Pies, M.D., is a clinical professor of psychiatry at Tufts University
School of Medicine.
A remarkable quote recently appeared in the Boston Globe regarding a study of
breast masses that had been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The study found, in effect, that the prognosis for patients with noncancerous
breast masses depends on the particular cytology of the mass—the more clearly
"abnormal" or atypical, the worse the prognosis.


This study prompted an astonishingly candid response from a renowned breast
cancer surgeon, as quoted in the Globe: "Dr. Susan Love, a Los Angeles breast
cancer surgeon, author, and researcher, said a big problem is that a
pathologist's judgment that cells look `abnormal' is extremely subjective. `It's
in the eye of the beholder,' she said."
This quote appeared at roughly the same time that actor Tom Cruise infamously
insisted that psychiatry is a "pseudoscience" and not long after Rep. Ron Paul
of Texas—an obstetrician by training—cited a pediatrician to the effect that
"[p]sychiatric diagnoses are inherently subjective and based on `social
constructions.'" APA President Steven Sharfstein, M.D., has taken Mr. Cruise and
Rep. Paul to task for espousing these views.
It should not surprise us that those who attack psychiatry for its supposed
"subjectivity" do not understand much about our field. What is more surprising
is that these individuals also misunderstand general medicine, which has always
struggled with finding the right mix of "objectivity" and "subjectivity." And as
Dr. Love's comment suggests, even the pathologist's diagnosis is heavily
influenced by personal judgment and clinical experience.
Critics of psychiatry seem to believe that objectivity resides solely in the
detection of abnormal lumps or bumps—or in some infallible blood test. These
critics endlessly lambaste psychiatry for making diagnoses on the basis of
subjective criteria. But what do philosophers of science understand the term
"objective" to mean? And how does psychiatry compare with other medical
specialties on accepted measures of objectivity?
The philosopher Amartya Sen described two essential features of objectivity:
observation dependence and impersonality. "Objectivity demands taking
observations seriously," Sen argued. Objectivity also requires that there be
"some invariance" with respect to the person carrying out the observation. By
"invariance," Sen meant that the observer's conclusions should be more or less
reproducible by other observers, within the natural limits of human perception.
To put it in the more technical language of the philosopher Thomas Nagel (in his
book The View From Nowhere), "The wider the range of subjective types to which a
form of understanding is accessible.. .the more objective it is." In short, if
one observer sees a quacking, waddling bird and says, "It's a duck," that's a
relatively subjective statement. If a hundred observers can agree it's a duck,
we have a more objective basis for hypothesizing that "it's a duck."
Psychiatry more than meets the two tests proposed by Prof. Sen. First,
psychiatrists take observation very seriously—indeed, it is the art and science
we live or die by in our profession.
From the moment the patient walks into our office, we are compiling a
staggering array of empirical observations: The patient appears disheveled, he
walks with a slightly ataxic gait, he appears agitated and confused, there is an
odor of alcohol on his breath, his thought processes are difficult to follow, he
is unable to subtract 7s serially from 100, he whispers to himself and glances
over his shoulder frequently, his speech is loud and pressured, he picks
constantly at his clothing, and so on. Depending on the case, many of us will
supplement our own observations with neuropsychological testing, laboratory
studies to rule out underlying medical disorders, and brain imaging studies to
detect tumors, strokes, and dementia.
So far, so good—but do psychiatric observations meet Sen's second test—what
scientists would term "interrater reliability"?
There is a huge literature addressing this issue, but a comparison of two
recent studies is instructive. The first one (by van Jaarsveld et al. in the
December 1999 Journal of Hypertension) examined the degree to which three
"experienced radiologists" could agree on the interpretation of 312 renal
angiograms; for example, whether and where renal artery stenosis was present.
The second study (by Majet et al. in the January-March 2000 Journal of Affective
Disorders) assessed the degree to which two psychiatrists could agree on whether
150 patients met DSM-IV criteria for three conditions: schizoaffective disorder,
mania, and major depression.
Suffice to say that for two of the three psychiatric diagnoses—mania and major
depression—interrater reliability was better between the psychiatrists than it
was among the radiologists in the first study.
All of clinical medicine involves a subtle interplay between reason and
intuition, objectivity and subjectivity, strict diagnostic criteria and clinical
wisdom. Yes, psychiatry has much work to do in refining its methods of
diagnosis, but this is a challenge facing the entire medical field. In the
meantime, psychiatry's clinical "eye" remains pretty sharp.




Services Email this article to a Colleague
Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Pies, R.

&ltimg&gt

---------------------------------
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF
CONTENTS

René Talbot <r.talbot@...> wrote: mirah@... wrote:

> dbtonydb wrote:
>
> > I would like to start a detailed list of all recorded (audio and
> > visual) interviews of Thomas Szasz for historical purposes.
>
> That is an excellent idea. Have you been in contact about this with Jeff
> Schaler who is his webmaster? Perhaps with your help he could
> incorporate videos and recordings into the site.
>

One interview ist at the end of the film "the verdict of the Foucualt
Tribunal":
http://www.foucault.de/ft_video_stream.htm

René Talbot

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.

---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]