Saw a posting on the "What to Expect" website by "Juice" who was wanted more information on postpartum psychosis. Unfortunately the responses IMHO did not come near to offering adequate information.
One stated that postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis are the same thing (WRONG!). Another described her experience which sounded more like postpartum OCD than PPP! Several gave advice such as having your loved ones watch you closely or having a plan. Not bad advice, but rather useless if you don't know what to tell your loved ones to look for or if you don't know what to plan for, or how.
The basics about postpartum psychosis I wish every woman knew:
1. It can happen to anyone and those with existing bipolar disorder are at increased risk.
2. Hallmarks are hallucinations and/or delusions
3. A woman can have intrusive thoughts about harming her child or have depressive thoughts about harming herself and not have ppp.
4. If you have those thoughts and you don't have ppp -- you still should get treatment ASAP. There is no honor in simply suffering through.
5. Women with ppp often have paranoia, they may be manic and have insomnia and racing thoughts/speech, they may be unable to do basic cognitive tasks (reading, math, etc.). They may be agitated, confused, disoriented. They may think, say or do bizarre things.
6. Not all women with ppp have all these symptoms.
7. PPP may be obvious - and it may not. And it can wax and wane.
8. It occurs with the same frequency as Down Syndrome.
9. This, and all postpartum mood disorders, is treatable.
10. It is temporary - it will not cure an underlying disorder - but women do recover completely from the ppp.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Friday, September 11, 2009
Mother's Act
It is so frustrating and disheartening to see (over and over) the misinformation that is posted about the Mother's Act. Those who oppose it seem to have no qualms about posting misleading and inaccurate information. One of their favorites is the falsehood that ALL women will be FORCED to undergo MANDATORY SCREENING for postpartum mood disorders. Actually, the Act mandates that certain providers OFFER screening.
But I guess it would look pretty bad to say "No -- mothers should not be OFFERED the opportunity for screening." So I guess they need the distortions.
What IS their agenda?
What seems clear to me is this:
1. At least one very prolific opponent had postpartum mood disorders and received what she felt was unnecessary and even harmful treatment.
2. At least one notable "expert" who is an opponent has strong ties to a group who oppose ANY treatment of ANY mental disorder on the grounds that mental disorders are not real biological disorders and therefore cannot be treated with medication.
3. Unlike PSI members, these women do not spend time helping and supporting new moms with mood disorders -- nor do they offer any alternatives to an unsatisfactory status quo. (Which adds to my suspicions about their motives.)
It is hard for me to understand why the woman in #1 would oppose the Act given the provisions in the Act for education and non-medical support and treatment. My guess is that she agrees with the expert that mental disorders don't exist and that medication should never be an option. (Think Tom Cruise and his statement to Brooke Sheilds.)
However, it is not likely that many would be convinced by an argument like, "I don't believe mood disorders are related to biology, therefore postpartum women should not be offered screening." Therefore they must and do rely on distortions (mandatory screening, that PSI is a front for Big Pharma and other distortions) and fear tactics (this is a plot by Big Phama to control the minds of women) and an appeal to the very thing they oppose -- freedom of choice.
Unfortunately for all those women out there who suffer and their families, this opposition may succeed. I really don't know. If it does, each time we see in the news another horrific story about a woman who kills her baby I invite you to join me in saying, "This one's on you, Amy P."
Please contact the politicians in your state and alert your friends and family to voice support for the MOTHERS ACT. And if you do, let me know so that I can thank you.
But I guess it would look pretty bad to say "No -- mothers should not be OFFERED the opportunity for screening." So I guess they need the distortions.
What IS their agenda?
What seems clear to me is this:
1. At least one very prolific opponent had postpartum mood disorders and received what she felt was unnecessary and even harmful treatment.
2. At least one notable "expert" who is an opponent has strong ties to a group who oppose ANY treatment of ANY mental disorder on the grounds that mental disorders are not real biological disorders and therefore cannot be treated with medication.
3. Unlike PSI members, these women do not spend time helping and supporting new moms with mood disorders -- nor do they offer any alternatives to an unsatisfactory status quo. (Which adds to my suspicions about their motives.)
It is hard for me to understand why the woman in #1 would oppose the Act given the provisions in the Act for education and non-medical support and treatment. My guess is that she agrees with the expert that mental disorders don't exist and that medication should never be an option. (Think Tom Cruise and his statement to Brooke Sheilds.)
However, it is not likely that many would be convinced by an argument like, "I don't believe mood disorders are related to biology, therefore postpartum women should not be offered screening." Therefore they must and do rely on distortions (mandatory screening, that PSI is a front for Big Pharma and other distortions) and fear tactics (this is a plot by Big Phama to control the minds of women) and an appeal to the very thing they oppose -- freedom of choice.
Unfortunately for all those women out there who suffer and their families, this opposition may succeed. I really don't know. If it does, each time we see in the news another horrific story about a woman who kills her baby I invite you to join me in saying, "This one's on you, Amy P."
Please contact the politicians in your state and alert your friends and family to voice support for the MOTHERS ACT. And if you do, let me know so that I can thank you.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Why blog:
I realized I've been spending a lot of time writing on other boards/blogs and decided to start putting my thoughts and opinions here instead.
Recently there was another tragic postpartum-psychosis infanticide in Texas. It was so horrific, I will not repeat the details here. The responses to this story that I've read online mirror several themes that come up each time one of these tragedies occurs. I have taken some statements from comments found online (some are composits or inferences) and reply to them here (referencing at least one "name" of a poster of that sentiment for each). These are far from exhaustive:
1. "Someone should have done something to prevent this – but since it was not prevented, we now must hold someone accountable and the obvious person to blame is the woman sometimes her husband and/or her family." (threehorses, smack1)
TWO CENTS: We as a society know about this illness – but do almost NOTHING to prevent the illness or the results of it. One reason we can continue to do nothing is that we can and do blame each individual woman – which, ironically, guarantees this will happen again and again. And each time we can be shocked and morally indignant and DO NOTHING to create real change. (By the way, it is a misconception that someone with postpartum psychosis always appears to be insane. It is, unfortunately, not that easy to tell. And the family is not always aware of or may not understand the risk -- they may even believe that they KNOW that their relative would never do anything to hurt the baby or anyone else - not understanding that this illness can indeed cause a kind and loving person to do the unthinkable.) Of course, even when the risk is clear, people do not always have knowledge of or access to adequate help.)
2. "I would not have done that, therefore I cannot understand how anyone can do that, and therefore she is to blame. " Or: "I would have/did get adequate help for my mental illness/mood disorder, she did not, and therefore she is to blame." (Summerland Tarot, Christy1981)
TWO CENTS: That is what I would likely have said before my own experience. I too was judgemental and unsympathetic. I would not wish on my worst enemy that she go through what I went through to learn empathy -- and unfortunately I don't know what would have persuaded me otherwise. So, to all who wish to judge on that basis: Be THANKFUL that YOUR experience/mental health is NOT the issue here -- be thankful that your experiences have never been such that you intimately understand from that experience what this illness is like.
3. "Insanity is no excuse." (FireWoman, truthliberates, dlbconstruction)
TWO CENTS: Again, this gets us as a society off the hook from any responsibility to provide for mental illness. As long as we can blame those who are ill for their illness and their actions, we can continue to DO NOTHING. What is OUR excuse as a society when we do so little to prevent this?
4. "She WAS mentally ill and therefore she IS to blame (although perhaps not the only one to blame)." (Brownie04)
TWO CENTS: Again, clearly blaming the ill for their illness. Yet I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of the mentally ill do not CHOOSE to be ill.
5. "Pleading insanity is a sham but works every time to get out of legal responsibility." (tx riley, American Defender)
TWO CENTS: This is a very popular point of view and is factually quite incorrect. It is actually a difficult defense. Although there are abuses of it, there are also many cases where it likely could/should be used but is not. (Because many people would rather go to jail for a set period of years than to a mental institution indefinitely.) Furthermore, one has to wonder with a comment like this – what WOULD convince someone of insanity if not a case where a previously “nice and sweet” woman who clearly wanted her child is diagnosed with a severe mental illness and then does something so mind-bendingly awful to her child?
6. Any woman who harms her child is "evil and should die – we should not have to use taxpayer money to keep them alive." (Christy1981)
TWO CENTS: Again, blame the woman so we can DO NOTHING – not even use that “taxpayer money” to PREVENT it (which might actually cost a lot less).
7. "She probably was (insert your favorite accusation/stereotype here) and therefore is to blame/should be punished." (tx riley)
TWO CENTS: This is a classic logical fallacy (false logic) “straw-person” argument. Label someone as something, whether they are or not, and then attack/blame them for being that. Speculation like this has no part in serious conversation.
8. Implied: "If she is mentally ill, she does not deserve to live (or have children) anyway." (Smack1)
TWO CENTS: This represents the stigma, judgment and lack of understanding or sympathy the mentally ill face. This is actually a pretty major barrier to help-seeking. Another sad irony.
I realized I've been spending a lot of time writing on other boards/blogs and decided to start putting my thoughts and opinions here instead.
Recently there was another tragic postpartum-psychosis infanticide in Texas. It was so horrific, I will not repeat the details here. The responses to this story that I've read online mirror several themes that come up each time one of these tragedies occurs. I have taken some statements from comments found online (some are composits or inferences) and reply to them here (referencing at least one "name" of a poster of that sentiment for each). These are far from exhaustive:
1. "Someone should have done something to prevent this – but since it was not prevented, we now must hold someone accountable and the obvious person to blame is the woman sometimes her husband and/or her family." (threehorses, smack1)
TWO CENTS: We as a society know about this illness – but do almost NOTHING to prevent the illness or the results of it. One reason we can continue to do nothing is that we can and do blame each individual woman – which, ironically, guarantees this will happen again and again. And each time we can be shocked and morally indignant and DO NOTHING to create real change. (By the way, it is a misconception that someone with postpartum psychosis always appears to be insane. It is, unfortunately, not that easy to tell. And the family is not always aware of or may not understand the risk -- they may even believe that they KNOW that their relative would never do anything to hurt the baby or anyone else - not understanding that this illness can indeed cause a kind and loving person to do the unthinkable.) Of course, even when the risk is clear, people do not always have knowledge of or access to adequate help.)
2. "I would not have done that, therefore I cannot understand how anyone can do that, and therefore she is to blame. " Or: "I would have/did get adequate help for my mental illness/mood disorder, she did not, and therefore she is to blame." (Summerland Tarot, Christy1981)
TWO CENTS: That is what I would likely have said before my own experience. I too was judgemental and unsympathetic. I would not wish on my worst enemy that she go through what I went through to learn empathy -- and unfortunately I don't know what would have persuaded me otherwise. So, to all who wish to judge on that basis: Be THANKFUL that YOUR experience/mental health is NOT the issue here -- be thankful that your experiences have never been such that you intimately understand from that experience what this illness is like.
3. "Insanity is no excuse." (FireWoman, truthliberates, dlbconstruction)
TWO CENTS: Again, this gets us as a society off the hook from any responsibility to provide for mental illness. As long as we can blame those who are ill for their illness and their actions, we can continue to DO NOTHING. What is OUR excuse as a society when we do so little to prevent this?
4. "She WAS mentally ill and therefore she IS to blame (although perhaps not the only one to blame)." (Brownie04)
TWO CENTS: Again, clearly blaming the ill for their illness. Yet I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of the mentally ill do not CHOOSE to be ill.
5. "Pleading insanity is a sham but works every time to get out of legal responsibility." (tx riley, American Defender)
TWO CENTS: This is a very popular point of view and is factually quite incorrect. It is actually a difficult defense. Although there are abuses of it, there are also many cases where it likely could/should be used but is not. (Because many people would rather go to jail for a set period of years than to a mental institution indefinitely.) Furthermore, one has to wonder with a comment like this – what WOULD convince someone of insanity if not a case where a previously “nice and sweet” woman who clearly wanted her child is diagnosed with a severe mental illness and then does something so mind-bendingly awful to her child?
6. Any woman who harms her child is "evil and should die – we should not have to use taxpayer money to keep them alive." (Christy1981)
TWO CENTS: Again, blame the woman so we can DO NOTHING – not even use that “taxpayer money” to PREVENT it (which might actually cost a lot less).
7. "She probably was (insert your favorite accusation/stereotype here) and therefore is to blame/should be punished." (tx riley)
TWO CENTS: This is a classic logical fallacy (false logic) “straw-person” argument. Label someone as something, whether they are or not, and then attack/blame them for being that. Speculation like this has no part in serious conversation.
8. Implied: "If she is mentally ill, she does not deserve to live (or have children) anyway." (Smack1)
TWO CENTS: This represents the stigma, judgment and lack of understanding or sympathy the mentally ill face. This is actually a pretty major barrier to help-seeking. Another sad irony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)