you spend with them. Their one and only job is to help you find a way to feel better, help you stop repeating unhealthy behaviors or patterns of behavior that are no longer working for you, help you live a better life.

And that is true and seems so .. so ordinary. Of course, a patient should tell the therapist anything and everything that is relevant to the problems at hand and to the therapy. But it is never that easy. It may be easy for me to tell the mechanic everything about the problem I have with my car or the dentist all the relevant information about my problem tooth -- I don't feel personally at stake in those transactions because everyone develops car trouble or dental problems at least once in their lives. But in therapy, things cut much closer to the bone, especially when the therapy is psychodynamic or depth oriented. Because then we are not talking just about observable behaviors or discrete problems, but rather about innermost feelings and thoughts.

The basic instruction of psychoanalysis, "Say whatever comes to mind" is both extremely simple and fiendishly difficult. It means letting go of the rules we all have about what is and isn't all right to say, what things we can and cannot admit to. Just try it some time and see how quickly the inner censor starts editing what you feel you can say.

It takes time for most people to build the depth of trust needed to feel secure enough to talk about anything and everything. It takes the experience of trying first this, then that and discovering that what you feared would happen didn't, that the therapist can and does still care for you despite whatever dark thing you have revealed. Each successful experience lays the groundwork for the next piece. Whatever it is that any of us buries deep within, out of shame, humiliation, fear, hatred -- all that stuff of secrets -- feels unique as well as burdensome. No matter how we may believe we know better, it is all but impossible to believe that the therapist has heard the same dark feelings and thoughts from others and even felt them herself. 

I'm not sure I actually agree with Grohol and conventional wisdom that withholding secrets and indulging in lies of omission actually impedes treatment. If the aim of treatment is the alleviation of symptoms, then yes, that is true. But if the goal of therapy is deepening one's knowledge and understanding of ones self, of getting under the symptoms to their meaning, then the struggle with lies and omissions is an integral part of the therapy, a necessary part of revealing the truth of a person's life.

What is "complete remission" anyway?

I once worked with a therapist who would respond to generalities from me by saying, "Pretend I am from Mars and explain please what exactly you mean."  Phillip Dawdy's  post today --

There was a fascinating exchange of letters in this month's American Journal of Psychiatry concerning just how much depression doctors should accept in their patients and the implications of such decisions. What prompted the initial letter was the federally-funded STAR-D trial, which showed that current depression treatments--including some psychotherapies--are no where near as robust as doctors (and presumably patients) would like. What the trial showed, in short, was that various anti-depressants had anywhere from an 8 percent to 30 percent chance of success in remitting symptoms of depression.

That leaves a large subset of people who do not get relief using current therapies and that raises a host of practical issues for the mental health field. This situation affects millions of Americans.

Dawdy goes on --

I've noted previously how obsessed the psych world is with complete symptom remission in all forms of mental illness and how useless such a goal is for patients. 

I would say to the researchers and others obsessed with "complete symptom remission" -- "I'm from Mars. Please explain to me just what you mean when you say "complete remission". 

As I wrote in my comment to this post on Dawdy's blog --

It seems to me that one significant problem here is the notion that medications are the solution and by implication, that depression is pretty much purely a medical disease. The whole disease model disposes toward this view.

What would "complete remission" look like? Would that be a state of steady happiness? Would there be normal ups and downs? How would anyone know what complete remission is as there is nothing to measure except via symptom checklist and surely these are greatly influenced by individual perception. Is my "off day" someone else's mild depression? We have no way to know. There is nothing to measure, no tests or indices to measure against so there is just theory. 

And what about those people who are Eeyores -- gloomy, kind of depressed looking by virtue of their personality? Should they be medicated into happiness? How? To what end?

And what of the people who move out of depression by working in therapy? Oh right, we don't know about them because we don't study them.

I meant to post a while ago something that came to me after reading an earlier post by Dawdy, about the notion that one never ends having a mental illness, one can only best aim for remission. It occurred to me then that we do not have that kind of thinking about acute physical illness. If I have pneumonia and recover, I am not tagged as having pneumonia in remission. 

And physical illness is something I *have* not what I am. Yes, there are exceptions with some chronic illness -- like diabetes, where I could be called a diabetic -- but even then it does not define me. But with a psychiatric diagnosis, the patient becomes the illness. A bi-polar. A depressive. A schizophrenic. Psychiatric diagnosis seems to be less a identification of illness than it is a state of being. And maybe that is why once diagnosed, one is never cured but can only hope for remission. Because the illness, the diagnosis is the person and how does one recover from that?

Frontline

Frontline, one of the PBS series that I most enjoy, this week is looking at the issue of medicating children in the episode "The Medicated Child: Six million American children now take psychiatric medications. Is it good medicine?"  In most areas it airs tonight. I won't watch it until tomorrow -- I confess i will be involved with watching the returns from the NH primary -- and will post on it after I see it.

Mandatory Screening

I have been following the discussions on Furious Seasons and elsewhere about the newly mandated mental health  screening for Medicaid kids in Massachusetts. There is so much wrong with this idea -- starting with the discriminatory aspect of applying it only to poor kids, the poor definitions of children's mental health problems, and my cynical sense that the benefits will all flow to the drug companies and prescribers and have little if any positive value for the kids. 

But it was this thought in CP&P that got me to think more about the issue, past my outrage, that is:

"...there is something about the interaction of science, marketing, and American culture that seems to have gone awry here."

There is a paradigm that seems now to have a stranglehold on how the culture looks at what life is supposed to be -- we are all supposed to be happy, slender, attractive, smart and successful. And anything short of that is taken as an indicator of some disease process at work. Now I know that is a gross oversimplification, but take a long look at the research that Sandy covers on Junk Food Science for a glimpse of what is so wrong with what we are being told just about food and weight.

The health care establishment (and that sounds so 60's of me, but hey, that's my era) -- the unholy alliance of pharmaceutical companies, psychiatry, insurance companies and those wanting an easily understood narrative to account for why all of us are not perfect in every way -- would have it that as a nation such things as depression, bi-polar disorder, autism, obesity, shyness, anxiety have all assumed epidemic proportions and we will soon drop like flies if we are not medicated, treated, and starved into their vision of health. 

There is something in us that keeps us in thrall to a Lake Wobegone fantasy that if only we would do everything just right we would in fact be the country where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average" so we look for disorder and disease to account for any discrepancy between that fantasy and our reality. And science, too often captive to the fantasy mongers , and marketers stand ready to serve up "solutions" like mandatory screening, wildly multiplying diagnostic categories, and medications to make us look away from ourselves and what all this might mean about our lives, how we live them and who we are. 

I want to think more about this because I think the meaning of it is deeply important. I am interested in what you think as well.

New Year, New Intentions

I've been a bit neglectful here for a bit, pre-occupied as I have been with the holidays and family and other delights. But I have been thinking about how best to use this space and what I want to do. And I have some ideas.

I intend to continue with issue posts as they strike me. I care a lot about what has happened to the mental health system, I am interested in the issues that underlie what has happened and, well, I get to add my voice to the fray.

I also want to do something a bit more systematic about posting on Jungian subjects. I run a Jung Study Group wherein we read from the Collected Works. Next week we start with Volume IX (Part II) : Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.  I am going to try selecting something from what my group reads and writing about it here. The group meets twice monthly.

And I am very interested in the ideas in The Matrix and Meaning of Character: An Archetypal and Developmental Approach by Nancy J. Dougherty and Jacqueline J. West.  So, I am thinking about using it as a source of posts in the weeks the Jung group is not meeting.

I am aiming at at least 2 posts every week, likely on Tuesday and Friday. I hope you'll join me.

In the meantime, I found an interesting piece in Scientific American on boredom. I leave you with this for today --

Virtually everyone gets bored once in a while. Most of us chalk it up to a dull environment. “The most common way to define boredom in Western culture is ‘having nothing to do,’ ” says psychologist Stephen Vodanovich of the University of West Florida. And indeed, early research into the effects of boredom focused on people forced to perform monotonous tasks, such as working a factory assembly line.

But boredom is not merely an inherent property of the circumstances, researchers say. Rather this perception is subjective and rooted in aspects of consciousness. Levels of boredom vary among people: some individuals are far less prone to ennui than others—and some, such as extroverts, are more susceptible to this feeling.

Thus, a new generation of scientists is grappling with the psychological underpinnings of this most tedious of human emotions—and they have found that it is more complicated than is commonly known. Researchers say that boredom is not a unified concept but rather comes in several flavors. Level of attention, an aspect of conscious awareness, plays an important role in boredom, such that improving a person’s ability to focus may therefore decrease ennui. Emotional factors can also contribute to boredom. People who are inept at understanding their feelings and those who become sucked in and distracted by their moods are more easily bored, for example.

Staving off tedium is no mundane matter. People who are predisposed to boredom are more likely to suffer from ills such as depression and drug addiction; they also tend to be socially awkward and poor performers at school or work. Getting at the origins of boredom may lead to ways to prevent and treat such pathologies and detrimental behaviors.


© Cheryl Fuller, 2007. All  rights reserved.