Posted on

The Price of Assumption

Recently, there have been heated debates between clinicians and parent advocates regarding the role of environmental and family issues in eating disorders. Some people insist that family dynamics and environmental factors play a role in the development of an eating disorder. Others bristle at the possibility. Some people say “families don’t cause eating disorders, BUT…” Others fixate on the “but” and disregard everything else.

My views on this issue are complex. Thankfully, my views became much clearer to me as I was watching an episode of the E! True Hollywood Story entitled Britney Spears: The Price of Fame. Now I am able to articulate my views on this topic in a way that most people can understand.

Numerous magazine and newspaper articles have reported that Britney Spears has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. According to unnamed “sources close to the pop star,” Spears was suffering from untreated bipolar disorder during her public meltdown and psychiatric hospitalization in 2008. While I have not treated Britney and thus cannot ethically make a diagnosis, I will say that her erratic behavior circa 2006-2008 could be explained by a bipolar diagnosis, and that the rate of bipolar disorder is thought to be quite high amongst people in the creative and performing arts.

Scientists now know that bipolar disorder is a neurobiologically-based, genetically transmitted disease. However, rather than focusing on the neurobiology or genetics of bipolar disorder, The E! True Hollywood Story explored various influences in Britney’s life that fueled her self-destructive behavior. Clearly, this type of commentary is far more interesting to the typical E! viewer than neurobiology, my own preferences notwithstanding. Several mental health professionals were interviewed and gave their opinions as to the influence of early stardom, family problems, a stage mom, excessive fame, and extreme wealth on the pop star’s behavior. Sadly, though, the viewer is led to believe that these environmental and family issues are the cause of Britney’s downfall.

Did Britney’s family or environment cause her bipolar disorder? No. Neither family nor environment can cause a brain disorder.

Did her family or environment fuel her bipolar disorder? Yes. And here’s how: Let’s say Britney had taken a different path in life, married a plumber instead of Kevin Federline and worked as a preschool teacher instead of a pop star. Let’s say she stayed in her small Louisiana hometown, never dabbled in drugs or heavy drinking, went to bed every night at a decent hour, and maintained close, age appropriate relationships with her family and good friends, making a decent living but nothing more. Would she still have developed bipolar disorder? Yes, I absolutely believe she would have (remember, most people with bipolar disorder are not pop stars, but regular people). However, her disease would have been much more easily diagnosed and treated if she had been surrounded and supported by normal, loving people who could influence her in a positive way. As it happened, her disease was certainly protracted and exacerbated by the lifestyle of a pop star, which includes late nights, insufficient sleep, excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs, and endless amounts of power and money.

If Britney’s therapist had held a family session with Lynne and Jamie Spears and Kevin Federline in attempts to “explore the family dynamics which contributed to the disorder,” that would be a complete waste of time. The elder Spears’ and Mr. Federline – the very people who are in the best position to help Britney recover – would have felt subtly blamed and marginalized. There is nothing to be gained, and everything to be lost, by approaching a brain disorder in this fashion.

The most ideal situation for Britney would be for her parents and K-Fed (and any other people close to her) to work together to provide family-based support to help her recover and to help eliminate any environmental or family factors which may be fueling her disease. It would be most helpful for her family members to be educated about bipolar disorder and understand that it is a biologically-based brain disease that she did not choose and that they did not cause. The family would also need to know that certain environmental factors, such as pregnancy and childbirth, stress, insufficient sleep, drugs and alcohol, medication non-compliance, or excessive emotional distress, can trigger episodes and exacerbate symptoms. The family would need to learn pro-active ways to help Britney manage her environment in a way that is most conducive to achieving mental and physical wellness.

In considering this example, it is important to bear in mind that people with bipolar disorder run the gamut from pop stars to professors to businessmen to truck drivers to homeless panhandlers. Families of people with bipolar disorder also run the gamut – some are amazing and supportive, others are average, and some are downright abusive. If treatment for bipolar disorder is to be successful, the clinician must perform a thorough evaluation of the patient and family, and the information gleaned from that assessment should be used to guide treatment decisions. A good clinician would not presume that the family of a person with bipolar disorder is dysfunctional or abusive, or that family dynamics caused or contributed to the development of the disorder. Similarly, a good clinician would not presume that the family is healthy or that there is nothing the family needs to change. Quite simply, a good clinician would not assume anything – she would simply perform an assessment and tailor her approach to the strengths, limitations, and realities of that particular patient and family, in line with the most recent evidence-based research.

Eating disorders are also neurobiologically-based, genetically transmitted diseases which patients don’t choose and parents don’t cause. Family issues and environment certainly can fuel eating disorders by encouraging dieting or glorifying thinness, by making diagnosis more difficult or treatment less accessible, or by making recovery harder than it needs to be.

All eating disorder patients have a biological brain disease which most likely would have arisen, at some point in time and to some degree, regardless of family or environment. Some patients have family or environmental issues which are fueling their disorder, and some do not. If such familial or environmental issues exist, they usually become quite obvious if you do a thorough assessment. These family or environmental issues will need to be addressed in treatment, not because they caused the eating disorder, but because they can trigger or exacerbate symptoms and interfere with full recovery.

But if there are no obvious familial or environmental issues fueling the disorder, please don’t waste time searching for them. You aren’t doing the patient or the family any good by “being curious,” or “just exploring.” You are simply satisfying your own voyeuristic drive, as I fulfilled mine by watching the E! True Hollywood Story on Britney Spears.

Posted on

Blame it on the Brain

There is much debate amongst mental health professionals as to whether mental illnesses should be called “brain disorders.” A large part of the disagreement, as I see it, comes from a lack of consensus as to the meaning of the term “brain disorder.”

I conceptualize a brain disorder as a disease or disorder that originates in the brain and influences mood, thinking, learning, and/or behavior. By my definition, all disorders listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) are brain disorders, including autism, ADHD, major depression, bipolar disorder, OCD, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, reactive attachment disorder, Alzheimers, and schizophrenia.

To me, “brain disorder” does NOT mean:
• Environment does not play a role in its development
• Environment does not play a role in recovery
• It is 100% biologically based
• It is 100% genetically inherited
• It can only be treated by physician or with a pill
• Psychological interventions won’t help
• The patient can’t do anything to influence the outcome

None of the above is true for ANY brain disorder, whether we’re talking about one that is commonly accepted as “biologically based” or not. In fact, I don’t know of any physical disease or medical condition in which any of the above is true.

Some people in my field are willing to apply the term “brain disorder” to some illnesses which are widely accepted to have a neurobiological basis (e.g., schizophrenia, autism, Alzheimers) but adamantly resist using this term to describe eating disorders, depression, or anxiety disorders, which they perceive to be something else. The underlying assumptions here, which few people would openly admit, are that some mental disorders are legitimate diseases whereas others are choices or responses to the environment; some mental illnesses are serious and deserve to be treated (and funded by insurance) whereas others are the patient’s or the family’s fault, so treatment is optional.

Clinicians who oppose the use of the term “brain disorder” to describe certain mental illnesses typically fall into one or more of the following categories:
• They don’t have a strong science background
• They lack basic knowledge of biology and genetics
• They suffer from (or have suffered from) the mental disorder in question and are personally offended by the term because they believe it invalidates their personal experience
• They feel that their professional identity, the work they have done for many years, is threatened by acknowledgment of the neurobiological basis of mental illness
• They believe that family dynamics or socio-cultural forces are the root cause of mental disorders, and that changing family dynamics or socio-cultural forces will cure or prevent mental disorders.

My clinical work is grounded in the knowledge that all mental illnesses are brain disorders. I believe my patients benefit from knowing that they have a neurobiologically-based, genetically inherited illness which they did not choose and their family did not cause. In order to get well, they must have a profound appreciation of their unique vulnerabilities and how to make healthful choices in order to keep themselves well. It is important for me, as a psychologist, to understand how the brain works – the mind-body-behavior connection – and it is important for me to educate my patients and their families about these issues as well.

It’s a two-way street – brain function affects thoughts, emotions, and behavior; in turn, psychological and behavioral interventions change brain function. The fact that mental illnesses are brain-based does not necessarily mean that medication is required. Research has shown that, for many brain disorders, certain types of psychotherapy are more effective than medication (e.g., mild or moderate depression, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa). For other brain disorders, a combination of psychotherapy and medication produces better outcomes than either treatment alone (e.g., severe major depression, OCD). Less than half of my current patients are taking any psychotropic medication. Many of my patients recover fully without medication, and those who do need medication can often take fewer medications and/or lower doses once they have had good psychological intervention.

One of my college-aged patients who suffers from severe depression and anxiety recently shared the following insight, which beautifully captures the clinical utility of the “brain disorder” concept:

“With my last therapist, we just talked about what went wrong in my family that made me so screwed up. We spent the whole summer trying to figure out why I’m depressed, and it didn’t make me any better. My relationship with my parents just got worse – I got angrier at them and they felt guilty. Now I know I have a brain disorder and I know how to treat it. I come to therapy, I take my meds, and I’m OK. It works.”

Posted on

Why Psychodynamic Therapy is Harmful for Eating Disorder Patients

1.) The approach is based upon theory rather than empirical data.

Decades ago, when psychologists and psychiatrists first began treating eating disorders, psychodynamic therapy was the only tool they had. Science has come a long way since then. While there is still so much about the illness that we don’t understand, we have learned a great deal in the past decade about the etiology of eating disorders and how to treat them more effectively. Why use theory-based practice when we have evidence-based practice?

2.) It confuses symptoms with causes.

For example, one psychodynamic theory posits that girls develop anorexia nervosa due to their fear of growing up and their desire to remain child-like. In reality, the ammenorhea and boyishly-thin bodies of anorexic girls are symptoms of the illness.

3.) Insight and motivation are over-emphasized, especially early in treatment.

Insight and motivation are crucial to sustaining wellness later in the recovery process. But patients with anorexia nervosa suffer from anosognosia, a brain-based inability to recognize that they are ill. The problem with emphasizing insight and motivation early in treatment is the presumption that the patient must “choose” to get well and that, if she does not make that “choice,” no one else can make it for her. Precious weeks, months, even years are wasted trying to form an alliance, cultivate motivation, and develop insight.

4.) It presumes that the patient’s family dynamics are at least partially to blame for the eating disorder, and that correcting the family dysfunction will help the patient recover.

There is no reliable scientific evidence to support these theories. Families of eating disorder patients do typically present for treatment with high levels of conflict and tension. The conflicted parent-child relationship, however, is most likely the result of the eating disorder rather than the cause. Having a child with any serious illness creates enormous strain on even the healthiest, most functional families.

5.) It presumes that there is a “deeper meaning” in symptoms which are the result of malnourishment and/or faulty brain chemistry.

A great deal of time and money is wasted attempting to discern this deeper meaning. Meanwhile, the patient’s brain and body are failing, placing him or her at risk of permanent medical and psychiatric problems. I advise patients and families: Don’t waste time on “why.” The reality is that we don’t know exactly what causes anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa.

We still do not know the cause of many types of cancer, but we begin aggressive cancer treatment immediately upon diagnosis because the longer it goes untreated, the more grim the prognosis becomes. We can remove a tumor or give chemotherapy without knowing how the tumor originated. The same principles apply with eating disorders – the patient’s nutrition and weight must be normalized immediately, and dangerous behaviors must be stopped right away. The patient will benefit from these interventions, both physically and mentally – even if the “reason” for the eating disorder is unknown.

6.). Too much attention is paid to early experiences, often at the expense of solving problems in the here and now.

Psychodynamic theory presumes that psychiatric disorders stem from early childhood experiences. In reality, childhood experiences are generally irrelevant to the patient’s eating disorder. Even in instances in which early experiences are relevant to the current illness, there is no evidence that an ill patient can overcome her eating disorder “exploring” or “processing” such experiences.

7.) Too much value is placed on the relationship between therapist and patient.

While I completely agree that the therapeutic relationship is very important to the healing process (and there is solid research supporting this), I believe that this relationship must take a backseat to treating the eating disorder aggressively. This means that in order to be optimally effective, the therapist must listen to the patient’s basic needs rather than her expressed wishes (translation: the ED’s wishes), consistently nurturing her relationships with family members when she (translation: the ED) wants them to leave her the f*** alone, and setting firm limits on her ED behavior immediately rather than waiting for her to develop the motivation and insight to do so herself. In my experience, this often means that the patient (translation: the ED) will hate me at the beginning of treatment, then gradually grow to trust, admire, and respect me as treatment progresses and her brain returns to healthy functioning. Most patients eventually express gratitude for that early toughness and understanding of what had to be done, recognizing that they wouldn’t have been able to recover without it.

8.) It undermines the relationship between the patient and his or her parents.

Psychodynamic therapy involves deep exploration of childhood experiences and family relationships in attempt to uncover the seeds of the patient’s current mental conflict. The typical result of this type of therapy is that the patient begins to distrust and resent her parents for making her ill, and the parents back off even further out of fear of making problems worse. This results in further exacerbation of existing family conflict and the creation of new problems, once the patient “realizes” how pathological her family really is.

We now know, through research on family-based treatment, that empowering parents to help their children overcome eating disorders is actually the most effective way to help them recover. I believe that nurturing positive relationships between the patient and her family members is essential for full recovery and ongoing relapse prevention, as family members are usually the first to notice signs of struggle, and the first ones to intervene.

9.) It is extremely difficult to undo the damage done by psychodynamic treatment.

A substantial amount of the trauma that patients and families endure is not the result of the eating disorder itself, but rather the result of bad treatment and protracted illness. Often, patients and their families come to me for family-based treatment after months or years of traditional therapy which has not been effective. Even a newly-diagnosed patient will struggle with re-feeding, but having a history of traditional treatment makes the process much more tumultuous. It is extremely difficult for the patient to accept meal support from their parents when they have been conditioned to believe that separation/individuation issues are at the root of their illness, or that they have developed their eating disorder as a way to survive in a dysfunctional family, or that they will recover when they choose. Further, parents struggle enormously to become empowered to act on their child’s behalf when they have been blamed for causing the illness, either overtly or subtly, by their child’s previous clinicians.

10.) It does not bode well for relapse prevention.

Unfortunately, eating disorders have a very high rate of relapse, in part because the underlying biological vulnerability stays with the patient for life. In order to maintain full recovery, it is extremely important for the patient to maintain his or her optimally healthy body weight, practice excellent self-care, manage stress adaptively, and eat a complete, well-balanced diet. The beliefs that one’s eating disorder resulted from internal conflict, or that “it’s not about the food,” are not terribly conducive to these protective measures.

As science has progressed and newer, more effective treatments have been developed, there has been a backlash from the “old school.” Those who remain entrenched in outdated, unproven psychodynamic theories will defend their beliefs like a lioness defends her cubs because – let’s face it – these theories are their babies. They have built careers on these ideas; written books about them; conceptualized their own recovery through these lenses. But that does not make these theories correct, or evidence-based, or useful, or effective in treatment.

Let’s welcome a new generation of clinicians who use evidence-based treatment that strengthens family relationships, treats deadly symptoms rather than hypothesized causes, and promotes full and lasting recovery for all patients. Let’s welcome a new generation of patients and families who are not blamed for the illness, but are empowered to pursue aggressive, effective treatment upon initial diagnosis. Let’s welcome treatment that actually works and refuse to support treatment that doesn’t.

Posted on

Time after Time

“I don’t have time.”

This is an excuse I hear all too often. When I recommend a health-promoting behavior to a patient, such as sleeping at least 8 hours per night, meditating, spending quality time with family and friends, or exercising regularly, some people respond reflexively by stating that they don’t have time. Others will give a more wistful response, such as: “Oh, I would love to, I know it’s good for me, but I just don’t have the time.” There are patients who cancel their therapy appointments because they “don’t have time” to attend, and those who fail to complete their therapy homework citing lack of time. While I sympathize with the feeling, I don’t buy this excuse.

Here’s the thing: time is the great equalizer. We each have different amounts of money, different abilities, different families, and different life circumstances, but we all have the same amount of time. Every single person on this earth is given 24 hours in each day, 7 days in each week, and 52 weeks in each year. What we do with that time is up to us. Believe it or not, you have quite a bit of control over how you spend your time.

When someone claims that they don’t have time to do X, what they really mean is that X is not important enough to make time for it. When you reframe the statement this way, it sounds much more pointed and critical, yet it is startlingly accurate:

“My mental health is not important enough to me to attend weekly therapy sessions.”

“I don’t care enough about my wellbeing to make the time to exercise regularly.”

“I’m choosing not to bring my daughter to therapy every week because attending volleyball practice is more important than her recovery.”

“My family just isn’t significant enough for me to take time out of my day to be with them.”

“I’m not coming to therapy tomorrow because it’s finals week, and my grades are much more important than my recovery.”

It is all a matter of priorities. We define ourselves and create our destiny, in part, by how we choose to spend our time. People spend substantial chunks of time each day twittering, texting, facebooking, watching television, and surfing the internet. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these activities. When used appropriately, they can be entertaining and life-enhancing. But when a college student tells me she has no time to sleep or exercise, and yet she spends two hours a day on facebook and goes out drinking with friends three nights a week, this says something about her values and priorities. When a parent claims that she “doesn’t have time” to transport her child to weekly therapy appointments, but clearly has the time to transport said child to soccer practice, voice lessons, youth group, and SAT prep classes, this too says something about how much the parent values her child’s mental health.

Most people would take time off from work or school to see their family doctor if they were sick. Most parents wouldn’t think twice about making time for their child to have chemotherapy, dialysis, surgery, or even orthodontist visits. Yet somehow, treatment for mental illness is not viewed with the same urgency. This is a huge mistake.

Individuals living with mental illness have more physical health problems than those who are mentally healthy. Depression costs society billions of dollars each year in lost productivity, not to mention suicide. Eating disorders often become chronic, disabling conditions and have mortality rates close to 20%. Schizophrenia and addiction often lead to homelessness. So why do we continue to view mental health treatment as optional or extracurricular? Why does our behavior suggest that mental health treatment is less important than work, school, sports, or facebook?

The impact of mental illness on individuals, families, and society is enormous, but the benefits of good mental health are immense and immeasurable. Improved mental health means increased productivity, reduced stress, more rewarding relationships, improved physical wellbeing, and overall satisfaction with life.

Achieving and sustaining good mental health is not merely a matter of attending therapy appointments, just as achieving physical health requires far more than visits to your doctor. Successful treatment for mental illness involves significant time, energy, and effort outside the therapist’s office. Many types of mental illness come with a life-long predisposition, so sufferers must be ever mindful of controlling symptoms and preventing relapse, even after complete recovery. Developing good self-care habits, completing therapy homework assignments, and creating a lifestyle conducive to overall wellbeing are all part of a holistic approach to mental wellness.

Think carefully about how you spend your time. Ask yourself if the way you spend your time reflects your true values and priorities. If mental health is a priority for you, don’t just say it – LIVE it – and the benefits of good mental health will be yours to enjoy.

Posted on

Surviving the Holidays When You Have a Mental Illness

For most people, the holidays are a time of joy and celebration. However, for many people with mental illnesses, the yuletide cheer is accompanied by added challenges. This is true for those with various diagnoses. Consider the following:

1. For people with depression, the joy and festivities of the holiday season seem to amplify their own inability to experience pleasure. As families and friends come together, they may withdraw. To make matters worse, Christmas falls right around the shortest day of the year, so the lack of sunlight can be a huge trigger for those with Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) – a type of depression which occurs in the fall and winter months.

2. For people with anxiety, being around large groups of unfamiliar people can be terrifying. Christmas parties, crowded shopping malls, even visits with unfamiliar (or unkind) relatives can be extra-stressful.

3. For people with anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa, the large amounts of foods, particularly “treats,” that are part and parcel of holiday events can induce major anxiety. So can the enormously triggering “diet talk” that often accompanies holiday feasts and intensifies near New Years.

4. For people with alcoholism, the endless parade of holiday parties and events where alcohol is present makes it difficult to socialize normally or enjoy the typical gatherings with family and friends.

5. For people with ADHD, there is the added stress of final exams, Christmas shopping, decorating, parties, and visiting relatives, which can make them feel more scattered and disorganized than usual.

So how do you cope with mental illness during the holiday season?

Here are some tips which may be helpful, regardless of your particular diagnosis:

1.) Plan ahead. Create a written list of potential problems that could arise around the holidays. Think about various ways that you could handle these situations, and write down your solutions. Visualize yourself handling these difficult situations with grace and strength.

2.) Enlist social support. Talk to people you trust – your therapist, family members, or friends – about your concerns. Let them know how they can help you through this difficult time. People are more than willing to be more generous and charitable than usual at this time of year!

3.) Maintain good health habits. Get at least 8 hours of sleep per night, eat plenty of healthful foods, exercise regularly, and drink in moderation (if at all). Many people stop engaging in health-promoting behaviors around the holidays. If you struggle with a mental illness, this is the time to be extra-conscientious about caring for your physical and mental health.

4.) Focus on the protective factors associated with Christmas. Despite the myth that rates of suicides increase around the holidays, scientific research actually shows that suicide rates are lower than average in the days before Christmas. This may be due to several issues:
• Increased support from family and friends, who tend to gather together around the holidays
• Increased sense of charity and goodwill from others
• More community support – shelters, food banks, charities for the poor
• For many people, Christmas is associated with positive memories of hope and love and family, which can help improve outlook when things seem bleak
• Increase in religious observance and spirituality associated with Christmas

5.) Lower your expectations. Yes, the holidays are seen by many as “the most wonderful time of the year,” as the song goes. But stress and personal problems do not magically disappear during the holidays. It is not realistic to assume that you will be symptom-free simply because it is a holiday.

6.) Keep it simple. The holidays have become so commercialized, and so many demands are placed on people to throw and attend parties, buy and wrap lavish gifts, and cook like Julia Child on steroids, that many people are simply burnt out by the time Christmas arrives. Retailers love to extend the holiday season from Thanksgiving through New Years, but this is mostly for their own profit, and it doesn’t have to be this way. If you feel overwhelmed by stress, simply have a quiet, one-evening celebration with a few people of your choosing who are closest to you. There is no need to spend precious time and money getting people the perfect gifts. A simple card with a thoughtful note is sufficient to let people know you are thinking of them.

7.) Focus on what really matters. Remember the people of Whoville in The Grinch Who Stole Christmas? They showed us that Christmas can be joyful without presents and trees and decorations. These material things have no bearing on our ability to enjoy the holidays.

8.) In keeping with the Dr. Seuss example, think of your mental illness as the Grinch. It is a cold-hearted thief, with a heart three sizes too small, who will attempt to ruin your holiday. Don’t let it.

9.) Remember that parties are supposed to be fun and ARE ALWAYS OPTIONAL. You always dread your annual office party? Just don’t go. Let whomever is in charge know that you aren’t feeling well, or simply that you appreciate the invitation but you won’t be able to make it this year. It’s supposed to be a party, not a punishment.

10.) Do what’s fun; skip what’s not. If you love preparing Christmas dinner for your family, great! Enjoy! If not, hit up your local Chinese restaurant. Jews have had this tradition for decades.

Posted on

Healing After the Crisis

Many people who have recovered from anorexia nervosa (AN) continue to exhibit anxiety, depression, moodiness, perfectionism, or other psychological issues. In fact, the anxious personality style that persists after full recovery is the norm, rather than the exception. Walter Kaye’s research shows that 60-70% of people with histories of AN have anxious, obsessive, perfectionistic, rigid, harm-avoidant personality traits that were present before AN and persist after recovery. These traits are largely genetic and neurobiological in origin.

Individuals who have experienced AN, regardless of how long it has been since their most recent episode, and regardless of how fully recovered they are, need to be mindful of managing their underlying predisposition. For those with histories of AN, having an anxious, obsessive, perfectionistic personality style combined with a biologically-driven tendency to restrict food creates the perfect storm for relapse. Even if anorexia nervosa never returns, these individuals are at greater risk of developing bulimia nervosa and of experiencing depression, anxiety, and related disorders.

Here are some basic guidelines for continued healing after the crisis of AN blows over:

1. Get evaluated for an accurate target weight

You may be “weight-restored” according to your therapist, nutritionist, or doctor. But what exactly does that mean? Are you really at YOUR ideal body weight?

The vast majority of doctors, nutritionists, and therapists tend to set target weights too low. There are several reasons for this: overblown concern about the obesity epidemic, their own personal beliefs about the value of thinness, ignorance of the research on appropriate target weight and recovery from eating disorders, and concern about upsetting patients who negotiate for lower weights. Whatever their motive, the common practice of setting target weights too low perpetuates the illness, increases risk of relapse, and holds most patients in a state of semi-recovery.

In order to recover fully, you need to get to YOUR body’s ideal weight, which has nothing to do with what’s “on the charts.” If you have a biological predisposition to AN, being even 5 pounds below YOUR optimal weight can trigger symptoms of anxiety, obsessiveness, depression, and irritability. The best way to determine your accurate target weight is to obtain copies of your historic growth charts and schedule an appointment with a physician who is knowledgeable about eating disorders. Your physician can examine your historic growth charts and use them to make an educated guess of where your weight would be if you had never developed an eating disorder.

Your ideal weight is not a “magic number;” it is a range of approximately 5-10 pounds at which your body feels good and functions optimally. If you are at your ideal weight, you should be getting regular menstrual periods without taking birth control pills. Your body will gravitate towards your ideal weight range when you are eating normally without restriction and exercising regularly. Research has shown that the vast majority of young adults with AN must maintain a body mass index (BMI) of at least 20 in order for their brain and body to recover fully. Many people require higher BMI’s than that, depending on their bone structure, muscularity, build, and genetics. Many parents find that their child’s last lingering psychological symptoms disappear she gains those last five pounds and returns to her historic growth curve.

2. Get evaluated and treated for co-morbid conditions

Co-morbid diagnoses which are made while a patient is underweight, re-feeding, or actively bingeing and purging are notoriously inaccurate. Most acutely ill patients with eating disorders exhibit symptoms of major depression, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but in many cases these symptoms are the direct effects of a malnourished, chaotically nourished, or re-feeding brain. Giving a false diagnosis is worthless at best and counterproductive at worst. It does not make sense, medically or practically or financially, to provide a patient with a medication or a psychological treatment when her symptoms are best addressed through full nutrition.

However, not all psychological symptoms disappear with weight restoration. The truth is that many people with a history of AN have co-morbid psychological disorders which exist independently of their eating disorder. The most common disorders which co-occur with AN are OCD, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, ADHD, and Asperger’s syndrome. Every eating disorder patient should be evaluated for co-morbid disorders after they have reached and maintained their ideal body weight for several months.

If you are diagnosed with another psychological disorder, it is important to get treatment for it. Evidence-based psychological treatments, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical-Behavior Therapy, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, are helpful in treating a wide variety of psychological problems. Psychotropic medication may also be included as an adjunct to psychological treatment.

3. Create a relapse prevention plan which involves family, friends, and clinicians

Unfortunately, with eating disorders, relapse is the norm rather than the exception. Therefore, relapse prevention planning is crucial. The best relapse prevention plans are those that involve not only the patient but also her friends, family, and clinicians.

Central to developing a relapse prevention plan is a thorough understanding of the brain-disease model of mental illness. If you were therapized to believe that your eating disorder was the result of striving to be thin, a need for control, or family dysfunction, you are in for a rude awakening several years from now when relapse rears its ugly head. The problem with these myths about etiology (in addition to being false) is that they presume that, once “underling issues” have been addressed, relapse is no longer a possibility. Not true. Not by a long shot.

I have worked with many teenagers who have sworn that they would never develop AN again because they will never go on a diet. This is great, but the problem is that AN can creep back into a person’s life if she becomes stressed or malnourished for any reason. A nasty breakup, a move across the country, a stressful job, a bout with the stomach flu, an episode of depression, or a major surgery – any of these situations can trigger a relapse. One need not intentionally diet in order to fall back into AN.

Developing a relapse prevention plan is a three-step process:
A.) In collaboration with your loved ones and clinicians, generate a written list of early signs of relapse. Some of these signs may first be noticeable to those around you, before you even realize that there is a problem. This is why it is important to have other people involved.
B.) Decide what you will do to cope with any signs of impending relapse so that you can nip them in the bud before they become problematic. Also, decide what your loved ones can do to help if they notice these signs.
C.) Write out the entire plan, including signs of relapse and exactly what to do if said signs occur. Distribute copies of this plan to your family members, closest friends, and clinicians.

4. Learn to manage your personality style so that it works for you

We cannot change our basic personality style. Some people are simply “wired” to be more anxious, and that’s not inherently a bad thing. We’ve evolved this way for good reason. Many people who are very successful in life have anxious personality styles – their drive, conscientiousness, and attention to detail allow them to excel in school, sports, and various careers.

Every personality style has its benefits and its liabilities. People who are disorganized and scatterbrained and have difficulty learning in traditional ways can be extremely gifted artists. People with argumentative natures or short tempers can channel that passion into a career in law, or become champion boxers. People with ADHD may not be well-suited for a dull desk job that requires hours of concentration, but thrive in an active job that requires multitasking, creativity, and interacting with many different people.

Become aware of what your personality style is and how it manifests. Accept and embrace your natural temperament. Identify the ways in which your personality style benefits you or others, and structure your life accordingly. Identify the ways in which your personality style works against you, or prevents you from achieving your goals, or interferes with your wellbeing. Do whatever you can to learn to manage these vulnerabilities.

People with anxious personality styles do best when they have plenty of sleep (8-9 hours per night) and plenty of exercise (approximately 1 hour per day). In addition to cardiovascular exercise to relieve pent-up stress and anxiety, I recommend incorporating a regular yoga practice into your weekly routine to help release tension and develop mind-body awareness. Those with anxious personalities should limit caffeine to one cup per day and eat balanced meals throughout the day to stabilize blood sugar, which in turn helps to stabilize mood. People who are prone to stress benefit greatly from having some personal down time each day to relax and decompress. Bubble baths, reading for pleasure, meditation, and journaling are all good ways to unwind. If you are prone to anxiety, do whatever you can to simplify your life. Eliminate unnecessary commitments. Don’t let yourself get overscheduled. Learn to say no!

Finally, develop skills to cope with anxiety. Self-help books such as The Anxiety and Phobia Workbook and The Relaxation and Stress Reduction Workbook are helpful for those who are motivated to work through their issues on their own. Structured, evidence-based therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, focus on building skills to tackle the every day challenges of life.

5. Get your life back on track

Eating disorders are completely disruptive to every facet of your life. They cause conflict and tension within your family; they alienate you from your friends; they cause you to miss school or work while you seek treatment; they wreck your body and ravage your brain; they change your fundamental view of who you are and what you want from life. It may take many months or even years to recover from all this damage.

Once the storm has passed, it is very important for you to rebuild your relationships with family members and friends, or to make new friends if your old ones are no longer in the picture. You may need to get involved in different activities if your old ones were triggering your disorder. You may discover that all of your goals and strivings were not yours at all, but ED’s. Your new life, post-recovery, may feel foreign, forced, or fake. This experience can be disillusioning, confusing, and deflating.

Now is the time to ask yourself: Who are you, now that ED has been kicked to the curb? What are you about? What do you want from life? If you have recovered from your eating disorder and addressed steps 1-4 listed above, you are ready to answer these questions genuinely and embark on your new, healthy, meaningful, fulfilling life.

Posted on

We’ll Always Have Fiji

I do not believe that the media plays a major role in the etiology of eating disorders. And yet, in much of the eating disorder world, it has become accepted as an unspoken, self-evident truth that patients with anorexia and bulimia have developed their illnesses in large part due to their desire to emulate “the thin ideal” which our media promotes. Those who espouse this idea cite the Fiji Study, which demonstrated dramatically increased rates of body dissatisfaction and disordered eating amongst Fijian adolescent girls within the first few years after television was first introduced to the island.

I, along with several of my like-minded colleagues, have raised concern over NEDA’s choice of Naomi Wolfe as the conference’s keynote speaker. As a feminist, I am a huge fan of Wolfe’s work. In her groundbreaking book The Beauty Myth, she presents convincing arguments about the myriad ways in which our culture and society are toxic to women. I couldn’t agree more.

Our culture and society are harmful to all women and men, and certainly the media plays a huge role in triggering body dissatisfaction and disordered eating. (Incidentally, the media is a major culprit in the perpetuation of myths about eating disorders.) But disordered eating is not the same as an eating disorder. The Fiji study measured body dissatisfaction and disordered eating, not eating disorders.

The disordered eating / eating disorder distinction is not just a matter of semantics. In fact, I believe that eating disorders are quantitatively AND qualitatively distinct from disordered eating, much as major depression is both quantitatively AND qualitatively different from sadness. Anorexia nervosa has existed for centuries, long before the advent of television and internet and fashion magazines, and long before disordered eating became the norm.

I think it would benefit our profession tremendously to arrive at a consensus regarding the definition of “disordered eating” and how it differs from eating disorders.

The confusion between eating disorders vs. disordered eating is a major contributor to society’s (and some professionals’) lack of understanding of eating disorders. People who engage in disordered eating are, on some level, responding to their environment in choosing to engage in certain eating behaviors, whereas people with eating disorders are caught in the grips of a terrifying mental illness which will not allow them to do otherwise.

Disordered eating is very widespread in our country, especially among women. I define disordered eating as a persistent pattern of unhealthy or overly rigid eating behavior – chronic dieting, yo-yo dieting, binge-restrict cycles, eliminating essential nutrients such as fat or carbohydrates, obsession with organic or “healthy” eating – coupled with a preoccupation with food, weight, or body shape.

By this definition, I think well over half of the women in America (and many men as well) are disordered eaters.

The way I see it, disordered eating “comes from the outside” whereas eating disorders “come from the inside.” What I mean is this: environment plays a huge role in the onset of disordered eating, such that the majority of people who live in our disordered culture (where thinness is overvalued, dieting is the norm, portion sizes are huge, etc) will develop some degree of disordered eating, regardless of their underlying biology or psychopathology.

In contrast, the development of an eating disorder is influenced very heavily by genetics, neurobiology, individual personality traits, and co-morbid disorders. Environment clearly plays a role in the development of eating disorders, but environment alone is not sufficient to cause them. The majority of American women will develop disordered eating at some point, but less than 1% will fall into anorexia nervosa and 3% into bulimia nervosa.

The Fiji study was indeed groundbreaking. It demonstrated the enormous impact of the media on teenage girls’ feelings about their bodies and attitudes towards food. But the study did not demonstrate a causal link between the media and eating disorders. Furthermore, our knowledge that the media makes girls dislike their bodies, while important in its own right, has not yielded useful information with regards to developing effective treatments for eating disorders. And isn’t that the whole point?

I would like for our field to accept the Fiji study for what it is – a fascinating sociological study which confirmed empirically what we already knew intuitively – and push forward towards a deeper understanding of eating disorders so that we may develop and implement more effective treatments.

Posted on

Pride and Prejudice

“It is never too late to give up your prejudices…No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion.”

– Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Last weekend, I attended the annual National Eating Disorders Association conference in New York City. It was a fantastic conference and an exhilarating experience, a whirlwind of thinking and conversing and listening and networking.

That said, I attended a few lectures that made me cringe and perhaps set the field back a few years. One well-known psychologist and author stated in her lecture that there’s a false dichotomy between research and practice, because all clinicians are, ipso facto, researchers. She went on to explain to the clinicians in the room that that if you work with eating disorder patients and you contemplate eating disorder issues, then you are a researcher.

I think, therefore I am…a researcher?

And therein lies the rub. Working with eating disorder patients and thinking about them does not make you a researcher anymore than watching MSNBC and contemplating the mid-term election makes you a political scientist.

Historically, a major problem within the field of eating disorders is that etiological theories were formed, and treatment approaches created, based upon clinicians’ casual observation and reflection. Hilde Bruch, MD, who wrote the highly influential book The Golden Cage (1978), based her theories on her observation and treatment of the anorexic patients in her practice. Bruch concluded that anorexia nervosa occurs almost exclusively in upper-class white families (because those were the families, residing in her primarily Caucasian neighborhood, who could afford to enter treatment with her), that dysfunctional patterns of family interaction are key in the etiology of anorexia nervosa (because she observed strained and tense relationships between her severely ill patients and their worried parents) and that anorexia represents a misguided attempt at forming an identity and asserting some control over an otherwise uncontrollable life (based upon the self-reports of malnourished patients suffering from a brain disease).

This book was immensely popular amongst clinicians and the general public, as it was the first book to attempt to explain anorexia nervosa, and these theories became professional dogma. Bruch’s ideas spread like wildfire, and it would be many years before scientific research would be published to counter her claims. And to this day, more than three decades later, many clinicians, anorexics, and their families still hold these beliefs.

We are, in general, resistant to change. People have a very hard time letting go of long-held beliefs, which may explain why societal change tends to happen incrementally over generations. Many clinicians have so much pride in the work they have done in the past, and so much prejudice against new ideas which are diametrically opposed to their own, that they vigorously defend the theories they have held forever even when all reliable evidence points to the contrary. They seek to assimilate new information into their preexisting beliefs (for example, a racist person may boast about having one black friend, claiming that his buddy is “not like most black people”) rather than abandoning their old beliefs once it becomes clear that they are flawed. To quote the 17th century philosopher John Locke: “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.”

It is essential, therefore, that the most recent scientific research on the etiology and effective treatment of eating disorders is featured prominently and unapologetically at local, national, and global events aimed professionals, patients, and families in the eating disorder world. The new message cannot be muted or diluted with antiquated theories or treatments under the politically-correct assumption that all ideas are equally valid. As it is, big-name wealthy treatment centers get the most publicity, most likely because of their massive donations to eating disorder organizations who feature them prominently in exhibit halls at conferences. People are so easily swayed by catch phrases and neat giveaways and glossy brochures featuring impossibly happy eating disordered teenagers riding horses and finger painting. But these centers do not necessarily offer the most effective treatments. If we want our field to make progress, if we truly want to save more lives and rescue more sufferers from the agony of this illness, money cannot trump science.

One of the most promising statements I heard all weekend was this, from a psychologist who is the director of an eating disorders treatment program:

“It is no longer acceptable, in 2010, for clinicians to practice a certain way simply because they have been practicing that way for years.”

My friend Carrie Arnold and I gave a standing ovation to that one and clapped until our hands hurt.

We invite you to join us in doing the same.

Posted on

About the Food

“It’s not about the food.”

This phrase, used widely in eating disorder recovery, is misleading and potentially harmful.

Here’s the truth – anorexia nervosa (AN) is not “about” anything other than being born with a certain neurobiological predisposition to this particular brain disorder, which lays dormant until activated by insufficient nutrition. Given that food restriction has a calming and mood-elevating effect in people with this type of brain chemistry, anorexics may restrict their food intake (either consciously or unconsciously) as a way of coping with uncomfortable feelings or stressful events.

So it isn’t JUST about the food; it’s about feelings and circumstances as well. People with AN must learn healthy ways to regulate their emotions. Most of them will require psychotherapy to help them tackle anxiety and perfectionism, build healthy relationships, challenge their distorted thoughts and beliefs, or treat coexisting conditions such as depression or OCD. But it is the disturbance in eating behavior and weight, rather than feelings or events per se, which cause immense physical and psychological damage.

An initial period of low nutrition sets the disorder in motion. Continued low nutrition and low body weight perpetuate the symptoms. Sustained full nutrition and weight restoration are essential for mental and physical recovery. Continued good nutrition and maintenance of a healthy body weight for life protect patients against relapse. At every step of the process, nutrition (or lack thereof) plays a functional role.

The relationship between food and AN is analogous to the relationship between alcohol and alcoholism. To state that AN “isn’t about the food” is like stating that alcoholism “isn’t about drinking.” A person may be born with a predisposition to developing alcoholism due to her genetic makeup and her particular brain chemistry. However, if that person never takes a sip of alcohol, the disease will never be activated in the first place. Similarly, a person predisposed to AN will not develop the disorder in the absence of a nutritional deficit.

I like to think about the development of eating disorders in terms of the “four P’s:”

Predisposing factors
Recent research indicates that 50-80% of the risk of developing AN is genetic. Individuals with AN have a certain genetically-transmitted neurobiological predisposition. Personality traits which make an individual more susceptible to developing AN include anxiety, perfectionism, obsessiveness, behavioral inhibition, and cognitive rigidity. Most patients with AN have exhibited one or more of these traits since early childhood, long before the development of an eating disorder. These traits tend to be exacerbated during bouts of malnutrition and persist long after recovery, albeit to a lesser degree.

Precipitating factors
Anorexia nervosa is always precipitated by a period of low nutrition. The precursor to the low nutrition will vary from person to person. In modern American culture, where most girls and young women experience a drive for thinness, dieting is the most common pathway to AN.

Not every episode of AN is triggered by dieting, however. A simple desire to “eat healthy,” participation in sports without appropriate caloric compensation, a bout with the stomach flu, or simply loss of appetite during a period of stress – any one of these unintentional, seemingly benign periods of low nutrition can trigger AN in a vulnerable child.

Weight and shape concerns are culturally mediated phenomenon and are not necessarily part of the symptom picture for all anorexics. In medieval times, fasting for religious purposes triggered what we now call anorexia nervosa. AN is seen in cultures as diverse as China, where sufferers report loss of appetite or physical complaints, and Ghana, where sufferers view their self-starvation in terms of religion and self-control.

Puberty, which involves dramatic hormonal, neurological, and physical changes coupled with new social and academic demands, is often a precipitating factor for AN. Neurobiological researchers have hypothesized that puberty-related hormonal changes may exacerbate serotonin dysregulation, explaining why AN usually begins in adolescence.

Perpetuating factors
Continued malnutrition is largely responsible for the self-perpetuating cycle of eating disorder symptoms. A starved brain is a sick brain, and people who are undernourished for any reason display many of the symptoms commonly associated with AN: preoccupation with food, unusual food rituals, social withdrawal, irritability, and depression.

In addition to these symptoms of starvation, body dysmorphia, drive for thinness, and fear of weight gain serve as perpetuating factors. Individuals with AN are unable to recognize how thin they are and may perceive themselves as normal or fat, despite emaciation. They are terrified of eating and morbidly afraid of gaining weight. They cope with these fears by continuing to restrict their diet and remaining underweight, which of course perpetuates the symptoms of starvation. It is a vicious cycle.

Psychological problems such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, ADHD, and bipolar disorder may also serve as perpetuating factors. Food restriction and compulsive exercise act as a “drug” for certain individuals, providing them with temporary relief from anxiety and negative moods. An anorexic who is suffering from other psychological problems may use her eating disorder symptoms in attempt to alleviate her intolerable emotions. This makes re-feeding and recovery excruciatingly difficult, as the anorexic is required to face extremely painful thoughts and feelings as she endures the two things she fears most: eating more and gaining weight.

Prognostic factors
Research indicates that full nutrition and prompt weight restoration as soon as possible after AN diagnosis is a predictor of good outcome. Likewise, prolonged periods of time spent at a sub-optimal weight are associated with a protracted course of illness and increased risk of irreparable damage such as infertility, osteoporosis, and suicide.

A recent study of inpatients with AN found that the best predictors of weight maintenance during the first year post-discharge were the level of weight restoration at the conclusion of acute treatment and the avoidance of weight loss immediately following intensive treatment. Another study found that nutrient density and variety (eating a wide range of foods, including those that are high-calorie and high-fat) were significant predictors of positive long-term outcome in weight-restored anorexics.

All of the available data suggest that eating a complete, well-balanced diet and maintaining ideal body weight are of utmost importance in recovery from AN and in preventing relapse. Full nutrition and weight restoration alone will not cure AN, but full recovery cannot occur without these essential components.

In sum, nutrition plays a functional role in all stages of AN, from the initial onset and maintenance of symptoms to physical and mental recovery to relapse prevention.

Maybe it is about the food after all.

Posted on

A Dangerous Precedent

Earlier this week, a federal judge ordered the Pittsburgh Public Schools to pay $55,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a mother, who claimed her adolescent daughter was bullied into anorexia.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff’s daughter, now 15, was bullied relentlessly at school in 6th and 7th grades. A group of boys taunted her and made degrading remarks of a sexual nature, insinuating that she was fat and ugly. The girl stopped eating lunch at school in attempt to avoid being teased by these boys, who ridiculed her for eating and being fat. Although the girl’s teacher, principal, and guidance counselor were aware of the bullying, they did nothing to intervene. The girl began losing weight, and by the middle of her 7th grade year, her weight was dangerously low and she was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, for which she was treated at an inpatient psychiatric clinic. The plaintiff, whose daughter now attends private school, sued the school district, her daughter’s middle school, and her principal, claiming that her daughter developed anorexia as a result of their inaction.

I disagree with this ruling, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent.

Before I state my points of contention, I will make several points very clear:
• Bullying has the potential to cause extreme distress. It is cruel, harmful, and absolutely inexcusable.
• All schools should have clear, written policies about bullying and sexual harassment. All students, parents, and faculty must be aware of these policies. School faculty and administrators must enforce these policies to the best of their abilities.
• School faculty and administrators have a responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for all students, and have a duty to intervene at the first sign of bullying.
• Students who engage in bullying behavior should be punished appropriately. If the bullying continues, they should be expelled.

In this particular case, the bullies did some terrible things; they must be held responsible for their actions and punished appropriately. The school faculty and administration were certainly negligent; they must be held accountable for their inaction and punished appropriately. The school district was remiss not to have a bullying policy, and they should be compelled to create one. The victim suffered horribly as a result, and she deserves to heal from this trauma and to attend school in a safe environment. And the buck stops here. I do not believe that the bullies or the negligent school personnel are responsible for this child’s mental illness.

To create a legal precedent in which school officials are held legally or financially liable for a child’s mental illness is dangerous on several levels:
• It implies that the actions of children can cause another child to develop a mental illness.
• It implies that the actions or inactions of adults can cause a child to develop a mental illness.
• It implies that anorexia nervosa is (or can be) the result of teasing or bullying.
• It reinforces the popular but antiquated and unsupported notion that anorexia nervosa is the result of some deep-seated trauma.
• It implies that this child would not have developed anorexia nervosa if she had not been bullied.
• It neglects the horrific experiences of tens of thousands of other children who have been bullied and have suffered silently, but have not developed anorexia nervosa.
• It invalidates the experiences of the tens of thousands of children and adults who have never been bullied or traumatized in any way, but nonetheless have developed anorexia nervosa.

Imagine being a prepubescent boy and being held responsible for causing a classmate’s severe mental illness. Don’t get me wrong – I am in no way defending the behavior of these bullies. They did cruel things and they must be punished. But they did not make this girl develop a life-threatening brain disorder. They couldn’t have, even if they wanted to! Similarly, the school faculty and administrators were obviously negligent and made some terrible mistakes, but they did not cause this child to develop a mental illness.

The most recent scientific evidence strongly suggests that anorexia nervosa is a biologically-based, genetically transmitted brain disorder which is triggered by malnutrition and then becomes self-perpetuating. Children with anorexia come from all walks of life. Some are popular, confident, social, happy, and well-adjusted before their illness begins. Others are depressed, anxious, introverted, teased, or unstable before they develop anorexia. Some children develop anorexia after a stressful event, which could be as benign as a starting middle school or as serious as rape. For many children, the onset of anorexia nervosa does not coincide with a major stressor, but rather spirals out of control during an attempt to “eat healthy,” get in shape for sports, or lose a few pounds for prom.

My point is that some children are simply “wired” for anorexia nervosa, which can be triggered by relatively minor stressors or relatively benign bouts of under-nutrition. It doesn’t make sense to “sue the trigger” when it is just that – a trigger. If we can sue a school district – and win tens of thousands of dollars – for allowing a child to be bullied into anorexia, where does it end? If a child develops an eating disorder after reading a book on nutrition, do we sue the publisher? If an 18-year-old becomes anorexic while struggling to adapt to the social and academic challenges of college life, do we sue the university?

If a teenager develops and eating disorder after being raped, the rapist should be tried and convicted and incarcerated. But the eating disorder, in my opinion, is irrelevant to the outcome of the trial. The rapist should be incarcerated for the same length of time (for life, in my opinion) regardless of whether the victim develops any mental illness afterwards, because he committed a violent crime. The crime is no more or less heinous based upon the particular pre-existing neurological makeup of his victim.

It is well-known amongst mental health professionals that a psychotic break can be triggered by “high expressed emotion,” such as bullying or family conflict, in a person who has the underlying neurobiological predisposition. Do we then sue the school for allowing a child to be “bullied into schizophrenia?” Do we sue the parents for arguing too much and thus causing their son’s psychosis?

I have the deepest sympathy for this plaintiff, and especially for her daughter. No doubt, they have both suffered horribly. This mother is only doing what she believes is best for her dear child, and I’m sure she believes she is helping other children in the process. The judge who approved of this settlement is, likewise, only trying to ensure that justice is served. He or she probably has no intimate knowledge of the etiology of anorexia nervosa, and probably has no idea what some of the negative ramifications of his ruling could be.

If the lawsuit had been simply about protecting children from bullying, I would have supported it 100%. I cannot, however, support a lawsuit which enshrines bullying as a legally valid cause of anorexia.