Robert Barris, MD

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.

I wanted to thank Dr. Nasrallah for his most important editorial, “Let’s ‘cancel’ these obsolete terms in DSM” (From the Editor, Current Psychiatry, January 2021, p. 4,9-10). Over my 40 years of clinical practice, I never cease to cringe or be pained when “clinical” diagnoses offered are nothing but thinly veiled expressions of contempt for our troubled patients. True clinical compassion honors the horizontal axis in caring for other individuals, honoring our mutually shared imperfection and humanity. The offensive “diagnoses” as delineated by Dr. Nasrallah strengthen a distorted vertical axis, speaking to a moral superiority and contempt as clinicians. If I might humbly add to this list, most personally offensive to me is oppositional defiant disorder. I see nothing of clinical or treatment value to this term, and it strikes me more as a horrible pejorative used to label a child suffering from a brain-based behavioral disorder requiring compassionate treatment. Perhaps other readers would like to add their “top hits” to this ignominious list. Many thanks, Dr. Nasrallah!

Robert Barris, MD
Nassau University Medical Center
East Meadow, New York

How sad! This is my reaction to reading Dr. Nasrallah’s January 2021 editorial. Although biological psychiatry is synonymous with brain neurotransmitters and psychopharmacology, absent from this perspective is the visible biology of the human organism, specifically Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the psychosexual development of the infant and child and Wilhelm Reich’s discovery of characterological and muscular armor. Medicine, a natural science, is founded and grounded in observation. Psychiatry, having ignored and eliminated (“canceled”) recognition of these readily observable phenomena essential to understanding psychiatric disorders, including neurosis and schizophrenia, allows Dr. Nasrallah to suggest we “cancel” what should be at the heart of psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. Sadly, this heart has been lost for decades.

Howard Chavis, MD
New York, New York

Dr. Nasrallah responds

Psychiatry, like all medical and scientific disciplines, must go through an ongoing renewal, including the update of its terminology, with or without a change in its concepts or principles. Anxiety is a more accurate description of clinical symptoms than neurosis, and psychosis spectrum is more accurate than schizophrenia. Besides the accuracy issue, “neurotic” and “schizophrenic” have unfortunately devolved into pejorative and stigmatizing terms. The lexicon of psychiatry has gone through seismic changes over the past several decades, as I described in a previous editorial.¹ Psychiatry is a vibrant, constantly evolving biopsychosocial/clinical neuroscience, not a static descriptive discipline.

Reference

1. Nasrallah HA. From bedlam to biomarkers: the transformation of psychiatry’s terminology reflects its 4 conceptual earthquakes. Current Psychiatry. 2015;14(1):5-7.

I found myself having difficulty with Dr. Nasrallah’s editorial about canceling “obsolete” terms. I agree that making a diagnosis of borderline or narcissistic personality disorder can be pejorative if the clinician is using it to manage their own unprocessed counter­transference. While all behavior is brain-mediated, human behavior is influenced by psychological events great and small. I am concerned that you seem to be reducing personality trait disturbances to biological abnormality, pure and simple. Losing psychological understanding of patients while overexplaining behavior as pathological brain dysfunction risks losing why patients see us in the first place.

Michael Friedman, DO
Cherry Hill, New Jersey

Dr. Nasrallah responds

The renaming I suggest goes beyond countertransference. It has to do with scientific validity of the diagnostic construct. And yes, personality traits are heavily genetic, but with some modulation by environmental factors. I suggest reading the seminal works of Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., PhD, and Kenneth S. Kendler, MD, on identical twins reared together or apart for more details about the genetics of personality traits.

Disclosures

The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in their letters, or with manufacturers of competing products.