Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: The authors surveyed Psychiatry Residency Training Directors' (RTDs') attitudes about the role and feasibility of international rotations during residency training. METHOD: A 21-question survey was electronically distributed that explored RTDs' beliefs about the value, use, and availability of international clinical and research experiences during residency. RESULTS: Of 171 RTDs, 59 (34.5%) completed the survey; 83% of respondents rated the importance of global mental health education as 3-or-above on a scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important), but only 42% indicated that such opportunities were made available. The value of such opportunities was thought to lie primarily in professional development and cultural exposure, less so for enhancing core knowledge competencies. Obstacles to such opportunities included lack of accreditation, financial resources, and faculty/administrative support and supervision. CONCLUSION: RTD respondents endorsed the value of international experiences during residency, but their availability and educational impact are not fully supported.

Common mental disorders pose tremendous health and social burdens in the poorest countries. This Open Forum describes a planning framework to advance effective, sustainable design and implementation of mental health services in these settings. It builds on research in treatment dissemination and on the authors' experience in several initiatives-including the Millennium Villages Project in sub-Saharan Africa and the Partners In Health system in Haiti (Zanmi Lasante). The authors describe a "pyramid of care" approach that specifies five key skill packages to address common mental disorders in low-resource settings and five implementation rules: assess context first; identify priority care pathways and map them across skill packages; specify decision supports, supervision, and triage rules; use quality improvement practices; and plan for sustainability and capacity building. The framework addresses the need for a shared vocabulary and a set of tools to coordinate and compare efforts to scale-up mental health treatment across diverse settings.

This article synthesizes the views of participants in two roundtables that were convened in Nairobi (March 2007) and London (July 2008) to identify key challenges to the prioritization of mental health in Africa and possible solutions. Participants included leading development experts and policy makers from head and country offices of international donors, national directors of mental health for several African countries, key mental health and public health professionals, epidemiologists, and an international nongovernmental organization. The challenges they identified to mainstreaming mental health include lack of understanding of the contribution of mental disorders to morbidity and mortality, competition for limited resources within health reform efforts, poor distribution of interventions and lack of inclusion of mental health among core generic health indicators, lack of economic research evidence, lack of a strategic approach to human resources planning, lack of partnerships with the social development sector, and mental health professionals' need for public health skills to effectively conduct national advocacy. Potential solutions include further investment in economic research, better strategic identification of the levers and entry points for integrating mental health into health sector reform plans, more vigorous engagement of mental health professionals in general health sector reforms, strengthening the linkage between mental health and social development, and intensive resource mobilization. In summary, partnerships, underpinned by collaborative training, research, and mutual dialogue with other health and nonhealth sectors, are needed

Bioethics needs to include study of the social and historical context in which ethical meanings in medical encounters make sense. It needs to do this in order to remain relevant, vibrant, and aware of how it might unwittingly facilitate the agendas of others. As an illustration, this paper critiques some of the accepted meanings and purposes of the idea of the Therapeutic Misconception (TM) which has been an increasingly attractive concept with which to organize thinking about experimentation ethics. By considering the history of alternative viewpoints against which TM was offered as a replacement, this paper suggests that TM, and bioethics more generally, may contribute to increasingly technocratic and standardized practices in medicine

From both within and without bioethics, growing criticism of the predominant methods and practices of the field can be heard. These critiques tend to lament an emphasis on logically derived rules and philosophical theories that inadequately capture how and why people have the moral attitudes they do, and they urge the use of more empirically grounded social sciences--history, sociology, and anthropology--to draw attention to the complex factors behind such attitudes. However, these critiques do not go far enough, as they do not question why debate over ethical categories should have such a central role in voicing concerns about medicine.The importance of using other forms of inquiry, especially that of history, to examine aspects of medical practice and the emergence of bioethics itself is not simply to refine bioethical moral analysis. Instead, history can be employed to counter the preoccupation with translating concerns about medicine into moral terms and to move towards what is more sorely needed: a true medical humanism

In a 1968 Report, the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death promulgated influential criteria for the idea and practice known as 'brain death.' Before and since the Committee met, brain death has been a focal point of visions and nightmares of medical progress, purpose, and moral authority. Critics of the Committee felt it was deaf to apparently central moral considerations and focused on the self-serving purpose of expanding transplantation. Historical characterizations of the uses and meanings of brain death and the work of the Committee have tended to echo these themes, which means also generally repeating a widely held bioethical self-understanding of how the field appeared-that is, as a necessary antidote of moral expertise. This paper looks at the Committee and finds that historical depictions of it have been skewed by such a bioethical agenda. Entertaining different possibilities as to the motives and historical circumstances behind the Report it famously produced may point to not only different histories of the Committee, but also different perspectives on the historical legacy and role of bioethics as a discourse for addressing anxieties about medicine