Sunday, April 29, 2012

Crime and Punishment | Psychology Today

Crime and Punishment | Psychology Today


Crime and Punishment

Knowing what punishment to mete out is no simple feat. Some forms of punishment may send the wrong message. For example, is it okay to solve problems with more violence? Here are some thoughts on this tough topic.

Law and Crime

Psychology and the law intersect in the field of forensic science. Legal practitioners require a grasp of human motivation at its most basic and most debased in order to render fair judgment.

Morality

For a topic as subjective as morality, people sure have strong beliefs about what's right and wrong. Yet even though morals can vary from person to person and culture to culture, many are practically universal, as they result from basic human emotions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts.

In Hopeful Sign, Health Spending Is Flattening Out

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia

In Hopeful Sign, Health Spending Is Flattening Out
The slowing of the growth rate is partly explained by the recession, but evidence suggests that changing behavior of health care providers and consumers also partly accounts for it.

Doctor Panels Urge Fewer Routine Tests - NYTimes.com

Doctor Panels Urge Fewer Routine Tests - NYTimes.com

Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients


In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors’ offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often.
Universal Images Group, via Getty Images
A doctor reading the results of a patient’s exercise stress test.

Readers’ Comments

"I order what I consider unnecessary tests all the time because of malpractice fears. The art of medicine died when the lawyers got involved."
john credico, Toledo
The recommendations represent an unusually frank acknowledgment by physicians that many profitable tests and procedures are performed unnecessarily and may harm patients. By some estimates, unnecessary treatment constitutes one-third of medical spending in the United States.
“Overuse is one of the most serious crises in American medicine,” said Dr. Lawrence Smith, physician-in-chief at North Shore-LIJ Health System and dean of the Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, who was not involved in the initiative. “Many people have thought that the organizations most resistant to this idea would be the specialty organizations, so this is a very powerful message.”
Many previous attempts to rein in unnecessary care have faltered, but guidance coming from respected physician groups is likely to exert more influence than directives from other quarters. But their change of heart also reflects recent changes in the health care marketplace.
Insurers and other payers are seeking to shift more of their financial pain to providers like hospitals and physician practices, and efforts are being made to reduce financial incentives for doctors to run more tests.
The specialty groups are announcing the educational initiative called Choosing Wisely, directed at both patients and physicians, under the auspices of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and in partnership with Consumer Reports.
The list of tests and procedures they advise against includes EKGs done routinely during a physical, even when there is no sign of heart trouble, M.R.I.’s ordered whenever a patient complains of back pain, and antibiotics prescribed for mild sinusitis — all quite common.
The American College of Cardiology is urging heart specialists not to perform routine stress cardiac imaging in asymptomatic patients, and the American College of Radiology is telling radiologists not to run imaging scans on patients suffering from simple headaches. The American Gastroenterological Association is urging its physicians to prescribe the lowest doses of medication needed to control acid reflux disease.
Even oncologists are being urged to cut back on scans for patients with early stage breast and prostate cancers that are not likely to spread, and kidney disease doctors are urged not to start chronic dialysis before having a serious discussion with the patient and family.
Other efforts to limit testing for patients have provoked backlashes. In November 2009, new mammography guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advised women to be screened less frequently for breast cancer, stoking fear among patients about increasing government control over personal health care decisions and the rationing of treatment.
“Any information that can help inform medical decisions is good — the concern is when the information starts to be used not just to inform decisions, but by payers to limit decisions that a patient can make,” said Kathryn Nix, health care policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation a conservative research group. “With health care reform, changes in Medicare and the advent of accountable care organizations, there has been a strong push for using this information to limit patients’ ability to make decisions themselves.”
Dr. Christine K. Cassel, president and chief executive officer of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, disagreed, saying the United States can pay for all Americans’ health care needs as long as care is appropriate: “In fact, rationing is not necessary if you just don’t do the things that don’t help.”
Some experts estimate that up to one-third of the $2 trillion of annual health care costs in the United States each year is spent on unnecessary hospitalizations and tests, unproven treatments, ineffective new drugs and medical devices, and futile care at the end of life.
Some of the tests being discouraged — like CT scans for someone who fainted but has no other neurological problems — are largely motivated by concerns over a malpractice lawsuits, experts said. Clear, evidence-based guidelines like the ones to be issued Wednesday will go far both to reassure physicians and to shield them from litigation.
Still, many specialists and patient advocates expressed caution, warning that the directives could be misinterpreted and applied too broadly at the expense of patients.
“These all sound reasonable, but don’t forget that every person you’re looking after is unique,” said Dr. Eric Topol, chief academic officer of Scripps Health, a health system based in San Diego, adding that he worried that the group’s advice would make tailoring care to individual patients harder. “This kind of one-size-fits-all approach can be a real detriment to good care.”
Cancer patients also expressed concern that discouraging the use of experimental treatments could diminish their chances at finding the right drug to quash their disease.
“I was diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer right out the gate, and I did very well — I was what they call a ‘super responder,’ and now I have no evidence of disease,” said Kristy Larch, a 44-year-old mother of two from Seattle, who was treated with Avastin, a drug that the F.D.A. no longer approves for breast cancer treatment. “Doctors can’t practice good medicine if we tie their hands.”
Many commended the specialty groups for their bold action, saying the initiative could alienate their own members, since doing fewer diagnostic tests and procedures can cut into a physician’s income under fee-for-service payment schemes that pay for each patient encounter separately.
“It’s courageous that these societies are stepping up,” said Dr. John Santa, director of the health ratings center of Consumer Reports. “I am a primary care internist myself, and I’m anticipating running into some of my colleagues who will say, ‘Y’ know, John, we all know we’ve done EKGs that weren’t necessary and bone density tests that weren’t necessary, but, you know, that was a little bit of extra money for us.’ ”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: April 5, 2012

An article on Wednesday about a move to recommend that doctors curb the use of 45 common and often unnecessary medical tests and procedures misidentified the organization that was issuing the advisory. It is the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, an organization that promotes physician professionalism — not the American Board of Internal Medicine, the specialty board with which it is affiliated.

521 Comments

Share your thoughts.

The DSM's impact on mental health practice and research.

Medical Specialists Will Try to Reduce Excessive Diagnostic Testing

A caution against preventive psychiatry
An article in the New York Times on April 4 describes a wonderful new initiative that may substantially improve the quality of US health care, while simultaneously also cutting its costs. Nine medical specialties have joined forces in a concerted and long overdue effort to reduce unneeded diagnostic testing and treatment. Although the US spends much more per capita on medical diagnosis and treatment than any other country in the world, we don't come close to getting our money's worth. Because unnecessary testing and treatment eat up a whopping one-third of all medical expenditures, we wind up spending a fortune for poor results on most national health outcome measures.
The new initiative by the medical specialty groups recognizes that many medical tests and procedures are not only wasteful, but also cause more harm than good. The American Board of Internal Medicine and Consumer Reports will jointly sponsor an educational program called 'Choosing Wisely', aimed at changing the attitudes and habits of physicians and patients. Among the commonly overused tests that will be the target of re-education are: EKG's, mammograms, prostate studies, and MRI, CT, and stress cardiac imaging.
Education is a much needed first step. When it comes to medical care, people too often people think that more is necessarily better. They fail to appreciate the harm that follows when promiscuous screening leads to unneeded and aggressive treatment. But education won't be enough. Things have gotten so far out of hand because of perverse financial incentives that make unnecessary procedures very profitable and also because of pervasive physician fears that leaving any test undone will invite a malpractice suit. We need to change the incentives in the system, not just the attitudes of the participants.
How does this initiative from other medical specialties apply to psychiatry? The dis-infatuation with ubiquitous screening in the rest of medicine should provide a needed check on the premature and unrealistic DSM-5 ambition to achieve a 'paradigm shift' toward psychiatric prevention. DSM-5 plans to introduce many new diagnoses that straddle the heavily populated boundary with normality. The DSM-5 rationale (consciously borrowed from what has been tried with such mixed success in the rest of medicine) is to screen early and treat expectantly in order to reduce the lifetime burden of illness. This would be a wonderful goal if only there were available tools to realize it. Truth be told, psychiatry does not now have any method to allow for accurate early diagnosis and we also have no preventive treatments of proven efficacy. If DSM-5 doesn't come to its senses, millions of people will be misidentified, over-diagnosed, and over-treated with medicines that can cause very harmful complications.
It is sadly ironic that DSM-5 has caught the early screening, prevention bug precisely when other specialties were already discovering its risks and dangerous unintended consequences. We should learn from, not copy, painfully earned experiences in the rest of medicine and avoid expanding our boundaries before we can safely do so.
And, on another note, cautions about overuse of existing laboratory testing should also be applied to the long awaited and much hyped biological testing for Alzheimer's dementia. An Alzheimer's profile is still only a research tool, at least a few years away from being ready for clinical practice. But even when ready, the risk/benefit and cost/benefit analysis of widespread Alzheimer's testing should be given the kind of searching scrutiny that is only now revealing the risks and limitations of excessive screening. The lesson learned- it is not always a good idea to screen for something just because we have a test that lets us do so.

Does Medicine Discourage Gay Doctors? - NYTimes.com

Does Medicine Discourage Gay Doctors? - NYTimes.com

Does Medicine Discourage Gay Doctors?

Doctor and Patient |
| April 26, 2012, 11:56 am 221 Comments
Keith Negley
During my surgical training, whenever the conversation turned to relationships, one of my colleagues would always joke about his inability to get a date, then abruptly change the subject. I thought he might be gay but never asked him outright, because it didn’t seem important.
But one morning, while we working at the nurses’ station with several of the other doctors-in-training, I realized it was important, because at the hospital, he really couldn’t be himself.

Doctor and Patient
Doctor and Patient
Dr. Pauline Chen on medical care.

That morning, one of the senior surgeons stormed over. He had found one of his patients feeling slightly short of breath, no doubt because of an insufficient dose of diuretic overnight.
“Which of you idiots,” he growled at us, “gave my patient a homosexual dose of diuretic?”
It took me a moment to understand what the surgeon was trying to say. But when I finally did, I couldn’t help but glance at my colleague. He stood mute, his face ghost white.
Later that day, the group of us would rant against the surgeon and even make fun of him. But none of us, including that colleague and me, ever confronted him directly or reported the egregious remark. We were too scared. Doing so, we felt, would have been tantamount to saying we were gay or lesbian ourselves. And it wasn’t hard to realize that in an environment where senior doctors felt free to equate homosexuality with incompetence, such an admission would have clearly been a career-ender.
In a recent issue of the journal Academic Pediatrics, Dr. Mark A. Schuster, head of general pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Boston, lays bare the experience of being gay in medicine and the constant struggle to “choose between being a doctor and being openly gay.” The prose is riveting, but it is also difficult to read. For it delivers unflinching, evenhanded descriptions of a profession that is committed to helping others, yet is also capable of treating some of its own as aberrant.
Does medicine discourage gay doctors? Join in the discussion below.
Dr. Schuster describes being a medical student at Harvard in the 1980s, searching for guidance at a time when discussions on gay health were sandwiched between lectures on prostitutes and drug addicts. He hears about high-ranking medical school faculty members who actively block job or residency applicants they suspect to be gay. Another gay man, a law student he happens to know, is trotted into one of his medical school lectures as “a real live one” who would “tell us what it was like.” One of the few open faculty members finally advises him to remain closeted until after at least his first semester grades. That way, she explains, the school won’t be able to trump up academic charges as a reason for expelling him.
Most poignant, however, is what happens to Dr. Schuster toward the end of medical school. A powerful figure in the specialty he hopes to pursue quickly becomes a father figure, doling out advice to the young man and volunteering to write glowing recommendation letters for residency training programs. One day, Dr. Schuster decides to reveal to his mentor that he is gay. “I felt I had to,” he recalls. Residencies wanted leaders, and his most important experiences as a leader to date had been with a gay group. Moreover, he writes, “I didn’t want him to hear from someone else and think I didn’t trust him.”
His mentor’s reaction is silence. And a few months later, with only weeks to go before the deadline for submitting residency applications, he tells Dr. Schuster he will no longer write a letter of support.
“I felt blindsided; and there were no policies, no grievance boards and no mechanisms in place to protect us,” Dr. Schuster said when I spoke to him last week. There is no anger in his voice when he talks about his experiences. “It wasn’t just me, nor was it just the places where I was learning and working. There were a lot of doctors who had the same experiences as I did all over the country.”
Five years ago, Dr. Schuster was recruited back to Harvard after working for many years on the West Coast. Much has changed. The medical school and hospital where he was once encouraged to remain in the closet has now embraced him, as well as his spouse and his children. There is now an active support group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender patients, families, employees and clinicians; Dr. Schuster originally delivered his essay as the featured address for its major annual event. In the wider culture, popular Web sites like the “It Gets Better” campaign feature LGBT doctors talking openly about their lives to help young people get through their teenage years.
“I have been very lucky that I can live and work in a place that is supportive,” Dr. Schuster said. “But I wrote this essay to help people remember. Because the world has changed so quickly, it’s become easy to forget that for many clinicians and patients who are lesbian, gay, transgender or bisexual, things haven’t changed at all.
“My experiences wouldn’t seem so quaint to them.”

"It is clear that DSM-5 has lost touch with clinical reality. It has been prepared by researchers with little real world clinical experience and little understanding of how their proposals will be distorted by drug company marketing." - DSM5 In Distress – Why Social Workers Should Oppose DSM5 - General Psychiatry News

Google Reader - General Psychiatry News


via Mental Health Writers' Guild by boldkevin on 4/27/12
Yesterday evening I spent sometime reading a very interesting article by Allen Francis MD and published in Psychology Today.
It appears to be a part of their (Psychology Today’s) series DSM5 In Distress and made some excellent and very interesting points.
Now I need to be candid with you all here. I live in Ireland and the DSM5 is not something which I am very familiar with but because of the fact that many of our members are from the States and thus affected by it, I have been trying to keep up to date with it all on your behalf.
In response to the title statement, “Why Social Workers Should Oppose DSM5?” he gives the statement “Because they bring a missing and much-needed perspective.”
Fair point well made! Is this writer’s response to that! Something which appears to be validated by the opening paragraph which states..
Social workers make up by far the largest single constituency among all the potential users of DSM-5, a plurality of over 200,000 mental health clinicians. Until recently, they have been silent while psychologists, counselors, psychiatrists, the press, and the public have all strongly opposed DSM-5. Things are changing. Recently, two prominent social workers have stepped forward to explain why it is important for their profession to take a stand on DSM-5. 1
I really do think that members will be interested in reading this article (if they haven’t already) which is why I have referenced it here.
BUT what may be of even more interest to readers is a reference made within that article to an open petition that people can sign.
I tried accessing that petition from the link provided in the article but it appears to be broken. I did however notice that there was a possible rogue character at the end of the link and so tried it without that character and it worked. So here is a working link for you to that open petition. Open Letter to the DSM-5
This open letter of petition is a long read BUT given the weight of importance associated with this whole matter it pretty much needs to be and I would therefore encourage members to plough through it and if appropriate to add their nam to those signing it.
Kind Regards.
Kevin.


Licking County Jail seeks solution to suicide jumps | The Newark Advocate | NewarkAdvocate.com

Licking County Jail seeks solution to suicide jumps | The Newark Advocate | NewarkAdvocate.com

NEWARK -- In nine months, at least three inmates required hospitalization for jumping from jail modules, leaving sheriff's office supervisors questioning how they can make the space safe.
"It's something that's happening in jails across the country," Licking County Sheriff Randy Thorp said.
But at least three area jails aren't facing the same problems, administrators said.
One concern is how the jail was designed. The Licking County jail has several modules with tiers and open spaces so deputies can monitor inmates, Thorp said.
On March 28, a male inmate in module C jumped about eight feet onto a pingpong table he had slid into position earlier, Licking County Sheriff's Office Capt. Tom Brown said.
The inmate was taken to Licking Memorial Hospital for treatment and was released shortly afterward. He was not on suicide watch, Brown said.
On Nov. 19, a female inmate was flown to Grant Medical Center in Columbus after falling about 15 feet toward tables in the center of the women's module. She was treated and returned to jail.
On July 12, an inmate died of injuries he sustained after jumping from a railing in module B.
Many jails were built with open spaces, but some sheriffs are questioning whether that's the safest configuration, Thorp said.
The Muskingum, Fairfield and Delaware county jails were not built with open designs, making jumps difficult if not impossible, administrators said. The three facilities have not had inmate suicides in recent years.
"The physical plan is different," said Lt. Randy Wilson, Muskingum County jail administrator.
Thorp said his office is looking at alternatives, such as putting up a net, but that could restrict visibility or introduce flammable materials into the space, Thorp said.
"We are looking at a netting or screening," said Brown, adding that jail personnel need to be sure the new material is appropriate for the facility.
Some changes were made in 2011 after two inmates died after hanging themselves and another died from injuries sustained in a jump. Jail officials assigned deputies to specific modules so they would better understand the behavior of inmates in those areas, Brown said.
Deputies also advised visitors to let deputies know if their incarcerated relatives expresses suicidal thoughts or seem off, Brown said.
Another concern is the growing number of incarcerated people with mental health issues, Thorp said.
Licking County Jail's year-end reports indicate more people with mental health and substance abuse problems are housed there, Brown said.
It's the more mild conditions that have increased; serious mental health problems have not changed in the past 10 years, said Bob Hammond, chief of the mental health bureau for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Ohio's prison system prioritizes those inmates who require more management and psychotropic medications, such as schizophrenia or head injuries, Hammond said. About 10,000 prisoners fall into that really severe category, he said.
The prison system has options for housing potentially suicidal individuals ranging from four residential treatment centers or intensive outpatient programs to including them in the general population, Hammond said.
Jails do not have as many options, he said.
In Licking County, a mental health staff of three assesses people entering the jail; the facility is accredited by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and American Correctional Association, Thorp said.
That differs from the Muskingum, Fairfield and Delaware county jails that contracted with outside agencies for mental health treatment.
But many people in jail should probably be elsewhere receiving help, Thorp said.
"We aren't really suited to be a mental health facility," Thorp said.
The space isn't therapeutic, said Brown, adding that deputies have to lift a person in a wheelchair in and out of bed.
"We're not equipped for that," Brown said.
Jessie Balmert can be reached at (740) 328-8548 or jbalmert@ newarkadvocate.com.

Obama Budget: Grow Prisons and Keep Gitmo | Mother Jones

Obama Budget: Grow Prisons and Keep Gitmo | Mother Jones


Obama Budget: Grow Prisons and Keep Gitmo

As broke states try to shed nonviolent inmates, the federal detention machine looks to expand.

| Wed Feb. 22, 2012 4:00 AM PST
Prison
President Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes cuts to everything from Medicare and Medicaid to defense and even homeland security. But federal prisons are among its "biggest winners," according to an analysis by the Federal Times. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is seeking a 4.2 percent increase, one of the largest of any federal agency, which would bring its total budget to more than $6.9 billion.
So what kind of criminals are we spending all this money to incarcerate? If you're thinking terrorists and kidnappers, think again. According to the Sentencing Project, only 1 in 10 federal prisoners is locked up for a violent offense of any kind. More than half are drug offenders—hardly surprising, since federal prosecutions for drug offenses more than doubled between 1984 and 2005. The 1980s also produced mandatory minimum sentences, which meant we were not only sending more people to prison, we were keeping them there far longer—a perfect formula for an exploding prison population.
"Increasing funding for more prison beds has been shown to be a self-fulfilling prophecy," notes the Justice Policy Institute. "If you build it, they will come."
Indeed, the federal prison population ballooned from fewer than 25,000 inmates in 1980 to 210,000 in 2010—an eightfold increase—while the federal prison budget grew by a whopping 1,700 percent. Nowadays, as state prison populations have begun to fall for the first time in decades—the product of a steady decline in violent-crime rates, lawsuits over prison conditions, and deficits that have forced state officials to rethink their incarceration policies—the number of federal inmates continues to grow by about 3 percent a year. The projected 2013 federal prison population is 229,268 inmates—6,500 or more than in 2012. "Increasing funding for more prison beds has been shown to be a self-fulfilling prophecy," notes the Justice Policy Institute. "If you build it, they will come."
According to Obama's new budget, new federal prisons opening in Mississippi and West Virginia will house some 2,500 of those additional prisoners. Another 1,000 will be placed in private prisons—which now hold 18 percent of federal prisoners, far more than most state systems. The remainder of the new inmates will presumably be jammed into the existing federal prison facilities, which are already operating at 142 percent of capacity.
Factored into the budget request is $44 million in savings from an expansion of programs that let prisoners shave time off their sentences by behaving well and participating in educational and vocational programs, plus a compassionate release program for seriously ill inmates who have served most of their time—a smart move for the BOP, since it would shift its costliest medical cases onto Medicaid. But there's no guarantee that these "program offsets" will pass, especially given that Congress nixed similar proposals last year.
Conspicuously absent from the Obama budget is an item the administration requested for 2011 and 2012: money to purchase and retrofit a disused Illinois prison to serve as Gitmo North, a home for detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay. Since late 2009, Obama has floated plans to buy Thomson state prison and convert it into a second supermax for Gitmo residents who were tried and convicted on American soil. But Congress has yet to come through with the cash, and it seems, at least in this budget, that the White House has thrown in the towel.
If the federal government acquires Thomson, it will not be for the purpose of replacing Guantanamo, but "to meet critical federal prison capacity needs," a Department of Justice spokesperson told TPM. In other words, we could end up with Gitmo on top of a new federal supermax like the one in Florence, Colorado—the closest thing to a torture chamber that exists in America today.The Sentencing ProjectChart courtesy of the Sentencing Project