By Martin Whitely

DSM-5, the newest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s ‘Bible of Psychiatry’ will be officially released in May 2013 and is already available for presale.  However, this edition of the DSM may not prove as profitable for the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as there is a growing international chorus of voices, many from within mainstream psychiatry, calling for a boycott of the DSM5.

The most prominent critic of DSM5 is Professor Allen Frances who led the development of the current edition DSMIV.  Professor Frances has identified many DSM5 changes that will likely add to ‘the history of psychiatry (which) is littered with fad diagnoses that in retrospect did far more harm than good’.[1]

The DSM5 changes Professor Frances is concerned about include:

1. Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM 5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder… We have no idea whatever how this untested new diagnosis will play out in real life practice settings, but my fear is that it will exacerbate, not relieve, the already excessive and inappropriate use of medication in young children…
2. Normal grief will become Major Depressive Disorder, thus medicalizing and trivializing our expectable and necessary emotional reactions to the loss of a loved one and substituting pills and superficial medical rituals for the deep consolations of family, friends, religion, and the resiliency that comes with time and the acceptance of the limitations of life.
3. The everyday forgetting characteristic of old age will now be misdiagnosed as Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, creating a huge false positive population of people who are not at special risk for dementia…
4. DSM 5 will likely trigger a fad of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder leading to widespread misuse of stimulant drugs for performance enhancement and recreation and contributing to the already large illegal secondary market in diverted prescription drugs.
5. Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food. DSM 5 has instead turned it into a psychiatric illness called Binge Eating Disorder…
6. First time substance abusers will be lumped in definitionally in with hard core addicts despite their very different treatment needs and prognosis and the stigma this will cause.
7. DSM 5 has created a slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions that eventually can spread to make a mental disorder of everything we like to do a lot.  Watch out for careless overdiagnosis of internet and sex addiction and the development of lucrative treatment programs to exploit these new markets.
8. DSM 5 obscures the already fuzzy boundary been Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the worries of everyday life.  Small changes in definition can create millions of anxious new ‘patients’ and expand the already widespread practice of inappropriately prescribing addicting anti-anxiety medications.
9. DSM 5 has opened the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings.[2]
10. DSM 5 includes a proposal for ‘Somatic Symptom Disorder’ (SSD). This new diagnosis will encourage ‘a quick jump to the erroneous conclusion that someone’s physical symptoms are ‘all in the head’ and mislabel as mental disorders ‘the normal emotional reactions that people understandably have in response to a medical illness’.[3]

Professor Frances concerns can’t be dismissed as the architect of the old edition protecting his work from revision. While criticizing the proposals in DSM5, Professor Frances has identified that the DSMIV process he led inadvertently helped ‘trigger three false epidemics. One for Autistic Disorder… another for the childhood diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder and the third for the wild over-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder.’[4] Of course Professor Frances was not solely responsible for the development of the DSMIV diagnostic criteria for ADHD or for other disorders. They were developed by sub-committees of the APA however, as the overall leader of the DSMIV development process he has accepted his share of responsibility for the problems DSMIV helped create.

International Boycotts of DSM5

Internationally there are several alternative online petitions calling for a boycott of DSM5. The most prominent titled ‘Is the DSM5 safe? – Now is the time for mental health professionals and consumers to respond to the problems of the DSM5’ is available at http://dsm5response.com/. Another is titled ‘BOYCOTT DSM5 – Do No Harm’ is primarily aimed at American clinicians and is available at http://boycott5committee.com/.

This second petition has attracted some criticism because it ends with the statement; ‘If we find ourselves obliged to employ diagnostic codes, we agree to disregard the new DSM and utilize the codes listed in the ICD-9 and the next edition of ICD, when the latter is implemented in October, 2014.’ Some DSM5 critics see this as an endorsement of the World Health Organisation’s similarly flawed (but in my view not quite as bad) ICD diagnostic system. I don’t agree. I believe the statement in regards to the ICD is practical advice to American clinicians who are required to quote a ‘diagnostic’ code in order to receive payment from Health Insurers.

In his recent blog, DSM 5 Boycotts and Petitions, Professor Frances suggested there is a real danger that fragmentation and internal differences amongst critics may see the boycott against DSM5 being less effective.[5] In an ideal world one coordinated DSM5 Boycott approach would be better, however I am not as concerned as Professor Frances about multiple petitions diluting their effect as long as every petition contains the a simple message to: Boycott DSM5 – Don’t Buy It and Don’t Use It – It is dangerous and scientifically unsound.

This is a battle that can be won. Already in large part because of Professor Frances courageous, persistent and effective leadership some of the worst proposals for DSM5 like Psychosis Risk Disorder rolled back.[6] (But unfortunately not yet dead – see Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test)

Australian Critics of DSM5

Closer to home prominent Australian and New Zealand critics of the DSM5 from within the psychiatric profession include Professor Jon Jureidini, University of Adelaide, Professor David Castle, University of Melbourne; Associate Professor Tim Carey, Flinders University, Australia; Professor John Read, Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Auckland; Melissa Raven, Research Fellow, Flinders University.

Even Professor Patrick McGorry has been critical of the DSM5 as setting arbitrary boundaries between diagnostic silos.[7] Professor McGorry argues that ‘Precise definition of the boundary between what is deemed normal and mental disorder with a need for care is difficult. But how crucial or feasible is the creation of such a precise definition? Would a grey area with soft and flexible entry (and exit) and personal choice as key features of a new primary care culture be acceptable?’ While Professor McGorry’s criticisms of DSM5 are valid, the detail of what he proposes as ‘early intervention’ is just as alarming to many within psychiatry concerned about its’ propensity to turn normal human emotions and distress into disease.

Regardless the current immediate battlefront is DSM5. After it is knocked on its’ head then a long overdue national and international debate about the appropriate direction for psychiatric diagnostic systems can begin in earnest.

[1] See American Psychiatric Association approval of DSM-5 is a sad day for Psychiatry- by Prof Allen Frances

[2] See American Psychiatric Association approval of DSM-5 is a sad day for Psychiatry- by Prof Allen Frances

[3] See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/mislabeling-medical-illness-mental-disorder

[4] Dr Allen Frances, ‘Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual’, PBS Newshour, 10 February 2010. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/mentalillness_02-10.html (accessed 26 February 2010).

[5] See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201302/dsm-5-boycotts-and-petitions

[6] See DSM5 Rollback Begins – Psychosis Risk Disorder gone and the revised proposal for DSM5 ADHD criteria not quite as horrific

[7] Patrick McGorry, Jim van Os. Redeeming diagnosis in psychiatry: timing versus specificity, The Lancet, 26 Jan 2013, Vol 381, pp 343-345. McGorry attacks value of DSM5

This blog was originally Published on December 2, 2012 in DSM5 in Distress at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201212/dsm-5-is-guide-not-bible-ignore-its-ten-worst-changes

This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound.  My best advice to clinicians, to the press, and to the general public – be skeptical and don’t follow DSM 5 blindly down a road likely to lead to massive over-diagnosis and harmful over-medication.  Just ignore the ten changes that make no sense.

Brief background.  DSM 5 got off to a bad start and was never able to establish sure footing. Its leaders initially articulated a premature and unrealizable goal- to produce a paradigm shift in psychiatry.  Excessive ambition combined with disorganized execution led inevitably to many ill-conceived and risky proposals.

These were vigorously opposed.  More than fifty mental health professional associations petitioned for an outside review of DSM 5 to provide an independent judgment of its supporting evidence and to evaluate the balance between its risks and benefits.  Professional journals, the press, and the public also weighed in- expressing widespread astonishment about decisions that sometimes seemed not only to lack scientific support but also to defy common sense.

DSM 5 has neither been able to self-correct nor willing to heed the advice of outsiders. It has instead created a mostly closed shop- circling the wagons and deaf to the repeated and widespread warnings that it would lead to massive misdiagnosis.  Fortunately, some of its most egregiously risky and unsupportable proposals were eventually dropped under great external pressure (most notably ‘psychosis risk’, mixed anxiety/depression, internet and sex addiction, rape as a mental disorder, ‘hebephilia’, cumbersome personality ratings, and sharply lowered thresholds for many existing disorders).  But APA stubbornly refused to sponsor any independent review and has given final approval to the ten reckless and untested ideas that are summarized below.

The history of psychiatry is littered with fad diagnoses that in retrospect did far more harm than good.  Yesterday’s APA approval makes it likely that DSM 5 will start a half or dozen or more new fads which will be detrimental to the misdiagnosed individuals and costly to our society.

The motives of the people working on DSM 5 have often been questioned.  They have been accused of having a financial conflict of interest because some have (minimal) drug company ties and also because so many of the DSM 5 changes will enhance Pharma profits by adding to our already existing societal overdose of carelessly prescribed psychiatric medicine.  But I know the people working on DSM 5 and know this charge to be both unfair and untrue. Indeed, they have made some very bad decisions, but they did so with pure hearts and not because they wanted to help the drug companies.  Their’s is an intellectual, not financial, conflict of interest that results from the natural tendency of highly specialized experts to over value their pet ideas, to want to expand their own areas of research interest, and to be oblivious to the distortions that occur in translating DSM 5 to real life clinical practice (particularly in primary care where 80% of psychiatric drugs are prescribed).

The APA’s deep dependence on the publishing profits generated by the DSM 5 business enterprise creates a far less pure motivation.  There is an inherent and influential conflict of interest between the DSM 5 public trust and DSM 5 as a best seller.  When its deadlines were consistently missed due to poor planning and disorganized implementation, APA chose quietly to cancel the DSM 5 field testing step that was meant to provide it with a badly needed opportunity for quality control.  The current draft has been approved and is now being rushed prematurely to press with incomplete field testing for one reason only- so that DSM 5 publishing profits can fill the big hole in APA’s projected budget and return dividends on the exorbitant cost of 25 million dollars that has been charged to DSM 5 preparation.

This is no way to prepare or to approve a diagnostic system.  Psychiatric diagnosis has become too important in selecting treatments, determining eligibility for benefits and services, allocating resources, guiding legal judgments, creating stigma, and influencing personal expectations to be left in the hands of an APA that has proven itself incapable of producing a safe, sound, and widely accepted manual.

New diagnoses in psychiatry are more dangerous than new drugs because they influence whether or not millions of people are placed on drugs- often by primary care doctors after brief visits. Before their introduction, new diagnoses deserve the same level of attention to safety that we devote to new drugs. APA is not competent to do this.

So, here is my list of DSM 5’s ten most potentially harmful changes. I would suggest that clinicians not follow these at all (or, at the very least, use them with extreme caution and attention to their risks); that potential patients be deeply skeptical, especially if the proposed diagnosis is being used as a rationale for prescribing medication for you or for your child; and that payers question whether some of these are suitable for reimbursement. My goal is to minimize the harm that may otherwise be done by unnecessary obedience to unwise and arbitrary DSM 5 decisions.

1) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM 5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder- a puzzling decision based on the work of only one research group. We have no idea whatever how this untested new diagnosis will play out in real life practice settings, but my fear is that it will exacerbate, not relieve, the already excessive and inappropriate use of medication in young children. During the past two decades, child psychiatry has already provoked three fads- a tripling of Attention Deficit Disorder, a more than twenty-times increase in Autistic Disorder, and a forty-times increase in childhood Bipolar Disorder. The field should have felt chastened by this sorry track record and should engage itself now in the crucial task of educating practitioners and the public about the difficulty of accurately diagnosing children and the risks of over- medicating them. DSM 5 should not be adding a new disorder likely to result in a new fad and even more inappropriate medication use in vulnerable children.

2) Normal grief will become Major Depressive Disorder, thus medicalizing and trivializing our expectable and necessary emotional reactions to the loss of a loved one and substituting pills and superficial medical rituals for the deep consolations of family, friends, religion, and the resiliency that comes with time and the acceptance of the limitations of life.

3) The everyday forgetting characteristic of old age will now be misdiagnosed as Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, creating a huge false positive population of people who are not at special risk for dementia. Since there is no effective treatment for this ‘condition’ (or for dementia), the label provides absolutely no benefit (while creating great anxiety) even for those at true risk for later developing dementia. It is a dead loss for the many who will be mislabeled.

4) DSM 5 will likely trigger a fad of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder leading to widespread misuse of stimulant drugs for performance enhancement and recreation and contributing to the already large illegal secondary market in diverted prescription drugs.

5) Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food. DSM 5 has instead turned it into a psychiatric illness called Binge Eating Disorder.

6) The changes in the DSM 5 definition of Autism will result in lowered rates- 10% according to estimates by the DSM 5 work group, perhaps 50% according to outside research groups. This reduction can be seen as beneficial in the sense that the diagnosis of Autism will be more accurate and specific- but advocates understandably fear a disruption in needed school services. Here the DSM 5 problem is not so much a bad decision, but the misleading promises that it will have no impact on rates of disorder or of service delivery. School services should be tied more to educational need, less to a controversial psychiatric diagnosis created for clinical (not educational) purposes and whose rate is so sensitive to small changes in definition and assessment.

7) First time substance abusers will be lumped in definitionally in with hard core addicts despite their very different treatment needs and prognosis and the stigma this will cause.

8) DSM 5 has created a slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions that eventually can spread to make a mental disorder of everything we like to do a lot.  Watch out for careless overdiagnosis of internet and sex addiction and the development of lucrative treatment programs to exploit these new markets.

9) DSM 5 obscures the already fuzzy boundary been Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the worries of everyday life.  Small changes in definition can create millions of anxious new ‘patients’ and expand the already widespread practice of inappropriately prescribing addicting anti-anxiety medications.

10) DSM 5 has opened the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings.

DSM 5 has dropped its pretension to being a paradigm shift in psychiatric diagnosis and instead (in a dramatic 180 degree turn) now makes the equally misleading claim that it is a conservative document that will have minimal impact on the rates of psychiatric diagnosis and in the consequent provision of inappropriate treatment.  This is an untenable claim that DSM 5 cannot possibly support because, for completely unfathomable reasons, it never took the simple and inexpensive step of actually studying the impact of DSM on rates in real world settings.

Except for autism, all the DSM 5 changes loosen diagnosis and threaten to turn our current diagnostic inflation into diagnostic hyperinflation. Painful experience with previous DSM’s teaches that if anything in the diagnostic system can be misused and turned into a fad, it will be.  Many millions of people with normal grief, gluttony, distractibility, worries, reactions to stress, the temper tantrums of childhood, the forgetting of old age, and ‘behavioral addictions’ will soon be mislabeled as psychiatrically sick and given inappropriate treatment.

People with real psychiatric problems that can be reliably diagnosed and effectively treated are already badly shortchanged. DSM 5 will make this worse by diverting attention and scarce resources away from the really ill and toward people with the everyday problems of life who will be harmed, not helped, when they are mislabeled as mentally ill.

Our patients deserve better, society deserves better, and the mental health professions deserve better. Caring for the mentally ill is a noble and effective profession.  But we have to know our limits and stay within them.

DSM 5 violates the most sacred (and most frequently ignored) tenet in medicine- First Do No Harm!  That is why this is such a sad moment.

Martin Whitely’s comment:  Professor Frances’ comments can’t be dismissed as the architect of the old edition protecting his work from revision. As the overall leader of the DSM-4 development process he has accepted his share of responsibility for the problems DSM-4 helped create.[1. See http://speedupsitstill.com/dr-allen-frances-lead-author-dsmiv-british-psychological-association-lead-chorus-opposition-disease-mongering-proposals-dsm5 ]  However, rather than learn the lessons of inappropriate medicalisation of behavior and over-prescription from DSM-4, the American Psychiatric Association is about to deliver much worse in DSM-5.  Surely now is the time for the Australian psychiatric profession to end its slavish devotion to the broken American model that sees more than one in five US adults on at least one mental health drug.[2. Report: 1 in 5 American Adults Takes Mental Health Drugs. Time Magazine Nov. 16, 2011
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/16/report-whos-taking-mental-health-drugs-in-america/?hpt=he_c2 ]

“Personalities, rhetoric and charisma are driving the direction of mental health rather than science and evidence.” (Martin Whitely MLA, Parliament of Western Australia, 25 September 2012)

Related Media

Sue Dunlevy, News Limited Sunday papers, 7 October 2012, Doubts cast on youth mental health program. Available at  http://www.news.com.au/national/doubts-cast-on-youth-mental-health-program/story-fndo4eg9-1226489760605

Also see Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorrys-ultra-high-risk-psychosis-theory-fails-common-sense-test

MARTIN WHITELY (Trancript of speech in the Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia, 25 September 2012): I want to use this opportunity to talk about some very serious concerns I have about the direction of the mental health policy in Australia. My basic contention is that personalities, rhetoric and charisma are driving the direction of mental health rather than science and evidence.

In May 2011, the Gillard government announced that it would spend $2.2 billion on mental health initiatives over five years. The biggest program it announced expenditure on, costing $222.4 million and which would be matched by state governments, was for the rollout of 16 Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre sites nationally, which would have “the capacity to assist more than 11 000 Australians with, or at risk of developing, psychotic mental illness.”[1]

A month later, amid growing criticisms of the ability to help those at risk of becoming psychotic, Patrick McGorry, the chief architect of EPPIC services, told The Australian “EPPICs do not treat people with psychosis risk but only patients who have had their first psychotic episode…”[2]

That is in direct contravention to what was said in the May 2011 announcement. Since then the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, once in December 2011[3] and again in June 2012[4] indicated that EPPICs may not treat those perceived to be at ultra-high risk of becoming psychotic; which is in conflict with what he said in the May 2011 rollout.

Frankly, confusion reigns supreme. I asked a question in the May 2012 estimates process in the Western Australian Parliament about the functions of the planned Western Australian EPPIC services. The response that came back as supplementary information after the estimates process stated “The Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) services are for young people with first episode early psychosis and for detecting those with ultra high risk of developing psychosis.”[5]

Members can see the confusion. The initial announcement was that they would be for the purpose of assessing those at ultra-high risk of developing psychosis. Then there was a backdown by both McGorry, the architect of EPPIC, and the mental health minister. Then the state government indicated that that was one of the chief functions.

How could the functions of the most expensive program that is being rolled out nationally be so confused? There are two reasons for this: first, because we have been let down by the politicians in Canberra on all sides—I am one of the rare critics in politics of what is happening—and, second, because we have been let down by the media. They have been inattentive to the detail of what is on offer.

The problem is that the politicians have let a handful of gurus relying on rhetoric, charisma and hype drive the direction of the mental health policy in Australia. They have accepted their overblown claims without scrutiny. The danger is that young Australians will suffer as a result.

Patrick McGorry is undoubtedly the biggest of those gurus. EPPIC is very much his baby. Patrick McGorry has two claims to fame. The first is obviously the fact that in 2010 he was made Australian of the Year. The second is that he is one of the world’s most prominent advocates of preventive psychiatry. The philosophy of preventive psychiatry is basically the idea that a stitch in time saves nine. In other words, if we get in pre-emptively before people become mentally ill, we can help them—we can prevent it.

He uses the language of early intervention when he is really (often talking about prevention and) not talking about early intervention. He is (often) not talking about getting people when they become psychotic; he is talking about getting in there prior to the advent of psychosis. The theory is that we can spot and stop psychosis and a range of mental illnesses before they happen. Intuitively, it seems like a reasonable theory. However, the independent evidence that is available shows that there are two problems with the theory.

First, we cannot predict with any accuracy who will become mentally ill. In the case of psychosis, the accuracy of predictions are somewhere between eight per cent and 36 per cent. Second, even when we do predict those who will go on to become psychotic, the interventions that are on offer simply do not help in the long term. There is little evidence of sustained benefits.

The problem that we are all saddled with is that Patrick McGorry has been unable to accept that his theory does not stand up to the evidence. He has been unable to accept that even when this theory has been rejected internationally. We should be doing a double take on what we are doing in Australia.

We can thank Professor McGorry for putting mental health on the political agenda in the lead-up to the 2010 election. His status as Australian of the Year allowed him to do that, but we cannot continue to blindly follow him where he tells us to go. Frankly, that is just what is happening.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, as I said, mental health was on the agenda for the first time. Anybody who watched Insight on SBS in July 2010 would have noticed just how deferential the presenters and the politicians were to Patrick McGorry—in particular Peter Dutton on behalf of the Liberal Party and Mark Butler on behalf of the Labor Party. Peter Dutton went the furthest; he said “we’re going to roll out a national scheme based on advice by people like John Mendoza, Pat McGorry, Ian Hickey, David Crosby and others.”[6] He added that “early intervention is proven, without any doubt, to work”. Frankly, that is just complete and utter rubbish. The independent evidence shows us anything but that.

In fact, Patrick McGorry used an address to the National Press Club in the lead-up to the 2010 election to say that we had “twenty-first century solutions” that were just waiting to be implemented if only government would urgently fund these “proven approaches”.[7]

The rhetoric continued after the election. In March 2011 Professor McGorry was the co-author of a blueprint for mental health that significantly said — “EPPIC has the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care, demonstrating not only their clinical effectiveness but also their financial and social return on investment. This is a mature model simply requiring implementation in Australia.”[8]

Frankly, the hype is not backed up by the evidence. In 2011 the Cochrane Collaboration, which is acknowledged internationally as one of the world’s most rigorous, systematic and comprehensive sources of independent, reliable medical information, found that there was “inconclusive evidence” that early intervention could prevent psychosis and that “there is a question of whether the gains are maintained”.[9] Professor McGorry responded by attacking the Cochrane review, saying it used flawed methodology.[10] As I pointed out, Cochrane is widely regarded as the gold standard for international research. ` Other evidence that the claims are not supported by the facts was provided by a Queensland psychiatric registrar and economist—he has dual training—Andrew Amos, who wrote an article in the June edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry entitled “Assessing the cost of early intervention in psychosis: A systemic review”.[11] He wrote about the methodology used in his study, saying that 11 articles were included in the review. He made reference to one that was co-authored by Patrick McGorry, writing, “one small case-control study with evidence of significant bias concluded annual early-intervention costs were one-third of treatment-as-usual costs.”

That is the only one that found positive outcomes. He said there was significant bias in that study. Andrew Amos’s paper concluded “the published literature does not support the contention that early intervention for psychosis reduces costs or achieves cost-effectiveness.”

We have to bear that against Professor McGorry’s claim that EPPIC is supported by “the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care”.[12] It simply does not stack up.

The problem is that after the 2010 election, there was no independent review process. The mental health minister, Mark Butler, tried in a sense when he set up the Mental Health Expert Working Group, which included a number of mental health practitioners, including Professor McGorry and Ian Hickey, and Monsignor David Cappo, who was the vice-chair. For some unknown reason, those three gentlemen decided to step outside the process and produce their own blueprint for mental health. They termed themselves the Independent Mental Health Reform Group.

Basically, they produced a $3.5 billion, five-year wish list, which was completely devoid of evidence.[13] Mark Butler should have resisted it at that stage but the media pressure was enormous because there is an enormous cheer squad for this group. He should have ordered an independent review of the evidence underlying the claims that were made in that blueprint. Instead, he adopted so much of it, which led to the $2.2 billion announcement and the $222.4 million for EPPIC, being half of the total expenditure when it is supplemented by the states.

Soon after the debate started to change for Professor McGorry. In fact, science started to catch up with some of his claims last year when international debate about the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (often called Psychosis Risk Syndrome) in DSM5 took place. The basic theory underlying Professor McGorry’s work and the proposed diagnosis of Attenuaed Psychosis Syndrome was that mental illness has a prodromal phase, and in that phase mental illnesses can be predicted, treated and prevented. There was very strong international backlash to that.

As a result of that, we saw a change in the attitude of Professor McGorry to the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in DSM5. In May 2010 he was quoted in an article in in the Psychiatry Update entitled “DSM5 ‘risk syndrome’: a good start, should go further” as saying “The proposal for DSM5 to include a ‘risk syndrome’ reflecting an increased likelihood of mental illness is welcome but does not go far enough.”[14]

Also, Professor McGorry wrote a piece for Science Digest in 2010, entitled “Schizophrenia Research” in which he stated, “The proposal to consider including the concept of the risk syndrome in the forthcoming revision of the DSM classification is innovative and timely. It has not come out of left field, however, and is based upon a series of conceptual and empirical foundations built over the past 15 years.”[15]

It is a very strong endorsement saying it was based on 15 years of research. That was Professor McGorry, the great enthusiast for its inclusion in DSM5.

Then the heat started to go on. In June 2011, McGorry the great enthusiast, became McGorry the indifferent, when he wrote a blog on my website at my invitation. He wrote, “Personally, I am not concerned whether it (Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome) enters the DSM5 or not.”[16] So he began backing away from it.

Later, when pushed on the issue, McGorry the great enthusiast, who had become McGorry the indifferent, went on to become McGorry the denier, denying his previous position. He was on the ABC World Today program of 12 May 2011. I had said that Professor McGorry was a leading international proponent of Psychosis Risk Syndrome as a new psychiatric disorder for inclusion in the next edition of DSM5. Professor McGorry responded by saying, “contrary to Mr Whitely’s statements, I haven’t been pushing for it to be included in DSM5. Now that hasn’t been my position. But it’s a new area of work. It’s only been studied for the last 15 years.”[17]

So if we take those three positions—the great enthusiast, the indifferent, the denier—and recap, in 2010 he described the proposal to put Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in the DSM5 as “innovative and timely … has not come out of left field and is based upon a series of conceptual and empirical foundations built over the past 15 years.”

The heat goes on. In 2011 the response becomes, “I haven’t been pushing for it to be included in DSM5. Now that hasn’t been my position.… It’s only been studied for the last 15 years or so, so you know we haven’t got all the answers.”

Frankly, I was aware of the hypocrisy in that statement, but I did not actually make much of it at the time because Professor McGorry and I were engaged in some very productive discourse. I was very encouraged when in February 2012 in the Sydney Morning Herald, in an article entitled “About-turn on treatment of the young”, Professor McGorry acknowledged the widespread international concern, with the inclusion of psychosis risk syndrome in DSM5 and said that he now opposed it.[18] In fact I wrote a blog entitled “Patrick McGorry deserves praise for about-turn on Psychosis Risk Disorder”. I was very encouraged. I was prepared to forgive him the dishonesty and the inconsistency of his position.

It is important to understand why the idea of Psychosis Risk Disorder, Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome, was removed from DSM5. It was removed basically for three reasons, the first being the rate of false positives. It is an accurate diagnosis of between eight per cent In 2012 in the Medical Journal of Australia Professor David Castle a critic of the rollout of EPIC’s stated that the diagnosis was accurate in only 8% of cases. [19] In the same edition of the MJA McGorry’s close colleague Professor Alison Yung identified the conversion rate from UHR to first episode psychosis was 36%.[20] So, the false positive rate it is somewhere between a 64% per cent and a 92%.

The second was the idea that labelling someone as being pre-psychotic could be stigmatising and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The third concern was the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in people who had never been psychotic and are unlikely to go on and become psychotic.

As I said, when Professor McGorry seemingly abandoned supporting Psychosis Risk Disorder’s inclusion in DSM5, that was the high point of the trust that had developed between Professor McGorry and me. But I have to say that I now distrust him for two very clear reasons.

One is that he has acknowledged that it is a problem when other people do it but not a problem when he diagnoses it. He wrote in 2010 that “both of these concerns are valid”—the concern about extending the use of antipsychotic medication and the concerns about labelling and stigmatising people —”Both of these concerns are valid, though both can and have been addressed in our work and systems of care in Melbourne.”[21]

Basically he is saying; Look, nobody else is good enough to do it, but we are good enough to do it in our Melbourne-based system.

What really turned me around was when I got access to training DVD produced by Patrick McGorry’s Orygen Youth Health, which actually teaches mental health clinicians how to diagnose and treat Psychosis Risk Syndrome otherwise known as Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome.[22] This DVD is still for sale, even though Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome has been removed from DSM5 and even though Professor McGorry said he did not support its inclusion.

I encourage people to go to my blog and look at an excerpt from that DVD. There is a video blog there and members can look at an excerpt from the training DVD and see if it passes the commonsense test. Jon Jureidini, a professor of psychiatry at University of Adelaide, somebody who I have great respect for, looked at the training DVD and said that it is a great training tool, because it “demonstrates how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people”—a damning comment. (see Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test )

The diagnosis of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome is a very controversial issue, but more controversial than that has been the role of the use antipsychotics in the treatment of people who are not psychotic, who are considered to be at risk of being psychotic. Again, Professor McGorry has spun his own position.

In 2010 in response to my blog, he wrote, “our clinical guidelines do not (and have never done so in the past) recommend the use of anti-psychotic medication as the first line or standard treatment for this Ultra High Risk group.”[23]

It is true in the sense that final endorsed clinical guidelines have never actually recommended it, but Professor McGorry has produced draft guidelines recommending their use and, for well over a decade, Professor McGorry has experimented with and it appears likely he continues to experiment with the pre-emptive prescription of psychotropics to adolescents.

Three examples of his earlier advocacy were that in 2006 in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry he proposed a clinical staging framework for psychosis and identified “atypical antipsychotic agents” as one of the “potential interventions” for individuals who are at “ultra-high risk” of developing first-episode psychosis.[24] In 2007 in an article in the British Medical Journal that he jointly authored he extolled the potential of pre-psychotic use of pharmacological interventions.[25] Again in the British Medical Journal in 2008, in an article entitled “Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified?” he wrote — “Early intervention … It should be as central in psychiatry as it is in cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease … Several randomised controlled trials have shown that it is possible to delay the onset of fully fledged psychotic illness in young people at very high risk of early transition with either low dose antipsychotic drugs or cognitive behavioural therapy.”[26]

I easily found three instances when he advocated for it, which is in conflict with his December 2010 claim that he has not been an advocate.

After the pressure from the debate on the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in DSM–5, Professor McGorry began to adjust his position. In December 2010 he wrote that, “Antipsychotic medications should not be considered unless there is a clear-cut and sustained progression to frank psychotic disorder meeting full DSM 4 criteria.”[27] He outlined that the only exception to the previous statement is when there has been a definite failure to respond to the first and second line interventions. That was written in late 2010 in response to some concerns I had raised with him.

In November 2010 in an article in The Weekend West titled “Mental health guru stumbles into public policy minefield”, a spokesman from Orygen Youth Health said on Professor McGorry’s behalf that antipsychotics are not recommended as a standard treatment and “there has been a substantial amount of research and we do change according to the research.”

All of that kept me happy at the time, as I thought Professor McGorry had realised that the research showed that antipsychotics are not a good way to treat people perceived to be at risk of becoming psychotic. The problem is that he continued to do research on this topic.

A 2011 article referred to the NEURAPRO-Q trial that was being conducted by Professor Patrick McGorry. Thirteen international critics lodged an appeal against the trial, saying that it was unethical because of the potential harms of the use of Seroquel, an antipsychotic, in this nonpsychotic group, the very high false positive rate of misdiagnosis, which I have talked about, and a number of other reasons.

The heat was on and in August 2011, Melbourne’s The Age quoted Professor McGorry as saying that the trial had been abandoned because of “feasibility issues recruiting participants”.[28] It seems he never gave up on his treasured theory. He has acknowledged, we have all this evidence that we should not use antipsychotics in this way, yet he continued to do this trial. I contend that if he cannot prove it in 15 years of trialling antipsychotics on people who are not psychotic and are never likely to become psychotic, why would he continue to do it?

That is not the only evidence. There are more reasons to be concerned that Professor McGorry has still not abandoned his favourite theory, which is that we can use psychotropic medication as a preventive measure and a way of immunising young people against future mental illness.

He has 10 million good reasons not to abandon this research—a grant that was provided to Professor McGorry and others. He is the principal investigator for a National Health and Medical Research Council grant for “Emerging mental disorders in young people: using clinical staging for prediction, prevention and early intervention”.[29] They received a $10 million grant from the NHMRC. He said “this money will allow us to continue our research into the causes of mental illness and help the one in four young people suffering a mental disorder.”[30]

This $10 million trial may include the testing of psychotropic drugs as a preventive measure—in other words, as an attempt to immunise people against getting future mental illness.

So, go back to the claim that Professor McGorry used in the lead-up to the 2010 election. He said that the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre has “the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care”.[31] If that were true, after 15 years of trialling, we would have a mature model and there would not have been these back-downs.

We also need to be concerned about some of the disease mongering that comes out of the mouth of Professor McGorry and his allies. In March 2010 on the ABC’s Lateline program he said, “4 million Australians have mental health problems in any given year… there are 1 million young Australians aged 12 to 25 with a mental disorder in any given year. … And 750,000 of them have no access to mental health care currently.”[32]

I was at an excellent conference in Perth in June, hosted by the Richmond Fellowship of Western Australia. Patrick McGorry cited a New Zealand study, from memory, and claimed that between the ages of 18 and 25 years, 50.1 per cent of people had a psychiatric disorder.[33] This is disease mongering. This is turning normality into disease. People who are ill and need treatment will be denied resources because we spread resources too thin.

It is very upsetting that not only these statements are being made, but also the media is not questioning them. They are letting them go straight through to the keeper as though they are the absolute truth.

Professor McGorry has appropriated the language of early intervention, but in truth he is engaged in preventive psychiatry—preventive being pre-intervening; that is, stepping in and aggressively interfering with people who will probably never go on to be diseased.

In June 2012 in response to an article I wrote in The West Australian, Professor McGorry criticised me for describing him as a proponent of preventive psychiatry, but his own organisation, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, registered EPPIC as a trademark in 2011. Part of its registration program listed Orygen as providing “education and training services”, including in the “field of youth-specific preventive psychiatry”.[34] They registered it in their trademark and then a year later criticised me for describing him as an advocate of preventive psychiatry.

One of his great debating tricks is to describe people such as me and those who work in the field, such as Jon Jureidini and others, as being proponents of “late intervention”.[35] We are not. We are arguing for early intervention. When people become psychotic or become mentally ill, we should get in there and intervene and help them. It is completely disingenuous of Professor McGorry to paint his opponents as being proponents of late intervention.

There are other things of concern. In July 2012 The Sunday Age in Melbourne published an article on a 2007 Orygen Youth Health antidepressant prescribing audit. The article highlighted the concern that antidepressants were being prescribed at Orygen “to a majority of depressed 15 to 25-year-olds before they had received adequate counselling”. It also found that “75 per cent of those diagnosed with depression were given the drugs too early”.[36]

Orygen’s own “Evidence Summary: Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence?”, produced in 2009, builds a very compelling case for not using anti-depressants in young people, but then goes on to conclude that we should use them.[37] The only rationale that is offered—all the evidence is ignored—is that it is better to do something than nothing.

Am I alone? It is a relevant question. I am not an expert; I am a politician. I am probably the only politician who has stood and said, “We need to be concerned about this major investment in mental health in Australia.” I may be alone in politics, but I am not isolated within psychiatry. A range of very prominent psychiatrists are very critical of where we are going.

One of the most revealing things was that Psychiatry Update in October 2011 published a survey of psychiatrists in Australia. It revealed, “Almost 60% of psychiatrists think the Federal Government’s focus on EPPIC is inappropriate.”[38]

Others who have had plenty to say include Professor Allen Frances, the chief author of the DSM–IV, the current edition of the bible of psychiatry. He has been a fierce critic of Professor McGorry, although he is very charitable in what he says about McGorry’s intentions. He said “McGorry’s intentions are clearly noble, but so were Don Quixote’s. The kindly knight’s delusional good intentions and misguided interventions wreaked havoc and confusion at every turn.”[39] Professor Frances goes on to warn that Australia is really in danger of following him blindly down “an unknown path that is fraught with dangers”.

Another who has been critical is Professor George Patton, who told The Age that the Orygen antidepressant prescribing audit revealed how much we needed to look at the evidence base of these programs.[40] Clinical Professor David Castle, a very high profile psychiatrist from Melbourne, is also critical.[41] Professor Vaughan Carr from the University of New South Wales wrote an opinion piece that was very dismissive of Professor McGorry’s claims that this was the most cost-effective treatment. He described his claims as “a utopian fantasy” based on “published evidence that is not credible.”[42] [43]

I have run out of time. The message I want to put out there is that we need to go back to the evidence. I have met Patrick McGorry and I like him. He is a very charismatic individual and I think he is well intentioned, but that is not the point. The point is that we cannot have mental health policy driven by rhetoric; it needs to be driven by evidence.

Note: this transcript has contains endnotes and minor corrections not in the official Hansard record.

[1] National Mental Health Reform Statement by Hon. Nicola Roxon Minister, Hon. Jenny Macklin and the Hon. Mark Butler 10 May 2011 http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/ministerial_statements/health/download/ms_health.pdf

[2] Sue Dunlevy ‘Schism opens over ills of the mind’ The Australian June 16, 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/schism-opens-over-ills-of-the-mind/story-e6frg6z6-1226075910650

[3] The Hon Mark Butler MP Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Media Release 8 December 2011 More Early Psychosis Services for Young Australians. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/B9CCE606D4092CE1CA257960000474FE/$File/MB222.pdf

[4] Mark Butler A bright future for mental health in Australia Ramp Up 8 Jun 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/06/08/3521451.htm

[5] Western Australian Legislative Assembly Hansard available at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/57de02ae107600d148257a220046f171/$FILE/A38%20S1%2020120531%20p636b-639a.pdf

[6] Insight SBS television 27 July 2010 transcript available at http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/272#transcript

[7] Address to the National Press Club Canberra by Prof. Patrick McGorry July 7, 2010

[8] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[9] “There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.” Marshall M, Rathbone J. Early intervention for psychosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004718. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004718.pub3 June 15, 2011 http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004718/early-intervention-for-psychosis

[10] Stark, J. 2011, August 21. Drug trial scrapped amid outcry. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-trial-scrapped-amid-outcry-20110820-1j3vy.html

[11] Andrew Amos Australia New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry – Assessing the cost of early intervention in psychosis: A systematic review 13 June 2012 http://anp.sagepub.com/content/46/8/719

[12] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[13] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[14] Available at http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/news/DSM-V-risk-syndrome-a-good-start-should-go-further posted 20 May 2010 accessed 28 May 2011

[15] McGorry, P.D. Risk Syndromes, clinical staging and DSM V; New diagnostic infrastructure for early intervention in psychiatry, Schizophr, Res. (2010), doi;10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.016 http://www.ecnp-congress.eu/~/media/Files/ecnp/communication/talk-of-the-month/mcgorry/McGorry%20RIsk%20Syndrome%202010.pdf

[16] Professor Patrick McGorry June 2011 AUSTRALIA’S MENTAL HEALTH REFORM: AN OVERDUE INVESTMENT IN TIMELY INTERVENTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION June 2011 available at www.speedupsitstill.com

[17] The World Today – Professor McGorry hits back at critics, 20 May 2011 www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3222359.htm (accessed 28 May 2011)

[18] Amy Corderoy, About-turn on treatment of the Young,Sydney Morning Herald, February 20, 2012 http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/aboutturn-on-treatment-of-the-young-20120219-1th8a.html

[19] Professor David Castle, Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012 Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — No Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-no http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010)

[20] Professor Alison Yung, Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012 Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — Yes Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-yes

[21] In response to my blog titled Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry’s call for early intervention to prevent Psychosis: A Stitch in Time or a Step too Far? (available at http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis-stitch-time-stitch-up ) Professor McGorry wrote a blog titled Responding at the earliest opportunity to emerging mental illnesses http://www.patmcgorry.com.au/blog/pmcgorry/responding-earliest-opportunity-emerging-mental-illnesses

[22] Orygen Youth Health Centre, 2009, “Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental State (CAARMS) Training DVD”, The PACE Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne. see http://www.eppic.org.au/risk-mental-state accessed 3 September 2012

[23] Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis December 11, 2010 refer http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis

[24] McGorry, P., Purcell, R., Hickie, I. B., Yung, A. R., Pantelis, C., & Jackson, H.J. (2006) Clinical staging of psychiatric disorders: a heuristic framework for choosing earlier safer and more effective interventions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40:616-622. Note: A similar article is available online at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_07_011007/mcg10315_fm.html (accessed 26 April 2011)

[25] Yung, A.R. & McGorry, P.(2007) Prediction of psychosis: setting the stage, British Journal of Psychiatry, 191: s1-s8. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/191/51/s1 (accessed 7 December 2010)

[26] McGorry P.D. (2008) Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes, BMJ, 337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010)

[27] Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis December 11, 2010 http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis

[28] “Professor McGorry insists the decision to scrap the trial was made in June and is unrelated to the complaint, which he said he was only alerted to just over a week ago. He maintained the trial received ethics approval in July last year but was abandoned due to “feasibility issues” with recruiting participants in European and American sites, which were to form the international arm of the study”.Stark, J. (2011, August 21). Drug trial scrapped amid outcry. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-trial-scrapped-amid-outcry-20110820-1j3vy.html

[29] Refer to http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/research-funding-statistics-and-data/mental-health-0

[30] Professor Patrick McGorry Emerging Mental Disorders in Young People: Using Clinical Staging for Prediction, Prevention and Early Intervention.http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/musse/?p=417 accessed 27 September 2009

[31] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[32] ABC (11 March 2010) Mental health system in crisis: McGorry, Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Reporter: Tony Jones http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2843609.htm (accessed 26 April 2011)

[33] Professor Patrick McGorry wrote in a blog on 25 May 2011 “A recent New Zealand study has shown between 18 and 24 years that 50 per cent of young people will manifest diagnosable mental disorders, over half the time repeated episodes, which, far from being trivial or “normal”, will significantly affect their social, vocational and economic well-being at age 30.” See http://www.patmcgorry.com.au/blog/pmcgorry/government-has-thrown-black-dog-bone accessed 20 September 2012

[34] Details of the EPPIC trademark is available at http://www.trademarkify.com.au/trademark/1391532?i=EPPIC-ORYGEN_Research_Centre_ACN_ARBN_098_918_686#.T_OeZpEuh8E and the trademark for ‘E EPPIC’ that has been applied for is available at http://www.trademarkify.com.au/trademark/1447441?i=E_EPPIC-ORYGEN_Research_Centre_ACN_Street_MELBOURNE_VIC_3000_AUSTRALIA#.T_OfP5Euh8E

[35] Sweet, M. (17 August 2010) Patrick McGorry defends early intervention on youth mental health, Croakey: the Crikey Health Blog http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/08/17/patrick-mcgorry-defends-early-intervention-on-youth-mental-health/ (accessed 26 April 2011)

[36] Jill Stark, The Sunday Age, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit July 8, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[37] In the U.S.A. a Black Box warning was put on in 2005 after an analysis of clinical trials by the FDA found statistically significant increases in the risks of ‘suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior’ by about 80%, and of agitation and hostility by about 130%. Headspace’s evidence summary also acknowledged that ‘no antidepressants (including any SSRIs) are currently approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the treatment of major depression in children and adolescents aged less than 18 years’. In addition the evidence summary acknowledges that research indicates that in terms of managing the symptoms of depression, ‘the only SSRI with consistent evidence of its effectiveness in young people is fluoxetine (Prozac)….The effectiveness of fluoxetine however is modest…Young people on fluoxetine do not appear to be functioning better in their daily lives at the end of the trials.’ Despite this, it concludes by recommending: ‘In cases of moderate to severe depression, SSRI medication may be considered within the context of comprehensive management of the patient, which includes regular careful monitoring for the emergence of suicidal ideation or behaviour’. Evidence Summary: Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence? Headspace, Evidence Summary Writers Dr Sarah Hetrick, Dr Rosemary Purcell, Clinical Consultants Prof Patrick McGorry, Prof Alison Yung, Dr Andrew Chanen Copyright © 2009 Orygen Youth Health Research Centre http://www.headspace.org.au/core/Handlers/MediaHandler.ashx?mediaId=4896

[38] 6 October, 2011 Michael Slezak Psychiatry Update EPPIC disagreement over early intervention: poll http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/politics-practice-issues/eppic-disagreement-over-early-intervention–poll

[39] Australia’s Reckless Experiment In Early Intervention – prevention that will do more harm than good by Allen J. Frances, M.D. at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201105/australias-reckless-experiment-in-early-intervention ]

[40] Professor George Patton quoted in the The Age, ”This paper illustrates how much we need to be looking at these new services (EPPIC) to determine the extent to which we’re following best clinical practice and to ask the questions, are we getting value for money out of these investments, and are we actually seeing better clinical outcomes?” Jill Stark, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit, The Sunday Age, July 8, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[41] David Castle (St Vincents Melbourne) Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012- Is it appropriate to treat people at high risk of psychosis before first onset? NO

[42] Carr, Vaughan. (2010, July 10). Letter to the Editor, Mental health funding. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mental-health-funding/story-fn558imw-1225890005936

[43] Carr V. (8 July 2010) Mentally ill of all ages need services. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mentally-ill-of-all-ages-need-services/story-e6frg6zo-1225889141003 (accessed 30 April 2011)

Mental health policy in Australia, for so long ignored, is finally getting attention.  The Australian and West Australian governments have appointed their first Mental Health Ministers and significant resources are being identified for new and expanded services.  In addition sport stars, celebrities and politicians have publicly shared their personal battles with depression, bipolar and a host of other mental health problems – helping to ‘de-stigmatise’ mental illness.

To casual observers it may appear at last we are on track to a happier, mentally healthier tomorrow, however appearances can be misleading.  The future direction of mental health in Australia is far from certain.

Just about everybody involved in the debate agrees things need to change, but this is where the consensus ends.  There are at least three different directions on offer.  For the want of better descriptions, I will call them the ‘Americanisation’, the ‘Preventative Psychiatry’ and the ‘Recovery’ approaches.

Apart from spiraling mental health prescribing rates the most obvious evidence of the Americanisation of Australia’s mental health system is the dominance of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnostic model.  Often referred to as the ‘Bible of Psychiatry’, the current edition, DSM-IV, outlines the diagnostic criteria of 297 psychiatric disorders.

Like the yellow pages, subsequent editions of the DSM have thickened as new disorders have been added.  This expansion has been exploited by aggressive pharmaceutical company marketing, resulting in the ‘medication’ of people who would previously have been regarded as ‘normal’.

With the benefit of hindsight Professor Allen Frances, the Chairman of the Task Force that developed the DSM-IV, regrets aspects of the DSM-IV as having helped to trigger “false epidemics” including “the wild over-diagnosis of attention deficit disorder.”[1]

Professor Frances is particularly worried about the next edition, DSM-5, due for publication in 2013.  He contends that further diagnostic expansion driven by the inclusion of pet disorders of enthusiastic researchers will see even more ‘normal’ people made patients and more over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs.

Thankfully there is a significant international revolt, led by Professor Frances, from within the psychiatric and psychological professions, against the further medicalisation of behaviours proposed for DSM-5.  This has already caused the American Psychiatric Association to abandon some of its more controversial DSM-5 proposals including ‘Psychosis Risk Disorder’ and the expansion of the already absurdly broad diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

Australia’s most prominent psychiatrist, former Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry, has also expressed concern about the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs in the US, however he argues the risks aren’t as great here.[2] Unlike the US we don’t allow direct advertising to consumers, however the pharmaceutical industry aggressively market their drugs to the Australian doctors who prescribe them.  They also sponsor medical research, conferences, educational opportunities and even patient support groups that ‘raise awareness’ of the disorders their drugs treat. Australia is far from immune from undue pharmaceutical company influence.

Professor McGorry is arguably the world’s most prominent advocate of Preventative Psychiatry. He believes that prior to the onset of psychosis, depression and other serious mental illness there is a ‘prodromal phase’ and that intervening then will help save many the misery of full blown mental illness.

Critics of Preventative Psychiatry, including Professor Frances, contend it simply doesn’t work. They argue you can’t predict with sufficient accuracy, who will go onto become ill and that even when it is accurate, independent evidence indicates that preventative measures don’t work.

Even Professor McGorry acknowledges that the vast majority of people that are identified as being at Ultra High Risk of developing psychosis, his specialist area, never do.[3] Nonetheless, he argues the benefits of predictive intervention massively outweigh the risks of doing nothing.

The belief intervention could prevent psychosis was part of the rationale for the Gillard Government’s 2011 decision to allocate $222.4million for the role out of Early Psychosis Prevention Intervention Centres (EPPICs) across Australia.  At the time of the decision it looked very likely that DSM5 would include a ‘Psychosis Risk Disorder’. Now that is not happening, the future of the ‘preventative’ function of EPPICs is uncertain.

Adding to this uncertainty is Preventative Psychiatry’s long and continuing history of unsuccessfully experimenting with psychotropic drugs as a means of ‘immunizing’ people considered at elevated risk of future mental illness.  While EPPICs will provide a broad range of psychosocial services and also treat patients who are already psychotic, significant questions remain unanswered.

The final option, the Recovery approach, centres on developing a patient’s own capabilities and resilience.   As opposed to the ‘ongoing disability’ or ‘impending doom’ assumptions inherent in the Americanisation and  Preventative Psychiatry approaches, the Recovery approach is more optimistic about the capacity for recovery and less reliant on pills.  It supports mentally ill patients with housing, educational, employment and psychosocial support – building blocks for a healthy and happy mind that can’t be replaced by drugs.

While the Recovery approach is more optimistic about human resilience, it is more realistic about the limits of psychiatry than either of the other approaches.  The Americanisation approach is based on the unrealistic assumption that psychiatric science can accurately identify at least 297 different disorders, and the Preventative Psychiatry approach on the fanciful notion that mental illness can be reliably spotted before it happens.

Unfortunately a significant disadvantage for the Recovery approach is that it offers a pessimistic outlook for the profitability of pharmaceutical companies.  If history is any predictor of the future this could prove to be its’ fatal flaw.

Related Media

The above was originally printed as an opinion piece in the West Australian Newspaper Wednesday 13 June 2012 available at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/13939119/mental-health-needs-rethink/

[1] Prof. Allen Frances, ‘Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual’, PBS Newshour, 10 February 2010. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/mentalillness_02-10.html

[2] Amy Corderoy, About-turn on treatment of the Young,Sydney Morning Herald, February 20, 2012http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/aboutturn-on-treatment-of-the-young-20120219-1th8a.html]

[3] McGorry P.D. ‘Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes’, BMJ 2008;337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695(accessed 3 August 2010)]

In support of the criticisms of the proposed DSM5 changes to ADHD diagnostic criteria that I made in my in my last blog, Dr Frances wrote: ‘We are already in the midst of a false epidemic of ADD. Rates in kids that were 3-5% when DSM IV was published in 1994 have now jumped to 10%. In part this came from changes in DSM IV, but most of the inflation was caused by a marketing blitz to practitioners that accompanied new on-patent drugs amplified by new regulations that also allowed direct to consumer advertising to parents and teachers. In a sensible world, DSM 5 would now offer much tighter criteria for ADD and much clearer advice on the steps needed in its differential diagnosis……. The DSM 5 child and adolescent work group has perversely gone just the other way. It proposes to make an already far too easy diagnosis much looser. How puzzling and troubling.’ (Full blog by Dr Frances available at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201108/dsm-5-will-further-inflate-the-add-bubble )

He had previously (February 2010) raised concerns about the DSM5 proposal for ADHD along with 18 other DSM5 proposals including; Psychosis Risk Syndrome, Mixed Anxiety Depressive Disorder, Minor Neurocognitive Disorder, Binge Eating Disorder, Temper Dysfunctional Disorder, Paraphilic Coercive Disorder, Hypersexuality Disorder, Behavioral Addiction Conditions, Addiction Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Pedohebephilia and medicalising normal grief. (see http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm/content/article/10168/1522341 )

Dr Frances comments can’t be dismissed as the architect of the old edition protecting his work from revision. While criticising the proposals in DSM5, Dr Frances has identified that the DSMIV process he lead inadvertently helped ‘trigger three false epidemics. One for Autistic Disorder… another for the childhood diagnosis of Bi-Polar Disorder and the third for the wild over-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder.’[1. Dr Allen Frances, ‘Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual’, PBS Newshour, 10 February 2010. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/mentalillness_02-10.html (accessed 26 February 2010).] Of course Dr Frances was not solely responsible for the development of the DSMIV diagnostic criteria for ADHD or for other disorders. They were developed by sub-committees of the American Psychiatric Association. However, as the overall leader of the DSMIV development process he has accepted his share of responsibility for the problems DSMIV helped create.

Dr Frances’ criticisms of the draft of DSM5 were recently mirrored by the British Psychological Societies (BPS).[3. The British Psychological Society, ‘Response to the American Psychiatric Association: DSM-5 Development’,  June 2011.  Available at http://psychrights.org/2011/110630BritishPsychologicalAssnResponse2DSM-5.pdf (accessed 15 August 2011)] The BPS responded to an invitation from the American Psychiatric Association to comment on the DSM5 proposals by concluding; ‘The putative diagnoses presented in DSM-V are clearly based largely on social norms, with ‘symptoms’ that all rely on subjective judgements, with little confirmatory physical ‘signs’ or evidence of biological causation. The criteria are not value-free, but rather reflect current normative social expectations. Many researchers have pointed out that psychiatric diagnoses are plagued by problems of reliability, validity, prognostic value, and co-morbidity.’

The BPS and Dr Frances’ criticisms are not calls from the fringes. They are from the very heart of the psychiatric/psychological establishment. They must not be ignored.

Dr Frances is a former Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. Whilst at Duke he led the American Psychiatric Association Task Force that revised the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). His attack on Australia’s blind acceptance of Professor Patrick McGorry’s model of early intervention comes from the very heart of heart of the psychiatric profession and can’t be ignored. Following Dr Frances’ blog is a response by Professor McGorry.

Australia’s Reckless Experiment In Early Intervention – prevention that will do more harm than good

by Allen J. Frances, M.D. in DSM5 in Distress

Patrick McGorry is a charismatic psychiatrist who has recently gained heroic status. First he was chosen to be Australia’s Man of the Year. Now, he has convinced the Australian government to spend more than $400 million over five years to fund his plan for a nationwide system of Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres. McGorry is the visionary prophet and pied piper of preventive psychiatry. His goal is to diagnose mental disorders early and treat them expectantly- before they can do their worst damage.

McGorry’s goal is certainly great. But its current achievement is simply impossible and Australia’s plans are patently premature. Early intervention to prevent psychosis requires first that there be an accurate tool to identify who will later become psychotic and who will not. Unfortunately, no such accurate tool exists. The false positive rate in selecting prepsychosis is at least about 60-70% in the very best of hands and may be as high as 90% in general practice. That’s right, folks, nine misidentified non patients for one accurately identified truly prepsychotic patient. Those are totally unacceptable odds.

What are the costs? McGorry does not recommend antipsychotic medications as a routine part of his prevention regimen. But experience teaches us that they will be overused despite having no proven efficacy and posing the risk of massive weight gain (and its consequent array of serious complications). The false positives will also suffer unnecessary stigma and worry and will undergo unnecessary and misdirected treatment. And surely there are many more productive ways to spend $400 million doing a better job of managing the mental health needs of those who have real and treatable psychiatric disorders.

Unfortunately, Mcgorry is a false prophet who’s visions are offered at least a few decades before their time. Australia, led astray by his impractical hopes, is about to embark on a vast and untried public health experiment that will almost surely cause more harm to its children than it prevents. Before embarking on this headlong and reckless rush, the following research steps need to be accomplished:

1) Developing a proven and reliable definition of “Psychosis Risk”

2) Learning how to use it in a way that reduces current outrageously high false positive rates to levels that are tolerable.

3) Demonstrating that the interventions chosen are indeed effective in preventing psychosis.

4) Determining the likely rate of antipsychotic use and how this influences the overall risk/benefit balance sheet of early intervention.

5) Studying the beneficial and harmful impacts of early diagnosis on stigma and self perception.

6) Comparing the marginal utility of a dollar spent trying to prevent an alleged future disorder vs a dollar spent treating an already clearly established one.

This is a research enterprise that will take many groups around the world many decades to complete. But it is an absolutely necessary precondition before spending $400 million on what is likely to be a failure. The Australian experiment will be flying blind on an airplane that is not at all ready to leave the ground. Doing prevention prematurely and poorly will give a good idea an unnecessary bad name.

McGorry’s intentions are clearly noble, but so were Don Quixote’s. The kindly knight’s delusional good intentions and misguided interventions wreaked havoc and confusion at every turn. Sad to say, Australia’s well intended impulse to protect its children will paradoxically put them at greater risk. Let’s applaud McGorry’s vision but not blindly follow him down an unknown path fraught with dangers.

AUSTRALIA’S MENTAL HEALTH REFORM: AN OVERDUE INVESTMENT IN TIMELY INTERVENTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

 By Professor Patrick McGorry

One has to wonder why Dr. Allen Francis, a retired former academic psychiatrist from the USA, would insert such an idiosyncratic, highly personalised critique of Australia’s Mental Health Reform into the blogosphere. Perhaps the title “DSM V in Distress” gives us a clue. A more accurate title may have been “Dr Allen Francis in Distress over DSM”. Dr. Francis was the chair of the previous (4^th) edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s classification system of mental disorders, the DSM. He is well known to be seriously unhappy with the way his successors are carrying out their task and has taken aim at one of their candidates for inclusion, the subthreshold stage of psychotic illness. In a quixotic adventure of his own, he has had a dramatic tilt at a windmill of quite a different kind; the mental health policy of another country. We have been caught in a reckless crossfire. Flattering to deceive, Dr. Francis seems to be totally unaware of the facts concerning recent progress in Australia. Here is the background to and the essential elements of Australia’s mental health reform package.

The Australian Context and The Facts of the Reforms

Mental health reform was a key element in the Australian Government’s Health and Hospitals Reform Commission, chaired by Dr. Christine Bennett, whose report was handed down in 2009. This process combed through the evidence base and selected 14 areas for action in mental health. Top of this list were new community based services for young people and the scaling up of the EPPIC model for first episode psychosis. Over the course of the next 12 months and through an election campaign, mental health reform received strong and unprecedented support from across the Australian community, all sides of politics and a uniquely cohesive mental health sector. The re-elected Labor government made a commitment to enact this reform in its second term and embarked on a further wave of community consultation. I was asked to join an Expert Working Group on Mental Health to advise the new Minister for Mental Health, the Hon. Mark Butler, along with many other leaders from the mental health and related sectors. The ultimate reform package however was decided upon by the government and has received unprecedented support from the mental health sector and the Australian community. The Mental Health Council of Australia, the peak body representing the sector nationally, is in full support. The reform covers many aspects of mental health care, not only youth and early intervention, and is the result of a national team effort, not naïve charisma, spin doctoring or a national snake oil scheme. To imply such is not only to reveal ignorance of the facts but is patronising and disrespectful to the Australian community, to the Government and indeed all sides of Australian politics, to the mental health sector, and to those most directly affected by mental ill health who desperately depend upon this investment.

Far from charisma-based reform, this is progress driven by unacceptable levels of unmet need and based upon the best available evidence. Its focus is spread across all stages of illness and the total investment adds up to $2.2bn over 5 years. The largest single allocation of over $500m is actually devoted to those with severe and enduring mental illness.

The $400m focused on youth mental health and early psychosis has little to do with prevention and nothing to do with the “psychosis risk” windmill that Dr Francis is attacking. It has everything to do with the fact that young people bear the major burden for onset of mental disorders with 75% of these appearing before the age of 25 years (25% before age 12 and 50% between 12 and 25). Young people also have the highest prevalence of any group yet the worst access to care by far. So it is treatment needs not prevention that is driving this aspect of our national reforms.

Approximately $200m is to be spent on Australia’s highly successful “headspace” initiative. This will mean that young Australians aged between 12 and 25 years will have access to 90 youth-friendly portals or one-stop shops where stigma-free and holistic mental health care will be available. Up to 100,000 young people will eventually benefit. Commenced in 2006 and currently operating successfully in 30 sites, this enhanced primary care model has started to lift the proportion of young people with diagnosable mental and substance use disorders who receive any kind of mental health care from the basement level of 25% (13% for young men). The type of help on offer ranges from information and support through specialised forms of counselling and psychological interventions and access to youth friendly GPs, and in some sites to psychiatrists as needed. All forms of mental ill-health are eligible and the model has no specific connection to psychosis or subthreshold psychosis/psychosis risk.

The $200m allocated to scale up the EPPIC model around Australia is to implement a model of care developed in Melbourne 20 years ago. It was a response to the fact that, even when young people developed clearcut psychotic illness, where the diagnosis of first episode psychosis was in no doubt, long treatment delays, often for years, occurred during which their lives and futures were seriously damaged. Furthermore when they did enter treatment it was provided in facilities geared to the needs of much older adults with severe and disabling illnesses. The result was poor engagement, poor recovery and secondary trauma in many cases. The EPPIC model, or versions thereof, has now been adopted successfully in hundreds of centres around the world, and across the board in several countries, including England, Canada, the Netherlands, and other parts of Western Europe, Asia and even in the State of Oregon in the USA. The International Early Psychosis Association has held 7 large and successful conferences all over the world and the field has generated large volumes of evidence and an international group of experienced experts in early psychosis.

Consequently, there is very good evidence now that EI for first episode psychosis is more humane, effective, and highly cost-effective. So Australia is hardly being reckless in belatedly implementing its own innovation, some 10 years after England and many other parts of the world have done so. This aeroplane took off years ago. Dr. Francis like other critics of early intervention in psychiatry seeks to confuse the treatment of first episode psychosis with efforts to intervene at an earlier stage, the so-called subthreshold stage or the “ultra-high risk” stage. The latter issue has nothing to do with the Australian reforms which are an overdue catch up/scale up effort in relation to EPPIC, and an essential and welcome response to huge levels of unmet need in the case of headspace and youth mental health more broadly. Finally, unlike in the US health care system, these models of care are guided by young people themselves and their families, not dominated by medication, and are heavily influenced and respectful of the value of psychosocial care, which in our system is covered within our system of universal health insurance.

 Psychosis Risk

Turning to the question of psychosis risk and the ultra-high risk (UHR) mental state that Prof Alison Yung and I described and operationalised over 15 years ago, this is an important frontier for mental health care. Personally, I am not concerned whether it enters the DSM V or not, and indeed believe that there may well be a better way via a much broader spectrum clinical staging approach to address the clinical needs of these young people (which I have described elsewhere (McGorry et al 2010)). There may be a better way through this strategy to resolve anxieties about “false positives” since other diagnostic outcomes are included with many advantages, especially in relation to risk benefit considerations. The young people who do meet the current UHR criteria we defined for the ultra-high risk (UHR) mental state are distressed by symptoms of anxiety, depression and low grade or subthreshold psychotic symptoms. Their ability to function at school or work is substantially impaired and they have cognitive impairments. They are seeking and in need of help and treatment and are certainly not “non-patients” by any measure. They also have 200-400 times the risk of the normal population of developing a sustained psychotic disorder. It is true that the around two thirds will not in fact follow this path. These figures are similar to but more pronounced than the level of risk that someone with impaired glucose tolerance possesses for developing frank diabetes. There is no sense that interventions such as information, diet and exercise should be withheld from such people. Why a double standard? Why cannot young people in need of care not be provided with information on the level of risk, the things they can do to reduce the risk and the care they need for their current problems. Especially when this appears to reduce the risk of psychosis? The evidence that my colleagues and I and other groups has assembled through our research clearly shows that antipsychotic medications are not necessary or indicated at this stage and that psychosocial treatments and even fish oil is sufficient as first line. The metanalysis of Preti et al (2010) shows that the transition rates to frank psychosis can be reduced from around 30% to 10% at least in the short term. Our own latest research also shows that the initial level of distress and functional impairment also improves greatly with conservative psychosocial care. These facts are enshrined in international clinical practice guidelines published in 2005. We haven’t changed our approach merely firmed it up with additional research.

It may be true and indeed it is already that untrained and unregulated practitioners in unregulated settings will still inappropriately prescribe for such patients. The best way to prevent this is to allow such patients to enter more specialised youth mental health settings especially where program and guideline fidelity to treatments can be audited. So while the UHR or psychosis risk concept was in no way a driver of the headspace and EPPIC reforms, the concerns that Dr. Francis expresses regarding the potential harms that may befall UHR patients, notably inappropriate medication and stigma will be much less likely. In the USA even without the UHR concept entering the DSMV and in the absence of any stream of care for early psychosis or youth mental health there is widespread inappropriate use of medication in such patients. This stage of illness will be a key focus for ongoing research to better define the range and sequence of interventions that will be safest and most helpful.

 Reform and Its Challenges

As Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway illustrates in their compelling book “Merchants of Doubt”, evidence-based progress is not only hard won but can be undermined and delayed by the misuse of scientific arguments in support of vested interests of various kinds. She uses the examples of the link between cigarette smoking and cancer and also climate change. While not all resistance to change is so poorly motivated, vested interests and hidden agendas of other kinds can still delay the implementation of evidence based advances. Recognition of the barriers in the path of implementation of new knowledge has led to a whole new area of scientific endeavour known as implementation science and translational research. In Australia, the scaling up of an Australian innovation, early intervention for psychosis, has been delayed by this dynamic. It is not just a matter of reasonable scientific conservatism, since such reactions have not surfaced in relation to other aspects of reform in mental health over the past 20 years. With the Government’s recent budget announcements, we appear to have crossed a Rubicon in Australia, and the challenge is now high fidelity implementation strategies buttressed by rigorous health services research to measure the impact and outcomes of the reform. Early psychosis care with its vital focus on minimising treatment delays for first episode psychosis and guaranteeing holistic biopsychosocial care during the critical years post diagnosis is the best buy in mental health reform. The aeroplane left the ground 15 -20 years ago. EI for first episode psychosis is feasible now, not decades down the track as suggested by Dr. Francis. Far from labelling Australia as reckless, the Director of the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) in Washington DC, Dr. Tom Insel, recently stated at a national workshop on mental health research hosted by the NHMRC in Canberra, that Australia was a decade ahead of the US in research, clinical care and reform in early intervention for psychosis and other forms of mental ill-health in young people. We must ensure that the benefits of this progress to hundreds of thousands of Australians are not undermined by merchants of doubt with other agendas.

References:

McGorry PD, Nelson B, Goldstone S, Yung AR. Clinical staging: a heuristic and practical strategy for new research and better health and social outcomes for psychotic and related mood disorders. Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55(8):486-497.

McGorry P. Risk syndromes, clinical staging and DSM V: new diagnostic infrastructure for early intervention in psychiatry and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research. 2010; 120: 49 – 53.

Preti A, Cella M. Randomized-controlled trials in people at ultra high risk of psychosis: a review of treatment effectiveness. Schizophrenia Research. 2010;123(1):30-36.

Oreskes N. and Conway E.M. Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury Press. NewYork. 2010

Mental Health was a centrepiece of the federal budget, with an additional $2.2 billion being identified over five years for mental health initiatives, of which $419.7 million was split between the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC), and Headspace.^[1] An additional $2.2 billion for mental health is a good thing and to the extent that people such as Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie and Professor John Mendoza, have contributed to putting mental health on the agenda, they deserve praise. However, I am concerned that the devil is in the detail. My criticism is not about extra funding but about the lack of an evidence base for the decisions that have been made.

Politics not science drove the Gillard Government’s mental health response.

I suggest that this response was a political response to a political problem, not a public policy response based on thorough analysis of the evidence. I criticise not only the Gillard government but also the Abbott opposition, the independents and, indeed, the media. They have all allowed the mental health debate to be dominated by a tiny group—Patrick McGorry, Ian Hickie and John Mendoza.

I am not suggesting that those people do not have valuable contributions to make. However, I am saying that they are not the independent mental health spokespersons that they are portrayed to be in the media; they are players with vested interests.^[2] That has been missed by the media, the opposition, the federal government and even the independents in federal Parliament. Those three gentlemen are fantastic advocates and great political lobbyists, but I am not convinced that they have been asked enough tough questions about the programs they advocate for and control—particularly EPPIC and Headspace. I am concerned about the potential for off-label prescribing in expanded EPPIC and Headspace services, and the potential for this to do enormous harm to young people in Australia.

Before I talk about that, I will talk about the political process involved and highlight how unusual it was. The Minister for Mental Health and Ageing has the National Advisory Council on Mental Health to give him advice on strategic directions for mental health. The Minister for Mental Health and Ageing took the extraordinary step of sidelining the National Advisory Council and set up the Mental Health Expert Working Group.^[3] Three members of that group—Professor McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie and Monsignor David Cappo—left that group and produced their own $3.5 billion five-year blueprint for mental health under the banner of the Independent Mental Health Reform Group.^[4] It is interesting that both Professors McGorry and Hickie have extensive and longstanding commercial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, so I have some questions about the use of the term “independent”.

Extra EPPIC and Headspace funding may see increased ‘off label’ prescribing of SSRI Antidepressants to young people and more youth suicides.

The blueprint they came up with identified $226 million for Headspace, which ended up getting $197.3 million and $910 million for Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres, which received $222.4 million. The EPPIC funding is supposed to be matched by state governments. I suggest that state governments need to have a good think about whether they do that.

I am very concerned that we will see through Headspace and EPPIC an increase in the off-label prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, despite the clinical trial evidence that is accepted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the US Food and Drug Administration that using SSRI antidepressants leads to a significant increase in the prospects of young people under the age of 24 years being suicidal—an increase of 80 per cent. Regardless both Headspace and EPPIC advocate the use of SSRI antidepressants for all young people with moderate to severe depression.^[5]

This document titled, “Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence?”^[6] was produced by Headspace in 2009 and has five authors, including Patrick McGorry. It concludes by stating —In cases of moderate to severe depression, SSRI medication may be considered within the context of comprehensive management of the patient, which includes regular careful monitoring for the emergence of suicidal ideation or behaviour.

Yet the body of the paper builds a compelling case for not using SSRI antidepressants. It acknowledges that the only SSRI that has positive outcomes in clinical trials is fluoxetine and that even those benefits seem to disappear the longer one looks at the evidence. The paper also highlights the fact that clinical trials indicate that compared to taking a placebo, SSRI antidepressants increase the probability of a young person being suicidal by 80 per cent.

One has to bear this in mind against the political process that was used to sell the need for expansions of Headspace services. It was done against the background of candlelight vigils that were coordinated through Get Up! to highlight concerns about youth suicide and create momentum for increased funding to youth-oriented mental health services. However, the very services that the federal government is funding prescribe against TGA and FDA recommendations and against the (suicidal behaviour) black box warnings that exist for SSRI antidepressants.

Therefore I am very concerned that if this issue of SSRI antidepressant ‘off label’ prescribing is not addressed at both Headspace and EPPIC, we may see an increase in the number of candles at the next vigil.

Patrick McGorry on EPPIC – Contradictory and Confusing

My concerns about EPPIC are less straightforward. EPPIC is very much Professor McGorry’s baby and is based on the principle that early intervention can prevent later psychosis—the philosophy that a stitch in time saves nine. I support the philosophy of early intervention. Members who have listened to my speeches in the past will be bleeding from the ears hearing me plead for the need for early intervention so that we can identify kids’ real health, education and social needs. My concern is not that we do not need early intervention but what that early intervention will be.

At my invitation, Professor McGorry replied to my latest blog. We also had an exchange on The World Today program on ABC radio on 12 May in which I outlined my concerns, and on 20 May Professor McGorry responded. As I said, we are halfway through what I believe is going to be a constructive and cordial exchange. (we are meeting in late June)

However, I want to put on record my prime issue so there is absolutely no ambiguity about it. What we need from Professor McGorry, on behalf of EPPIC, is a very clear unambiguous statement about the circumstances under which antipsychotics will be prescribed at EPPIC, and we need a very clear statement about the future of Psychosis Risk Syndrome. I will not beat around the bush. To date, what Professor McGorry has said and written is confusing for those who follow it closely. It is confusing for one very clear reason: he has contradicted himself too often.

Specifically, I want to begin with the issue of psychosis risk syndrome, otherwise known as attenuated psychotic syndrome. Dr Allen Frances, the psychiatrist who led the redevelopment of DSM­IV, the bible of psychiatry, had some very unflattering things to say about psychosis risk syndrome. He said —“Psychosis Risk Syndrome” stands out as the most ill-conceived and potentially harmful …(Of all the proposals for insertion into DSM­5) — The whole concept of early intervention rests on three fundamental [flawed] pillars … 1) it would misidentify many teenagers who are not really at risk for psychosis; 2) the treatment they would most often receive (atypical antipsychotic medication) has no proven efficacy; but, 3) it does have definite dangerous complications.” ^[7] They are the words of the man who led the redevelopment of DSM­IV. These are not the words of someone at the fringe of psychiatry. These are words from the very heart of psychiatry.

When I was on The World Today on 12 May I said that Professor McGorry is a leading international proponent of Psychosis Risk Syndrome a new psychiatric disorder for inclusion in the next edition of DSM­5. On the long version of the audio version on The World Today website, Professor McGorry said — Contrary to Mr Whitely’s statements, I haven’t been pushing for it —(That is, psychosis risk syndrome) — to be included in DSM­5. Now that hasn’t been my position…But it’s a new area of work. It’s only been studied for the last 15 years or so, so you know we haven’t got all the answers … I’m certainly not saying that it should go into DSM­5.^[8]

So on two occasions in that interview he said that he was not advocating it should go into DSM­5. That is just plain wrong. I have an article that was published in Psychiatry update a year ago entitled “DSM­V ‘risk syndrome’: a good start, should go further”. ^[9] It begins by stating — The proposal for DSM­V to include a ‘risk syndrome’ reflecting an increased likelihood of mental illness is welcome but does not go far enough, according to Orygen Youth Health’s director Professor Patrick McGorry.

That is somebody else paraphrasing his words, so I went to the original source document, which is an article available in the Science Digest under “Schizophrenia Research”.^[10] It is written by Professor McGorry and the opening sentence states — The proposal to consider including the concept of the risk syndrome in the forthcoming revision of the DSM classification is innovative and timely. It has not come out of left field, however, and is based upon a series of conceptual and empirical foundations built over the past 15 years.

That is absolutely clear-cut. I could build a case in greater detail but Professor McGorry has clearly advocated the inclusion of psychosis risk syndrome, otherwise known as attenuated psychosis syndrome in DSM­5. (Note; Far from rejecting the notion of Psychosis Risk Syndrome McGorry argues for the recognition of yet another disorder, General Distress Syndrome, for those with even less acute, ill-defined symptoms ).^[11]

In the same interview, Professor McGorry said — Medication should never be the first line of treatment in young people, we should always try to find psychological and simpler ways of treating youth mental health issues, that is where I agree with him (Martin Whitely) but where I part company is where he tried to I suppose confuse the issue by, I suppose, denying any value to these medications. They clearly do have value, the anti-psychotic medications, in people with clear­cut psychosis.

I have never been critical of the on-label prescription of antipsychotics to people who have had a psychotic break. Professor McGorry is quite wrong in characterising me as saying that. But that is not of any great consequence because, after all, it just relates to me being misrepresented.

Another misrepresentation is of greater consequence because he contadicted EPPIC’s position when he said that — Medication should never be the first line of treatment in young people, we should always try to find psychological and simpler ways of treating people with youth mental health issues. EPPIC guidelines (at least in regard to the use of antidepressants in young people) clearly identified that all those presenting with a depressive episode of at least moderate severity should be commenced on an antidepressant.^[12] It does not even narrow it down to Fluoxetine, the one selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor identified as having some positive effects. It just says “antidepressant”.

That is not the only misrepresentation. Professor McGorry also claimed, in response to my blog^[13], that EPPIC followed the beyondblue guidelines with regard to the use of SSRI’s. That is not true. The beyondblue guidelines are far more cautious in its recommendations about the use of SSRIs or antidepressants.^[14] Professor McGorry is simply wrong to say that EPPIC follows the Beyondblue guidelines for the use of antidepressants.

I have a number of other concerns. (Especially the EPPIC guideline that states ‘All individuals with an ‘at risk’ mental state, e.g. siblings of  EPPIC clients, will be referred to PACE clinic for assessment. ^[15]) Unfortunately, I will run out of time but a major concern is with the use of antipsychotics in non-­psychotic teenagers by EPPIC. EPPIC’s target audience is young people between the ages of 15 to 24 years. Professor McGorry and EPPIC have to answer the following very simple question: under what circumstances, if any, will EPPIC either recommend or prescribe antipsychotics to patients who have not experienced psychosis?

EPPIC and Professor McGorry need to make their position clear because at the moment it is not clear. I mistakenly thought it was made clear in a previous blog that I had written when a spokesperson for Professor McGorry, Matthew Hamilton, made some quite promising statements that indicated that they were no longer proposing the use of antipsychotics for psychosis risk syndrome.^[16] Since then, we have seen some ambiguous and contradictory statements by Professor McGorry that have left that door open.^[17] We need to have a very clear answer from Professor McGorry on behalf of EPPIC as to when, if ever, antipsychotics will be used by those who have never been psychotic.

Clarrity at least is required, but in my opinion EPPIC and Headspace need to abandon prescribing antidepressants altogether to under 18’s and rule out the use of antipsychotics in non-psychotic young people. If they stick to ‘on label’ prescribing, we can be confident that the extra $419.7 M for EPPIC and Headspace will do more good than harm. This requires a change from experimental, hypothesis based, psychiatry to an evidence based, ‘first do no harm’ mindset.

Update – Some progress has been made on the issues identified above see http://speedupsitstill.com/australian-16-june-2011

Coming Blogs – Mental health screening for three year olds and the budget cuts to psychology services: Are these a recipe for more dumbed down, psychiatric labelling and prescribing?

I ran out of time in the speech to outline all of my concerns with the mental health response in the 20011/12 federal budget. I am alarmed at the proposals for mental health screening of three year olds and despair at the cuts to support for psychological services, in order to fund GP mental health visits. Both of these measures have the potential to further promote the increasingly dominant dumbed down, ‘label and prescribe’ approach to mental health, however these are topics for another speech and blog.

Related Media

Minds at Risk: Choosing the Right Path for Adolescent Mental Health, Lisa Pryor, The Monthly July 2011 http://www.themonthly.com.au/choosing-right-path-adolescent-mental-health-minds-risk-lisa-pryor-3470

[2] Professor McGorry was the former President and is the current Treasurer (http://www.iepa.org.au/ContentPage.aspx?pageID=40) of the “International Early Psychosis Association” which is funded by antipsychotic manufacturers Astra Zeneca, Lilly and Janssen-Cilag (http://www.iepa.org.au/2010/) McGorry is currently Director of Clinical Services at Orygen Youth Health Clinical Program and Executive Director of the Orygen Youth Health Research Centre. Orygen Youth Health receives support from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myer Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Janssen-Cilag. Orygen Youth Health, Research Centre – Other Funding http://rc.oyh.org.au/ResearchCentreStructure/otherfunding (accessed 3 August 2010) McGorry individually has received unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myer Squibb, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis and has acted as a paid consultant or speaker for most of these companies McGorry P.D. ‘Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes’, BMJ 2008;337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010)

Professor Hickie and colleagues created the ‘SPHERE: A National Depression Project’ (http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/about/Hickie_CV.pdf). As was reported in The Australian Pfizer work in conjunction with SPHERE through a company called Lifeblood who are paid to review SPHERE. Through the use of SPHERE Pfizer have restored Zoloft to the number one antidepressant in Australia. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/gp-jaunts-boosted-drug-sales/story-e6frg8y6-1225890003658). Professor Hickey received the following grants totalling $411,00 from pharmaceutical companies: $10,000 from Roche Pharmaceuticals (1992); $30,000 from Bristol-Myers Squibb (1997); $40,000 from Bristol-Myers Squibb (1998-1999); $250,000 from Pfizer Australia (2009); $81,000 from Pfizer Australia (n.d.) Cited in Ian Hickie, Curriculum Vitae, last updated 23 August 2009 http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/about/Hickie_CV.pdf   (accessed 3 August 2010)

Professor Mendoza was co-author of the “Not for Service” report which was issued in 2005.  Apart from the Commonwealth Govt, the report was funded by unrestricted grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Australia, GlaxoSmithKline, Medicines Australia, Pfizer Australia and Wyeth. (Not For Service: Experiences of Injustice and Despair in Mental Health Care in Australia, Mental Health Council of Australia, Canberra, 2005 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/notforservice/documents/NFS_Finaldoc.pdf (3 August 2010)). He is also a principle of ConNetica Consulting Pty Ltd, whilst they have very broad purposes such as providing a review, survey and planning service to government and not for profit organizations, including those involved in mental health. It currently lists Eli Lilly as one of its private sector clients (ConNetica Consulting, About Us http://connetica.com.au/about_us (accessed 3 August 2010))

[3] Advisory Group to Guide Mental Health Reforms (23 December 2010), Pro Bono News Advisory Group to Guide Mental Health Reforms (accessed 26 April 2011)

[4] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia (accessed 26 April 2011)

[5] Hammad T.A. (16 August 2004). Review and evaluation of clinical data. Relationship between psychiatric drugs and pediatric suicidal behavior, Food and Drug Administration. pp. 42; 115. FDA Review and evaluation of clinical data (accessed 29 May 2008)

[6] Evidence Summary: Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence? Headspace, Evidence Summary Writers Dr Sarah Hetrick, Dr Rosemary Purcell, Clinical Consultants Prof Patrick McGorry, Prof Alison Yung, Dr Andrew Chanen  Headspace Evidence Summary (accessed 28 May 2011)

[7] Frances, A. (2010) DSM5 ‘Psychosis risk syndrome’—Far too risky, Psychology Today Psychosis risk syndrome—Far too risky

[8] The World Today – Professor McGorry hits back at critics, 20 May 2011 www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3222359.htm (accessed 28 May 2011)

[9] Available at http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/news/DSM-V-risk-syndrome-a-good-start-should-go-further accessed 28 May 2011

[10] McGorry, P.D. Risk Syndromes, clinical staging and DSM V; New diagnostic infrastructure for early intervention in psychiatry, Schizophr, Res. (2010), doi;10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.016

[11] See  http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis-stitch-time-stitch-up

[12] EPPIC guidelines state that all clients experiencing ‘a depressive episode of at least moderate severity should be commenced on an antidepressant.’ http://www.eppic.org.au/eppic-clinical-guidelines (accessed 28 May 2011)

[13] http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry%e2%80%99s-independent-mental-health-reform-group%e2%80%99s-3-5b-blueprint-australian-mental-health-forward-prescription-%e2%80%98psychiatric-disorders%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98off-label#more-1530

[14] In comparison to the EPPIC Guidelines which say that all clients experiencing ‘a depressive episode of at least moderate severity should be commenced on an antidepressant.’ the beyondblue clinical practice guidelines (page 55) state: ‘If symptoms are severe, or if symptoms are moderate to severe and psychological therapy has not been effective, is not available or is refused, prescription of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant fluoxetine should be considered for reducing depression symptoms in the short term.’ http://beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=6.1247 accessed 28 May 2011

[15] http://www.eppic.org.au/eppic-clinical-guidelines (accessed 28 May 2011)

[16] See http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry-reverses-support-psychosis-risk-syndrome-drugging

[17] In December 2010 Professor McGorry wrote ‘Antipsychotic medications should not be considered unless there is a clear-cut and sustained progression to frank psychotic disorder meeting full DSM 4 criteria.’ He then immediately invalidated this statement by writing, ‘The only exception to the previous statement is where there has been a definite failure to respond to the first and second line interventions described above AND there is worsening and continuing disability, or significant risk of self-harm, suicide or harm to others arising directly from the mental disorder itself and its symptoms. In this situation, a trial of low dose antipsychotic medication for 6 weeks in the first instance may be appropriate, with careful monitoring for adverse events.’ The term mental disorder itself is interesting as he is referring Psychosis Risk Syndrome which is not officially recognised as a legitimate psychiatric disorder and hopefully never will be. See http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis#more-1075

Specifically Professor McGorry is a leading international advocate for the inclusion of Psychosis Risk Syndrome, otherwise known as Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms Syndrome, in the next edition of the clinically dominant Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) due for publication in 2013. He acknowledges that ‘the false positive rate may exceed 50-60%’ nonetheless has justified the use of pre-psychosis drugs by arguing ‘all those identified are by definition seeking help and need some form of care’.^[1]

Criticism of his views on the use of pre-psychosis drugs have received limited publicity within Australia. However, in 2006 Time Magazine (Drugs before Diagnosis) stated ‘Calm and softly spoken, McGorry has a way of making the experimental use of antipsychotics seem like the only responsible course.’ Time outlined how Professor McGorry trialled the antipsychotic, Risperidone, on subjects without psychosis but that were suspected of being at risk of developing psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.^[2]

Risperidone (also known as Risperdal) is one of the more commonly used antipsychotics and has a range of serious potential side effects including metabolic syndrome, and sudden cardiovascular death.^{[3] [4]} There have been more than 500 voluntary adverse event reports made to the TGA and these are just the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of adverse events are never reported. ^{[5] [6]}

The results of Professor McGorry’s Risperidone trial were inconclusive; however Time describes McGorry’s determination to push on ‘full steam ahead – and damn the torpedoes.’^[7] And Professor McGorry did push ahead, but now many of his international colleagues in the psychiatric profession are pushing back.

Dr Allen Frances the American Psychiatrist who led the 1994 revision of the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) is a fierce critic of Psychosis Risk Syndrome. With the benefit of hindsight he regrets aspects of the 1994 revision for having triggered ‘three false epidemics. One for autistic disorder… another for the childhood diagnosis of Bi-Polar disorder and the third for the wild over-diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder.’^[8] Based on this experience Dr Frances warns of numerous problems with the drafting of the next edition DSM-V, recently writing that;

‘Among all the problematic suggestions for DSM-V, the proposal for a “Psychosis Risk Syndrome” stands out as the most ill-conceived and potentially harmful… The whole concept of early intervention rests on three fundamental [flawed] pillars… 1) it would misidentify many teenagers who are not really at risk for psychosis; 2) the treatment they would most often receive (atypical antipsychotic medication) has no proven efficacy; but, 3) it does have definite dangerous complications.”^[9]

Dr Frances contends that up to 90% of those diagnosed with Psychosis Risk Syndrome would never go onto develop psychosis and concludes it is ‘the prescription for an iatrogenic [adverse effects resulting from treatment] public health disaster’.^[10]

Critics closer to home include Adelaide University Associate Professor, and Head of the Department of Psychological Medicine at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide, Dr Jon Jureidini, who in the August 2010 said that Professor McGorry had falsely claimed that 750,000 young Australians were ‘locked out’ of care they ‘desperately’ needed. ‘He’s taken the biggest possible figure you can come up with for people who might have any level of distress or unhappiness, which of course needs to be taken seriously and responded to, but he’s assuming they all require … a mental health intervention…It’s the way politicians operate. You look at figures and put a spin on it that suits your point of view. I don’t think that has a place in scientific conversations about the need for health interventions.’^[11]

Even one of Professor McGorry’s colleagues at the Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Alison Yung, recently expressed strong opposition to the inclusion of Psychosis Risk Syndrome in DSM-IV stating;

‘I think the issue of antipsychotics is a crucial one. If someone meeting risk syndrome criteria also has depression and anxiety (the majority do), could they not be treated with psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioral therapy? So why the need for a specific risk syndrome diagnosis? Is the agenda really to use antipsychotics? …….I think there are concerns about validity, especially predictive validity, and this relates to potentially stigmatizing and unjustified treatment for some individuals as well as all the negative social effects of diagnosis. I think including the risk syndrome in the DSM-V is premature…….more people seek help, but the risk is that instead of getting maybe supportive therapy, they get antipsychotics and they will be diagnosed with the risk syndrome.’^[12]

Perhaps due to his Australian of the year status Professor McGorry is frequently quoted by the Australian media as an independent advocate for mental health reform. However he, and organisations he is influential in, have received support from the pharmaceutical industry.  Along with being treasurer and former president of the pharmaceutical industry funded International Early Psychosis Association,  McGorry is currently Director of Clinical Services at Orygen Youth Health Clinical Program and Executive Director of the Orygen Youth Health Research Centre. Orygen Youth Health Research Centre receives support from numerous pharmaceutical companies.^{[13] [14]} Professor McGorry individually has received unrestricted grants from Janssen-Cilag, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myer Squibb, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis and has acted as a paid consultant for most of these companies.^[15]

Professor McGorry and his colleagues Professor John Mendoza and Professor Ian Hickie (who also recive support from the pharmaceutical industry) dominated the long overdue debate about mental health policy in the lead up to the August Federal election.^{[16] [17]} Anyone who watched Insight on SBS (27 July 2010) would have noticed how deferential the presenter, politicians and participants were to Patrick McGorry, and to a lesser extent John Mendoza. Their blessing was desperately being sought by Peter Dutton and Mark Butler on behalf of the Coalition and Labor respectively.

Most enamoured of Professor McGorry’s approach was Dutton who stated “Well, we’re going to roll out a national scheme based on advice by people like John Mendoza, Pat McGorry, Ian Hickey, David Crosby and others….early intervention is proven without any doubt to work.”^[18] Mendoza reciprocated Dutton’s admiration describing the Coalition’s approach as “streets ahead. It’s literally comparing an old clunker to a brand new motor vehicle.” Largely due to the advocacy of Professor McGorry and his allies Mental health was unquestionably a net positive for the Coalition in the election.

Professor McGorry is now pressuring the Gillard Government to match the Coalition’s 2010 election commitment of $440m to EPPIC (Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres)  like those run by Orygen Youth Health which is headed up by McGorry.^[19] These centres aim “to facilitate early identification and treatment of psychosis” and “reduce delays in initial treatment”.^[20] It is undeniable that early intervention in the form of identifying and addressing real problems must be supported. But the majority of Adolescents ‘seeking care’ and diagnosed with Psychosis risk Syndrome would not only suffer their original difficulties but posibly from the unnecessary administration of potentially harmful antipsychotics. Professor McGorry has justified this compromise of the Hippocratic obligation to ‘first do no harm’ by arguing the ‘real danger of lack of care overshadows the theoretical one of premature labelling and overtreatment.’^[21]

Irrespective of these concerns there is no doubt Professor McGorry is a fantastic salesman. He combines excessive pessimism about the widespread prevalence of mental illness and unmet need, with optimistic promises of ‘21^st Century’ solutions (which happen to have been developed by him and his allies) if only government will urgently fund these ‘proven approaches’.^[22]

Mental Health does deserve the national spotlight and we can be grateful that Patrick McGorry’s appointment as Australian of the Year put it on the agenda. But the public are entitled to and informed debate about exactly what is being advocated.

Access to appropriate early intervention in mental health is long overdue, however prescribing antipsychotics to adolescents on the outside chance that they may develop later psychosis, is a bit like killing a fly with a shotgum.