Radosh.net

"grounds" privileges! That was funny enough, no added emphasis needed.

Daniel: It's the Dr. to whom your rather inflammatory comment was directed writing to see if you'd consider printing a more accurate portrayal of my letter by printing my whole letter which explains: Although I had warned that the young patient had suicidal tendencies, because I was the EVALUATING psychologist and NOT the treating psychiatrist or unit chief, I had no control over the "ground's priviledges" that were offered without my knowledge -- the privileges that permitted opportunity for suicide. As a matter of fact, I had strongly recommend that this young person be watched at all times and never be left unattended. I was in my twenties and firey at the time, as you and your readers seem to be now. Therefore, back at that age I too might have hastily read a partial letter and jumped the gun about chastising the author of such a letter. However, I wrote the NY Times letter in the spirit of protecting all children and adolescents who are endangered by the idea that the "medication" could relax the careful "looking out" for their well being by those responsible for their health and very survival. I see that you and Gina and even Lauren (from her comment) mistook the outaken snippet of my letter. In actuality, prior to that tragic incident, twenty years ago, I tried my best to protect and warn instead. If you are saying "Fuck You" to me because you misinterpreted the situation, and thought I made that privileges decision, then we are on the same side and both want to protect those who are vulnerable. I maintain that it is the responsibility of all thinking people to protect children and teens -- especially people in my business of psychotherapy and your business too as media reaches a lot of people. The pain in my heart for that patient and all others who might be in similar danger motivated my writing of that letter. But Daniel, your spin on my letter distracts from that message. Instead of helping your readers and posters become more educated to be of service to those around them who might be in danger, you've run with the completely wrong, albeit intensely felt, message. So, if you would, a posting of my full letter would be appreciated along with a note that the Evaluating Psychologist is a one-time meeting to assess and make the right recommendation, which I did -- without mincing words, I said no privileges, grounds or any other that entailed being alone, and "DON'T LET THIS PATIENT OUT OF YOUR SIGHT DUE TO THE HIGH RISK OF SUICIDE." I did my best to inform and guide the real-time decisions made, in my absence, by the doctors in charge of this case -- decisions which I believe were partially motivated by the false security that comes from believing that someone is"medicated" can sometimes provide. That false sense of security is the whole point of my letter. A point you missed. Your spin on my letter distracts readers from that real and important message, which is to listen to Dr. Healy's many warnings. At great cost to his career, he insisted we watch out for the welfare of kids, our children, younger siblings, students, patients, any child or teen who is being prescribed antidepressants and that the pharmaceutical industry label products to make everyone aware of this danger for the safety of the kids who depend upon us. Please use your blog to help get THIS message out, since, or so it seems from your other postings, unless I am misinterpreting you as much as you already misinterpreted me, your heart is likewise in the right place but this one slipped by you...

Dr. Silverberg

FULL LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE NY TIMES:

Letters
Published: November 22, 2005
Heeding Warnings
To the Editor:

Re "A Self-Effacing
Scholar Is Psychiatry's Gadfly" (Scientist at Work, David Healy, Nov. 15):

A 14-year-old depressed patient climbed to the hospital roof and jumped off headfirst, breaking his neck.

I was the evaluating psychologist on that case 20 years ago and had previously reported his suicidal tendencies. But he was supposedly "stabilized" on drugs and, therefore, was given "grounds privileges" before he committed suicide.

When Dr. David Healy issued his findings in 1997, my own experience proved that indeed "he was right and everyone else was wrong" - to paraphrase Dr. Healy's wife.

Thanks to Dr. Healy's efforts more children and adolescents will be safer now that drug regulators have issued strong warnings about the medications.

Like Dr. Healy, I acknowledge the usefulness of antidepressants in moderation. I also support differentiating between depression and disappointment (a much underdiagnosed state that best is solved by learning to live up to one's potential). The emphasis on mental health drugs today blurs the distinction between these two different problems.

Dr. Farrell Silverberg
Philadelphia
The writer is a psychologist and the author of "Make the Leap."

I'm sorry that my post upset you. It was not meant as a criticism of you or a serious comment on the issue. It was simply a dark joke about an unfortunate, unintentional pun. I realized when I wrote it that it made no sense if you thought about it too hard -- obviously you didn't write your book until years after this incident, so how could the patient have been reacting to it? I can understand that somebody close to this situation can hardly see any humor in it. But for the rest of us, who see tragic stories in the newspaper every day, it sometimes helps to laugh, no matter how inappropriately.

As they dark humorist and ancient playwright Terence once said, "Moderation in all things." I agree that laughter is good medicine, but I suppose that moderation can even apply to using discretion in tempering humor with consideration when apropos. Thanks for your reply. I'll post this response and we'll move on. Best regards, and keep up the good work on your blog, Dr. Silverberg.

This letter from Dr. Silverberg sounds suspiciously like the letters sent to Gawker that sound suspiciously like they could be coming from Peter Braunstein...