The Le Roy Teen Mystery: How to Treat Mass Psychogenic Illness
- State health officials recently added three more people to the list
of people diagnosed with a mysterious tic-like illness that has
affected more than a dozen students — mostly high school girls — in Le
Roy, N.Y., since last fall.
- On Sept. 4, a community meeting in the upstate town grew heated,
according to local media: while many participants said they were
satisfied with the state’s investigation
of the disorder — which has been determined to be psychological in
origin — many other, including the families of several affected girls,
said they continued to believe that the real cause, which they believe
to be environmental or infectious, is being ignored or covered up.
- Concerned residents note that the town was the site of a 1970 train
derailment that spilled tens of thousands of gallons of toxic
trichloroethylene, an industrial solvent, and that natural gas has been
removed nearby using the controversial fracking technique, which
involves pumping potentially dangerous mixtures of chemicals into the
ground. But investigators maintain that the illness, which manifests in
verbal outbursts and tics reminiscent of Tourette’s syndrome, does not
fit the symptoms or pattern of distribution expected from toxic
exposures. They conclude that it is instead a stress response known as
mass psychogenic illness.
- Healthland spoke with Joan Broderick, associate professor of
psychiatry at Stony Brook University, who has conducted research on
psychogenic illness and treated many patients suffering from
it. Broderick is a senior consultant to the Red Cross in disaster
mental health, and recently published a paper [PDF] about the role of the media in outbreaks of disorders like the one in Le Roy.
- What are the most important factors in dealing with cases like Le Roy?
- I think that it is very important that the health department and
those agencies responsible for the environmental safety of communities
engage in a responsible and thorough investigation. That investigation
needs to be transparent. The outcomes need to be communicated very
effectively to the affected community that feels that they are under
threat. Their message is not going to be effective unless there is a
trusting relationship between the community of impacted individuals and
those agencies.
- At the same time, the individuals who are exhibiting symptoms need
to be protected. The best advice in terms of managing this would be
that impacted individuals should probably be kept apart from one
another to reduce the contagion aspect. They should be shielded from
media and the investigation that is going on, so that they can let
their sense of alarm and threat start calming down.
- What other concerns arise when treating psychogenic illness?
- It varies by situation. The important thing is to reduce the sense
of threat, reduce the opportunity for contagion and continued
inflammation, and create conditions in which the illness is fully
validated, while at same time supporting the ability to recover.
Affected people need to believe that they don’t lose face by
recovering. They should be given tools that allow them to
reconceptualize what happened to them and to let the physiology calm
down so that the symptoms can subside.
- The worst thing you can do in treating these individuals is to
confront them directly with ideas about it being ‘all in your head.’
That does not do justice to the mind/body interaction going on.
- They really are experiencing symptoms. The symptoms are real. If you
keep talking to them only about reducing stress, that will be
insulting. It is a mistake to imply that they’re hysterical. It’s not
the right approach.
- There has to be a complete sense of respect of for the patient,
validating that they are having a difficult time and very troublesome
symptoms. The focus should be on how are we going to help you get
better.
- There’s nothing worse than feeling like you are ill because of some
agent, yet people are saying, ‘Oh you’re stressed’ and patting you on
the head in a condescending manner. That will understandably provoke,
‘I have to prove that I am ill.’ That’s the last thing you want
patients to have to put more energy into. In fact, it is difficult for
people to recover from psychogenic illness when the belief persists by
the patient and those around them that there is a real threat that has
not been detected or is being covered up.
- You have to address the threat and start working on deconstructing
the threat. As in a lot of psychotherapy, you have guiding principles
that you are applying, but the specifics of the situation and the
patient guide the implementation. Cognitive behavioral therapy [a type
of psychotherapy shown to help with pain, depression and many other
disorders] is an approach that is helpful for psychogenic illness.
- Will the students’ doctors or therapists talk to them
about how long-term stress can contribute to very real physical
illnesses like heart disease and stroke?
- At some point in treatment, you might introduce those concepts as a
way of helping the patient reconceptualize the illness and understand
the mind/body connection. But I wouldn’t make that the first discussion.
- If stress and anxiety are part of the problem, would anti-anxiety drugs like Valium help?
- A lot of people think that, but it’s not that simple. I’m not
familiar with what treatment is being provided for these young people.
Sedatives might or might not be part of treatment. Cognitive beliefs
become established about one’s illness, and sedatives don’t address
that.
- What is the impact of media attention?
- When you think about the process that we believe underlies the onset
of psychogenic illness, it is a sense of threat. The most common
trigger for psychogenic illness is perceived detection of a noxious
odor. An odor is perceived. People think, What is it? Is this
dangerous? They may start getting anxious. Those anxiety symptoms may
include nausea and faintness due to hyperventilation.
- We’re always attributing what we’re feeling to something. We feel
sick and think, Oh, I wonder if the food was bad. This is not an
atypical process; it’s about the attribution that gets made. So people
notice something unusual, they label the event as threatening, [the
media reports it widely], that increases anxiety, which increases
physical symptoms, which then are attributed to the threat. It becomes
a rapidly spiraling mind/body process.
- What do we know about the link between media coverage and mass psychogenic illness?
- The jury is out. There’s an awful lot of epidemiological work that
suggests that a greater degree of media exposure is associated with
increased anxiety and psychogenic illness. This is not a criticism of
the media; they’re doing their job. It’s just that more media signals a
more serious threat — a key factor in the onset and perpetuation of
psychogenic illness
- I think media and public messages can have a very positive role as
well. This is probably one of those situations where it’s a
double-edged sword. Some aspects of media can be harmful or alarming
and others can be reassuring and provide people with the guidance
they’re looking for.
- In scientific review papers on this topic, people observe that to
the extent that there is very intense media coverage, as well as
emergency medical response and continued response, those factors are
associated with a prolonged episode of psychogenic illness, recurrence
and further contagion. But there is really very little good
experimental data that proves that media exposure causes this.
- Why would both media and emergency services be potentially negative?
- Because both media attention as well as emergency medical response
signal threat: My God, there really is something to be worried about!
People are being taken to the hospital, people are being kept for
observation. The health department is here so there really must be
something terribly wrong.
- So the threat takes on increased authenticity and legitimacy, and the cycle continues.
- Should the teens who are affected be shielded from media coverage?
- Ideally, the affected individuals would be protected. There can be
people who are activists pushing for more investigation, but the
affected individuals should be shielded and protected so that if it is
psychogenic, they have an opportunity for recovery as opposed to
further deepening of this illness.
- Obviously, there are situations in which political
interests or corporations want to cover up environmental threats, and
the diagnosis of mass psychogenic illness sounds like a convenient way
to dismiss real dangers.
- There are situations where that’s, in fact, true. The responsible
approach to these situations is to very systematically conduct
environmental assessments and do appropriate ruling out or ruling in of
a threat. Medical professionals who are involved will look at the
pattern of symptoms and determine whether they are consistent with a
toxic exposure or an infectious agent.
- What you often see with psychogenic illness is a poor match between
the constellation of symptoms the patients are reporting and what we
expect in infectious disease or contamination.
- This whole business of psychogenic illness [can be considered this
way]: after you have ruled out with some degree of confidence
environmental exposures, and after you’ve ruled out a good fit with the
presentation of known toxins or infectious agents, there’s a
convergence of evidence suggestive of psychogenic illness versus an
organic entity that caused the illness.
- I think it’s a very important area. If more research were done, we
would actually learn very important things about mind/body
interactions, just like AIDS taught us so much about immunology.~TIME.com
No comments:
Post a Comment