Objective: While psychiatry is an exciting and rewarding discipline of medicine, the practice of psychiatry has become increasingly simplistic. This address seeks to identify some of the influences that underlie this phenomenon. Conclusions: The influences include an increased demand for services and pressure on beds, the sway of the pharmaceutical industry with a biological approach being promulgated, excessive managerial constraints with an emphasis on efficiency versus effectiveness, and the acceptance of DSM diagnostic categories of uncertain validity. I argue that we need to rediscover a more wise approach to psychiatric practice. We have to insist upon changes to our training such that trainees are encouraged to get to know their patients and understand them from a biopsychosocial perspective. As a profession, we have to insist on proper care for our patients and work with managers and bureaucrats to ensure that the management of our patients is centred on quality of care and effectiveness over and above efficiency.
The use of traditional psychostimulants (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine) and stimulant-like drugs (modafinil and armodafinil) for the treatment of depression is a growing concern given the lack of research evidence supporting their effectiveness. The current article describes the role of stimulants in treating depression – specifically their risks and benefits and their potential use alongside antidepressants. Clinically, the rapid amelioration of depressive symptoms with traditional psychostimulants is often dramatic but short-lived, and this suggests that they likely operate via different mechanisms to conventional antidepressants. More importantly, there is little evidence from randomised controlled trials supporting their efficacy in treating depression, although modafinil has been shown to be effective in reducing prominent depressive symptoms, such as fatigue. Research is urgently required to clarify psychostimulants’ mechanisms of action and to evaluate their long-term benefits and risks in the treatment of major and bipolar depression. Ultimately, specificity of action needs to be determined to inform the sophisticated clinical use of psychostimulants in the management of depression. Until then they should only be prescribed if absolutely necessary, and even then their prescription should be facilitatory and time limited unless it is for investigational purposes.
Justifying involuntary psychiatric treatment on the basis of a judgment that a person lacks capacity is controversial because there are questions about the meaning and utility of the concept in this context. There are complexities to using capacity in this way, which are further amplified in the community outpatient setting compared with acute inpatient care. A richer account of capacity, its meanings, and practical applications in context, is required. This qualitative study sought to build inductively a model of capacity in the context of involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment, based on 38 interviews with stakeholders from New South Wales, Australia. The emergent model incorporates multiple “capacities”: to manage illness, for self-care, and to maintain social roles. It identifies core values that correspond with the “capabilities approach,” elaborating the justifications and processes of involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment. This proposed model of “capability” may have a range of benefits to sound and ethical practice and scrutiny of systems of involuntary outpatient treatment.
Purpose of review The key question for melancholia is whether it should have status as a separate disorder and the literature of the last 12–24 months is surveyed largely from that perspective. Recent findings A number of interesting findings have appeared across a broad range of issues, but, with the possible exception of some large clinical trials, remain largely unreplicated. Summary Supporters of melancholia as a distinct entity will find little comfort in the recent literature.