Part Two: Insidious Onset


[Part one of this series described the early history of my physical symptoms while also identifying a series of diagnostic dilemmas.]


Receiving a diagnosis…being a diagnosis

Although I don’t usually think of myself in these terms, I am in fact a diagnostician by training. As a psychotherapist, it’s an integral part of my work which serves two basic functions. The first is mundane and uncomfortable: in order to be reimbursed for my services by insurers I need to provide those insurers with a reimbursable diagnosis for my patient. The second is more complex and more poignant: I am beginning the process of putting words to human suffering. And in psychotherapy, putting words to suffering is the way in which healing happens.

A more mechanistic way of saying this is that diagnosis guides treatment. More than a label, a diagnosis gives me a framework from which I can attempt to help.

Central though the task is however, diagnosis and mental health have never meshed well. Witness the interminable wars over the definition of categories and criteria for each new version of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (the “bible” of mental health diagnosis). You don’t usually see vicious debates breaking out between doctors (and pundits and advocacy groups and ordinary people) over the definition of Arthritis, say, or Measles. Unlike mental health diagnoses, such conditions are characterized by clear-cut and physically observable symptoms, which can be confirmed by empirical lab tests.

Although, as will become clear as my own story plays out, when medicine bumps up against the outer edges of objectively definable symptoms (as in the case of conditions like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, say, or Fibromyalgia), the same sorts of debates begin to flare up.

In mental health the discomfort around diagnosis speaks to an underlying dilemma in how we think of ourselves as human beings. As a mental health worker I am trained to value the uniqueness of each human experience. As a result I recognize how easily a diagnostic label can conflate with and distort a person’s identity. Because we don’t say “I have Depression,” but rather “I am depressed.” We don’t say “she suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder,” but rather “she’s borderline.” That tension exists in patients as well as clinicians. Part of us wants our experience to be clearly definable; another part of us insists that mystery lies at the core of our unique human experience.


Completely correct, absolutely wrong

From time to time I teach diagnosis to graduate counseling students, and it is always an invigorating experience. Counseling students commonly approach the DSM with a high degree of wariness, even hostility. They see it as a medical model which imposes a pathology-based perspective on human experience, contrary to the strength-based compassion from they wish to operate.

I tell them that are completely correct. And I also insist that they are absolutely wrong.

I suggest that they consider a simple, specific scenario.

Say you’re a counselor and someone comes to you saying that they are feeling overwhelmed by sadness over the break-up of a romantic relationship. As a counselor, how do you help them while refraining from imposing a diagnosis on them?

The answer to that question quickly reveals the many subtle levels of diagnosis that take place within all of our human interactions.

The hardcore counselor-type will maintain, following the technique of Carl Rogers, that simply listening and compassionately reflecting back a person’s experience is all that is necessary.

But what is it, exactly, that you are reflecting?

“You’re feeling really sad because your girlfriend left you.”

You may not be assigning a diagnosis in making that statement, but you are agreeing with (and thus reinforcing) your client’s self-diagnosis.

And where are you going to go from there? How are you going to help?

I maintain that you can’t move forward in any way without holding some sort of diagnostic theory in mind. I don’t think it’s possible for a counselor to set aside your own assessment of the meaning and causes of their client’s condition. Further, I believe that it’s potentially dangerous for us to believe that we can do that.

To be clear, this is a different level of diagnosis than the DSM code you put down on the form that you submit to an insurer. Diagnosing with the DSM is a process rife with problems. But that doesn’t mean that diagnosis itself is the problem. Because a diagnostic process of some sort is essential to our ability to make sense of other people (and ourselves). We understand others by attributing meaning to their words and actions. But of course the meaning that we assign may or may not correspond to the meaning others give it. Many who are drawn to mental health professions are uneasy with the idea of claiming an authority which allows them to interpret the behavior and the experience of others. This uneasiness is a good thing. Because there’s a power in that authority that can easily be mishandled or abused. The challenge of diagnosis lies in being able to recognize that while assigning a diagnosis to a human experience helps us to make sense of that experience, it simultaneously increases the risk of our misunderstanding that experience.


Refugee

There is a certain category of medical patient whose fundamental goal in interacting with medical professionals is solely to obtain a diagnosis. For that person, the meaning of a diagnosis transcends the meaning it might have in more routine medical interactions.

Say you’ve got a bad sore throat and your doctor does a culture and identifies it as strep. That is not an event which fundamentally alters your definition of yourself. But if instead you suffer from vague and shifting symptoms, if those symptoms come to shape your day-to-day experience, if they persist for months and years, and if no one in the medical profession can identify an empirical basis for those symptoms…

Well, that’s the situation I was about to find myself in. I was joining the ranks of the medical refugees. And from the perspective of a medical refugee a diagnosis – any diagnosis – becomes the holy grail. Because without a diagnosis, no one can treat you. In this situation even a really nasty diagnosis – MS, ALS, cancer – becomes preferable to living your life knowing something is very wrong without being able to identify what it is. Just as your identity and your experience has become shaped by your symptoms, the search for a coherent diagnosis becomes a profound search for meaning and self-definition. It’s a search for truth.

As I described in my previous post, the diagnoses that I had been given (or had assigned to myself) to make sense of the changes in my sexual functioning included normal aging, endocrine imbalance, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The first was untreatable, the latter two had been treated without a resolution of the underlying symptoms, suggesting either that the treatment was inadequate or that the diagnosis was inaccurate.

And things were about to get much more complicated.


Markers

Although there are certain clear markers, the changes in my functioning didn’t happen abruptly. Rather, it was what the medical field refers to as an “insidious onset.”

Through the summer of 2008 I was continuing to see the endocrinologist, who was looking carefully at my blood levels as he tried to fine-tune the dosage of my testosterone and thyroid medication.  He witnessed one of those markers – an inexplicable abdominal rash that developed that summer. It was blistery and itchy and it persisted for six weeks or so. It was odd, nothing like anything I’d ever had before, and I noticed it without knowing what to make of it. He looked at it and did more or less the same thing that I did. He said, “hmmm.” Then he went about his business.

Around the same time I developed what I first assumed was an ordinary running injury. Every morning when I went out on my run I began getting sharp shooting pains in my left leg after about a half mile in. I assumed it was a pulled muscle of the sort I’d had in the past. My first response was simply to try to power through it. When it didn’t go away on its own, I laid off of running for awhile – that had always worked before. But it didn’t help this time. And worse, I began experiencing the same pain in other situations (driving was especially bad) and I started experiencing a series of other sharp pains in my lower back and leg.

Finally I went to my doctor, who said it was Sciatica. A nice, clean diagnosis. He prescribed an anti-inflammatory and some physical therapy. The treatment helped a little, but it didn’t eliminate the pain, which I continue to experience intermittently. It was an interesting diagnosis because it seemed both accurate and insufficient. I continue to wonder what, if any role this particular symptom plays in the larger diagnostic picture.

In order to avoid activating the sciatic pain I switched to biking for exercise. But I began to experience a heavy exhaustion when I biked at my usual pace up even very moderate hills. As a (former) distance runner, I am very attuned to the responses of my body to different levels of exertion, and so I could clearly recognize this as a change in how my body was performing. This was not just the ordinary aerobic effects of a good work out. This was a feeling of internal collapse.

It was odd and it was very distinct. It’s usually the place I start when doctors take a history, because it’s the clearest early symptom related to the fatigue and weakness that I suffer from presently. It is a key marker in my subjective experience as well, one of the few things that has been consistent over these past few years: when I exert myself beyond a certain level, I experience a physical collapse which is marked by a feeling of weakness, shakiness and light-headedness. One of my key adaptations over the past few years has been modifying my exercise routine in order not to trigger this response. I no longer run. I bike regularly, but not intensely and not on hills the way I have always enjoyed. Instead, I have joined a gym where I can work out on exercise machines in a regulated way which usually keeps me from triggering this response to exertion.

I hate the gym. But it’s the only way that I can continue to get the exercise I need.

This is where diagnosis begins to cross over into the realm of self-definition. Because whatever was wrong with me was altering my ability to do the things that make me who I am. I went back to my doctor and tried to explain what I was experiencing. I told him that there seemed to be something larger wrong with me, that these changes were broader than the limited diagnosis he’d given me. He shrugged and said, once again, “welcome to middle age.”


A Million Bucks

It was clearly time to find a new doctor. I talked to a colleague who recommended an Internist she knew. She said: “this guy’s like a dog with a bone when he gets a diagnostic puzzle. He’ll keep working on it until he figures out an answer” That sounded good to me. I met with him and he took a history, gave me a physical. He ran some basic blood tests, all of which came out normal.

“I can run more tests,” he said, “but I’m not sure what they’ll show.”

I asked for a referral to an oncologist. I wanted to rule out any recurrence of the cancer.

Then I had my first real “episode.”

This was in November of 2008. An early snow had fallen – it was wet and heavy. I went out at mid-day to shovel the sidewalk. This is an activity that I ordinarily enjoy. I like the physical work-out, the exertion, and the visible result of my efforts. But this time something started happening to me. I started feeling light-headed. And weak. It was like the experience I’d had while biking, but much more intense. It was a difficult sensation to describe, but I can say that I didn’t feel well connected to my own body and even though I seemed capable of continuing to exert the effort necessary to shovel the snow it didn’t feel like a good idea to keep doing it. And all of the physical sensations seemed oddly focused on the upper half of my body.

It was really strange. It was not something that had ever happened to me before.

My wife looked at me when I came inside and she grew instantly alarmed. She said I looked like a ghost. Which was what I felt like. I recovered after an hour or so and I felt depleted but more or less normal afterwards. My wife got me an appointment with the new doctor for the next day.

“I have an idea about this,” he said. “I don’t think that this is going to be a House episode.”

He gave me an EKG and he thought he saw an abnormality in it. It seemed to be a cardiac issue. I observed his diagnostic certainty. I tried to accept it. Coming from a mental health perspective, I could not think about any diagnosis without also considering the meanings attached to it. What would it mean to me to have heart problems? On one hand, the prospect of a heart attack was frightening. On the other hand, it seemed like one of the most well-understood and treatable of conditions. That was comforting.

But it also just didn’t quite fit. I was a marathon runner. Aside from high cholesterol, which was being adequately treated with statins, I had never had anything that remotely like a heart problem.

The next day I found myself on the treadmill at the cardiologist’s office.

The guy was old-school. Paternalistic and condescending.

“No one ever beats the treadmill,” he said.

But I was a trail runner, accustomed to running straight up the side of mountains. The test required that I get my heart rate up to a certain level at which I would be adequately “stressed.” It took a long time for me to get there. And when I finally did, when I was unplugged from the machine, the doctor came in and told me what I already suspected: my heart was in better condition than 99% of the ordinary population. The abnormality that my internist had seen was actually an artifact of how unusually strong my heart was.

I have struggled throughout this experience with this particular paradox: I look really healthy. That’s one reason why nearly every doctor I have seen throughout this odyssey has suggested that the real diagnosis must be depression, or anxiety, or both. Even though I am more familiar than they are with these diagnoses and their treatments, even though I have described to them the years of therapy I have been through and have outlined the lack of correlation between my mood and my physical symptoms.

“Have you considered going back to a therapist?” one doctor asked me. “Because on paper you look like a million bucks.”

As I began inexplicably losing weight, this disparity between my outward appearance and my inward experience was about to grow even greater.


[In Part Three of this series, I’ll describe my tour of medical specialists, which eventually led us to the Mayo Clinic. And I will further explore the cultural meaning of be identified with a diagnosis.]


Share
 

Part One: Prelude


Unknowing

Much of my life over the past few years has been consumed with a single, urgent question: what is wrong with me?

In setting out to tell this story, I’m acutely aware that it’s going to sound like a medical mystery narrative. It’s going to read a little like a treatment for an episode of House, M.D.

Because of this I know that as you read this you’re almost certainly going to have advice for me. You’ll have theories about what’s going on with my body and you’re going to have advice for me about how to navigate a massively dysfunctional healthcare system.

That’s great, go for it. I’m all ears.

But know that while diagnostic questions make up the raw material for this story, it’s not really what the story is about. The real subject here is epistemological. Which is to say that it’s about how we come to know what we believe we know about ourselves. It’s about what happens to us when we can’t make sense of our own experience. It’s about the difference between how we define ourselves and the ways in which we are defined by others. And, more than anything else, it’s about what happens when our own capacity for definition fails us.

By the end there will be some answers. But inevitably those answers will raise a whole series of new questions. Because just as the process of assigning a diagnosis gives rise to impossible dilemmas, so does the process of living with one. And in the end this is a story about living in a state of unknowing.


Starting points: five diagnostic dilemmas

I have been unwell for at least two years, and I have not been able to get an answer to that seemingly simple question: what’s wrong?

It’s difficult to pinpoint the precise starting point for this story. There are many symptomatic markers, but in the absence of a clear diagnosis none of them point to a reliable starting place.


A first diagnostic dilemma: when does an illness begin?


I’ve often wondered if it didn’t start as long as four or five years ago, when I began noticing a gradual decline in my sexual functioning. My libido was dropping, and I began experiencing erectile dysfunction.

Because I am a psychotherapist, I naturally turned first to psychological explanations. In addition to being a clinician, I’ve been a patient in some form of psychotherapy for most of my adult life. I have a history of anxiety and depression once acute but at this point largely under control. There were current stresses that seemed like they could be causing the problem, not the least of which was the fact that my wife was publishing a frank memoir in which she openly discussed her past sexual history. That would be enough to put many men into a sexual crisis. So it seemed like the logical place to start in the search for answers.

 

Diagnostic dilemma number two: how do you distinguish between psychological and physical causes of an illness?


There was a part of me that really wanted the problem to be  psychological. Because that would mean, in some sense, that I was in control of it. I knew how to do the emotional work, I felt confident that if that’s where the problem was, I would be able to work through it.

So I dug in. Three more years of intense work with a very good and very expensive individual therapist (one outcome of years of having done years of psychotherapy is that insurance companies treat any mental health diagnosis as pre-existing symptoms and refuse to cover it), in conjunction with the on-going marital therapy my wife and I were doing with another very good (and equally expensive) therapist.

Inevitably, as I did this emotional work I re-encountered parts of my psyche that were informing my current sexual experience. I faced it all head on. By this point in my life this was very familiar terrain. In fact, I was discovering that after years of work the charge had largely gone out of my past trauma. I could directly face the experiences which had affected me so negatively in the past. I could acknowledge the pain without feeling overwhelmed by it.

To me that has always been a pretty good definition of mental health.

But something didn’t fit. Because no matter how emotionally clear I felt, I was still a mess in bed. I could rarely maintain an erection for more than a few minutes and often I couldn’t get one at all. Even worse, the energy of desire itself was continuing to drain out of me. Left to my own devices, sex wouldn’t cross my mind at all for days or weeks. And even in those rare moments when I felt a clear, strong, psychological desire, the physical problems remained.

Finally, reluctantly, I went to my physician and described what was going on. He said, in effect, “welcome to middle age,” as he handed me a prescription for Cialis.

 

Diagnostic dilemma number three: how do you differentiate the onset of illness from the processes of normative development?


Cialis worked inconsistently, which proved to be a worse experience than having it not work at all. The same with Viagra and Levitra. And the more I understood about the erectile dysfunction they were designed to treat, the more I understood that there was no reason they should have helped. Whatever was going on with me, it wasn’t a blood flow issue. It was something else.

I began to think back to my medical history. In 1985 I had a bout with testicular cancer. I had a tumor on one testicle which was removed. After that I’d spent six weeks receiving a heavy prophylactic dose of radiation. Was that the real starting point? Twenty-three years earlier?

 

Diagnostic dilemma number four: how do you distinguish between the recurrence of a pre-existing condition and the onset of a new illness?


(This is not just a medical question, of course. It’s a reimbursement issue, as I discovered during the original cancer treatment, none of which was covered by my insurance because my doctor had observed in his notes that I had discovered the lump prior to being enrolled in my current insurance plan.)

After the surgery and radiation, I was a compliant patient. I followed up on all my post-surgery check-ups. And I was given a clean bill of health. But decades later as I began looking into the research, I learned that there could be long-term delayed consequences of both the cancer and the radiation. I had to wonder if that wasn’t the cause of my problems. I pressed my doctor to check my testosterone levels and to provide me with a referral to an endocrinologist.

The endocrinologist verified that my testosterone levels were low. (“Inadequate testicular functioning,” were the depressing words he used as he diagnosed me with the equally depressing word, “hypogonadism.”) But, he said, what concerns me more are your thyroid levels.

Hypothyroid. A second diagnosis, one I’d never considered even though I’m well aware that hypothyroidism is a common physical cause of depression, not to mention that it’s bound up with a variety of problems with sexual functioning.

He put me on both testosterone replacement and a thyroid medication.

This left one question unaddressed: were these two diagnoses related, or did they represent different aspects of the same underlying issue?

 

Diagnostic dilemma number five: how do you determine whether you are dealing with a single syndrome as it evolves over time, or whether are you looking at two or more co-occuring conditions?


There was no way to answer this question, but I allowed myself to hope that this diagnosis and treatment was going to turn things around for me. I even let myself imagine that it might address problems that I’d been enduring for decades, like the occasional bouts of low-level depression that I had resigned myself to living with. I was genuinely hopeful that things were going to get better.


A final dilemma

Most of what I’m describing here happened a little over two years ago, in the spring and summer of 2008. I added the new medications to the statin and the antidepressant that I was already taking. I started scanning myself for improvements. And at first the medication did seem to help…a little. I felt a bit more energy, a bit more sexual interest. I tried to leverage that small feeling of improvement into something more. I tried to convince myself that the drugs were helping more than they actually seemed to be.

What’s odd, looking back, is how well I was functioning at that time compared to how I feel today. Back then I had a decent amount of energy. I was still getting up early in the mornings to do long trail runs, often up to the top of the mountain near our house. I’d been a runner for a long time and it was an activity that in many ways defined me. I’d run five full marathons by then, the most recent one in 2006 in New Orleans.

Really, anyone looking at me would have said that I was in great shape.

And I had a clear diagnosis, two of them in fact, clearly defined by blood tests. I was treating them effectively. After some fine-tuning the endocrinologist announced that my testosterone and thyroid levels were both right where they should be.

But nothing was changing much. Not my sexual functioning, not my mood. Not really.

So I was left with yet another dilemma: what does it mean when a person receives an accurate diagnosis and treats the illness adequately and still continues to experience the same symptoms?

That question would soon grow urgent.

Because, symptomatically at least, things had just barely gotten started.


[Part two of this series will look at my experience of a puzzling set of new symptoms through the lens of my experience teaching diagnosis.]

Share
 

As I head off to the American Counseling Association conference in Pittsburgh this weekend, I am posting my account (in a five-part video series) of my experiences as a volunteer mental health worker in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. As a therapist (especially one who is guided by attachment theory), I have long understand the importance of helping my clients form a coherent narrative after they have lived through life-shattering trauma. But I don’t think I fully appreciated how deeply healing it is to create and re-tell such stories until I went through this experience myself. I tell this story with the hope of healing for those who continue to suffer the effects of the storm, and with the understanding that those who strive to help others heal can experience their own lives unraveling in the process. We all need to re-weave our experience into stories that make sense.

Share
 

As a psychotherapist and as someone who has taught diagnosis to aspiring counselors, I take serious issue with George Will’s irresponsible and mystifying attack on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in the last Sunday’s Washington Post.

Will describes the DSM’s classification of psychological disorders as a liberal plot which is designed to “absolve the individual of responsibility” for his or her actions and which “strips the individual of personhood, and moral dignity.”

He supports this argument by selecting short phrases from the recently released proposed revised DSM criteria, describing characteristics and behaviors which are common to particular disorders. What Will pointedly omits however is the thoughtful and complex language in the DSM which sets these characteristics into context. A person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder does have, as Will states, a personality style characterized by “grandiosity” and a “need for admiration.” And if this were all that was necessary for a diagnosis, George Will himself would merit the diagnosis, along with a significant percentage of the rest of the population.

That’s not the case, though. In order to diagnose this (or any other Personality Disorder) the DSM requires that the patient’s experience and behavior rise to a level of significant, life-long distress which seriously impairs their functioning. In other words, you don’t get to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder just because you’re grandiose. Such traits have to represent “the failure to develop a sense of self-identity and the capacity for interpersonal functioning that are adaptive in the context of the individual’s cultural norms and expectations.” This adaptive failure must be “associated with extreme levels of one or more personality traits.”

The DSM exists because mental suffering exists. It is inevitably an imperfect document which is subject to continuous and vigorous debate among professionals in the field. I myself take issue with aspects of a number of its definitions and categorical assignments. In fact, I have never met a mental health professional who doesn’t.

But contrary to Will’s baffling argument, diagnosing someone with a mental disorder does not absolve them from responsibility for their actions. Nor does it strip away their personhood. Rather, it is the means by which a person can identify the sources of their suffering and thus assume greater responsibility for their actions. Diagnosis, done responsibly, doesn’t take away our personhood, it helps us restore it.

How else would Will have us start to address the mental and emotional suffering of our fellow humans if not by naming it?

Share
© 2011 The Next Ten Minutes Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha