Re labeling Depressive Symptoms as Manic Symptoms by Fiat

They look alike.  Madonna must really be a goat.

Another cartoonishly mischaracterized study described in a journal article was recently published in the Journal of Affective Disorders.  One of the editors of this journal is Hagop Akiskal  (I have discussed my opinion of Dr. Hagop Akiskal’s work in a previous blog post).  The article's title is Prevalence and clinical significance of subsyndromal manic symptoms, including irritability and psychomotor agitation, during bipolar major depressive episodes.  


The authors are Lewis L. Judd, Pamela J. Schettler, Hagop Akiskal [the very same], William Coryell, Jan Fawcett, Jess G. Fiedorowicz , David A. Solomon, and Martin B. Keller.

These authors suggest that the presence of something that they label as subsyndromal manic symptoms (that is, symptoms that they believe are the same as those that are usually seen in mania episodes but which are “below the threshold for mania" - whatever that means) are seen in the major depressive episodes (MDE’s) that are also characteristic of bipolar disorder.  

For those unfamiliar, patients with true bipolar disorder have both manic and major depressive episodes, obviously at different times, that are separated by relatively long periods of normal moods called euthymia.

They discuss how some other authors reported that “the most common manic symptom during bipolar MDEs was irritability (present in 73.1% of the sample), followed by distractibility (37.2%), psychomotor agitation (31.2%), flight of ideas or racing thoughts, (20.6%), and increased speech (11.0%). 

Now, of course, they do not mention that these very same symptoms are also seen in the major depressive episodes of people who never have had or will have a manic episode. And who respond to antidepressant medication and have no response at all to lithium (which is highly effective in bipolar disorder). Back in ancient history (the 70’s and 80’s) we labeled depressed patients who show such symptoms as having an agitated depression.  

Other patients with depression who are not agitated but are in fact extremely slowed down - as if on heavy sedatives - were said to have a retarded depression.  We stopped making this distinction between agitated and retarded major depressive episodes because we found that both types of depression usually respond to the same medications, (although agitated depressions seemed to have, on average, a somewhat worse prognosis for medication response).

This authors of this article state that irritable and agitated qualities of MDEs, defined in various ways, are prominent in the clinical and research literature on bipolar patients with yet another clinical entity called a mixed depressive state. In the opinion of a lot of psychiatrists like myself, a mixed state is something better characterized by the name dysphoric mania. The patient has all the symptoms of mania but, instead of the highly elevated, euphoric mood as most people in a manic state have, they feel awful.

I find I cannot use the definition of a "mixed state" that is used in the official diagnostic manual, the DSM, because it is actually impossible.  To have a mixed state according to DSM criteria, “The criteria are met both for a Manic Episode and for a Major Depressive Episode (except for duration) nearly every day.”  This is impossible since many of the symptoms of mania and depression are polar opposites of one another, so that one cannot have both at the same time!

Anyway, the authors of the article under discussion described their study population thusly:

 “Subjects entered the NIMH CDS at five academic medical centers from 1978 to 1981, while seeking treatment for a major affective episode. Intake research diagnoses were made using Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) based on the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) interviews ... as well as available medical and research records. Patients with bipolar disorder (type I or II) entering the CDS in a major depressive episode (MDE) were selected for these analyses. We excluded from the analysis all patients who were manic at intake (N=60), along with a small group of patients (N=5) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for a mixed episode at intake (i.e., had full concurrent MDE plus mania).” 

Notice that they "found" and then excluded anyone that might possibly meet the contradictory DSM criteria for a “mixed state,” which is what they were talking about earlier as if it were the population of patients who were about to be described in their study, which in fact it was not.

52  of their patients were diagnosed as bipolar I and 90 were bipolar II.  As most of my readers know, I think bipolar II is a phony diagnosis in the first place. 

They go on: “Irritability and psychomotor agitation are included in the SADS interview not only as manic/hypomanic symptoms, but also in the depression section of the interview, as qualifiers for the MDE (i.e., specifically for periods of the intake MDE when the subject did not have evidence of a manic syndrome).”

“We have included these two characteristics of intake MDEs as subsyndromal manic symptoms because we believe they are clinically indistinguishable from criteria A-2 and B-6 for mania and may, therefore, represent a subtle and little recognized form of mixed bipolar MDE.”

The authors are subtly defining by fiat any depressed person with irritability as having a “subthreshold” manic symptom!  Sez who??  This is especially interesting considering that they used what is essentially a symptom checklist to make their diagnosis in the first place, and were not really using clinical judgment to tease out differences in the presentation, pervasiveness, and persistence of symptoms that may just look alike during evaluations done at one point in time.

The similar symptoms are, in fact, clinically distinguishable, precisely because the symptoms occur in different clinical states – that is, manic episodes and depressive episodes.  The authors use the word “may” in the sentence about the symptoms being a little recognized form of mixed bipolar, and then proceed entirely from the assumption that they are just that. 

To really sort this out, maybe they should have compared a sample of patients with bipolar depressive episodes to patients with unipolar depressive episodes (patients who get depressive episodes but not manic episodes).  But of course, if these authors found these symptoms in unipolar depressives, they could easily redefine the unipolars as bipolars because of the symptoms.  


Voila! Almost anyone who has a depressive episode is immediately re-categorized as bipolar!  Because they define it that way.

Actually, retarded depression is more common in bipolar patients than agitated depression.  

About the only valid conclusion one can draw from the data presented in the article is that bipolar patients who have an agitated depressive episode may have a somewhat worse prognosis, and may be more likely to experience a quick shift into a manic state, than bipolar patients who have retarded depressive episodes.


Of course, we knew that decades ago.

Recognition of the False Epidemic of ADHD by a Major Newspaper Its About Time

Finally, there has been recognition by at least one major metropolitan newspaper, the New York Times, about the phony “epidemic” of ADHD diagnoses among both adults and children. Not that doctors pushing the disorder would ever admit to it. (News to some: a high percentage of these diagnoses are made by non-psychiatrist physicians such as pediatricians).

An e-mail newsletter from the American Psychiatric Association contained the following story on 12/10/2013:

 “The Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that there has been a 42% increase in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses in children aged 4 to 17 from 2003 to 2011. Data were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The study included 2011 data from a randomized, cross-sectional national survey of more than 95,000 U.S. households known as the National Survey of Children's Health. …The results showed by 2011, 11% of children—or 6.4 million children nationwide—had received a diagnosis of ADHD. Among those with a diagnosis for ADHD, approximately 70% were currently taking medication for the disorder—increasing by 28% from 2007 to 2011. Nearly 1 in 5 high school boys was diagnosed with ADHD, compared with 1 in 11 high school girls. ADHD-diagnosis frequency was most prevalent in Kentucky, at 15 percent, and least prevalent in Nevada, at 4.2 percent.

"The authors [of the study] speculate that 'better detection of underlying ADHD, due to increased health education and awareness efforts' may be the reason for the increase of ADHD diagnoses among American children."

BETTER RECOGNITION?? REALLY?!?  A story in the New York Times by Alan Schwarz on December 14, 2013 had a far more reasonable explanation.  It said that even the person most responsible for recognition of ADHD in children, Keith Conners, questioned the rising rates of diagnosis and called them “a national disaster of dangerous proportions.”

“The numbers make it look like an epidemic. Well, it’s not. It’s preposterous,” Dr. Conners, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Duke University, said in a subsequent interview. “This is a concoction to justify the giving out of medication at unprecedented and unjustifiable levels.”

Keith Connors, Ph.D.

The Times story continues:

“The rise of A.D.H.D. diagnoses and prescriptions for stimulants over the years coincided with a remarkably successful two-decade campaign by pharmaceutical companies to publicize the syndrome and promote the pills to doctors, educators and parents. With the children’s market booming, the industry is now employing similar marketing techniques as it focuses on adult A.D.H.D., which could become even more profitable.

… The disorder is now the second most frequent long-term diagnosis made in children, narrowly trailing asthma, according to a New York Times analysis of C.D.C. data.

Behind that growth has been drug company marketing that has stretched the image of classic A.D.H.D. to include relatively normal behavior like carelessness and impatience, and has often overstated the pills’ benefits. Advertising on television and in popular magazines like People and Good Housekeeping has cast common childhood forgetfulness and poor grades as grounds for medication that, among other benefits, can result in “schoolwork that matches his intelligence” and ease family tension.”

The story was followed by an editorial on 12/18/13, An Epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder.  Hooray for the New York Times!!  Some of what it said:

“The hard-sell campaign by drug companies to drive up diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or A.D.H.D., and sales of drugs to treat it is disturbing. The campaign focused initially on children but is now turning toward adults, who provide a potentially larger market…Many of these children, it appears, had been diagnosed by unskilled doctors based on dubious symptoms…

“Shire, an Irish company that makes Adderall and other A.D.H.D. medications, recently subsidized 50,000 copies of a comic book in which superheroes tell children that “Medicines may make it easier to pay attention and control your behavior!” Advertising on television and in popular magazines has sought to persuade mothers that Adderall cannot only unleash a child’s innate intelligence but make the child more amenable to chores like taking out the garbage…

“The potential dangers should not be ignored. The drugs can lead to addiction, and, in rare cases, psychosis, suicidal thoughts and hallucinations, as well as anxiety, difficulty sleeping and loss of appetite…So many medical professionals benefit from overprescribing that it is difficult to find a neutral source of information. Prominent doctors get paid by drug companies to deliver upbeat messages to their colleagues at forums where they typically exaggerate the effectiveness of the drugs and downplay their side effects. Organizations that advocate on behalf of patients often do so with money supplied by drug companies…

“Curbing the upsurge in diagnoses and unwarranted drug treatments will require more aggressive action by the F.D.A. and the Federal Trade Commission, which share duties in this area. It will also require that doctors and patients recognize that the pills have downsides and should not be prescribed or used routinely to alleviate every case of carelessness, poor grades in school or impulsive behavior.”

Book Review How Not to Be Wrong by Jordan Ellenberg

A while back (11/2/11) I reviewed the book Stats.con by James Penston. That book discussed how the statistics used in randomized clinical trials can be highly deceptive. How Not to be Wrong also covers some aspects of statistical misuse, in more detail, and certainly in a much more entertaining way. Some of his comments are funny as hell. 

Jordan Ellenberg

Consider the widespread use of a statistic call the p value, which estimates the probability that the result of a study could have just been a chance coincidence rather than an actual meaningful finding. A study is generally considered positive if the p value is 5% or less.

5% is of course not 0%. There is a one in twenty probability that the study results that are deemed positive were in fact negative. But what happens if journals only publish the positive studies and not the negative ones, when there might be a large number of negative studies, and when the positive study results are not reproduced (replicated) in a second study? Well, people start believing things that are not true, that's what.

The reason for this is because, as the author points out, improbable things actually happen quite frequently. Especially if you do lots and lots of things – like experiments. 

Another issue he mentions is that, if your sample size is too small, the chances increase dramatically that one of your subjects will be an outlier that dramatically but artificially changes the average for whatever characteristic you are measuring. With a small sample, you are more likely to get a few extra prodigies or slackers in a study of people's ability to perform certain tasks. A famous example: if Bill Gates walks into a bar with a few other people, the average guy in the room is a billionaire.  

Here’s how the author starts out a discussion of the p value problem (pages 145-46) :

"Imagine yourself a haruspex; that is, your profession is to make predictions about future events by sacrificing sheep and then examining the features of their entrails...You do not, of course, consider your predictions to be reliable merely because you follow the practices commanded by the Etruscan deities. That would be ridiculous. You require evidence. And so you and your colleagues submit all your work to the peer-reviewed International Journal of Haruspicy, which demands without exception that all published results clear the bar of statistical significance.    

      

Haruspicy, especially rigorous evidence-based haruspicy, is not an easy gig. For one thing, you spend a lot of your time spattered with blood and bile. For another, a lot of your experiments don't work. You try to use sheep guts to predict the price of Apple stock, and you fail; you try to model Democratic vote share among Hispanics, and you fail…The gods are very picky and it's not always clear precisely which arrangement of the internal organs and which precise incantations will reliably unlock the future. Sometimes different haruspices run the same experiment and it works for one but not the other — who knows why? It's frustrating…

      

But it's all worth it for those moments of discovery, where everything works, and you find that the texture and protrusions of the liver really do predict the severity of the following year's flu season, and, with a silent thank-you to the gods, you publish

      

You might find this happens about one time in twenty.

      

That's what I'd expect, anyway. Because I, unlike you, don't believe in haruspicy. I think the sheep's guts don't know anything about the flu data, and when they match up it's just luck. In other words, in every matter concerning divination from entrails, I'm a proponent of the null hypothesis [that there is no connection between the sheep entrails and the future]. So in my world, it's pretty unlikely that any given haruspectic experiment will succeed.

      

How unlikely? The standard threshold for statistical significance, and thus for publication in IJoH, is fixed by convention to be a p-value of .05, or 1 in 20... If the null hypothesis is always true — that is, if haruspicy is undiluted hocus-pocus —then only one in twenty experiments will be publishable.

      

And yet there are hundreds of haruspices, and thousands of ripped-open sheep, and even one in twenty divinations provides plenty of material to fill each issue of the journal with novel results, demonstrating the efficacy of the methods and the wisdom of the gods. A protocol that worked in one case and gets published usually fails when another harupex tries it, but experiments without statistically significant results do not get published, so no one ever finds out about the failure to replicate. And even if word starts getting around, there are always small differences the experts can point to that explain why the follow-up study didn't succeed."

The book covers many subjects about which the non-mathematically-inclined can learn to think in a mathematical way in order to avoid coming to certain wrong conclusions and to zero in on correct ones. Many of these, however, are irrelevant to this blog – the chapters on lotteries come to mind. I of course found those parts a bit less interesting. But the chapters relevant to medical studies are so right on.

Another important topic the author covers is known mathematically as regression to the mean. This phenomenon can lead, as examples, to overestimates about the genetic component of human traits and explains why fad diets always seem to work at first but then later on everyone seems to forget about them. As mentioned, when you average any measurement applied to human beings, the averages can be deceptive.  

In addition to the sample size considerations described above, you can get into trouble if you start with a sample that contains people who are higher or larger on average on the relevant variable that the average person in the general population.

If two tall people marry, their progeny will usually be, on average, tall compared to others in the general population. However, they are not all that likely to be taller than their parents. As Ellenberg states, “…the children of a great composer, or scientist, or political leader, often excel in the same field, but seldom so much as their illustrious parents” (p. 301). Their heredity mingles with chance environmental considerations, and pushes them back toward the population average. That is the meaning of regression to the mean.

To understand this, think about those who embark on weight loss diets. One needs to consider the fact that most people’s weight tends to fluctuate a few pounds either way depending on a lot of chance factors, such as their happening by an ice cream truck. And when are people most likely to start a diet? When their weight is at the top of their range! So by the law of averages, they are probably in many instances going to lose weight whether they diet or not. But when they do diet, guess what happens? They attribute the loss to the fantastic new diet!

I can not say for certain, but I wonder if studies on borderline personality disorders (BPD) yield misleading results because of regression to the mean. Long term follow-up studies on patients with the disorder seem to indicate that it seems to go away after a few years in a significant percentage of subjects. This finding is misleading, however, when you look closer. 

To make the BPD diagnosis, the subject needs to exhibit 5 of the 9 possible criteria. Many of the "improved" subjects merely went from 5 criteria down to 4 of them, and were therefore not diagnosed with BPD any longer. Actually, they became just what we call "subthreshold" for the disorder. Their problematic relationships, however, were still pretty much the same.

These results could mean that subjects with BPD may naturally vacillate between meeting criteria for the disorder and being subthreshold, or between exhibiting a high number of the criteria and a lower one. Which would mean that if they qualified for the diagnosis at the beginning of the long term follow-up study, a significant proportion of the long-term study subjects were at their worst. If so, the study results may indicate regression to the mean, and therefore say nothing else significant about the long term prognosis for the disorder.

Other important statistical issues the author discusses clearly and brilliantly include assumptions that two variables are related in a linear fashion when the are not (non-linearity - cause and effect relationships that are not based purely on an increase in one variable always leading to either an increase or decrease in another); torturing the data until it confesses (running multiple tests on your study data, controlling for different things, until something significant seems to pop up); and the following problem inherent in studies designed to see if two things like being married and smoking are correlated: 

"Surely the chance is very small that the proportion of married people is exactly the same as the proportion of smokers in the whole population. So, absent a crazy coincidence, marriage and smoking will be correlated, either positively or negatively."

Any one who is serious about critically evaluating the medical literature owes it to themselves to read this book.

Book Review High Price by Dr Carl Hart A Life and the Lies in Drug Abuse Research

For a long time I have been critical about conclusions drawn from animal experiments which purported to be models for addictive behavior with drugs in humans. In particular, I got annoyed hearing over and over about how rats and rhesus monkeys would press levers to get cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine compulsively, even until they died, choosing drugs over even food and water. These experiments were touted  incessantly by so-called experts. As I mentioned in a previous post, the head of the National Institute for Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkov, even had the nerve to say that rats and humans could have the same phenotype!

My usual response to this was that rats and monkeys do not know about the damage the drugs might do to them, but that humans do, and that makes the comparison ridiculous if not completely preposterous. Furthermore, if a monkey experienced the “crash” that followed stopping cocaine or meth, it would not know that the crash was due to the drug, only that the drug stopped the crash.  And scientists even STILL have had no luck in finding rats who hide bottles of alcohol.

As it turns out, these points, while probably valid, are only minor considerations in determining the lessons to be learned from these animal studies. A far bigger issue was that the experiments were not even accurately or honestly described by those touting them. In an outstanding new book called High Price by African-American neurospsychologist Carl Hart, a faculty member at Columbia University, the author points out that descriptions of the environments in which the animals were kept were completely missing from the descripions, but that environmental factors were key in determining animal drug use behavior.

Dr. Carl Hart

The animals in these experiments were essentially kept in solitary confinement, as they had throughout most of their lives, and had nothing else to do but push the lever!  If they were instead placed in an enriched environment with alternatie activities available and other animals with which to socialize, their “drug-seeking” behavior changed drastically.

A series of experiments that the drug warriors don't want you to know about were conducted in the 1970s, and known as Rat Park. Researchers allowed two groups of rats to self-administer morphine. They housed the first group in stark cages, one rat to a cage. They placed the second group in an “enriched environment,” which offered opportunities to burrow, play, and copulate. The isolated rats drank 20 times more morphine-laced sugar water than those enjoying the Rat Park. These results have been reproduced using both cocaine and amphetamine.

Dr. Hart points out that if you were held in solitary confinement with just one movie to watch, you might watch it over and over. That would not prove that the movie itself was addictive!  In people, when they have appealing alternatives, they often do not choose to take drugs in a self-destructive manner.

Add to the mix of misinformation about drug abuse is the unheralded but monumental effect of racism on both drug use and the prevailing ideas about it.  Legal bans on certain drugs (and not others) were legislated after widespread reporting of highly exaggerated horror stories about drug use by a despised minority:  crack cocaine by Blacks, marijuana by Blacks and Mexicans, methamphetamines by toothless "poor white trash" in Appalachia, and opium by Chinese railway workers. No one was immune from these cultural influences and myths, including the minorities themselves. The Black Caucus in the United States Congress was, originally, solidly behind the huge and unfair differences in the length of jail sentences for people convicted of using crack vs. powdered cocaine, the effects of which drugs are physiologically identical.

Some facts:  The problems in the black urban community attributed to crack were already prevalent well before crack was even introduced. The vast majority of illegal drug users do not become addicted or even psychologically dependent on the drug. Among addicts, half are employed full time. Violent convicts in jails are less likely to abuse drugs than other prisoners. The vast majority of homicides do not involved drug use, and alcohol is probably the worst offender among those that do. Dealing crack is only about as profitable as working at McDonalds for low level dealers. Few people who abuse drugs take only one drug, yet there are very few studies of the effects of combinations of drugs. Self reports from addicts who are asked about their cravings for the drugs do not predict whether or not an addict in recovery will relapse.

Adderall and Methamphetamine are nearly identical molecules with identical effects, yet drug manufacturers go out of their way to say that those children treated with stimulants for “ADHD” are no more likely to go on to abuse drugs than anyone else.  Of course, since their drugs are already being legally provided to them by physicians, they have no need to obtain them from illegal sources, which is one of the measures the experts use to measure drug abuse!

This kind of circular reasoning in the literature abounds. In a series of experiments with rhesus monkeys, Dr. Hart reports, “…researchers found that the animals’ choice to use cocaine is reduced to the size of the food reward they are offered as an alternative.” People are now using this data to claim that junk food is as addictive as cocaine, when initially cocaine was claimed to be “…especially addictive because animals preferred  it to food when hungry.” (p.93).

The book by Dr. Hart is especially eye opening because it combines discussions of this sort of pseudoscience with the author’s explorations about his own personal story. As an African-American having grown up in an inner city in which many of his friends and relatives did poorly and got into drugs and crime, he asks himself why he not only escaped this but became an Ivy League professor and an expert. The experiences of this black man in America shines a bright light on the real causes of self destructive behavior. It is not drugs.

The following graphic is not discussed in the book, but, with what we know about the havoc that a felony conviction and hanging out with convicts for months or years can create in the lives of young men, it is clear that far more harm is inflicted on drug users by the laws against drug use than by the drugs themselves.

By the way, do you know how to abuse drugs? You hold them in your hand and scream at them, “You worthless pile of sh*t!  You call that a buzz?? You suck!” You then throw them to the ground and stomp on them. 

Yeah, it’s the self that’s being abused by addicts, not the drugs. 

You owe it yourself to read this highly engrossing and informative book.

NEW PRIDE by Laura Diamond

Please help me congratulate Laura Diamond on the release of her novelette, NEW PRIDE!

 

"New town, new love, new terror.

It’s here! My prequel novelette, NEW PRIDE, releases today. I’m SO stoked for it to run wild in the world.

 

NEW PRIDE was born from my upcoming novel, SHIFTING PRIDE (coming December 7, 2012!). In SHIFTING PRIDE, the main character, Nickie, searches for her missing father, Richard…and NEW PRIDE is all about Richard’s journey to independence and new love."

 

A shape-shifter without a pride, Richard Leone strikes a tenuous friendship with power hungry, Derek, from an unstable, rogue group. On a hunt in the forest, they encounter a gorgeous brunette, Molly, partying with friends around a campfire. Derek tells the rogue pride and they bristle at humans trespassing on their territory. Richard risks life and tail to protect his secret and the humans—especially Molly—while simultaneously trying to win her heart. When Molly is kidnapped, he faces taking on the rogue pride alone, but quickly finds he has to put his trust in Derek, not only to rescue his new love, but to ensure the rogue pride doesn’t wreak havoc on his new town.

Author Laura Diamond:

Laura Diamond is a board certified psychiatrist and author of all things young adult paranormal, dystopian, horror, and middle grade. Her short story, City of Lights and Stone, is in the Day of Demons anthology by Anachron Press (April 2012) and her apocalyptic short story, Begging Death is in the Carnage: Life After the End anthology by Sirens Call Publication (coming late 2012). Her debut young adult paranormal romance, SHIFTING PRIDE, is coming December 2012 by Etopia Press. When she's not writing, she is working at the hospital, blogging at Author Laura Diamond--Lucid Dreamer, and renovating her 225+ year old fixer-upper mansion. She is also full-time staff member for her four cats and a Pembroke Corgi named Katie. 

How to find Laura Diamond on the web:

Blog: http://lbdiamond.wordpress.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/diamondlb
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/laura.diamond.52
Facebook Author Page: http://www.facebook.com/AuthorLauraDiamond
Website: www.AuthorLauraDiamond.com
Amazon.com Author Page
NEW PRIDE on Amazon

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Pills Are Not for Pre Schoolers by Marilyn Wedge The Crucial Questions That Most of Today’s Child Psychiatrists Never Ask

The theme of this blog, as well as of my last book, How Dysfunctional Families Spur Mental Disorders, is that family systems issues have been disappearing from psychiatry in favor of a disease model for everything by a combination of greedy pharmaceutical and managed care insurance companies, naïve and corrupt experts, twisted science, and desperate parents who want to believe that their children have a brain disease to avoid an overwhelming sense of guilt.

I’ve also written about some of the family systems ideas that are being neglected. But the question many readers may still have is: What do systems-oriented family therapists actually do? In an excellent new book, Pills Are Not for Pre-Schoolers: a Drug Free Approach to Troubled Kids, author and therapist Marilyn Wedge shows, with a series of excellent case examples, what can be done.  She demonstrates brilliantly how kids who might be labeled with serious mental illnesses (that they do not actually have) are, in fact, responding to trouble at home.

Marilyn Wedge

Some of the key points that she illustrates are:

• If a child acts violently angry, the purpose of this behavior is to deflect the anger that one parent is experiencing against the other. Violence is, therefore, usually a sign of parental discord. 
• 
  
• Kids hear and understand much more than we think. 

• A child will do anything to make his or her parents stop arguing.
• 
  
• Kids act out parental feelings that the parent can’t express. 
• 
  
• Young adults that refuse to grow up and move out are doing so in order to covertly give their parents who are not getting along a reason to stay together. 
• 
  
• A parent’s obsession with a child is often a substitute for intimacy in the parents’ marriage.         
• 
  
• The pain of one family member always affects all other family members.  
• 
  
• Sibling squabbles can reflect parental discord.

She explains how family and home problems become far less likely to be addressed once a child is called bipolar or ADHD. (Magazines – and some advice columnists - are at present labeling any sharp change in mood as a symptom of bipolar disorder).

Of course, even parents who are very much against the use of psychiatric medications are often very sensitive to the question of whether or not they are somehow to blame for the problems of their child.  So if a mental health professional does not know how to handle this sort of parental guilt, and furthermore does not even know what questions to ask to find out if there is any family discord, they are not going to hear about family problem - as I pointed out in a previous post, Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Wedge shows clearly how this trap can be avoided.

A lot of child psychiatrists these days are so focused on “symptoms” that they miss the forest for the trees. They do not even try to find out what is going on behind the scenes, and they seem to have lost all understanding of what constitutes normal child reactions to family stress.  A clear case of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Wedge discusses some very simple and very crucial questions mental health professionals need to ask both “problem” children and their parents that can often lead to a torrent of new information.

It is often necessary to interview children without parents in the room and vice versa.  Simple but potentially fruitful questions for children include:

• Who are you worried about more, your mother or your father? 
• 
  
• What makes you scared at night? 
• 
  
• What would things be like at home if you did not have this problem?

Questions to ask various family members, alone in combination:

• What was happening in the life of the family when the symptom began? 
• 
  
• What is the SECOND biggest problem in this family? 
• 
  
• Where and when does the problem NOT occur?  What is happening when the symptom is NOT?

The author goes on to illustrate several family psychotherapy techniques for inducing behavior change in family behavior, in clear and easily-understood language. Most of  these techniques come from a subschool of family systems therapy called strategic family therapy, whose originators include Jay Haley, his wife Chloe Madanes, and Mara Selvini Palazzoli.

My only quibbles with the book are minor.  She may promise a little bit more than systems therapists can deliver. Like many family systems therapists before her, the family members who populate her case examples all seem to be either highly motivated to follow her instructions, or if not, can easily be handled using with a few well-timed paradoxical therapy interventions.  She says she often cures a problem within seven sessions. While this can be the case, often it is not.  

Old habits are hard to break.  The TV show Supernanny clearly shows how almost all of the family members she sees revert to old behavior once the Supernanny leaves.  She leaves and comes back on purpose to deal with this phenomenon.

While the behavior of the children in her examples may be extreme, most of them come from families that have many strengths. I often see a much more disturbed set of patients: parents (I do not treat children and teens) who have almost no personal or family resources on which they can draw, and/or have significant personality problems themselves. The author also clearly states that none of the children in her case examples were abused or neglected.  I do not know how much experience she has with these other types of populations, but clearly they are far more difficult to treat, and there are a lot of them out there.

All in all, however, I highly recommend this book for those parents who actually want to solve their children’s problems, not just cover them up with drugs.