Sandy And Suicide Case Study Essay
“You mean it’s not my fault?,” says Sandy, a 40 year old woman who had just tried to commit suicide the night before she came in for an initial meeting with her psychiatrist, Dr. David Amen. Amen had just tested Sandy using the Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography, or the SPECT. It was his very first time to use the technology to help him in his diagnosis. Her brain scan showed a precipitous drop in activity in the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s decision-making center, whenever she would try to concentrate. Learning that her problem was biological and not simply moral, Sandy was urged to accept her condition and take the prescribed medications. After facilitating Amen’s prescribed treatment method, there was a significant improvement in Sandy’s lifestyle, and it was deduced that, overall, she had been greatly helped. Sandy’s recuperation is Dr. Amen’s Genesis story—the beginning of what has rewarded him with a chain of Amen Clinics, a presence on PBS television program, lucrative speaking engagements, and a line of products that includes books, videos, and diet supplements. This, of
…show more content…
course, excludes the $3,500 he earns from each patient who undergoes SPECT.
Psychiatrists are the only medical specialists that virtually never physically observe the organ they treat—a fact that Amen aspires to change through the wide use of SPECT in clinical treatment. He argues that, if not for brain imaging, making diagnoses would still be similar to how they did it in the 1840’s—by talking to people and looking for symptom clusters. The beauty of SPECT is that it creates a colored image that shows the blood flow and chemical reactions in the different areas of the brain. We acquire an understanding of the areas of the brain that work well, those that work too hard, and those that do not work hard enough. Thereafter, balancing brain functions such as calming the overactive areas and enhancing the underactive ones becomes easier. Amen has used SPECT in diagnosing thousands of patients with brain trauma, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, addictions, anxiety, depression, dementia, and obesity in almost two decades. He claims that this innovation could change the way psychiatrists perform clinical treatments for good. However, critics and science experts say otherwise.
“The available evidence does not support the use of brain imaging for clinical diagnosis or treatment of psychiatric disorders,” says the American Psychiatric Association (2007).
Hall (2007) supports the APA and argues that it is improper to charge thousands of dollars for a test that has not been validated and may not be safe. This is with regard to SPECT imaging using an injected radioisotope to measure the brain’s blood flow, thus exposing patients to unnecessary radiation without accounting for its side effects. The key question here is whether its findings are useful in determining what treatment the patient should receive or not. Is low or high perfusion really an indication of the primary pathology, or is it just a secondary brain response to the symptoms? Perhaps leaving this question unanswered suggests something about Amen’s widely published research. You be the
judge.
course, excludes the $3,500 he earns from each patient who undergoes SPECT.
Psychiatrists are the only medical specialists that virtually never physically observe the organ they treat—a fact that Amen aspires to change through the wide use of SPECT in clinical treatment. He argues that, if not for brain imaging, making diagnoses would still be similar to how they did it in the 1840’s—by talking to people and looking for symptom clusters. The beauty of SPECT is that it creates a colored image that shows the blood flow and chemical reactions in the different areas of the brain. We acquire an understanding of the areas of the brain that work well, those that work too hard, and those that do not work hard enough. Thereafter, balancing brain functions such as calming the overactive areas and enhancing the underactive ones becomes easier. Amen has used SPECT in diagnosing thousands of patients with brain trauma, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, addictions, anxiety, depression, dementia, and obesity in almost two decades. He claims that this innovation could change the way psychiatrists perform clinical treatments for good. However, critics and science experts say otherwise.
“The available evidence does not support the use of brain imaging for clinical diagnosis or treatment of psychiatric disorders,” says the American Psychiatric Association (2007).
Hall (2007) supports the APA and argues that it is improper to charge thousands of dollars for a test that has not been validated and may not be safe. This is with regard to SPECT imaging using an injected radioisotope to measure the brain’s blood flow, thus exposing patients to unnecessary radiation without accounting for its side effects. The key question here is whether its findings are useful in determining what treatment the patient should receive or not. Is low or high perfusion really an indication of the primary pathology, or is it just a secondary brain response to the symptoms? Perhaps leaving this question unanswered suggests something about Amen’s widely published research. You be the
judge.