Category: Op-Eds

Opinion editorials and provocative commentary on psychiatry, mental health policy, and clinical practice.

  • Psych Meds Are Not the Enemy. Bad Medicine Is

    Psych Meds Are Not the Enemy. Bad Medicine Is

    There is a dangerous difference between criticizing bad psychiatric practice and stigmatizing psychiatric illness.

    I have criticized aspects of psychiatry many times. I believe our field should be open to critique. We should question our prescribing habits. We should challenge lazy diagnosis. We should acknowledge when medications are used too quickly, continued too long, or substituted for the deeper work of psychotherapy, lifestyle change, social support, and careful clinical formulation.

    Psychiatry should never be above criticism.

    But criticism of psychiatric practice is not the same thing as denying the legitimacy of psychiatric illness.

    And right now, that line is being blurred.

    Serious Mental Illness Is Real

    One thing you will never hear me say is that psychiatric disease is not real.

    Schizophrenia is real.
    Bipolar disorder is real.
    Severe major depression is real.
    Catatonia is real.
    Psychotic depression is real.
    Obsessive-compulsive disorder can be profoundly disabling.
    Posttraumatic stress disorder can devastate a person’s life.

    These are not character flaws. They are not weakness. They are not simply failures of lifestyle, discipline, resilience, spirituality, or mindset.

    They are legitimate medical illnesses.

    That does not mean every painful experience is a disease. It does not mean every person who is grieving, anxious, overwhelmed, lonely, or struggling needs a diagnosis or a medication. In fact, one of the most important tasks in psychiatry is knowing the difference.

    Some people need medication.

    Some people need psychotherapy.

    Some people need sleep, exercise, nutrition, structure, social connection, housing, safety, meaning, accountability, or community.

    Many people need several of these at the same time.

    The goal is not to medicalize all suffering. The goal is to recognize real illness when it is present and treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

    The Problem Is Not “Medication”

    Psychiatric medications are often discussed as if they are inherently suspicious.

    But medication is not the enemy.

    Bad medicine is.

    A medication can be life-changing when used for the right condition, in the right person, at the right time, for the right reason.

    The same medication can be harmful when used carelessly, without a clear diagnosis, without follow-up, without discussion of risks and benefits, or without a plan for reassessment.

    That is not unique to psychiatry.

    Antibiotics can be lifesaving, but inappropriate antibiotic use causes harm. Opioids can be appropriate in some clinical contexts, but reckless prescribing devastated communities. Steroids can be powerful tools, but long-term unnecessary use can create major problems.

    The issue is not whether medications are “good” or “bad.”

    The issue is whether we are practicing medicine well.

    Deprescribing Matters, But It Is Not a Mental Health Policy

    Deprescribing is important.

    Every psychiatrist I know has experience reducing, simplifying, or stopping medications when the risks outweigh the benefits or when the original indication no longer makes sense.

    This is not a fringe idea. It is part of daily psychiatric practice.

    We stop medications that are not helping.
    We reduce unnecessary polypharmacy.
    We simplify regimens when possible.
    We monitor side effects.
    We reassess diagnoses.
    We talk with patients about what still makes sense.

    Good psychiatry includes deprescribing.

    But deprescribing alone will not solve the mental health crisis.

    People cannot deprescribe their way out of a lack of psychiatric beds. They cannot deprescribe their way out of months-long waitlists. They cannot deprescribe their way out of poverty, homelessness, trauma, addiction, loneliness, or a collapsing continuum of care.

    And they cannot deprescribe their way out of schizophrenia, mania, catatonia, psychotic depression, or severe melancholic depression.

    When we frame the mental health crisis primarily as a problem of overprescribing, we oversimplify a system failure.

    We ignore the shortage of psychiatrists. We ignore the lack of access to psychotherapy. We ignore inadequate visit times, fragmented care, insurance barriers, emergency departments boarding psychiatric patients for days, and the near disappearance of a true continuum of care.

    Those are not solved by telling people to take fewer medications.

    The Risk of Stigma Dressed Up as Reform

    My concern is not that we are talking about prescribing quality. We should be talking about that.

    My concern is that the rhetoric around psychiatric medications often sends a dangerous message to people who already feel ashamed.

    Many patients with serious mental illness already struggle with the idea of needing medication.

    They worry it means they are weak.
    They worry it means they are broken.
    They worry it means they are dependent.
    They worry it means they are not trying hard enough.
    They worry others will see them differently.

    When public conversations frame psychiatric medications as the central villain, those patients hear something very different from “we need better prescribing.”

    They hear:

    You are dependent.
    You are addicted.
    You are taking the easy way out.
    You should be able to fix this naturally.
    You are the problem.

    That is not empowerment.

    That is stigma.

    And for some patients, that stigma can be dangerous. It can lead people to stop medications abruptly, avoid treatment, disengage from care, relapse, or delay help until a crisis occurs.

    Of course patients should be informed. Of course they should understand risks and benefits. Of course they should have a voice in treatment decisions.

    But informed consent should not become fear-based messaging. And reform should not become another way of shaming people with serious psychiatric illness.

    Better Medicine Means Holding Two Truths

    The future of psychiatry depends on our ability to hold two truths at the same time.

    First, psychiatric illness is real and can be devastating.

    Second, psychiatry must be careful not to overdiagnose, overprescribe, or turn normal human suffering into lifelong pathology.

    Both truths matter.

    If we only emphasize the first, we risk medicalizing everything.

    If we only emphasize the second, we risk abandoning people with serious illness.

    Real psychiatric care lives in the tension between those truths.

    It requires humility. It requires careful diagnosis. It requires honest conversations about uncertainty. It requires medication when appropriate, psychotherapy when appropriate, lifestyle intervention when appropriate, social support when appropriate, neuromodulation when appropriate, and deprescribing when appropriate.

    It also requires us to say clearly that some people need medication, and that needing medication is not a moral failure.

    The Goal Is Better Medicine

    The goal is not to prescribe more.

    The goal is not to prescribe less.

    The goal is to prescribe better.

    Better diagnosis.
    Better informed consent.
    Better follow-up.
    Better access to psychotherapy.
    Better use of lifestyle interventions.
    Better systems of care.
    Better deprescribing when medications are no longer needed.
    Better protection for people whose medications are the reason they are alive, stable, working, parenting, studying, and functioning.

    We do not fix psychiatry by pretending psychiatric medications are always the answer.

    But we also do not fix psychiatry by pretending they are the enemy.

    Psych meds are not the enemy.

    Bad medicine is.

  • The future of psychiatry depends on whether DSM-6 has the courage to say something unpopular

    The future of psychiatry depends on whether DSM-6 has the courage to say something unpopular

    My latest article in Psychiatric Times  https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychiatry-does-not-need-a-softer-dsm-it-needs-a-smarter-one

    Not all distress is disease

    That does not minimize suffering

    It protects the seriousness of psychiatric illness

    Some people have schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, OCD, severe depression, catatonia, and other conditions that can devastate lives without accurate diagnosis and treatment

    Others are suffering from trauma, stress, grief, substance use, medical illness, social collapse, personality structure, or environmental chaos

    They still deserve care

    But care does not always require a lifelong diagnostic label

    That is the tension DSM-6 must confront

    If the next DSM becomes broader, softer, and more flexible without becoming more scientifically valid, psychiatry will not gain credibility. It will lose it.

    My latest article in Psychiatric Times argues that psychiatry does not need a softer DSM.

    It needs a smarter one.

  • Mental Illness Is Real. Not Everything Painful Is

    Mental Illness Is Real. Not Everything Painful Is

    On the two opposite ways psychiatry harms patients, and the discipline to know the difference.

    There are two dangerous ways to talk about mental illness, and most public conversation manages to do both at once.

    The first is to deny that it exists.

    The second is to see it everywhere.

    Both are wrong. Both are harmful. Both leave patients worse off.

    On one side are the people who claim psychiatric disease isn’t real, that we’re medicating normal emotion, that diagnosis is social construction, that psychiatry exists to enrich pharmaceutical companies and serve as gatekeepers for a coercive system.

    This is the most extreme antipsychiatry position. And anyone who has actually worked with the seriously mentally ill knows how detached from reality it is.

    Anyone who has sat with a patient in the middle of a manic episode, watched schizophrenia consume a young person’s future, or cared for a loved one whose personality and functioning were permanently altered by illness knows that serious mental illness is not a metaphor. It is not a branding problem. It is not a failure of social acceptance.

    It is real.

    It destroys lives.

    It fractures families.

    It changes the trajectory of everyone around it.

    To deny that is not compassionate. It is cruel.

    But there is a subtler version of denial, one that doesn’t reject psychiatric illness outright, but explains nearly everything through the lens of trauma.

    I don’t mean trauma in the strict PTSD sense. Not the defined clinical syndrome with intrusive memories, avoidance, negative alterations in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal. I mean the broader cultural reflex to frame almost every form of suffering, dysregulation, or dysfunction as “trauma.”

    Trauma matters. Adverse experiences shape brain development, attachment, emotional regulation, interpersonal functioning, substance use, and psychiatric vulnerability. Trauma-informed care has improved medicine, especially by reminding clinicians not to mistake survival strategies for character flaws.

    But trauma does not explain everything.

    It does not explain every case of bipolar disorder. It does not explain every case of schizophrenia. It does not explain every recurrent psychotic episode, every manic state, every severe melancholic depression, or every disabling case of OCD.

    Sometimes the illness is the illness.

    Sometimes the problem is not that society failed to understand a person’s pain. Sometimes the problem is that a devastating psychiatric disease has emerged, and without treatment, it will keep dismantling that person’s life.

    But the opposite error is just as common, and at least as harmful.

    Some clinicians see mental illness in everything.

    They accept every DSM category as if it were a blood test result. They are not critical enough of psychiatry’s limitations. They recognize suffering, and because they want to help, they reach for diagnosis. They reach for medication. They reach for neuromodulation. They reach for a treatment plan that looks medical, billable, and actionable.

    But not every form of suffering is a psychiatric disease.

    Some suffering is grief.

    Some suffering is loneliness.

    Some suffering is moral injury.

    Some suffering is poverty.

    Some suffering is addiction, family chaos, social collapse, lack of purpose, bad relationships, unemployment, burnout, or the consequences of repeated poor decisions.

    Some suffering is just the pain of being human in a world that doesn’t give people much room to fall apart.

    That doesn’t make it fake. It doesn’t mean the person doesn’t deserve help.

    It means the help they need may not live inside a pill bottle.

    This is one of the hardest conversations in psychiatry.

    A patient is suffering. Their family is desperate. Everyone wants the problem named. Everyone wants the plan, the timeline, the medication, the diagnosis, the insurance code, the discharge plan, the promise that things will get better quickly.

    But sometimes the honest answer is:

    “I believe you are suffering. I believe you need help. But I am not convinced that what you have is best understood as a medication-responsive psychiatric disease.”

    That is not abandonment. That is clinical honesty.

    And it is much harder than simply prescribing something.

    The pressure to diagnose is everywhere.

    Families want answers. Hospitals need billable codes. Insurance companies require DSM or ICD diagnoses. Patients often arrive already convinced that if their suffering is severe enough, it must be a disorder. Clinicians are trained inside systems where diagnosis drives reimbursement, treatment authorization, length of stay, documentation, and discharge planning.

    The incentives quietly push us toward overdiagnosis.

    Not always because clinicians are careless. Often because that is simply how the system works.

    A person presents in crisis. They are admitted to an inpatient psychiatric unit. The system expects a psychiatric diagnosis. But not everything that gets someone admitted to inpatient psychiatry is caused by a primary psychiatric disease.

    Sometimes it is. Absolutely. Sometimes it is mania, psychosis, melancholic depression, catatonia, severe OCD, or a lethal depressive episode.

    Those cases need aggressive, evidence-based psychiatric treatment. Medication can be lifesaving. ECT can be lifesaving. Lithium, clozapine, antipsychotics, long-acting injectables, lifesaving. We should never minimize that. Untreated serious mental illness can destroy the patient’s life and the family’s along with it.

    But other times the picture is far more complicated. There may be interpersonal chaos, substance use, housing instability, personality structure, trauma history, family conflict, legal problems, financial collapse, social isolation, or a profound absence of coping skills. The person is suffering, but the suffering does not map cleanly onto a discrete psychiatric disease.

    These patients often respond poorly to medication, because medication was never the main answer.

    Then, when the medication doesn’t work, everyone assumes the psychiatrist chose the wrong one.

    Try another SSRI. Add an antipsychotic. Add a mood stabilizer. Try ketamine. Try TMS. Try something stronger.

    But sometimes the problem isn’t treatment resistance.

    Sometimes the problem is diagnostic overreach.

    This is where psychiatry must be honest with itself.

    We can harm people in two opposite directions.

    We can harm them by failing to diagnose and treat real mental illness.

    We can harm them by diagnosing and treating something as mental illness when it isn’t.

    The first error leaves people untreated and at the mercy of their disease.

    The second exposes people to unnecessary treatment, side effects, identity shifts, stigma, financial cost, and the disappointment that follows when a promised medical solution fails to deliver.

    And when people are harmed by treatments they didn’t need, they often become psychiatry’s loudest critics.

    Not because they were always antipsychiatry.

    Because psychiatry overpromised. Because someone gave them a diagnosis that didn’t fit. Because someone medicalized their suffering without understanding their life.

    Psychiatry does not need to choose between naĂŻve biological reductionism and total diagnostic nihilism. We need a more disciplined middle.

    When there is a clear psychiatric illness, recognizable course, symptom pattern, family history, severity, treatment-responsive biology, we should treat it seriously and decisively. No apologies. No hesitation. No pretending that schizophrenia is just “difference,” or mania is “spiritual awakening,” or severe depression is “sadness,” or OCD is “perfectionism.”

    But when the presentation is questionable, when the course doesn’t fit, when the diagnosis is being stretched to justify intervention, when the suffering is real but not clearly disease-based, we should slow down.

    We should listen longer. Widen the frame. Ask whether medication is likely to help. Consider psychotherapy, structure, sleep, substance use treatment, social repair, family boundaries, vocational support, lifestyle change, and time.

    We should be willing to say:

    “This is real suffering. But I am not going to pretend that a psychiatric label explains all of it.”

    That isn’t minimizing. That’s precision.

    The future of psychiatry depends on our ability to hold both truths at the same time.

    Mental illness is real.

    And not everything painful is mental illness.

    Some people desperately need psychiatric treatment and will be devastated without it. Others need compassion, structure, therapy, accountability, community, and support, but not a diagnosis that follows them for life, or medications that may do more harm than good.

    The goal is not to diagnose less. The goal is to diagnose better.

    The goal is not to medicate everyone. The goal is to treat the right condition, in the right person, at the right time, for the right reason.

    That is the psychiatry I believe in.

    Not psychiatry as social control.

    Not psychiatry as a pill for every problem.

    Psychiatry as a serious medical discipline, one that recognizes disease reality, respects human suffering, and has the humility to know the difference.

  • When Culture Moves Faster Than Science: Psilocybin Is Already in Your Clinic

    When Culture Moves Faster Than Science: Psilocybin Is Already in Your Clinic

    Here is what happens when culture moves faster than science.

    Before psilocybin becomes an FDA-approved treatment, before every safety question is answered, before we know how to responsibly scale psychedelic-assisted therapy, millions of Americans are already using it.

    According to a newly published analysis of the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, approximately 2.8% of Americans age 12 and older reported using psilocybin in the past year, corresponding to roughly 8 million people nationally. The study analyzed survey data from 58,633 respondents, and 2024 was the first year NSDUH included psilocybin-specific questions. 

    This is important, not because every person using psilocybin is doing something dangerous. Not because psilocybin has no therapeutic potential. The emerging research signal in depression, treatment-resistant depression, and substance use disorders is real enough to deserve rigorous study. In fact, the FDA recently announced regulatory actions intended to accelerate development of psychedelic-related treatments, including psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression and major depressive disorder. 

    But the problem is this: public enthusiasm is not the same thing as clinical evidence.

    And right now, the public is not waiting for the randomized controlled trials to finish.

    The survey found that psilocybin use was more common among males, young adults ages 18 to 25, and college-educated individuals. It was also strongly associated with use of cannabis, LSD, ketamine, and MDMA. 

    Most importantly for psychiatrists, psilocybin use was not randomly distributed across the population. People with a past-year major depressive episode were more likely to report psilocybin use. So were individuals with alcohol use disorder. 

    Because this means the people most likely to be experimenting with psilocybin are not necessarily the healthy, psychologically stable adults often imagined in wellness culture. They may be the very patients already sitting in our offices: depressed, anxious, drinking heavily, using cannabis, struggling with treatment resistance, frustrated with conventional psychiatry, or searching for something that feels more meaningful than another medication adjustment.

    This is where psychiatry has to grow up.

    The easy response is dismissal. “It’s illegal.” “It’s recreational.” “It’s just another drug trend.” That response will fail because it ignores what patients are already doing.

    The equally dangerous response is romanticization. “It’s natural.” “It’s ancient.” “It expands consciousness.” “It heals trauma.” That response also fails because it replaces medical evidence with cultural mythology.

    The clinical response has to be more serious than both.

    Psilocybin used in a controlled clinical trial is not the same thing as psilocybin used at home, at a retreat, at a party, in combination with cannabis, alcohol, MDMA, ketamine, or while taking serotonergic medications. Clinical trials involve screening, standardized dosing, structured preparation, psychological support, monitoring, and follow-up. Naturalistic use often has none of those safeguards.

    A patient with depression using psilocybin outside a clinical setting may be doing so because they are desperate, not because they are reckless. But desperation does not eliminate risk. Psychedelic experiences can be psychologically destabilizing. They can worsen anxiety, trigger panic, create prolonged distress, or complicate underlying bipolar spectrum illness, psychosis vulnerability, trauma symptoms, or substance use disorders.

    This does not mean psychiatrists should lecture patients.

    It means we should ask better questions.

    Not: “Are you using drugs?”

    But:
    “Have you used psilocybin, mushrooms, ketamine, MDMA, LSD, or other psychedelic substances in the past year?”
    “What were you hoping it would help with?”
    “What happened during and after the experience?”
    “Did you use it alone or with others?”
    “Were alcohol, cannabis, or other substances involved?”
    “Did it change your mood, sleep, anxiety, impulsivity, suicidal thoughts, or sense of reality afterward?”
    “Are you planning to use it again?”

    That is not endorsement. That is clinical reality.

    Whether psilocybin eventually becomes an FDA-approved psychiatric treatment or not, psychiatrists are going to see more patients who have used it, are considering using it, or believe it has already treated their depression, trauma, addiction, or existential distress.

    We need to be ready for that conversation.

    The future of psychedelic medicine should not be driven by excessive enthusiasm, venture capital, wellness influencers, or reactionary fear. It should be driven by careful science, honest risk assessment, clinical humility, and respect for the fact that patients are already making decisions before the field has reached consensus.

    Culture has moved first.

    Science is catching up.

    Psychiatry needs to be in the room before the narrative is written without us.

    Psychiatry Unfiltered

  • The psychedelic conversation in psychiatry is at an inflection point

    The psychedelic conversation in psychiatry is at an inflection point

    I believe these treatments deserve serious study. In fact, some of the most promising work in modern psychiatry is happening in this space. Psilocybin has FDA breakthrough therapy designation for treatment-resistant depression, MDMA-assisted therapy has shown meaningful promise in PTSD, and ibogaine is generating legitimate research interest in opioid use disorder and traumatic brain injury. 

    But promise is not proof.

    In my new Psychiatric Times article, I make the case that psychedelics deserve real science, not political shortcuts, podcast-driven enthusiasm, or regulatory acceleration built on weak evidence. The core issue is not whether we should study these compounds. We should. The issue is whether observational data, open-label studies, and viral claims are being asked to carry more weight than they should. 

    When a treatment has real risks, especially one like ibogaine with known cardiac concerns, the answer cannot be to lower the evidentiary bar. It has to be to raise the quality of the research. That means adequately powered randomized trials, careful safety monitoring, standardized outcomes, and enough humility to admit what we do not yet know. 

    Psychiatry does need better tools. Our patients need them badly. But if we want innovation that lasts, it has to be built on rigor, not hype.

    My latest piece in Psychiatric Times“Psychedelics Deserve Real Science”

  • We say we care about mental health in America

    We say we care about mental health in America

    We say we care about mental health in America.
    But the data—and my front-line experience—say otherwise.

    We are overmedicating, underfunding, and pathologizing poverty, trauma, and stress.
    Instead of addressing why people are sick, we throw pills at symptoms.

    đź§  In my latest article for Psychiatric Times, I make the case that we’ve built a system that profits off disease—not health.
    We’re not solving the problem. We’re institutionalizing it.

    If we want to make America healthy again, we need to stop doing the wrong things.

    👉 Read the full piece here: https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/if-we-want-to-make-america-healthy-again-we-are-doing-the-wrong-thing

  • Understanding Psychiatry: Science vs. Skepticism

    Understanding Psychiatry: Science vs. Skepticism

    đź§  â€śPsychiatry is a scam.” “Big Pharma controls your brain.” “Mental illness isn’t real.”

    You’ve heard the takes. Now here’s the truth.

    In my new article for Psychiatric Times, I dive headfirst into the controversy:
    👉 Understanding Psychiatry: Navigating Skepticism and Science
    https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/understanding-psychiatry-navigating-skepticism-and-science

    I don’t dodge the hard questions—about overmedication, broken trust, and bad science—but I also push back against lazy anti-psychiatry takes that ignore the very real suffering of patients.

    If you care about the future of mental health care, this one’s worth your time.

  • Reject dogma—embrace nuance in Psychiatry

    🔹 Psychoanalysis should not be treated as sacred doctrine. Freud was a clever and influential thinker, but not a prophet.


    🔹 Biological psychiatry is equally vulnerable to dogma. Not every symptom signals a disease, and not every distress warrants medication.


    🔹 That said, evidence-based pharmacology has its place—especially when medications show clear, replicable benefits in defined clinical conditions.

    The future of psychiatry lies in balanced thinking, not blind allegiance—to Freud, to biology, or to any single model of mind.

  • The Importance of Distinguishing Suicidal Behaviors

    The Importance of Distinguishing Suicidal Behaviors

    This is the subject of a recent discussion I had with a colleague regarding the differences between a suicide attempt and a suicide gesture. Though these terms are sometimes used interchangeably in casual conversation or even in clinical documentation, they carry fundamentally different meanings—both in terms of patient risk and in how we, as clinicians, should respond.

    Our conversation emerged from a case involving a patient with borderline personality disorder who presented to the emergency department after ingesting a small quantity of over-the-counter medication. The intent was unclear. Was this a serious attempt to end her life? Or was it a gesture—an act of desperation without the intention to die, but rather to communicate emotional distress?

    The question is not academic. Our interpretation of the event determines our risk formulation, our documentation, our treatment planning, and even how we communicate with the patient and their support system. Yet, it is precisely in these gray areas that clinicians often struggle, and where outdated or stigmatizing language can do real harm.

    Defining the Terms: Clinical and Functional Differences

    suicide attempt refers to an act of self-harm with at least some intent to die. The degree of lethality may vary, but what distinguishes an attempt is that the individual believed the act could result in death and engaged in it with that goal in mind—even if ambivalence was present. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) define this with some specificity: any potentially self-injurious behavior with non-zerointent to die, regardless of outcome.

    In contrast, a suicidal gesture is a behavior that mimics suicidal behavior or appears life-threatening but is typically not intended to be fatal. The function is often communicative or affect-regulating rather than aimed at death. Classic examples include superficial wrist-cutting, ingesting a sub-lethal dose of medication, or tying a noose but not tightening it. These acts often occur in interpersonal contexts and can be seen as efforts to signal pain, elicit help, or assert control in the face of perceived abandonment.

    Why the Distinction Matters

    It might be tempting to dismiss suicidal gestures as “attention-seeking” or “manipulative,” but this framing is both clinically dangerous and ethically fraught. Individuals who engage in gestures often experience intense psychological suffering, and repeated gestures are a well-established risk factor for future suicide attempts and completed suicide.

    From a risk assessment standpoint, gestures should be taken seriously, especially when they become part of a pattern. While the intent to die may not be present in a given gesture, intent can shift quickly, particularly in individuals with mood disorders, personality pathology, or under the influence of substances.

    From a treatment perspective, understanding the function of the behavior—whether it is to relieve affective tension, to communicate distress, or to punish oneself—is crucial to tailoring interventions. For instance, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) explicitly targets self-harm and suicidal gestures as part of its hierarchy of treatment priorities, recognizing the urgency and potential danger of these behaviors even when lethality is low.

    Conclusion: Clarify, Don’t Categorize

    Ultimately, the conversation with my colleague reminded me that the real clinical challenge is not to label a behavior as a suicide attempt or a gesture, but to understand its meaning in the life of the patient. Both require empathy, structure, and a willingness to engage with complexity. Whether a patient wants to die or wants their suffering to be seen and acknowledged, both deserve serious clinical attention.

    By sharpening our definitions and approaching these behaviors with nuance, we can better serve patients in crisis and avoid the pitfalls of assumptions—especially in emotionally charged clinical environments like emergency rooms, inpatient units, or high-acuity outpatient settings.

  • RFK Jr. Claims He’ll Identify the Cause of Autism by September

    RFK Jr. Claims He’ll Identify the Cause of Autism by September

    In a bold statement this week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he will reveal the definitive cause of autism by September. Kennedy, a longtime critic of childhood vaccine programs, did not provide specific scientific details or a research plan, but implied that his administration would prioritize transparency and independent investigations into the condition’s origins.

    The claim has sparked immediate controversy. Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with a strong genetic foundation and a wide range of potential environmental influences—none of which have yielded a singular, definitive cause. The scientific consensus, built over decades of rigorous research, continues to support a multifactorial model rather than a simplistic explanation.

    Many highly intelligent and dedicated scientists have spent years studying autism without identifying a single, unifying cause. One of the recurring issues that arises when politics intersects with science is a resistance to the idea that these are nuanced, multifaceted conditions. It’s not the most satisfying explanation—but it is consistent with the best evidence we have. My fear is that this type of investigation, under political pressure, could prematurely identify a false causal agent—such as vaccines—and reignite a harmful narrative that has already been thoroughly debunked.

    Kennedy’s history of promoting vaccine-autism links adds further concern. The CDC, WHO, and a vast body of peer-reviewed research have all concluded there is no credible evidence connecting vaccines to autism. Suggesting otherwise not only undermines public trust in science and medicine—it risks the health of entire communities by fueling vaccine hesitancy.

    For families and individuals affected by autism, the promise of discovering its origins is understandably compelling. But it’s critical that we approach that pursuit with scientific integrity, not political expediency.