403 Forbidden
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/content/22/7254222/html/johngartner/right-cms.php on line 27
Depression Treatment & Help by John Gartner, Ph.D.

John Gartner, Ph.D.
is a psychologist living and working in Baltimore and New York. He can be contacted at: jg@johngartner.com

 

Physchology Today

 

                                  Back in NYC!

Dec, 12, 2011

I was born and raised in Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights, and ever since I moved to Baltimore 25 years ago for an academic job, I’ve missed New York terribly. This blog is to announce that I am back. I will be a New York psychologist, at least on day a week, practicing in Manhattan, in Greenwich Village, on 31 W. 10th St., between 5th and 6th near Union Square, in a beautiful mansion overlooking a garden on a quiet picturesque street of brownstones, the original 19th century downtown millionaire’s row. My rent is ten times what I pay in Baltimore, but it’s worth it. You’ve got to see this office. I will be specializing I the treatment of bipolar disorder and depression. And super specializing in helping those with hypomania to contain and constructively channel their creative fire without scorching themselves or those around them. I couldn’t be better placed. New York is ground zero for hypomania.

The cliché, propagated by non New Yorkers, who are simultaneously stimulated and disoriented by New York’s dizzying energy, is that New York is “a nice place to visit but you wouldn’t want to live there.” Conversely, the New Yorker’s view of the world, best expressed by the famous New Yorker cover that depicts New York as the center of the universe, with nothing but farmland between New York and the West Coast, New York is the only place to be. New York is the most hypomanic city in the world. Everyone feels it’s fast moving pulsating energy as soon as they hit town. It is simultaneously an international center of commerce and ideas.  But perhaps equally important, it is the crossroads of the world. Walk down any street in New York and you will hear as many languages being spoken as you would at the U.N. The most important contribution of my career was my book: The Hypomanic Edge: The link between a (a Little) Craziness and (a Lot of Success) in America. In that book, cited by the New York Times Magazine as one of the most important and innovative new ideas of 2005, I proposed that the secret to America’s character and success is her rich concentration of hypomanic genes. Owing to our immigrant origins, we were populated by outliers: people with the energy, restlessness, ambition and risk tolerance to leave the relative safety of their homelands and leap into the unknown in search of a dream. Through a massive process of self-selection that has continued for 350 years, the most hypomanic members of towns and villages across the earth have come here, and brought their hypomanic genes with them. Indeed the countries who have the most new company creation per capita—America, Canada, Australia and Israel—are all nations of immigrants. But if America is a nation of immigrants, New York is immigrant energy to the third power. Since the days of Ellis Island, a highly disproportionate number of America’s immigrants have flowed through New York. In addition, New York benefits from a great deal of domestic internal migration. The most energetic and ambitious people from all over the country move to New York seeking opportunity. Hence being a New York psychologist is, by definition, being a therapist who treats people with hypomania.

I’m looking forward to treating New Yorkers with bipolar disorder, undoubtedly the most challenging, fascinating, and accomplished bipolars around. I’m looking forward to reconnecting with my New York psychologist colleagues—I trained at Bellevue/New York University Medical Center and New York Hospital Cornell Medical Center. And I’m looking forward to connecting with my old New York high school friends. And I’m just looking forward to wandering the streets, going out to eat, walking in Central Park, attending museums exhibits and theater. But most of all I love the hypomanic energy.  It makes me feel at home!

                Less is more when medicating bipolar disorder

Dec, 27, 2011

During the first twenty years of my therapy practice, I spent a significant portion of my time persuading patients to start psychiatric medication. But over the last five years, more and more of my practice has become taken up with giving patients permission to take less medication. With increasing frequency, I see patients with Bipolar Disorder, Depression and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) on high doses of multiple medications who complain of deleterious side effects that leave them sedated, cognitively and emotionally dulled, overweight, sexually dysfunctional, unmotivated and depressed. It’s not that medication can’t be helpful—I’m not anti-medication-- but often the problem is quantity. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. The natural tendency, as patient spend more time in therapy and still have symptoms is to increase the number of medicines and their dosages However, inevitably, this produces more side effects. With medicines, less can be more.

Since the publication of my book, The Hypomanic Edge, larger numbers of bipolar patients from around the country seek out my consultation, and the stories I hear are shockingly similar. First, patients often report psychiatrists who are overly aggressive in pushing them to add mood stabilizers and anti-psychotics to their mix, without adequately explaining either the possible or the probable side effects. A colleague of mine conducted a patient satisfaction survey for a large multi-state hospital system (I can’t mention which one). He found that the number one cause of patients’ dissatisfaction was: “Doctor didn’t explain the possible side effects of my medication.”

Given that side effects are dose dependent, one obvious solution to the side effect problem is to be judicious in using the smallest dose possible, to titrate up only if needed, and then very gradually. Yet, it seems psychiatrists often follow a lock step march, ramping up to the “therapeutic dose,” as quickly as possible. Yet, in truth, there is no such thing as an objective therapeutic dose of any psychiatric medication common to all patients.  The therapeutic dose of a psychiatric medication is the one that works for you, while giving you the lowest amount of side effects.

The reasons psychiatrists err in this direction say a lot about how psychiatry has evolved over the last two decades. First, big Pharma has assumed more and more control over psychiatry, as I’ve written about in my blog on Psychology Today, and it is their clinical trials, their marketing materials and their marketing reps that  “standardize” the dose they say patients should be on. Second, psychiatrists are spending less and less time with patients, as it has become economically more efficient to see patients for medication monitoring only, rather than seeing patients in therapy. Thus they have fifteen minutes every month, or often every three months, to make a clinical judgment. With such brief intermittent visits the psychiatrist has only a very limited chance to observe the patient directly, and thus what they have to go on is the standard clinical protocol. Of course they also what the patient tells them to guide their decisions, but especially if the patient is bipolar or borderline, there is a strong index of suspicion that the patient may be trying to resist treatment. Patients with bipolar disorder want to get high by avoiding their medicine, we are told in our training. And sometimes this is true. But I’ve found that more often bipolar patients are seeking balance, trying to find that golden mean between being out of control and being overly sedated. And the same is true of patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), who also have impulse control problems, and often have concurrent mood disorders like depression or bipolar disorder.  For a doctor and patient to find that golden mean requires a mutually trusting therapeutic alliance, which is hard to achieve when you meet with a patient for only a few minutes a month.

My less-is-more method involves starting a new medicine at a very small dose, and then reevaluating after a few weeks.  With bipolar, depressed, and BPD patients, unless the patient is in an acute episode, we have the luxury of time to get the dose right. If we do, the patient is more likely to comply with their medication regimen in the long run, which will provide more long-term stability. When we ramp up patients too high to fast they are far more likely to stop taking the medicine all together. Or, alternately, we see patients who suffer from bipolar disorder, depression or BPD who comply with their doctor’s recommendations, who function at a sub-optimal level because the side effects of their medication can leave them sedated, dulled, depressed and overweight.

So for example, I often suggest that patients with impulse control problems or rapidly shifting moods, as is often the case for bipolar, depressed and borderline patients, that they try Lamictal, the mildest of the mood stabilizers. Typically, the psychiatrist will give them a starter pack provided free from the manufacturer that contains: five 25 mg. pills, five 50 mg. pills, five 100 mg pills and five 200 mg. tablets. The expectation is that the patient will ramp up to 200 as quickly as it is safe to do so moving in 5 pill increments. The psychiatrist is often surprised when I suggest staying at 25 mg for a couple of weeks. Moving at that slow pace most of my patients find something in the 50-75 mg range is right for them, though I have some on doses as small a 12.5 (breaking the smallest pill in half). I’ve has psychiatrists tell me that these medicines cannot be effective at these doses—that it must be a placebo effect. But they are wrong, and I ask them: Have you ever taken 25 mg of Lamctal? If not, how can you know whether it has an appreciable effect. In the meantime, friends, relatives, partners and colleagues tell the patient he is noticeably calmer and more in control. Why should we force more medicine on the patient if he is experiencing benefit from the dose he is on, and doesn’t feel the need for more?

Patients want a doctor who will listen to them. Is that asking too much?