Tag Board

This tag board is currently empty.

Please type in the four characters shown in the black box.

Sunday, November 15th 2009

9:36 AM

When Parents Are Too Toxic to Tolerate

New York Times
October 20, 2009
By Richard A. Friedman, M.D.

You can divorce an abusive spouse. You can call it quits if your lover mistreats you. But what can you do if the source of your misery is your own parent?

Granted, no parent is perfect. And whining about parental failure, real or not, is practically an American pastime that keeps the therapeutic community dutifully employed.

But just as there are ordinary good-enough parents who mysteriously produce a difficult child, there are some decent people who have the misfortune of having a truly toxic parent.

A patient of mine, a lovely woman in her 60s whom I treated for depression, recently asked my advice about how to deal with her aging mother.

“She’s always been extremely abusive of me and my siblings,” she said, as I recall. “Once, on my birthday, she left me a message wishing that I get a disease. Can you believe it?”

Over the years, she had tried to have a relationship with her mother, but the encounters were always painful and upsetting; her mother remained harshly critical and demeaning.

Whether her mother was mentally ill, just plain mean or both was unclear, but there was no question that my patient had decided long ago that the only way to deal with her mother was to avoid her at all costs.

Now that her mother was approaching death, she was torn about yet another effort at reconciliation. “I feel I should try,” my patient told me, “but I know she’ll be awful to me.”

Should she visit and perhaps forgive her mother, or protect herself and live with a sense of guilt, however unjustified? Tough call, and clearly not mine to make.

But it did make me wonder about how therapists deal with adult patients who have toxic parents.

The topic gets little, if any, attention in standard textbooks or in the psychiatric literature, perhaps reflecting the common and mistaken notion that adults, unlike children and the elderly, are not vulnerable to such emotional abuse.

All too often, I think, therapists have a bias to salvage relationships, even those that might be harmful to a patient. Instead, it is crucial to be open-minded and to consider whether maintaining the relationship is really healthy and desirable.

Likewise, the assumption that parents are predisposed to love their children unconditionally and protect them from harm is not universally true. I remember one patient, a man in his mid-20s, who came to me for depression and rock-bottom self-esteem.

It didn’t take long to find out why. He had recently come out as gay to his devoutly religious parents, who responded by disowning him. It gets worse: at a subsequent family dinner, his father took him aside and told him it would have been better if he, rather than his younger brother, had died in a car accident several years earlier.

Though terribly hurt and angry, this young man still hoped he could get his parents to accept his sexuality and asked me to meet with the three of them.

The session did not go well. The parents insisted that his “lifestyle” was a grave sin, incompatible with their deeply held religious beliefs. When I tried to explain that the scientific consensus was that he had no more choice about his sexual orientation than the color of his eyes, they were unmoved. They simply could not accept him as he was.

I was stunned by their implacable hostility and convinced that they were a psychological menace to my patient. As such, I had to do something I have never contemplated before in treatment.

At the next session I suggested that for his psychological well-being he might consider, at least for now, forgoing a relationship with his parents.

I felt this was a drastic measure, akin to amputating a gangrenous limb to save a patient’s life. My patient could not escape all the negative feelings and thoughts about himself that he had internalized from his parents. But at least I could protect him from even more psychological harm.

Easier said than done. He accepted my suggestion with sad resignation, though he did make a few efforts to contact them over the next year. They never responded.

Of course, relationships are rarely all good or bad; even the most abusive parents can sometimes be loving, which is why severing a bond should be a tough, and rare, decision.

Dr. Judith Lewis Herman, a trauma expert who is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, said she tried to empower patients to take action to protect themselves without giving direct advice.

“Sometimes we consider a paradoxical intervention and say to a patient, ‘I really admire your loyalty to your parents — even at the expense of failing to protect yourself in any way from harm,’ ” Dr. Herman told me in an interview.

The hope is that patients come to see the psychological cost of a harmful relationship and act to change it.

Eventually, my patient made a full recovery from his depression and started dating, though his parents’ absence in his life was never far from his thoughts.

No wonder. Research on early attachment, both in humans and in nonhuman primates, shows that we are hard-wired for bonding — even to those who aren’t very nice to us.

We also know that although prolonged childhood trauma can be toxic to the brain, adults retain the ability later in life to rewire their brains by new experience, including therapy and psychotropic medication.

For example, prolonged stress can kill cells in the hippocampus, a brain area critical for memory. The good news is that adults are able to grow new neurons in this area in the course of normal development. Also, antidepressants encourage the development of new cells in the hippocampus.

It is no stretch, then, to say that having a toxic parent may be harmful to a child’s brain, let alone his feelings. But that damage need not be written in stone.

Of course, we cannot undo history with therapy. But we can help mend brains and minds by removing or reducing stress.

Sometimes, as drastic as it sounds, that means letting go of a toxic parent.

Dr. Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.

0 user comments / leave a comment

Friday, June 12th 2009

7:53 PM

New Drugs Have Allure, Not Track Record

New York Times
May 19, 2009

Recently, one of my residents told me about a patient with bipolar disorder whose psychiatrist had prescribed an exotic cocktail of drugs — a sedative, a new mood stabilizer and the latest antipsychotic medication.

I was puzzled — not by her case, which the resident described as textbook manic depression, but by what was left out. This patient, it seems, was never offered lithium, the single most effective treatment for bipolar disorder.

When I met with my residents in their weekly seminar, I decided to make a big deal of this case. “What do you think about her treatment?” I asked them.

There was a long silence. “What’s wrong with it?” one resident replied. Finally, a resident offered that he knew the right answer was lithium, but that newer treatments were more popular.

Now I got it. Never mind that lithium has proved its safety and efficacy over decades of use; it’s passé — eclipsed by all the new and sexy blockbuster drugs.

Lithium salts have been used to counter bipolar disorder since the 1950s, when it was discovered that they greatly reduced the intensity and frequency of mood swings in about 70 percent of patients with the disorder. While lithium must be taken with care — it is therapeutic in a narrow range of blood levels, and overdoses can be toxic — it is also the only psychotropic drug that has ever been shown to have specific antisuicidal effects. That makes it especially valuable, given the high risk of suicide associated with mood disorders.

But lithium is cheap and unpatented, so drug companies have little interest in it. Instead, they have made a new generation of mood stabilizers, some more tolerable than lithium, but none more effective.

And lithium is hardly the only unsexy but effective drug to fall by the wayside. New medical treatments are a bit like the proverbial new kid on the block: they have an allure that is hard to resist.

Doctors and patients alike are inundated by drug company marketing. The companies like to say they are interested in educating the public and physicians about various illnesses, though I have yet to meet a single patient who learned anything informative about any disease from an advertisement.

Instead, I have seen scores of patients in my office, eager to get the latest antidepressant or mood stabilizer that promised them tranquility on their TV screens.

No wonder: drug company spending on consumer advertising skyrocketed 330 percent from 1996 to 2005, according to a 2007 study in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Unlike the public, physicians continue to believe that they are immune to the influence of drug companies, despite strong evidence to the contrary. Studies have shown that doctors with ties to industry are more likely to prescribe a brand-name drug over a cheaper generic version than doctors without such ties.

This is not to say that all influence is bad. If a new drug actually proves to be safer or more effective than its predecessors, then of course it should be prescribed for those whom it will benefit.

All too often, though, the new panacea is nothing more than a “me too” drug — a minor modification of an available drug, offering little or no advantage in safety or efficacy.

Not long ago I saw a patient who told me she had treatment-resistant depression. She had failed to respond to multiple trials of five new antidepressants, including two from the same class of drugs.

I called her psychiatrist, a smart young doctor whom I know, to ask if she had ever been given one of the older antidepressants, like a tricylic or a MAOI (for monoamine oxidase inhibitor). He had little experience with these highly effective older drugs, so he hadn’t thought to use them.

I suggested that she try an MAOI. After six weeks, she improved remarkably.

Now it’s true that the newer antidepressants are generally safer and more tolerable than older ones, which is an important advantage, but they are no more effective than older antidepressants.

My younger colleague had been trained recently and had tremendous knowledge about the latest research and drugs. But his training failed to provide him with the larger context in which to place all these exciting developments.

Specifically, how do all these new drugs stack up against older ones? That is not something that we know enough about. And it is not something drug companies have any interest in discovering. To earn approval from the Food and Drug Administration, a new drug just has to beat a placebo, not a standard drug, in two clinical trials.

But patients and doctors need to know not just whether a new drug outperforms a placebo, but whether it’s a real advance on what is already on the market. For that, we need head-to-head trials comparing new and standard treatments.

That is precisely the goal of comparative-effectiveness research, President Obama’s ambitious initiative to help determine which treatments really work. As you might expect, it has provoked strong resistance from the makers of drugs and devices who fear that their fancy new products may not be any better than current ones.

I don’t know about you, but I’d opt for an old drug with a known track record of efficacy and safety over an expensive newcomer with no added benefit — any day of the week.

Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.

0 user comments / leave a comment