Mary V. Seeman, MD

Our national attention has turned to Afghanistan, as the media shares disturbing pictures as news unfolds. Meanwhile, we in psychiatry hear related testimony from patients and colleagues, and are concerned that the withdrawal of US troops may lead to escalating mental health problems locally as well as internationally.

A recent encounter with an Afghan patient embodied the concern and brought the issue to the forefront of consciousness. The patient, who came to America years ago on a special visa based on his work with the US Army, presented with severe symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The PTSD was reactivated because of the unfortunate developments in Afghanistan.

I joined the war to act like a buffer. I wanted to protect my people, and also to serve America, the country I love and now call home. That backfired. Despite my best efforts, many people died because of wrong intelligence. Information I gave was ignored or misused. I am now left with the memories, the flashbacks, and the nightmares. How can I undo the damage I caused? I wanted to build schools, so the Afghan children might have a better future. But would God forgive me for taking part in killing?

The patient, wrestling with existential issues and navigating through many layers of shame, guilt, and taboo, was comforted by having a Muslim psychiatrist who shared his religion and aspects of culture. In turn, the cultural and religious understanding helped to create a safe therapeutic space and a sounding board for this patient in his search of meaning and healing.

We have also heard from a Jewish psychiatrist colleague, who entered the US Army as a psychiatrist in 1975, just as the Vietnam war was ending. He saw soldiers who developed unexpected symptoms after serving in Vietnam. Although PTSD as a formal diagnosis was relatively unknown at the time, Vietnam was an impetus to its deeper understanding. Upon arriving at his base in Alabama, a General told him and his physician colleagues that they needed to learn about soldiers because there would be another war in our lifetime.

Nobody could have known that the war in Afghanistan would be the longest war in American history, or that we would again abandon our allies when we left the country. However, despite all the comparisons being made with Vietnam, there is at least 1 big difference: The public has seemed relatively unconcerned with this war compared with the Vietnam war. Nevertheless, this clinician predicted a disaster when a specific Afghanistan withdrawal date was made public, (since it gave the Taliban a clear timetable to prepare for) and now is troubled by the escalating deaths, trauma, and losses, especially among families, women, and children.

Another colleague is a Muslim psychiatrist who wears a hijab. She took care of military veterans during her psychiatric residency training. Almost all of the veterans were being treated for PTSD stemming from the trauma they witnessed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars(Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF)). [Often her presence, even as a care provider, was a trigger for them. Frequently the veterans would refuse to see her at the outset of their hospitalization because, as one patient put it, “24 hours before I came back home, I killed a woman who looks like you . . . how am I expected to flip the switch and work with you?”

In time, these reactions changed. In fact, over the course of the treatment program, many veterans reported that being treated by someone who looked like the individuals they were trained to fear and distrust was an important part of their healing. There were even some who, by the end of the treatment program, refused to work with anyone but her, reporting that it changed their views of Muslim and Middle Eastern individuals.

This experience reflects many layers of complexity. Veterans following orders experienced trauma and came home with severe PTSD, making it very difficult to return to a multicultural society. Clinicians have an ethical duty to do no harm, yet many Muslim clinicians understandably feel complex emotions when treating those who took the lives of their brethren. Most importantly, the moderate Muslims may be battling for their safety on 2 fronts: there may be forces from within as well as forces thrust upon them, both ultimately contributing to their ongoing intergenerational trauma.

The current trauma can only add to the intergenerational trauma in Afghanistan. Whether or not pulling the armed forces from Afghanistan is the right decision, it seems like better plans could have been made to protect those at risk. It is reminiscent of our ethical principle of not abandoning patients. If a transfer is needed, we cannot drop a patient until a new psychiatrist is involved. Moreover, when we terminate our therapeutic alliance with a patient, we try to do that slowly, reassessing how well that is going along the way. It would be flaunting medical ethics to arbitrarily pick a date just around the corner and abruptly leave.

Psychiatrists must decide whether or not to stand up and speak out against injustice. It may be a professional obligation, in line with the ethical principles of the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and World Psychiatric Association. These principles put patient needs first, but also include the ethical needs of society.

“A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health,” the APA’s adaptation adds “Psychiatrists may interpret and share with the public their expertise in the various psychosocial issues that may affect mental health and illness.”

This annotation covers our potential obligations to those at risk in Afghanistan. What can we say or, more importantly, what can we do to help them? As far as patient care goes, our troops will need special attention. How those who served feel about the sudden withdrawal may be crucial for how they process the trauma they encountered, especially from a moral injury point of view. Will they feel that their time and participation was wasted? Likewise, will this withdrawal be a trigger for troops who served in Vietnam and were traumatized and criticized for their participation?

In addition, potential patients are likely to come from those in Afghanistan who worked with the United States. If they stay alive and stay there, or become refugees, they are at risk for the repercussions of trauma, betrayal, and loss. Women and children seem to be a target of potential repression and abuse.

The World Psychiatric Association approved their first Code of Ethics for Psychiatry in October 2020, after 10 years of deliberation. That must reflect how difficult it is to come to a consensus on health and mental health values and virtues of various countries and cultures. Yet it has principles that seems relevant to Afghanistan

Psychiatrists advocate in particular for support for mental health programs, especially in but not limited to developing countries and in areas where care for persons with psychiatric disorders is non-existent or rudimentary…

Psychiatrists are aware of the deleterious consequences of family violence, emotional and sexual abuse on mental health and well-being, especially for women and children . . .

There is also another relevant professional ethical set of principles for physicians, those of bioethics, which focus on 4 main principles in individual patient care: beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and autonomy. However, when we speak of population health, we must insert 

 before beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Social justice is population health. Social justice movements may come from outside the traditional lines of institutional power, such as Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement. Thus, although psychiatrists have their own institutional ethics, they must attend to outsiders’ voices, which may offer special guidance.

We must look inward. Have we, as the United States, had an arrogant attitude in our dealings with the rest of the world? Have we acted like we had the power to bend anyone, anywhere to our will? America is not alone in its hubris. Other nations such as the United Kingdom, for instance, played a significant role in military operations in Afghanistan and must accept some responsibility for the chaos that is rapidly unfolding.

This is not a new issue for our country and, therefore, not a specific criticism of any political administration. Instead, perhaps it is a reflection of a deeper psychological problem. This episode is reminiscent both of our withdrawal from Vietnam and our disengagement from Iraq in 2011. It is as if after we are humiliated by not winning a war, we have something to prove, and so we end up doing the same thing again.

This is very similar to a strategy that traumatized individuals often use: recreating the same traumatizing situation over and over in order to master it. Just as a traumatized individual might tend to do, sometimes impulsively and sometimes intentionally, the United States has jumped into situations we did not fully understand, leading to armed civil conflicts around the globe. Although we continue to be a world power, trust in us and our reputation may be deteriorating. Of course, in Afghanistan, we also cannot ignore that continuous wars, conflicts, and humanitarian crises have been ongoing since the Soviet invasion in 1979.

Some could argue that our intentions have always been good, that we intended to help the oppressed, to prevent bloodshed, and to democratize the world. But much of the world does not want to be democratized. Starting with Vietnam and ending with Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the many countries left in shambles in the aftermath of the Arab Spring and similar movements), we seem to leave behind wreckage and chaos, lots of civilian casualties, unfinished business, and collateral damage.

Reflecting on the speed with which Afghanistan has fallen, we feel overwhelmed by unfathomable human suffering and the amount of hurt we inflict on each other. Yet we can also choose to be part of the solution through healing activities. Just as our country is trying to reckon with the meaning of the death of George Floyd, we must search for actionable social justice in the midst of this tragedy.

What can be done? Individual mental health professionals can write to politicians and the public. They can raise awareness about the far-reaching effects of trauma and inform the public about the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, which seems to be heading toward a humanitarian and refugee crisis. They can advocate for as many urgent evacuations of Americans, Coalition Forces, Afghan allies, and vulnerable women and children, as is practically possible. We can also collectively act in ways that engage, rather than shy away from, the silent pandemic of human cruelty. Perhaps the World Psychiatric Association can develop a rapid response team, a United Psychiatrists like the United Nations, to employ when international mental health is at risk. Similarly, perhaps a whole-world approach can bring in NATO and other countries, including China, Russia, and other Muslim countries.

Those who work in the military and the VA should be prepared for the troops’ reactions and be ready to provide education and care. We might anticipate and prepare for a rise in Islamophobia as the country goes through a restless stage of uncertainty and searches for someone to blame. All of these measures would be enhanced by harnessing the power of storytelling and social media to raise awareness about how important psychiatric care really is.

Besides these opportunities, the United States needs some longer-term psychological soul-searching, perhaps via a special Task Force called Operation Mental Freedom (OMF), to break the cycle of these failed invasions. Psychiatrists knowledgeable about intergenerational trauma and cross-cultural relationships are available to help.

Although the US government decides to withdraw from an issue by simply pulling our forces out of a country, it is not an easy task for mental health care professionals to withdraw emotionally and ethically. We are healers, and human suffering touches our very deep core. Thus, we must act accordingly.

–SPIRIT (Social Psychiatrists Interested in Recovery from International Trauma)

The multicultural group SPIRIT was assembled in May 2021 to publish the article “

An Interfaith Psychiatrist Prescription for Middle East Peace

. SPIRIT’s first piece was inspired by the collective concern about the escalating Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

is a practicing psychiatrist for Providence Healthcare System, Portland, Oregon. 

is an award-winning psychiatrist who has specialized in the cultural and ethical aspects of psychiatry. A prolific writer and speaker, he received the one-time designation of Hero of Public Psychiatry from the Assembly of the American Psychiatric Association in 2002. He is an advocate for mental health issues relate to climate instability, burnout, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism for a better world. He serves on the Editorial Board of 

is Professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego, as well as the author of more than 100 professional articles and 6 books. 

is Professor Emerita, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

 serves as Kathleen & John Bricker Chair, Department of Psychiatry, LSUHSC. He also is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Cobb Research Institute and is the 113th Present of the National Medical Association. 

is Medical Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic and Multidisciplinary Autism Program at ChristianaCare, Delaware. 

is Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, Columbia University; and Research Psychiatrist, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY. 

is a Clinical Associate Professor of psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine where she is the Director of the Stanford Muslim Mental Health & Islamic Psychology Lab, and the Director of its community organization: Maristan.org. She also serves as the Associate Division Chief for Public Mental Health and Population Sciences as well as the Section Chief of Diversity and Cultural Mental Health in the Department of Psychiatry and Stanford. 

is Clinical Professor and Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 

is a Professor of Psychiatry at Cooper Medical School of Rowan University. He is active in several national and regional organizations and published and presented on International Medical graduates, culture, religion, family psychiatry, gender issues, etc.

is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a Fellowship Site Director for Brigham and Women's Hospital. 

is a doctor working in frontline psychiatry for the National Health Service at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in the UK.

The Principles of Medical Ethics, With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. 

American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychiatric Association Press; 2013.

2. Code of ethics for psychiatry. World Psychiatric Association. October 2020. Accessed August 17, 2021. 

Articles

What can psychiatrists do to help veterans, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and all those affected by the US withdrawal?

Psychiatrists Concerned With the Afghanistan Situation: Ethical and Practical Issues

FIRST MAN: We should defend ourselves. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

TEVYE: Very good. And that way, the whole world will be blind and toothless.

- From 1970 script of the play “Fiddler on the Roof” and often attributed to Mohandas Gandhi

“The three ingredients for healing relational wounds are safety, truth, and reconciliation, and in that order.” - Alisha Moreland-Capuia, MD

Achieving peace in the Middle East is a monumental task that seems to be ever evasive, daunting, and out of reach. A cease fire is welcome, but a far cry from what we want to achieve—lasting Middle East peace. The violence is also spilling over into increased conflict between groups in the United States. Muslims and Jews are subject to worrisome degrees of Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an extremely complex tangle of issues to resolve, but a solution is possible, and imperative.

Both sides and their supporters need to abandon ultimately futile and self-defeating acts of violence and retaliation. Instead, they must embrace a more comprehensive and humble vision that takes into consideration the historical, geographic, religious, and cultural context of two cousin tribes that have wounded each other over generations. It is like a longstanding family conflict in which family members stop talking to one another and replace talking with hatred, necessitating therapeutic family interventions. Despite the reservations that some psychiatrists have on entering the social conflict sphere, these are, in fact, areas of psychiatric expertise.

As psychiatrists we know group dynamics. We know our tendency to scapegoat “the other”. We know how the powerful can divide and conquer less powerful groups. We know how to analyze leaders. We know the temporary but necessary pain of revealing and processing the truth. We know from Abraham Maslow, PhD’s pyramid of psychological needs that safety and security must be fulfilled before higher levels needs can be completed. We know that often deeper levels of traumatic causation need to be processed and dealt with before healing can meaningfully occur.

This is not a naive proposal by any means, though it may seem so to some. Inevitably, many will disagree with any Middle East analysis. Rather, it is a plea for change because doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is the very definition of insanity. Constantly suspecting each other’s motives has not moved this protracted struggle even an inch out of square zero. As good as prior endeavors were—that is, things could have gotten even worse—they have not been nearly enough.

There are many intricate political and psychosocial dynamics that come into play to make this mission look impossible; however, fighting parties in other parts of the world have managed, for the sake of their children, to reach some kind of compromise that benefits all involved. Children in the blessed land should not continue to pay the price of our ignorance, false pride, and generational bigotry.

As Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Sikh psychiatrists, in a bio-psycho-social-spiritual model we sense this is a moral and spiritual crisis. We support peace among nations, safe and secure homelands, and opportunities for all. This is not at its essence a fight between Muslims and Jews, or between Arabs and Israelis. This is an ideological and practical war that often intentionally feeds cultish misinformation, especially via the internet, which artificially arouses emotions, leading to relieving emotional tension by ever-increasing violence. Peace-loving civilians lose their lives, while extremist groups and fear mongers run rampant.

Unfortunately, the media usually chooses to focus on the negative events occurring in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and ignores equally dispiriting, yet equally important, inter-ethnic tragedies taking place in places like Kashmir, Myanmar, China, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe. This disproportionate attention to one particular locale in the Middle East only enflames matters more. It leads the public to believe that this is a unique situation, when it is a tendency of human nature that needs to be overcome everywhere. Despite our paradoxically doing so in this paper, we include other examples and intend to address them more in the future.

Perhaps we can learn and apply a few lessons from countries like South Africa, Rwanda, and Bosnia, where warring tribes have seemingly learned to live together. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was especially effective in helping to bring South Africa out of apartheid without a bloodbath. 

Big problems get resolved only when broken down into small pieces. The use of dialogue can—and should—start in our households, small intra- and inter-faith circles, and cultural communities. A group of international and interfaith psychiatric caregivers have come together to create a community of care and have produced two requested, well-reviewed books that can be used as tools towards healing: 

From these sources, here are some ideal prescriptions to start with:

- Dignity for all, established by working together respectfully for a common end

- Humiliation for none, which means hearing each other out

- Apologies by all, as saying “I’m sorry” and meaning it begins the healing of many wounds

- Gifts to the others, such as sharing assets and promoting each other’s strengths

- Neutral peace-maker(s), or the calling in of trusted third parties, which may ideally need to include mental health experts

- Teaching tolerance to children, both by parents and educators

- Addressing intergenerational trauma, which includes that affecting political decision-makers

Also, as psychiatrists, we know very well that an illness cannot be cured unless we address its root causes, and similarly we have the moral obligation to call for the immediate dismantling of bigoted and violent ideologies, dictatorships, and all structures and systems that support them. They are so damaging to the body, mind, heart, soul, and spirit of so many of the people.

These are simple, though not simplistic, aspirational goals. They are meant as an antidote to the common lament about how complex these situations are, so often leading to excuses about what cannot be done and what cannot be tried. Prayer and mourning must be supplemented with action.

We need a few small steps in addition to this manifesto. Some that could be taken by SPIRIT and like-minded groups include: joint business projects, a student exchange, common textbooks (especially in the early grades), shared vacation spots, media consultation, and joint research. We must look towards innovative and out-of-the-box solutions.

Members of SPIRIT are available for consultation and discussion. We welcome other like- hearted psychiatrists of any religious background, as well as those who are agnostic or atheist, to join our SPIRIT.

is practicing psychiatrist in Providence Healthcare System, Portland, OR. He has provided psychiatric and humanistic care to trauma survivors around the world.

is an award-winning psychiatrist who has specialized in the cultural and ethical aspects of psychiatry. He has recently been leading Tikkun Olam advocacy movements on climate instability, burnout, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism for a better world. He serves on the Editorial Board of

is Clinical Professor and Chair of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences.

is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a Fellowship Site Director for Brigham and Women's Hospital.

serves as Assistant Dean of Clinical Education at Charles R. Drew University and Chief Medical Officer of Kedren Health Systems Inc.

is Medical Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinic and Multidisciplinary Autism Program at ChristianaCare, Delaware.

is an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

is a psychiatrist, the author of more than 300 peer reviewed papers, founder of Critica, and board member of the Social venture Fund for Arab Jewish Equality in Israel.

is Professor Emeritus in Psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego, as well as the author of more than 100 professional articles and 6 books.

interested in exploring the intersection between childhood political trauma with immigration stress. She has been recently offered a full-time research appointment as a Visiting Researcher at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Boston.

is a Clinical Associate Professor of psychiatry at the Stanford University School of Medicine where she is the Director of the Stanford Muslim Mental Health & Islamic Psychology Lab, and the Director of its community organization: Maristan.org. She also serves as the Associate Division Chief for Public Mental Health and Population Sciences as well as the Section Chief of Diversity and Cultural Mental Health in the Department of Psychiatry and Stanford.

1. Moffic HS, Peteet J, Hankir A, Awaad R. 

Islamophobia and Psychiatry: Recognition, Prevention, and Treatment

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030005115

2. Moffic HS, Peteet J, Hankir A, Seeman, M. 

Anti-Semitism and Psychiatry: Recognition, Prevention, and Interventions

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030377441

A cease fire is welcome, but a far cry from what we want to achieve—lasting Middle East peace.

There was a consensus in the old psychiatric literature that cancer was rare in patients with psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia, as noted in an 1891 article

. Since many researchers at the end of 19th century believed that cancer was a disease brought on by civilization (largely caused by the resultant stress), this observation surprised early researchers, who thought cancer would be more rather than less prevalent in the context of mental illness and its related stresses.

The association of cancer and schizophrenia changed over time. Early studies were based on the ratio of cancer deaths to total deaths in a given population. These studies concluded that patients with psychosis showed a significantly decreased incidence of cancer. Later investigators decided that this conclusion was unwarranted because mortality from other causes (tuberculosis being the main culprit at the time) was higher in patients with psychiatric disorders than in the population at large. Thus, cancer mortality being comparatively low was merely an illusion.

 Later still, researchers realized that important factors such as age, sex, type of cancer, and medication use should be considered before meaningful results could emerge.

For the most part, current thinking is that mortality from cancer is higher in schizophrenia than in the general population, but the actual incidence of most cancers is approximately the same.

This, however, does not apply to all cancers. For example, data have shown that patients with schizophrenia have a higher rate of breast cancer and a lower rate of melanoma and prostate cancer than controls. High incidence of breast cancer may be due to such 

as low rates of parity and breast feeding in women with schizophrenia, high incidence of smoking, hyperprolactinemia, and adiposity secondary to antipsychotic medication.

There is also speculation that genetic links may exist between the 2 diseases.

 Similarly, the low incidence of melanoma may be explained by the main environmental risk for this cancer (ie, sun exposure). Individuals with schizophrenia live their lives relatively unexposed to sun, as shown by the very low vitamin D levels in this population.

 The low rate of prostate cancer is attributed to yet other reasons—reduced sexual activity and hyperprolactinemia induced by antipsychotic drugs.

 Inexplicably, the rates of lung cancer in schizophrenia are not raised despite the fact that patients with psychiatric disorders are very often heavy smokers.

Altogether, cancer rates in schizophrenia appear to be lower than might be expected given the serious risk factors (ie, smoking and adiposity) found in this population. Two explanations have been advanced—tumor suppressor genes among genes involved in schizophrenia and tumor suppressant effects of antipsychotic medication.

 It is always possible, however, that reduced cancer rates in patients with schizophrenia may simply reflect low rates of screening and underdiagnosis as well as premature death (ie, due to tuberculosis and now cardiovascular disease).

Cancer mortality rates in schizophrenia do not reflect a reduced incidence. They are high, especially for stomach cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer (

 examined the records of almost 35,000 veterans with lung cancer and found that those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia showed significantly poorer survival than their peers.

With respect to breast cancer, a Finnish study that controlled for age, year of cancer diagnosis, and comorbidity found significantly elevated breast cancer mortality in patients with severe mental illness.

 The researchers thought the elevation might be partly explained by cancer stage at presentation.

The discrepancy between roughly equal incidence and higher mortality is probably attributable to a variety of factors including patient, doctor, and system factors (

 For example, it has been observed that fewer patients with severe mental illness receive chemotherapy or radiation post-mastectomy compared with the general population of patients with breast cancer.

A 2020 systematic review of all cancer screening (breast, cervix, colon, lung, stomach, ovary, and prostate) publications included information on close to 5 million individuals with and without mental illness.

 The majority were women, and the median quality of all the studies was judged as high. The findings indicated that cancer screening is significantly less frequent in people with mental illness than it is in the general population. According to Howard and colleagues,

 the relative failure of patients with severe mental illness to seek cancer screening were due transportation issues, lack of reminders, and not being familiar with the process. As a result of decreased screening, cancers come to medical attention at relatively later stages and are, therefore, less amenable to treatment. In turn, these cancers are more likely to lead to treatment non-response and early death.

If the stage of presentation were not a confounding factor, would there still be a disparity in cancer care between those with psychotic illness and those without?

 Other considerations play a part, such as enrollment in trials of cancer drugs. Protocols often exclude individuals with schizophrenia on the assumption that they may not be competent to consent or will be unable to adhere to the protocol.

 Tests of competency can, of course, be administered prior to consent, so decisional capacity should not be a major drawback.

Similarly, it is possible that physicians minimize the clinical significance of the complaints from patients with psychotic disorders, attributing such complaints to psychotic phenomena (eg, diagnostic overshadowing)

 This may be due to patients’ communication difficulties and poor recall, but also to mental illness stigma, which is prevalent even among physicians. It has also been reported that patients with schizophrenia have a high pain threshold, so they may not complain until late stages of disease.

 Moreover, patients may have little family encouragement to visit their doctor when symptoms manifest. Patients with psychotic illness may be difficult to treat, not only because of relatively poor adherence to treatment regimens, but also because of extensive comorbidities, namely the high prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Finally, there may be 

associated with interactions among the various drugs required for the various disorders.

Outright treatment refusal may also occur, which would necessitate tests of decisional capacity and, if necessary, surrogate consent. The onus is on the psychiatric staff to liaise with non-psychiatric medical practitioners and advocate for their patients.

Disparities have been found even with end-of-life care between patients with schizophrenia and the general population.

 Such a comparison was made between 2500 patients with schizophrenia and 200,000 controls, all of whom had died in hospital as a result of cancer. The researchers also undertook a sub-analysis between the patients with schizophrenia and 10,000 controls matched 1 to 4 in terms of age, sex, and site of the primary cancer. They found that patients with schizophrenia were more likely to die younger (by 8 years) and have a shorter duration between time of diagnosis and time of death. Patients with schizophrenia were more likely than controls to receive palliative care in the last month of life but less likely to receive chemotherapy, surgery, imaging investigations, endoscopies, or blood transfusions.

A potential reason for the disparity is the increased comorbidities associated with patients who have schizophrenia. There was a large number of lung cancer deaths among the participants in this study, so another potential reason for the discrepancies was the high rate of smoking in schizophrenia populations. Interestingly, the patients with schizophrenia were less likely to have recorded metastases at the time of death than their matched controls, suggesting to the researchers that they had undergone fewer diagnostic explorations or had died of their primary cancer prior to the development of metastases, perhaps because of a delay in treatment initiation. Such a delay may be due to the fact that patients with schizophrenia were less likely than controls to have had family doctors.

Patients with schizophrenia were more likely to die younger (by 8 years) and have a shorter duration between time of diagnosis and time of death.

The results were interpreted cautiously, but the researchers stressed that evident 

 care exist. They concluded that providing clinical care to an individual with comorbid schizophrenia and cancer requires expertise in both oncology and psychiatry and necessitates training that does not exist at present. It also requires improved coordination of care among the different branches of medicine.

The issue of antipsychotics and their contribution to the cancer-schizophrenia connection is complicated. On one side are the arguments that antipsychotics predispose to cancer or make treatment less effective than it would be otherwise. On the other side are arguments that antipsychotics have anti-tumor properties.

Similarly, there have been back-and-forth discussions on antipsychotics contributing to mortality in schizophrenia via induced obesity, metabolic problems, and prolactin elevation. Most of this literature deals with the association between schizophrenia and premature death due to cardiovascular causes.

Interesting, a meta-analysis of 20 studies on the relationship between long-term mortality and exposure to antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia showed that patients not taking antipsychotics had a higher mortality than those who did.

 This does not, however, exonerate antipsychotics. Patients not taking antipsychotics may receive inferior medical care, and they may have higher rates of suicide and fatal accidents. This study does not specifically address cancer mortality and the use of antipsychotics.

The controversy about cancer mortality and schizophrenia rages most fiercely around the topic of breast cancer. A critical review by 

 found that while a large body of evidence supports the involvement of prolactin in breast carcinogenesis, results of human studies remain equivocal as to the role of antipsychotics-induced hyperprolactinemia either in increasing the risk of cancer or in contributing to high mortality. The researchers concluded that a high incidence of nulliparity, and the prevalence in the schizophrenia population of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and unhealthy behaviors (eg, alcohol dependence, smoking, low physical activity), is of greater relevance to breast cancer mortality than antipsychotics.

At the same time, there is emerging evidence that at least some antipsychotics protect against cancer. Sertindole was found to be effective against breast cancer cell lines, with the suggestion that it might be able to stop breast to brain metastases.

 Other studies have found antipsychotics to be effective treatments for glioblastomas and a wide variety of other malignancies.

 These studies are thought-provoking, but they need replication.

For the clinician, this brief review recommends close health monitoring of patients with psychotic illness to prevent or treat weight gain and prolactin elevation. Should patients with schizophrenia develop cancer, there are no good reasons to take them off an effective antipsychotic drug regimen. However, drug interactions with chemotherapeutic agents may need to be checked.

More broadly, physicians need to treat patient complaints at face value even when they are communicated in a disorganized way. Decisional competence and ability to follow through on complicated therapeutic protocols should not be based on diagnosis alone; competency screening is important in such cases. To truly address the problem, all patients with schizophrenia should be linked to a primary care physician, psychiatrists and oncologists should develop a common language, and psychiatry should be more firmly integrated with the rest of medicine.

is Professor Emerita, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. She reports no conflicts of interest concerning the subject matter of this article.

1. Snow H. Cancer in its relations to insanity. 

2. Ananth J, Burnstein M. Cancer: less common in psychiatric patients? 

3. Catalá-López F, Suárez-Pinilla M, Suárez-Pinilla P, et al. Inverse and direct cancer comorbidity in people with central nervous system disorders: A meta-analysis of cancer incidence in 577,013 participants of 50 observational studies. 

4. Kyrgiou M, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, et al. 

Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature

5. Byrne EM, Ferreira MAR, Xue A, et al. Is Schizophrenia a risk factor for breast cancer? — evidence from genetic data. 

6. Kim S, Kim K, Myung W, et al. Two-sample Mendelian randomization study for schizophrenia and breast cancer. 

7. Gandini S, Sera F Cattaruzza MS, et al. Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. Sun exposure. 

8. Valipour G, Saneei P, Esmaillzadeh A. Serum vitamin D levels in realtion to schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analyss of observational studies. 

9. Raviv G, Laufer M, Baruch Y, et al. Risk of prostate cancer in patients with schizophrenia. 

10. Zhuo C, Zhuang H, Gao X, et al. Lung cancer incidence in patients with schizophrenia: meta-analysis. 

11. Zhuo C, Wang D, Zhou C, et al. Double-edged sword of tumour suppressor genes in schizophrenia. 

12. Huang J, Zhao D, Liu Z, et al. Repurposing psychiatric drugs as anti-cancer agents. 

13. Seeman MV. Schizophrenia mortality: barriers to progress. 

14. Ajdacic-Gross V, Tschopp A, Bopp M, et al. Cancer comortality patterns in schizophrenia and psychotic disorders: a new methodological approach for unique databases. 

15. Ni L, Wu J, Long Y, et al. Mortality of site-specific cancer in patients with schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 

16. Bradford DW, Goulet J, Hunt M, et al. A cohort study of mortality in individuals with and without schizophrenia after diagnosis of lung cancer. 

17. Ahlgrén-Rimpiläinen AJ, Arffman M, Suvisaari J, et al. Excess mortality from breast cancer in female breast cancer patients with severe mental illness. 

18. Zhou L, Bi Y, Liang M, et al. A modality-specific dysfunction of pain processing in schizophrenia. 

19. Seeman MV. Schizophrenia and cancer: low incidence, high mortality. 

20. Shinden Y, Kijima Y, Hirata M, et al. Clinical characteristics of breast cancer patients with mental disorders. 

21. Solmi M, Firth J, Miola A, et al. Disparities in cancer screening in people with mental illness across the world versus the general population: prevalence and comparative meta-analysis including 4 717 839 people. 

22. Howard LM, Barley EA, Davies E, et al. 

Cancer diagnosis in people with severe mental illness: practical and ethical issues

23. Irwin KE, Henderson DC, Knight HP, et al. Cancer care for individuals with schizophrenia. 

24. Humphreys K, Blodgett JC, Weiss Roberts L. The exclusion of people with psychiatric disorders from medical research. 

25. Irwin KE, Moy B, Fields LE, et al. Expanding access to cancer clinical trials for patients with mental illness. 

26. Jones S, Howard L, Thornicroft G. ‘Diagnostic overshadowing’: worse physical health care for people with mental illness. 

27. Fond G, Salas S, Pauly V, et al. End-of-life care among patients with schizophrenia and cancer: a population-based cohort study from the French national hospital database. 

28. Vermeulen J, van Rooijen G, Doedens P, et al. Antipsychotic medication and long-term mortality risk in patients with schizophrenia; a systematic review and meta-analysis. 

29. de Mooij LD, Kikkert M, Theunissen J, et al. Dying too soon: Excess mortality in severe mental illness. 

30. De Hert M, Peuskens J, Sabbe T, et al. 

Relationship between prolactin, breast cancer risk, and antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia: a critical review

31. Zhang W, Zhang C, Liu F, et al. Antiproliferative activities of the second-generation antipsychotic drug sertindole against breast cancers with a potential application for treatment of breast-to-brain metastases. 

32. Lee JK, Nam DH, Lee J. Repurposing antipsychotics as glioblastoma therapeutics: Potentials and challenges. 

33. Zhuo C, Xun Z, Hou W, et al. Surprising anticancer activities of psychiatric medications: Old drugs offer new hope for patients with brain cancer. 

34. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Disparaties. 2011-2015. 

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/disparities

35. Ji J, Chen X. Incidence of cancer in patients with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives: a population-based study in 

Patients with schizophrenia often have worse outcomes than their peers without the diagnosis. How you can support your patient in ensuring a better cancer prognosis?

Mary V. Seeman, MD

Articles

Psychiatrists Concerned With the Afghanistan Situation: Ethical and Practical Issues

An Interfaith Psychiatrist Prescription for Middle East Peace

Special Issues in Schizophrenia and Cancer