Advertisements

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘psychiatry’

Joyce Brown – Billie Bogs and NYC’s Forgotten Involuntary Confinement Program

Joyce Brown was a New York City resident and homeless woman who was involuntarily hospitalized in NYC in 1987.

On October 28, 1987, Ms. Brown was transported to Bellevue Hospital as the first patient under Project HELP, a city program spearheaded by Mayor Ed Koch, a program aimed at the hospitalization of the homeless. She had been living on the streets in Manhattan and often used the fake name “Billie Bogs” to avoid being found by her family.

On December 18, the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan upheld her involuntary commitment.  However, the judge that wrote the dissenting argument claimed that there was not enough evidence to support the notion that she was a danger to herself.1

Dr. Francine Cournos, an assistant professor of psychiatry  Columbia University, stated that although she thought treatment would be helpful, it was not advised treatment be given against her will. On January 15, 1988, a judge ruled that Joyce Brown could be not involuntary medicated.2

The appeal to confine Joyce Brown was eventually successful, with help from lawyers from NYCLU, whom she had called herself for legal support. Acting State Supreme Court Justice Robert Lippmann determined that she was competent enough to not be a danger to herself or others. She was released after nearly three months of involuntary commitment.3

She went on to seek gainful employment and many have written published articles about her civil rights case and involuntary medication and commitment.

1. Kirk Johnson. The New York Times. Court Backs Treatment of Woman Held Under Koch Homeless Plan. Published: December 19, 1987.

2. Josh Barbanel. The New York Times. Joyce Brown Obtains a Ban On Medicine. Published: January 16, 1988.

3. Jeanie Kasindorf. New York Magazine. The Real Story of Billie Bogs.Published: May 2, 1988.

Related reading:

Treatment Advocacy Center: Involuntary Hospitalization in the Modern Era: Is “Dangerousness” Ambiguous or Obsolete?

Advertisements

A Proposal to Classify Happiness as a Psychiatric Disorder

Oh hey, a PubMed article with the full text available.

Abstract:

It is proposed that happiness be classified as a psychiatric disorder and be included in future editions of the major diagnostic manuals under the new name: major affective disorder, pleasant type. In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities, and probably reflects the abnormal functioning of the central nervous system. One possible objection to this proposal remains–that happiness is not negatively valued. However, this objection is dismissed as scientifically irrelevant.

This was published in a 1992 Journal of Medical Ethics.  It was obviously never taken up on by the overlords of the DSM-IV, published in 2000.  The guy who wrote it is a Professor of Clinical Psychology in the UK with a specialization in the psychotic aspects of mental illness.

——

So the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is scheduled for a republication (fifth edition) in May 2013, and there’s been a fair amount of media controversy about some of the changes, mostly around lower standards for addiction disorders.

I skimmed over the Proposed Changes part of the website that the APA set up for the new edition and didn’t find anything egregious. Etiology of a disorder doesn’t matter much beyond understanding how to fix it.  But how behaviors are treated by society do matter. (In my relativist opinion, psychologists know nothing about feelings, except for their own.  They only know behavior.*)

By changing a medical text of authority, I have a feeling it will lower stigma and help erase the false emotional/physical dichotomy model of symptoms that people, including mental health professionals, seem to acknowledge as a gauge for importance during treatment.  And these results would, uncontroversially, be a good thing.

*I’m using “know” here in a sort of vague, philosophical context.  I mean, we’re never going to have a better scale for pain, emotional or physical, beyond a subjective “Pick a number 1-10.”