Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Pharmaceuticals in Direct Support

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on June 9, 2008

The current Time magazine features a cover story entitled "A Medicated Army," discussing the practice of prescribing antidepressants and antianxiety meds to soldiers in combat environments:
For the first time in history, a sizable and growing number of U.S. combat troops are taking daily doses of antidepressants to calm nerves strained by repeated and lengthy tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. The medicines are intended not only to help troops keep their cool but also to enable the already strapped Army to preserve its most precious resource: soldiers on the front lines. Data contained in the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team report indicate that, according to an anonymous survey of U.S. troops taken last fall, about 12% of combat troops in Iraq and 17% of those in Afghanistan are taking prescription antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the more isolated mission have driven troops to rely more on medication there than in Iraq, military officials say.

As many readers know, I have bipolar disorder, and consequently have a long acquaintance with many of the meds being prescribed. At the moment, for instance, I take Lamictal on a daily basis and clonazepam (the generic equivalent of klonopin) as needed. The former operates as an antidepressant. It has mood stabilizing properties that make it a reasonably good prophylactic against mania -- in fact I've had no trouble with incipient "highs" since I began taking Lamictal about two years ago. The latter is a mood stabilizer and anti-anxiety med. The biochemical manifestations of bipolar disorder are more complex than most people suppose. I have had days when I felt neither up nor down, but had such an insistent sense of generalized anxiety that I had to cancel class because I felt too light-headed to responsibly drive down to campus. Once I grasped its beneficial properties, clonazepam has done a lot to alleviate that problem. I also take the generic form of Ambien on a fairly regular basis in order to make sure I get a good night's rest. Regular sleep -- what's known as "good sleep hygiene" -- is a bedrock element in managing the illness.

The situation of a college professor in the midwest is obviously dissimilar from that of a combat soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I think my experience can contribute a degree of insight. To begin with, I think it's important to regard the meds as simply a tool to assist with the overall task of maintaining good health. There's a tendency for those who take them to regard them as a sort of query against their character: that if they were somehow stronger they wouldn't need to take the meds. That leads to problems. First, it reduces self-confidence and self-esteem. Second, it often creates a state of partial denial in which a person may take the med, but does not acquaint himself closely with the medication's properties. He may not follow the guidelines for taking the med responsibly and when he feels better may quit taking the meds entirely. (Medication noncompliance is the single biggest problem among those with bipolar disorder.)

Third, there can be a tendency to regard the meds as shouldering the whole burden of managing the problem, whereas I have found it helpful to take an active role in managing the disorder rather than just passively taking the pills. I monitor myself for symptoms, even subtle ones that no one around me would recognize. I try to exercise on a regular basis. I make use of as many other tools as I can gather to help with the job: a psychiatrist, a therapist, and also the support of friends. There's too much tendency to let fears of the stigma prevent a person from letting others know about one's situation. But I've found that for every jerk there are many people who welcome the opportunity to be of assistance.

Finally, I have made a personal commitment to be public about having bipolar disorder. In each course I teach, I find a topic that lends itself to disclosure that I have the illness (in the U.S. history survey, for instance, the work of 19th century reformer Dorothea Dix provides a good opportunity). In a class of 200 students, statistically two students have been or will be diagnosed with bipolar disorder. I have never yet disclosed the illness and not received subsequent contact from a student who has the same diagnosis. They express appreciation for my candor and particularly a sense of relief in realizing that they are not alone, and that someone they regard as highly functional can have the disorder and lead a reasonably normal life. I often wind up meeting with them to discuss the illness and how best to manage it. Students usually have a lot of concerns: What will their life be like? what degree of stigma will they face? Frequently they do not yet have in place a good support system for managing the disorder. I recently spoke with a student who has no psychiatrist and therapist; her prescriptions are written by a general practitioner. I've been able to assist with referrals to good psychiatrists and therapists within her health care network.

How does this relate to military personnel who take psychotropic meds? First, I wonder how many officers and NCOs self-disclose that they are taking the same meds. If they keep this info away from their soldiers, they send a double message: overtly it's OK for you to take these meds, but tacitly it's really not because I wouldn't be caught dead letting you know that I take them myself. It would require real moral courage, but an officer willing to talk matter of factly about taking these meds, and at the same time functioning effectively as an officer, would serve as a powerful role model. (I find that's the role I often play with my students.) Such an officer's example could not only reassure the soldiers who take the meds, but would also help shift the military culture toward one in which other soldiers would find it easier to trust and support their comrades in arms.

Second, I think it's important to de-mystify these drugs as much as possible, so that the fact of taking them does not, in its own way, add to the issues that soldiers must face. To repeat, taking a med to assist with a problem is not a confession of weakness or bad character. On the contrary, it takes strength and maturity to face up to a problem squarely and do what it takes to accomplish the mission -- whether that mission is to maintain one's health as a civilian or one's effectiveness as a soldier.

Third (and as a corollary), I have found it useful to apply, metaphorically, the warrior ethos to the task of managing the illness. I conceptualize bipolar disorder as an enemy that will never cease in its efforts to destroy me -- either outright or by destroying my quality of life -- and that consequently I have to work conscientiously and intelligently to keep it in check. I've found that my military training and my familiarity with strategic studies have come into play, in various, sometimes unexpected ways, to help me do this.

It would be wrong to create a sunny picture. Even in my safe suburban life, the task of managing bipolar disorder requires a lot of vigilance and is not without its setbacks. For obvious reasons the problem is compounded for those in combat zones, and the last thing I would ever want to suggest is some sort of situational equivalence. At the end of the day, shorter tours of duty and regular rotation into safe areas (such as they are) is a better solution to the problem. But until then, if the Army is going to pursue what I regard as a sensible 21st century policy -- to treat issues of depression, stress and anxiety as problems to be solved rather than defects to be scorned -- then it needs to shift the military culture to conform with the policy. I hope these insights from my own situation, however modest, may be of some help.

Run to Failure - Pt 2

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on December 10, 2005

"Run to failure" is a term I learned many years ago in a war and technology course. It's used by engineers when designing something that has lots of moving parts. You design, say, an aircraft engine. You build a prototype and let it run until it fails. Then you root around the prototype until you locate the specific part that failed. You figure out why it failed, design and manufacture an improved version of the part, install it and then run the engine until the next failure. You repeat the process until you have an engine that meets or exceeds the required specifications. That's "run to failure."

Over the last two decades, I've used "run to failure" numerous times to improve the system I've evolved to protect myself from the sort of acute manic episode that evidently killed Rigoberto Alpizar. An analogous concept would be the "lesson learned" analysis commonly employed by the armed forces: you create a doctrine, then revise it in light of practical experience -- war games or actual battle.

I described the core of the system in a previous post. Briefly, it's to marshal as many resources to combat the illness as I can: medications, therapy, good sleep hygiene, regular exercise, and so on. Equally important is to have in place a strong network of friends and colleagues who know that I have the disorder and have been briefed about its symptoms. This network has proven itself so thoroughly that the question of whether to be private or "out of the closet" about the disorder is a settled issue with me. It is better to have as many people know about the condition as possible.

True, there are downsides. I've no doubt that my openness makes some people uncomfortable and that they rationalize their discomfort by telling themselves -- and perhaps others -- that it is "inappropriate" or that I have "boundary issues." It is even possible that I could never get a job in another university. Tough. One of the things I learned in the Army is that you do what is necessary to accomplish the mission. My first mission is survival. Other considerations take a back seat.

Run to Failure - Pt 1

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on December 9, 2005

Left: Anne Buechner and her husband, Rigoberto Alpizar

Two days ago the couple in the photo were returning to Florida after a brief missionary trip to South America. The international leg of the flight was behind them. They had cleared customs, boarded a second aircraft, and faced only the final, brief trip from Miami International Airport to Orlando. Suddenly the man, 44-year old Rigoberto Alpizar, began acting in a way that attracted the attention of the flight crew and an air marshal on board the craft. The marshal became convinced that Alpizar had a bomb and, when he bolted from the plane rather than heed the marshal's command to halt and lie down, the marshal shot him dead.

The story has been international news for a couple of days now. The dominant theme has been that it was a "good shoot" -- that is, the air marshal behaved properly in the circumstances -- and serves as evidence that security measures entrenched since 9/11 are working as they should. But it soon transpired that Alpizar was not, in fact, carrying a bomb. His behavior owed not to lethal intent but rather to his medical condition: He suffered from bipolar disorder and, in medical terms, had "decompensated," apparently because he was off his medication.

Valuable Partners

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on September 8, 2005

The Ohio State University is still on the quarter system, which means, among other things, that Autumn classes do not begin until late September. So around here the students are just now beginning to return. But four of my five graduate advisees are in town now, so this morning we're going to meet as a group.

Within the history department I have a foot in two fields: American History to 1877 and, of course, Military History. My career has largely been a matter of shifting my weight back and forth between them, sometimes laying stress on the one, sometimes on the other. That is not uncommon. Indeed, I think it is pretty much the norm for professors in thematic fields. Two of my advisees are early Americanists; three are military historians. In other years the balance has actually been the other way. And indeed, two of the three dissertations that I have signed as principal adviser were in early American history.

But the dividing line is artificial. As Clausewitz says, "War has its own grammar but not its own logic." The logic is driven by the policy of governments and the passions of people, among many other things. So a good military historian has to be a broadly grounded historian. And since the United States is a country that was literally made by war, a good American historian must know some military history.

Still, the brute fact of the job market is that positions in American history far, far, far exceed positions in military history. Which is why I insist that my military history advisees, when it comes to their PhD general exams, should be as strong in their second field--which is usually early American history--as their first. I'm not trying to be a jerk about it; I'm trying to maximize their chances on the job market.

I will give an example. The day I gave my job talk here at Ohio State, the first question I received had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of my presentation. Instead I was asked what I thought of the debate between Eugene Genovese and James Oakes as to whether the antebellum South was a pre-capitalist society or whether it was as capitalist as the North, albeit in different ways. The whole point of the question was to show me up, to demonstrate that I knew nothing beyond pure military history, whatever that is. Guns and battles, I guess.

You might think I resented the question, but that's like thinking a a baseball player at bat resents the pitcher on the mound. It gave me precisely the opportunity I needed to destroy the stereotype about "narrow military historians." I launched into a discussion of the main works of Genovese and Oakes, explained the reasons for their disagreements, and concluded that it was too early to tell which one was right. My questioner later told me he wasn't really satisfied with my answer and I'm sure it wasn't as good a response as he could have given. But so what? Most of the people in the room were non-Americanists who didn't know a damn thing about the Genovese/Oakes debate. To them it sure sounded as if I knew what I was talking about.

Contrast that with the impression I would have made if I had said, "I don't know about that." Or worse, tried to stumble through an answer on the basis of dim memories of a debate on which my grasp had been tenuous to begin with. I would not have recovered. Worse--because to tell you the truth I didn't really believe this department would actually hire one of its own no matter what I did--I would have let down the military history program. I always thought of my real objective as making the program look as good as possible in the eyes of the department. If I got the job, that was gravy.

And pretty good gravy it has turned out to be.

So my military history advisees need to see my early American advisees as valuable partners. But what do the American advisees get out of it? Well, they almost invariably choose me because military history informs their research or because they want to be historians of the Civil War era, and any historian of that era ought to know a good deal about military history. They need my military history advisees as pards, too.

Beyond these remarks I don't actually know what I'll tell them when we meet. In a way my main job is just to bring the coffee and croissants and let them renew acquaintances or get to know each other if they haven't met already. I would tell them about the fact that I have bipolar disorder if they didn't all know it already. It is one of the first things I tell potential advisees. I want them to see that I am not ashamed about it and I think of it, and manage it, as an illness. I explain the symptoms and tell them what to do and/or who to contact if they become concerned about me. I think it is their business to know, because they are placing a good deal of their future prospects in my hands. And if they can't handle the knowledge it is better for both parties if this is recognized at the outset.

But thus far my graduate students have been comfortable with my frankness on this subject and even somewhat reassured, because it implies that they can come to me with their own concerns when necessary. It is, to be sure, a matter that has to be handled in a sure-footed manner, because it is important to maintain a professional demeanor and to preserve, in a healthy way, the distinction between my status as a faculty member and theirs as a student. But they are also adults--actually remarkably accomplished adults--and they deserve to be treated as such.

SITREP

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on July 12, 2005

It's been nearly a month since my last blog post. That's partly because I have adhered to my rule of making this blog an aid to productive scholarship, not a diversion from it. It's partly because the next posts that follow logically from Crash and, especially, Shadow Warriors, Pt 8, are ones that I have been reluctant to write, much less publish -- though I guess in the next few days I will have to embark on them. But mostly it has been due to the fact that I've spent much of the period in a state of clinical depression.

Facing the Demon

Originally published in Blog Them Out of the Stone Age on June 5, 2005


But besides the achievement of this functional and corporate aim, the rote-learning and repetitive form and the categorical, reductive quality of officer-training has an important and intended -- if subordinate -- psychological effect. Anti-militarists would call it de-personalizing and even de-humanizing. But given -- even if they would not give -- that battles are going to happen, it is powerfully beneficial. For by teaching the young officer to organize his intake of sensations, to reduce the events of combat to as few and as easily recognizable a set of elements as possible, to categorize under manageable headings the noise, blast, passage of missiles and confusion of human movement which will assail him on the battlefield, so that they can be described -- to his men, to his superiors, to himself -- as "incoming fire, "outgoing fire," "airstrike," "company-strength attack," one is helping him to avert the onset of fear or, worse, of panic and to perceive a face of battle which, if not familiar, need not, in the event, prove wholly petrifying.

-- John Keegan, The Face of Battle

Diagnostic Criteria for Major Depressive Episode

For a diagnosis of a major depressive episode, these are the signs and symptoms doctors are looking for:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.