6 Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
LIMITS TO PSYCHIATRY AND LIMITATIIONS
OF PSYCHIATRISTS
Dr. K. Chandra Sekhar
Psychiatry as a clinical discipline has made rapid
strides during the last three to four decades.
Advances in the field of psychoparmacology, and
genetics have contributed to better treatment options
and enhanced the quality of life for the mentally ill.
However, simultaneously, there is a perception that
psychiatry needs to do a lot more to the suffering
population at large.
At times, it is believed that a psychiatrist has the
capacity to give panacea for the innumerable
problems that exist in the society. Not a day passes
without some “EMMINENT PSYCHIATRIST”
giving his ”VALUABLE OPINION”,
“PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION” and
advice for a whole range of problems in society
including terrorism, kidnappings, murders,
earthquakes, tsunamis and what not, in the electronic
and print media. I think the time has come when
we should ask ourselves in the words of late Dr.
Ravinder Lal Kapur “Are we overdoing
psychiatry?” Let us remind ourselves that a
psychiatrist is not an expert in the whole conduct
of life. Unless we understand the “LIMITS OF
PSYCHIATRY” and “THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE PSYCHIATRIST” in the current scenario,
the day will not be far off when a lay person thinks
that we talk too much and deliver too little.
SCOPE OF PSYCHIATRY
“Psychiatry is that medical specialty which deals
with behavioral changes arising out of pathology
either in the brain or other systems in the body”.
This is too simplistic a way of defining and it does
not include the various other behavioral
maladaptations occurring due to psychosocial
factors.
It is a known fact that mental disorders are more
diverse than bodily disorders in their presentation.
When we look at the various psychiatric diagnoses,
dementias, organic psychoses, schizophrenia,
bipolar disorders, paranoid psychoses, obsessive
compulsive disorder, anxiety states, depression and
addictions can be termed as disorders and given a
disease status while one tends to see more variability
and conceptual confusion when the labels Hysteria,
Stress reactions, Adjustment disorders, Conduct
disorders and Psychopathy as disease, as they appear
to be more of problems of routine daily living.
Psychiatry is about managing mental illnesses
and not human suffering of any cause. As
Pridmore points out, “Psychiatrists are now expected
to assist (up to and including hospitalization) when
individuals have social difficulties and are distressed
following relationship breakdowns”.
Do Psychiatry or, for that matter psychiatrists have
any tools to address or remedy the social causes?
Psychiatry can manage “difficult” individuals when
the difficulty is because of a mental illness. The
general public, unfortunately, including other
specialists have a poor understanding of
psychiatry and hence try sending all their
“difficult” people to the door of a psychiatrist.
By magnanimously accepting these challenges, are
we diluting our own role as medical specialists?
When such “difficult” people creep into diagnostic
classifications and get a label attached to them, there
is bound to be a vast difference in the perception of
psychiatry by the Lay public, Governments and
Judiciary, and Human Rights activists etc. It is but
natural that this type of overinclusiveness can lead
to defective planning and policies and improper
NOTE : PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS delivered at the 40th Annual Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society,
Southern Zonal Branch – 2007 at Hyderabad, India.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijpm.info on Saturday, September 05, 2009]
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 7
priorities in the delivery of mental health care. The
tardy and ineffective implementation of MHA in
India and almost total non-implementation of the
National Mental Health Program born 25 years ago
are examples of defective planning and
implementation. We do not have a proper program
or funding for the mentally ill and allocate precious
budget for areas remotely related to psychiatry.
Some argue that there is no future for psychiatry.
The reductionists’ point of view is that psychiatric
disorders can be reduced to either neurological
dysfunctions or psychosocial problems of living.
While the former can be taken care of by
neurologists, the latter are the concern of social
scientists. However, there is need to be emphasize
that psychiatry is a frontier discipline and psychiatric
disorders typically involve the psychobiological
interface that defines man. Psychiatry could provide
biological sophistication in our understanding of
adaptive failures. It could build multidimensional
conceptual bridges between human neurobiology
and problems of living.
MAKING OF A PSYCHIATRIST
A Psychiatrist needs a basic medical qualification.
For the rational practice of psychiatry there is need
to have knowledge of Neurosciences, Psychology,
Sociology and Social Anthropology. Also needed,
are knowledge of General Medicine, Neurology and
Endocrinology. During the tenure of training in
psychiatry most of us get to know only very few
basic elements of behavioral sciences, which was
never taught during undergraduate training. Thus,
a psychiatrist starts studying abnormal persons
before having full knowledge of normal psychology.
It has to be remembered that we cannot
extrapolate from the abnormal to the normal;
they are unlikely to be on a continuum, but
rather are qualitatively different (Andrew Sims).
Because of his detailed knowledge of abnormal
psychic processes and symptoms and their
management, the psychiatrist is not necessarily
also an expert on bringing up children or provid-
ing a recipe for a tranquil mind. Dangerous
generalizations can be made when the psychiatrist
often against his will, is thrust into the position of
being the expert on whole conduct of life (Andrew
Sims).
It is unclear how psychiatric training as it exists
today can claim to address distress in society, which
is purely because of social reasons. There are others
who can play a better role in imparting
communication skills, personality development
courses, and tips for social, moral, and spiritual well-
being. While well-being sounds like a worthwhile
goal, it would appear an ambitious target for
psychiatrists who are trained for, and would be well
advised to limit their attention to the alleviation of
psychiatric disorders.
This is not to under estimate the ability of any single
psychiatrist who also wants to take on the role of
“messiah” for alleviating the distress in society, but
to make it an integral part of psychiatry and as a
policy, making psychiatry address social issues is a
grave error. On the contrary, it would be a great
service if psychiatrists can protect those who are
mentally ill from being exploited or misled by other
agencies.
PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS
Our existing diagnostic systems do not define mental
disorder adequately. “Distress” can be because
of a pathological state or non-pathological state.
Behavioral distress often gets classified into a
psychiatric disorder without adequate reasons.
Nancy Aderasen, a psychiatry professor with a deep
devotion to literature too, in her book “The Broken
Brain”, observed that the question “What is mental
illness” is difficult to answer. When the question is
reframed as “What are the common mental illness”,
there is astonishing agreement. The Indian Mental
Health Act also gives a definition for a mentally ill
person, but astoundingly, not mental disorder.
When there are no adequate definitions for “mental
illness” and “mental health”, there is every
possibility that “problems of living” get a “disease
label” thereby diluting the very concept of
psychiatric disorder. The process of medicalization
(ie. Defining non-medical problems in medical terms
with an implication that medical intervention or
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijpm.info on Saturday, September 05, 2009]
8 Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
treatment is appropriate) forces psychiatry to accept
responsibility for situations and problems over
which it can exert no real or at best an insignificant
influence.
When one looks at certain diagnostic categories, in
DSM IV or ICD-10, there are certain potentially
normal behaviors, which can be called as a mental
disorder. Let us look at some examples: Shyness
(social anxiety disorder), violence (intermittent
explosive disorder), and worry (anxiety disorder).
Similarly, the symptoms of depression often get
categorized as a disorder even in the absence of other
clinical features of depression. Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder is often over diagnosed because of similar
reasons. Suicide by itself is not a psychiatric
diagnosis, but is medicalized and psychiatricized by
many commentators. Eg: The suicides by farmers
and weavers in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in
the country reflected more of improper policies by
the Government, economic reasons, and other social
factors prevailing at that point in time.
Psychologization of this social tragedy in fact
angered many people. No doubt, there is an
emotional and psychological undertone for every
human suffering, but it does not mean that the
psychiatrist has a role to play in all such situations.
A temptation that psychiatrists often succumb to is
otherwise label every deviant behavior as a
psychiatric disorder. This outlook often lands
psychiatry and psychiatrists in trouble. It is not rare
to find public, judiciary, and human rights activists
blaming psychiatrists for labeling and at the same
time telling psychiatrists that they should take care
of disturbed individuals, though the disturbance
does not fall into the category of a disorder.
Thus, the greatest limitation of the psychiatrist starts
with the process of diagnosis itself. The
uncertainties in diagnosis emanate from criterion
variants for the illness, inappropriate use of
inferential criteria rather than direct observation,
over diagnosis on minimal criteria for fear of missing
a serious disorder in the early stages and uncertainty
stemming from complexities of psychobiological
interface. To a certain extent, the above problems
can be addressed by the systemic use of explicit
and operationally defined criteria, training in
phenomenology and methodology, and research into
the biological bases of diseases.
In the process of diagnosis, phenomenology and
descriptive psychopathology, are the tools, which
no psychiatrist can afford to ignore. If these skills
are not properly acquired and utilized, it puts a big
limitation on the psychiatrists. Psychiatrists should
acquire skills in recognizing and understanding
psychopathology and also be sensitive to the cultural
factors, which can influence the psychopathology.
Being medical professionals and trained to practice
the “medical model”, it is but natural that we classify
illnesses into physical and mental, or psychological.
But we do realize that psychological processes
influence physical illnesses and vice versa.
The whole discipline of psychiatry tacitly accepts
a dualistic background for its very existence,
although it resents this and tries hard to teach
medicine of the whole person. Our language
continually brings us back to dualistic words and
expressions and we are constantly in the danger of
either a “mindless” psychiatry or a “brainless”
psychiatry (Eisenberg 19986, 2000).
The precision with which psychiatric diagnosis is
made always depends upon descriptive
psychopathology, which avoids theoretical
explanations for psychological events.
Phenomenology studies these events and avoids
coloring them with explanations of cause or function.
In this process there are bound to be errors. Often,
these errors are magnified and the diagnosis in
psychiatry itself is questioned. The “sting
operation” by Rosenbaum in yesteryears is a fine
example, which questions the validity of diagnosis
of schizophrenia. If only psychiatry/psychiatrists
can limit diagnosis and treatment to only those
disorders listed in standard classificatory systems
(which need to be refined periodically) and refrain
from involving all problems of human suffering,
only then a clear identity for the discipline can
emerge without role confusion.
From the scientific point of view, disciplines
probably achieve their success partly through
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijpm.info on Saturday, September 05, 2009]
Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 9
restricting their objectives. Psychiatrists are in
particular danger if confusion through failure to
delineate the area in which their concepts and
theories can be validly applied.
However, this is not to underestimate the usefulness
of knowledge in arts, literature, spirituality, and
other cultural issues. Knowledge in these can make
an individual psychiatrist a better person who can
probably utilize these skills in appropriate situations
during his clinical practice, but saying that they are
absolutely necessary for practice of clinical
psychiatry, is far from the truth.
POSITIVE MENTAL HEALTH
Like mental illness, mental health also remains
undefined, but slogans are coined, policies are
announced, promises are made to improve the
“mental health” of the individual and society.
Slogans such as “No health without mental health”,
though catchy, are equally amusing. What
constitutes adequate mental health is debatable.
Does awareness about mental illnesses bring about
adequate mental health? Definitely not! The glaring
example is the conduct of mental health
professionals in their behavior in non-professional
matters. Does stress tolerance indicate adequate
mental health? Again, the concept of stress is
nebulous. In the whole process of our reactions to
the stress in the individuals, we do not take into
account the concept of resilience adequately. Are
psychiatrists in any way better qualified to address
the social causes of stress? Probably, we can treat
those who become vulnerable to the effects of stress
and have no tools to address the causes of stress.
We talk of “psychological checkup” (akin to
physical checkup) without really having any
operational definitions or criteria for normal
psychological states. We do not have any
mechanism even to check the aptitude of those
taking up psychiatry or mental health as a profession
and even if some claim it exists, it is never used.
Robert Cloninger opines that psychiatry failed to
improve the well being of the general population as
a result of excessive focus on stigmatizing aspects
of mental disorders and neglect of methods to
enhance positive emotions, character development,
life satisfaction, and spirituality. I think psychiatry
should never profess that it can take this sort of a
role.
No doubt, mental disorders carry a stigma. We
should adequately address this issue rather than
expanding into areas just to gain some public
acceptance. Stigma of mental illness persisted for a
long time and similarly the stigma of consulting a
psychiatrist. It cannot be wiped out by catchy
slogans. Unlike physical illness, suffering from a
mental illness is not merely the advent and advance
of symptoms, but a unique “experience” for the
sufferer and his family. This experience involves
the negative emotions of guilt, embarrassment, and
shame due to the behavior engaged while being
mentally ill. To get over such feelings, different
individuals take different paths. The psychiatrist’s
role is to encourage the individual to come to terms
with reality. Stigma gradually disappears when
society perceives these behaviors as temporary states
of mind caused by an “outside agency” and the
individual is not responsible for it. This could be
one of the reasons why culturally often, mental
illness is seen as a possession by evil spirit - the
society accepts the individual with much more ease
and lesser stigma. Apart from the role of increased
public awareness utilizing cultural beliefs in a
positive way can help reduce the stigma.
CONCLUSION
To make psychiatry as a frontier discipline in
medicine, one way is to limit it to those conditions
for which it has something to offer; while society
can focus (with the help of relevant experts) on the
underlying causes of human suffering like poverty,
illiteracy, unemployment, human rights issues, etc.
It is necessary to have clearcut boundaries for the
discipline of psychiatry. The psychiatrist’s role with
reference to sociocultural stressors should be limited
to ruling out a mental disorder and leave the
management of sociocultural issues to the
appropriate agencies. Psychiatric diagnosis should
be a positive diagnosis and not an exclusion
diagnosis. If there are no set boundaries for the
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijpm.info on Saturday, September 05, 2009]
10 Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine
discipline, budgetary resources in mental health may
be diverted to unproductive and poor priority areas
and core areas of psychiatry get neglected.
REFERRENCES:
• Andrew Sims. Symptoms in the Mind. An Introduction to
Descriptive Psychopathology, 3rd edition ELSEVIER 2003.
• Eisenberg L (1986). Mindlessness and Brainlessness in
Psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry 148, 497-508.
• Eisenberg L. (2000). Is Psychiatry More Mindful or Brainier
Than It Was a Decade Ago? British Journal of Psychiatry 176,
1-5.
• Pridmore S. Download of Psychiatry, (Chapter 32), University
of Tasmania, ISBN 2006.
Address for correspondence :
Dr. K. Chandrasekhar
President, Indian Psychiatric Society,
South Zone &
Director, Asha Hospital,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Ph : 040-66752222
• Robert Cloninger C. The Science of Well-Being; An Integrated
Approach to Mental Health and Its Disorders. World Psychiatry
5:2-June 2006.
[Downloaded free from http://www.ijpm.info on Saturday, September 05, 2009]