ECT, VNS, the terrifying DBS — and more

Thanks to Herb S. for sending me a link to Maria Luisa Tucker’s Village Voice article about so-called experimental treatments for depression. I can’t begin to describe how much I relate to the woman who’s profiled in the article, who, like me, is chronically suicidal. Her experience with ECT also resonated for me, though her memory loss is more devastating than my own (I had fewer treatments):

Kelley began getting three treatments a week. Her suicidal depression was replaced by a mindless stupor. After the first treatment, a nurse wheeled Kelley out looking disheveled and disoriented. She was sent to the cafeteria, where she sat “drooling milk out the sides of her mouth,” [her partner] Deb said. At home, Kelley couldn’t empty the dishwasher because she couldn’t remember where the dishes went. The only thing she was able to do was veg out on the couch watching football.

After 33 sessions, Kelley pulled the plug on the treatment when it was apparent that the side effects were lasting. She had lost 20 years of memory. Everything she knows about her life from the years 1979 to 1999 comes from photographs, medical records, and overheard conversations. After her mother died last year, friends and family tried to console her by saying that she would always have her memories, but she wasn’t able to admit to them that she actually couldn’t remember much about her mother. “I have a photograph of the two of us, but I can’t emotionally connect,” Kelley says. “I don’t recognize my mother, and I don’t recognize myself.”

Nevertheless, she was alive and no longer suicidal. “When you get knocked senseless by a two-by-four, you’re not thinking about how depressed you are,” Kelley wrote. “At this level of depression, most doctors are elated that you are still alive after they treat you. They congratulate themselves on saving another [void-of-quality of] life” (her aside).

Kelley stopped the ECT in April 1999. By November of the same year, she was already searching for something else.

Shock and Awe: The stunning comeback of electroshock and other harrowing treatments for the mentally ill

liz | 11:42 AM | Uncategorized

News alert from Mental Health America

Senate Passes “Mental Health Parity”

Mental Health America commends Senators for moving to end insurance discrimination and calls on the House to now pass S.558

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (September 19, 2007)—Mental Health America commends the United States Senate for passing critical legislation to end mental health insurance discrimination, and its sponsors, Senators Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) for their leadership. The bill – S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 – will ensure that Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance and their families receive mental health care coverage at the same level as coverage for general health problems.

“The support of this legislation is overwhelming as it should be,” said David Shern, president and CEO of Mental Health America. “The science is clear. Tomes of research demonstrate the interconnectivity of mental and general health. Public policy is finally catching up with science through passage of this important legislation.”

S. 558 has a wide range of supporters that, for the first time, includes business and insurance leaders, as well as mental health advocates. For details on the legislation and more information, go to www.equitycampaign.net.

“With passage earlier this summer of legislation that would provide parity in mental health coverage under both Medicare and the State Children’s Mental Health Program, Congress has a historic opportunity this year to end discrimination against people with mental health disorders in both private plans and federal health program,” said Shern. “As we celebrate this first step, we urge House and Senate leaders to make history.”

Mental Health America and its national network of affiliates now looks to members of the House to pass S. 558 and make history.

liz | 1:07 PM | Uncategorized

Predicting if antidepressants will work for you

From U.K. Business Weekly:

[Using MRI], the researchers found that when certain areas of the patients’ brains developed a greater volume of grey matter, or greater activity was recorded in the front of the brain, they were able to predict whether a patient would present a more rapid or even complete improvement during antidepressant treatment.

“This study shows that the rate of symptom improvement in depressed patients treated with antidepressant drugs can be predicted by brain scanning before treatment begins. The results add new evidence in favour of the view that we may be able in future to personalise treatment for depressed patients.”

The UK government is excited about this because it might save them money; they won’t have to spend as much on pharmaceuticals. In the U.S., I’m guessing this same research will be suppressed, since saving people money is exactly what pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to do.

Personalised treatment for depression

liz | 10:12 AM | Uncategorized

The Ethicist speaks about mental illness

Thanks to Sally for sending in the below letter to the Ethicist — and his answer — from the New York Times. She says, “The idea that people who have had emotional problems in their past are more likely to be violent or harm children is absurd and common.”

My nanny recently told me that she takes antipsychotic medication for a bipolar disorder. I’ve been happy with her for the past two years. She seldom spends long hours alone with my children because I am a stay-at-home mother, and she would never knowingly harm them, but people with psychosis can’t always control themselves. You don’t fire someone for a disability, and I feel a particular sense of obligation because she is a young undocumented Haitian, but should I dismiss her to protect my children? — K.V., Brooklyn

You should not fire your nanny. Your anxiety stems more from lurid notions of mental illness — “Psycho” and “The Snake Pit” are not documentaries — than any real risk to your children. Your nanny has never endangered them; you’ve long admired her work.

You are restrained not only by ethics but also by the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. An attorney I consulted says that if you ran a larger business, “to fire her would be illegal.” Were she to stop taking her medication or otherwise display dangerous behavior, a business could dismiss her. Fortunately, as a stay-at-home mother, you can see if her condition deteriorates before anyone is imperiled.

Her immigration status already restricts her other employment prospects, and her limited options, as you imply, impose an additional ethical burden on you. If she can do the job, she should be allowed to keep it.

He handled it well, but this is a perfect example of stigma when you least expect it. I’m sure after two years the nanny felt she could confide in the woman she spent every day with, and whose children she loved and cared for. It’s the kind of story that makes me reluctant to tell people what I do.

liz | 1:26 PM | Uncategorized

Anorexia: Not just about models

There’s an interesting first-person account in the Belfast Telegraph today by Naomi Hooke (not pictured), a woman who has suffered with anorexia since she was 11. Part of her message is that sufferers should be provided more psychological counseling and understanding. She doesn’t want people to think eating disorders are all about wanting to be models or celebrities. She writes:

Anorexia has often been perceived as a quest for model-like beauty, as a teenage fad or as a diet gone wrong. It has even been described as a lifestyle choice. Seldom is anorexia acknowledged as the life-threatening medical condition that it is. Many anorexics detest their bodies, refusing even to pose for family holiday snaps. I, like many of the eating disorder patients I have met, never sought beauty; instead, I spent years trying to make myself look as ill as possible in order to avoid male attention.

Naomi Hooke: A thin excuse

liz | 11:03 AM | Uncategorized

Horrifying violation of human rights

In England a young pregnant woman, Fran Lyon, is going to have her baby taken away from her as soon as she gives birth — simply because she has a psychiatric history. Her problems began when she was 14 and was raped. For the next three years she was in and out of psychiatric institutions. But when she was 18 she turned her life around and has seen been working with mental health charities and has been completely functional. Yet within 30 minutes of her baby’s birth, it will be taken away from her and put into foster care, partly because of what social services says is a risk of Munchausen By Proxy. A liberal MP in Fran’s corner says:

‘What does Fran’s case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later?

‘What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken away at birth? It’s monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

My baby will be taken from me the moment it’s born [Daily Mail]

Fran Lyon’s website, Asking for a Chance

liz | 1:16 PM | Uncategorized

Tick-borne anxiety?

Bartonella is not the ugly stepsister of Barbarella, but an illness that comes as a result of a tick bite. A recent article in the Archives of General Psychiatry suggests that along with physical symptoms, it can possibly cause psychiatric symptoms, including agitation, depression and panic attacks. Veddy interesting. The below title is about as long as the abstract, but I can’t get the full text.

Do Bartonella Infections Cause Agitation, Panic Disorder, and Treatment-Resistant Depression?

liz | 1:17 PM | Uncategorized

New video, at last

Not about mental health, unless you consider lipstick therapy a valid form of healthcare.

liz | 10:30 AM | Uncategorized

Cute fix: this headline

The abandoned monkey who has found love with a pigeon

liz | 6:31 PM | Uncategorized

Satel Light

Thanks to Kent for sending along a link to this New York Times editorial. I didn’t look at the byline before I read it, so I had no preconceived notions about the author, but I found myself agreeing with basically everything that was said. When I saw it was Sally Satel, I was slightly frustrated. I worry that given how controversial she is, people will be unable to read what she wrote without prejudice. But it’s a solid piece, and especially attractive to someone like me: I believe the DSM-IV can be valuable, but I also believe it’s deeply flawed. She seems to feel the same way, and expresses herself with moderation.

Am I really saying this about a Republican? I must have a fever.

liz | 3:45 PM | Uncategorized