Gary Speed and Myths About Suicide

This topic has been close to my heart for a long-time. I am a football fan, as such, could literally not name a man, player and manager that I liked and respected more than Gary Speed. Nearly every other fan in this country will say the same, even those who did not support the teams he was affiliated with. His popularity and respect went far beyond the reach of his teams' immediate fans.

I have an interest in suicide, both personally and professionally. While my PhD has focused on anxiety disorders, I also have a foundation in depression and depressive disorders. The two are, in fact, difficult to separate as most people who suffer from one, suffer from both. I have read many papers, textbooks and case studies on the topic. It makes for terrifying reading. As my focus has been on the emergence of disorder in adolescence, I think the most difficult fact I ever found was that adolescents usually kill themselves on average with 20mins of taking the decision to. For adults, the decision and the act (or attempt) are often day, weeks and sometimes even months apart. There's some serious food for thought if ever I heard it.

In personal terms I have had those I know take their own lives. A colleague threw herself to her death. My friend's husband hung himself. The list unfortunately goes on: I have no doubt it touches more family circles than many are prepared to talk about.

I'd like to quickly dispel some rumours about suicide first if I may. First of all, it is not only done by the depressed or otherwise mentally ill. No doubt these instances are the most frequent, but people can also commit suicide out of fear (especially fear of how to cope with something imminent) and also out of logic. For example, men in particular take their own life when they fear illness. My friend's husband took his own life after having lung investigations at his doctor. He took his wife for the weekly big shop afterwards, and made her buy more groceries than she normally would, making her buy ingredients for some of her favourite dinners. She found it odd at the time, but immediately knew after he took his life that that was his way of making sure she'd be okay once he was gone. He hung himself in a park only moments walk from both our homes after. An acquaintance of my dad also killed himself the same day he had an exploratory MRI scan to investigate his health. The scan later came back giving him the all clear – no signs of cancer as feared.

In terms of logic, people can often ration (rightly or wrongly) that things would be simpler without them there. In several societies e.g. island Inuits, Samoans and a few others all had voluntary suicide for the elderly, who knew that their ails and mobility were holding back their society. The Inuits of St Lawrence Island actually had a policy that if a person asked 3 times for suicide, that their family had to help them die. People do this in our Western society too, albeit in different ways. For example, sometimes people take their lives when they have lost their jobs and, although they're not clinically depressed, think that things will be easier without their partners and families carrying the financial burden of their predicament. People find it inherently painful to accept that people don't have to be mentally unwell to kill themselves, but it is true.

Another common misconception about suicide is that people appear unhappy beforehand. Often in adults you find the opposite: the decision to end their life and bring an end to their emotional and mental torture can be such sweet relief, that the time between their decision and their action can be the happiest their loved ones have seen in some time. Unfortunately, this serves only to make the act more surprising and more difficult to swallow for most folk. After all, few people need or want to be well informed about suicide.

Along with this is the anti-depressant danger zone. When a depressed person is issued such drugs, it actually takes three weeks before perceptible changes in mood are seen. However, what are immediately affected are sleep and appetite. So, the person often looks much healthier than they have done in a while and generally have more energy. Unfortunately, this often gives the depressed the energy they need to take their own lives (many reported to take time to sort out their finances, pay off out-standing bills, setting up trust funds for young family and so on). Again, it's suicide in the face of visible improvement.

The third and final facet of this is the contrast between a person's public face and their private turmoil. How many of you have been surprised to learn that a colleague for example has been unwell with depression? People are very good are projecting an image of themselves, so that an action like suicide is a surprise. “It was totally unexpected and out of character.” is a common response. The person's words are often seen as contrary to their action: it is not odd for someone who has planned to take their life to openly talk about their excitement for their children's future. Some say they either can't mean that or that means they weren't suicidal when they said it. Both are wrong: someone can be excited about something, but their mental turmoil is so painful that this positive future is not enough to fight the urge for eternal peace. Also, it can be a way of making clear to family that they are not the cause of their impending death: they they loved them and looked forward to a life with them. Unfortunately, they could not fight their own battles well enough to be alive for that.

In the case of Gary Speed, all we knew until today was that he hanged himself. Hanging is premeditated: it's not like a gunshot, where the decision and action can occur within seconds. (For example, Kay Redfield Jamison, the famous author, psychologist and manic-depression sufferer, always vowed never to keep a gun in the house as she knew she could and would become suicidal in her depressions. Her ill friend agreed the same, reneged on it, and ended up killing himself with it).  So, hanging is premeditated, or at least 'mediated' if that makes sense. The cable/rope needs to be sourced, to be long enough and to be strong enough to take the person's weight. The knot may need to adjust itself under pressure to cause the constriction of airways. A way of going from rope slack to tense needs to be found, usually without reach of the ground so that the person cannot renege on their action once they feel the noose tighten. So, for anyone, Gary included, to work all this out, would take time: not a split-second.

The common presumption was that Gary Speed was depressed. Occam's razor (of several explanations, the simplest is the most likely to be true) certainly suggested that was the sensible assumption. The fact that friends say he wasn't depressed didn't matter: often many can hide it from all but their closest family. The fact he was positive on Football Focus is not against this theory, nor is speaking of the future.

While depression is not necessary for suicide, I still am not ready to accept that this did not play a part. His wife says he was not depressed and he may not have been clinically, however he may have been dysphoric and I see evidence of a depressive cognitive style. His mother's statement at the inquest said he was a glass half-empty man: not an optimist. Seeing the worth in things is both a huge risk factor for depression, and a symptom of it. He was known to help others with their issues, but internalised his own problems and did not open up, even to his wife. This is also not mentally healthy, and leading to emotional trouble that if not depression itself, then certainly close to it. If he was not clinically depressed at the time of his death, I do believe he showed depressive cognition and personality from the evidence I can gather.

Not only did his wife say he wasn't depressed (although she also said he did not even really open up even to her), his previous team doctors have said the same. I fail to see this as adequate evidence however: the most recent man last evaluated him in 2010. Would you accept that because someone didn't show cancer over a year ago, that their cause of death wasn't cancer? Of course not. His current GP also said he showed no signs but as said before, people need not show signs of depression. I have been clinically depressed in the past, and not a single GP has known about it.

What does seem to be troubling folk already is the fact that intentional suicide is not the conclusion of the inquest: rather it's a narrative verdict as the coroner could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act was deliberate.

Now, Occam's Razor says it was deliberate. None of his actions are contrary to being suicidal, despite the fact that they are contrary to common sense. As Redfield Jamison says, “I have a hard-earned respect for suicide's ability to undermine, overwhelm, outwit, devastate, and destroy.” He spoke to his wife of taking his life four days before he was found hanged. The situational variables also point that direction: his suicidal ideations paralleled the difficulties in his marriage, and his action took place after an argument in which he first tried to prevent his wife from leaving the house by barring the back door, but 10mins later she managed to get out of the house and went for a drive. As a psychologist and as a rational human being, I genuinely believe he took his life deliberately.

However, this does not mean that I do not understand the ruling of the coroner. To prove beyond reasonable doubt that the action was deliberate would have needed a suicide note, and supporting evidence such as proof of arranging finances would have supported this (had it been premeditated far enough in advance). What is possible, albeit unlikely, is that Gary sat on those stairs in the garage, the cable around his neck, waiting for his wife to come back. In other words, a cry for help. I certainly have experienced this: I have wrestled a knife away from my ex's chest, and cleaned his blood off my floor from the scuffle to get it off him. However, his family have all said that a plea for attention, especially so dramatic a one, is out of character. As the girl friend of a messed up and suicidal man in the past, I do believe that his wife would have known if he was prone to attention when they disagreed or argued in any way. He could have sat there, waiting to be found (while she was locked out of the main house, shed keys did allow her into the outhouses, one of which was the garage. This may have been for practical purposes though, as they stairs provided the height from which to hang. This also reduced the chance of his sons finding them, as they were in the main house at the time). While waiting, he could have fallen asleep and ended up on the end of a taught cable.  This is unlikely: it requires a more complex set of happenings, including the probability of falling asleep leading to hanging. It is also contrary to his suicidal ideation, which he shared with his wife, only four days previously.

Anyway, while this is my tuppence's worth, this is not a publicly indexed blog. It is not meant to be part of the stirring that people have been doing online (and that has been horrible: talk of murder, of a Sunday newspaper revealing that Speed was gay, talk of sexual molestation as a young player that he couldn't face up to: though he was brought to football fame by a man who has been done for paedophilia with young players). From the outside in, it's my professional opinion on things. It is also a chance to dispel some of the suicide myths that people have: these myths never become as painful as when such people are touched by suicide.

For those who are interested, I cannot recommend Night Falls Fast – Understanding Suicide enough. It is written in simple enough language that Joe Public can read and appreciate it: it is not a jargon-filled textbook, but a wonderful, intelligent, and academically informed summary of many of the issues surrounding suicide, written by a practitioner who has dealt with suicide patients and also tried to take her own life herself. I'm prepared to lend it to those I know personally: just get hold of me privately and I'll pop it in the post.

Reference

Jamison, K.R. (1999). Night Falls Fast – Understanding Suicide. A.A. Knopf: New York.

My Moral Compass and The Plaintiff vs Dr Conrad Murray

I’m not an MJ fan. While I appreciate he’s an idol to music (much like The Beatles), his songs don’t do it for me. I don’t own any of his songs, but I appreciate that he’s had a big effect on the music industry. I therefore don’t say what I say as a person who loves or hates MJ: he was just a strange famous dude to me, who could dance, sing and write internationally catchy songs.

I haven’t obsessed over this trial (no watching it on Sky everyday like some folk) but I have read articles a couple of times a week about the witnesses called and the changes that have occurred. I’ve found it intriguing as it lies between the medical and criminal boundaries, with a charge of involuntary manslaughter. This is the least ‘serious’ of the four homicide charges in California: first degree (fully premeditated murder), second degree (partially premeditated essentially), voluntary manslaughter (crime passionelle – heat of the moment, non-premeditated murder) and involuntary manslaughter (unintentional homicide). From what I can remember however, their federal law actually has another charge of accidental killing (can’t remember its exact term), which is less serious again and isn’t counted as homicide. I can only guess it means e.g. tackling someone in a sports match and accidentally causing brain stem death.

Apparently there’s two ways Murray could have been guilty though, and I wish I could remember or find them. I presume it’s giving too much of a dangerous drug, or not sustaining his life by poor action once MJ was found unconscious. They found him criminally negligent, but could not officially comment whether it was on one or both grounds. If I can find the same piece of journalism that describes these two options more fully, I’ll correct this paragraph. The jury are now allowed to speak if they choose to however, so it may be that this information is released in coming days and weeks.

What I’ve found funny is my instinctive moral stance actually sided with Conrad Murray: I suppose I thought to myself he was doing what his patient wanted, and it seems harsh to be criminally punished for that. I also, for some reason, had this feeling he was going to get off. However, with this blog post rather than arguing my point of view, I’m trying to work out why this was my instinctual feeling, and review it. I rather think I’ll end up showing my ‘feeling’ to be wrong, or at least morally inarguable.

So for this case, as the jurors were told, forget that it was Michael Jackson. This is about the right or wrongs of a doctor, and whether it constitutes a crime (as opposed to a non-criminal, medical error). So, let’s consider some of the facts first.

MJ’s autopsy said he died of a propofol overdose, and had other sleep-related drugs in his stomach. My burning question here is whether the dose of propofol would have been fatal on its own without the oral meds. I’m going to assume yes however, as the defence of the case was not based on Jackson overdosing as he'd swallowed tablets while Murray was out of the room, rather that Michael had administered his own extra propofol (a claim later dropped by the defence following the testimony of a propofol specialist).

So, MJ died of an overdose. Not only that, but Murray was found to be making a personal call, not monitoring his patient while MJ stopped breathing. When found, a member of staff testified that Murray was trying to revive Michael, and told the bodyguard to hide drugs before he called 911. Apparently it took 20mins before he told the bodyguards to ring for paramedics, the BG trusting in Dr Murray’s medical knowledge and that Conrad had Michael's welfare as his priority. This bodyguard also reported seeing a saline bag with drug bottle, and the ‘milky’ propofol liquid visible in the bottom of the bag. This bag and a syringe were used as evidence.

At the hospital, when trying to revive a man who doctors have since admitted was a hopeless case, Murray did not admit that propofol was likely to be the cause of his unconsciousness. While this was wrong, it was irrelevant as it turned out. Jackson was long dead at that point. Combined with the fact that Murray hid drugs before calling 911 certainly leans towards the explanation that Murray was in the wrong and knew as much, at least medically if not criminally.

Propofol, while not a controlled drug in the way many other prescription medicines are (don’t ask me what they meant by that: I thought prescription = controlled drug, but I guess some compounds are subject to more rules than others) it had never been used in a home setting before, only in hospital as an anaesthetic. A anaesthesiologist who specialises in the study of propofol said it should not be used without the correct monitoring equipment (MJ didn’t have that apparatus at home), that if Michael had drank the propofol it would not have led to overdose, and that MJ could not have administered himself a second dose as he wouldn’t have been physically incapable after the original 25mg.

So, when I put this down in black and white, why did I think Murray might be found innocent? Well, I suppose part of it was related to not understanding fully the charge against him: I didn’t think Murray murdered MJ. I thought he gave him the treatment that he wanted nut made an error in dose, so while medically negligent he was not criminally negligent. I think it came from me thinking Murray definitely did not want or mean to kill Jackson. 

Hang on, it’s just clicked: it’s the Kantian in me. I thought as he was giving someone his wishes, propofol use at home wasn’t actually illegal, and he didn’t mean to kill Michael, that Conrad may well not be found to be guilty. There’s my moral compass being based on intent rather than outcome again! I think I also found it so objectionable that everyone had him pegged as guilty before reviewing the trial evidence: I’m very much a proponent of innocent until proven guilty.

Looking coldly at the facts though, Murray was treating Michael in a way that contravened best and typical medical practice. While perhaps not criminally wrong, this is likely to be a big factor in whether the Board of Medical Examiners will strike him off or not. Without Dr Murray giving MJ that propofol (with all the evidence pointing that Murray was the only person capable of administering the drug), MJ would have been alive that afternoon. If , after an accidental overdose, 911 was called immediately and medical treatment was given immediately with all the facts made available (i.e. that the cause of unconsciousness was a propofol overdose), Michael certainly would have had a much better chance of being resuscitated.  Also, imagine if Conrad wasn’t a doctor and MJ wasn’t a celeb: so if Joe Public hadn’t called 911 to help an unconscious but not yet dead friend, then he’d at least be culpable of letting him die (if not killing him). So perhaps Involuntary Manslaughter is the closest thing to criminally letting die.

What it all boils down to is that the question the jury has to answer was “Did Conrad Murray cause the death of Michael Jackson?” Well, if he wasn’t there, that drug hadn’t been given, then Michael would have lived. So I guess ‘guilty’ was obvious.

On subjectively reviewing the evidence, it seems clear that Murray is indeed guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I'm just glad that I now understand why my moral compass wasn't instinctively lying in the 'guilty' camp. 

_________________________________________

ADDENDUM

So, I’ve done a bit more digging and finally been able to find more of Dr Murray’s point of view, rather than outside documentation and speculation from very biased press. It’s made me think even more about things, so I just thought I’d try and get it down while it’s fresh in my head.

One thing that I have found confusing in this whole thing is the idea of drug interaction: was the dose of propofol itself lethal, or did it combine with the drugs in Michael’s stomach to create a cocktail that arrested his breathing and heart rate? As I hadn’t heard more about this, I assumed it wasn’t an issue. Now however, I’m not so sure.

So, it turns out that the 25ml dose of propofol Murray said he gave would last 20mins. A female doctor that regularly uses it stood testimony that she starts dosing at 60ml, as less than that would have no real effect on most patients.  So, surely the toxicology reports are able to work back and calculate the amount in his system at the time of autopsy, extrapolating to estimate the original dose?  This would make clear if MJ had been given an OD. However, I have neither heard nor found any information that suggest MJ had a dose big enough to count as overdose e.g. 120ml – twice the amount used to induce unconsciousness in a medical setting. How then was the CoD listed as “acute propofol intake”?

The voice over of the documentary however, said MJ died of a lorazepam and propofol overdose. That wasn’t in that CoD box, but without seeing the whole report in detail, it’s hard to find out if the coroner listed it as a contributing factor in some way.  Given that MJ had been given 3 medications and was not asleep hours later suggests that a minor propofol dose, enough to tip Michael over the precipice of sleep as Murray describes, would be fine and not cause any problems.

What did become clear was the pressure Murray was under. He was invited to become Michael and his family’s physician to help them eat more healthily, avoid catching bugs and viruses, and treating any colds etc if they did occur. Once in, he said he was ‘entrapped’, caged in by a sweet man who was addicted to several medications, and had learned to treat the side-effect of insomnia with propofol. The fact he MJ a dose so small as to only cause light dozing for no more than 20mins does fit with a man not happy just to accept that propofol was best for putting MJ to sleep at night. After all, there are no legal or regulatory contraindications over using propofol in a home-setting.

He did however say that he told MJ he’d already had enough drugs to “tranquilise an elephant” and didn’t know how he wasn’t asleep already (pre-propofol). This gives the suggestion somehow that perhaps Murray wasn’t fully clued up on the pharmacological interactions between the drugs. That’s just connotations from his wording however, and isn’t necessarily fact. I know however, that a lot of my questions are arising over the lack of information about the interaction of these drugs, and I wonder if that was an element of the trial also.

In the original blog post I also had concerns about Murray taking so long to call 911. Well, in fairness to him, as a cardiologist by speciality and presented with a highly private patient in cardiac arrest, he was in fact the best person to have treated him. In fact, leaving MJ to go and call 911 could have been considered a bigger breach of his ethical code as a doctor. However, there is a discrepancy in the bodyguard saying how quickly Murray told him to call 911 and what Murray claims to have told him. This point is therefore difficult to settle as it’s tit for tat, and Murray did not stand in court to testify this.

So all in all, I still feel sympathy for Murray – a man the world considered guilty before even let him have a fair trial. I don’t envy the position he was in – a difficult, addicted, troubled and high profile patient, who was said to often enter his private chamber in a temper. Seeing photographs of that private chamber that even maids weren’t allowed in was shocking – it was a mess of books, bottles and what appeared to be some medicines. On top of that, Murray was hired to keep Jackson and family healthy through his come back tour in London – the first since the child molestation case. Jackson told Murray that without sleep the whole thing would fail and he’d remain poor – he couldn’t compose, choreograph or be creative unless he was drugged asleep every night. To be the man that wouldn’t give anaesthetic drugs which, while unconventional could still legally and medically used at home, would allow the King of Pop to restore his name and his fortune, both of which had faltered.

So, all in all, I still sympathise with Murray and, in all honesty, if he approached me as my physician on a cardiac ward, I would not turn him away and refuse to be treated. Just because he got into a difficult situation (perhaps through greed as it’s been argued - $150K per month, not that he received his payment mind you), doesn’t mean he’s a bad doctor or would knowingly or wittingly kill someone. I’d happily let him treat me.

Derren Brown – The Unethical Experimenter

Apologies for 2 Derren posts back to back, but The Guilt Trip (the latest instalment of ‘The Experiment’) left me feeling physically sick at its ethical depravity. I’ll explain what happened, then I’ll explain how it contravenes so many of the basic rules of ethical experimentation.

Derren found a nice, compliant, lovely and psychologically robust man called Jody. He told him he’d failed his audition to be part of a mystery show of Derren’s, when in fact he’d been selected for this  Guilt Trip show without his knowledge. As a social worker in the youth sector, Derren made up a conference on the topic and invited Jody (the target) to come to enjoy the conference to speak at it. The hotel was completely controlled by Derren, and every single person there was an actor. Secret filming was carried out in all the communal rooms and in the target’s bedroom.

Step 1 of the plan: some classical (Pavlovian) conditioning in guilt. The idea was to induce guilt in Jody, have people squeeze his shoulder when he was feeling guilty and play the hotel doorbell when at the peak of this feeling. They did this a few time in a few different ways, but the biggest guilt inducer was provided by comedian Tim Minchin. Jody is a huge fan of Tim’s, and so the chance to meet him left him star-struck. Mid conversation however, Tim walked away looking offended, then disappeared so Jody couldn’t chat to him and explain. The actors led the target to believe his words had been misheard and he’d called Tim a “c*nt”. Cue the huge guilt of upsetting his idol with his inability to speak to him, shoulder squeezes and the bell and it was mission accomplished.

Act 2 was all about making Jody doubt his memory. So for example, lecturers at the conference would change their clothing by stripping off a layer or switching ties while walking around the back of the audience while they stared at the power point. The target was visibly perplexed when he saw a red tie turn cream, and a plain dress become a burgundy floral one instead.  They then tested memory guilt by faking a jewellery robbery from the hotel display case, an actor saying they saw Jody with it the night before, increasing his feelings of guilt by squeezing his shoulder and the doorbell sound was played. He then found the pearls in his room and hid them at first as he felt guilty. After a conversation with a stooge later, he took them to the front desk using the words “I’ve done something terrible”. They’d successfully tricked him into confessing to a crime he hadn’t committed.

Then came the real ‘test’: would the target Jody confess to a murder he hadn’t committed? The murder victim was an American speaker who’d been obnoxious the whole conference. Jody played croquet with him, lost and had to fork out 20 quid. The actors told him the American had been cheating, kicking balls when he wasn’t looking.

The actors, at Derren’s request, then helped to get Jody drunk by supplying endless drinks. While this was happening, Derren created a crime scene outside. An outline of the man was laid, complete with blood pools and arterial spatters on the walls, including animal brains on the croquet mallet and ground where it meant to look as if he’d been bludgeoned to death. While asleep, Jody was hypnotised in his bed while the actors carried him outside and laid him on the ground near the crime scene. He woke up alarmed, came back in and slept. Once up for breakfast, he was asked what he’d been doing as they said they’d heard him slamming doors and things at 5am. He had no recollection.

Then came the murder announcement, and police arrived for interviews. The target was shaking and feeling nauseous waiting to be interviewed, having heard the news and with squeezes and the bell heightening his guilt. He spoke well in the interview, but wasn’t asked pressing enough questions to lead to a confession.  Of his own accord, he later walked offsite into the local town and went to the police station. (Incidentally, at the start of the conference they were told not to both visiting the town – there was only a police station and post office there). Having confessed to the murder that he could only conclude he had done, Derren came in, broke down the paper wall of the interview room and explained he was part of a show. He saw the ‘murdered’ man alive and well.  The end of the slow concluded with the question from Derren “Do you forgive us?” While the target luckily said yes, this ‘experiment’ sickened me to my core for so many reasons.

To understand everything wrong with it, I need to explain the basic code of ethics people who perform experiments with human participants must abide by. As a research psychologist myself, I have had to comply with all these rules, and have been checked by an ethics committee that I have done so.

(1)     Informed consent: the person must be given the full details about the experiment in order that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take part. Small deceptions can occur if the experimental protocol requires it and where it will not harm the participant e.g. asking someone to perform a memory test on ‘genuine’ missing persons posters, not telling them until the end of the experiment that the posters aren’t real. Or even more often, presenting people with information but not informing them that it’s part of a memory test. I have been happily deceived in both these ways before, and many others. The deception must not be carried out if it’s likely to make the person uneasy when they’re debriefed, and using deception must always be avoided where possible.

(2)     Confidentiality and anonymity: the person must not be referred to in any of the research by name, only by an anonymised number or code. Under the Data Protection Act, the file/document that link the person by name to their code must be stored safely. This means that if someone withdraws or demonstrates a problem in their answers can be traced. In publication, no names must be used (initials are permissible for case studies), data must be destroyed after a set number of years have passed, and access must be limited to the researchers only.

(3)     Right to withdraw: the participant must be made aware that, without needing to explain themselves, they can leave the study at any time of their choosing, be this before, during, or long after they have taken part.

(4)     Protection of participants: the participant must be returned to the state they were in when they began the experiment i.e. not upset, confused and so on. The participant-experimenter relationship must also not change. An example of this being important nowadays is mood induction procedures: if you induce someone into a negative mood as part of a depression study, then you must make sure to cancel this out and restore their mood before allowing them to leave. It goes without saying that the participant should not be distressed in any way.

(5)     Debriefing: after the experiment, the study must be explained in full. The experiments must say why they did what they did and what they were looking to find. After-care must also be given where necessary: often this is precautionary, and GP details are sufficient. In sensitive cases, counselling services need to be arranged should someone be upset e.g. a study takes them back to a period of grief.

So, let’s see just how many ways Derren contravenes these basic rules that ANY scientific experiment must obey before it is passed for implementation:

Informed Consent

The target definitely did not have this. He only knew he’d auditioned for a TV show of Derren’s. He did not know its nature, its intent or its purpose. While the ‘experiment’ obviously required that the target didn’t know he was going to be tricked into confessing guilt to something he didn’t do, given the potential psychological consequences this could have, no ethics committee would ever have passed it. The reason ethical guidelines came into being was a lot to do with Milgram’s obedience studies, where many participants gave a fellow participant (who luckily was a stooge) with a weak heart a big enough electric shock to kill him. As the psychological damage of this study caused these rules to be drawn up, then it follows that these rules would not permit a repeat of such distress.

I do of course realise that, in legal terms, Jody must have signed a waiver saying that Derren could do anything he wanted and it was okay if it involved deception. While this is assent, it is not informed consent. These contracts are not accept in experimentation – they are only accepted in the entertainment sector. This is a huge indicator that this was not an experiment.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

If a case study is performed on a participant, they come known by their initials. For example, H.M., who had heavy anterograde amnesia (unable to form new memories) following an operation to aid his intractable epilepsy, was well known in medical an psychological literatures. What you do not do is call someone by name, publicise their face, and show their individual results (without anonymysation obviously). I’m sure that if anyone looked hard enough, given they know where Jody’s from and that he’s a social worker, they’d find him e.g. on facebook, on a work web page or even a blog. I mean, the night of the TV episode his location was publicised on Twitter: he stayed the night at Derren’s house with his girl friend. Nothing about these goings on were confidential or anonymous.

Right to Withdraw

Without giving a reason, a participant can leave an experiment before, during or afterwards. (That’s why you have to keep that sheet that links names and anonymous codes together). Given that Jody did not even know he was part of an ‘experiment’, he obviously had no idea that he could leave it. I mean, who would willingly put themselves through the guilt and horror of believing they’d murdered someone? He also can’t withdraw his ‘data’ afterwards – it’s been on TV so has already been publically shared. There is no going back.

Protection of Participants

While I appreciate that the target was tested for psychological robustness, the fact that tests revealed that he was likely to withstand the anguish of this TV programme does not mean it was justifiable to put him through it. I mean, is it okay to beat someone to a pulp because you’re sure they can recover and won’t have PTSD? In more experimental terms, the risk of harm to the participant (mental or physical) must be no greater than occurs in every day life. Guilt over murder is not an everyday life risk, so this ‘experiment’ clearly exceeds these risks. Also, while forgiveness was granted, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Jody was in the same psychological state at the end of the experiment as he was at the beginning. We were given no indication of follow-up psychiatric tests, or whether things like counselling had been made available. Also, the experimenter-participant relationship did not return to its formal beginnings: you do not stay over at your experimenter’s house following a study unless you stayed over before the experiment even began i.e. were friends (not best practice).

Debriefing

Luckily we saw some of the debriefing on TV. I hope it was a lot more in-depth than what was shown, but for the viewer it was soothing to see Jody smiling and partaking in champagne. However, and I quote from the British Psychological Society’s guidelines (who control ethical experimentation throughout the whole of the UK) that “Debriefing does not provide a justification for unethical aspects of any investigation.” Therefore, explaining something fully afterwards and gaining ‘forgiveness’ is not enough: you were not justified doing an experiment if the participant decides to ‘let you away with it’ come the debriefing. I was utterly disgusted when Derren asked “Do you forgive us?” No experimenter would ever ask this question because no experimenter would need to. It was utterly appalling, regardless of Jody saying yes.

So again I find myself in a Kantian position: while the results were that the target was happy he’d taken part, the intentions leave this ‘experiment’ morally deplorable to me. It also fails to be an experiment on basic scientific grounds too i.e. insufficient sample size, no control group and so on, but I’d be here all day if I criticised this on those grounds too.

So I hear you say, what if Derren hadn’t called the series ‘The Experiment’? Would it be okay then, because that would prevent it having to meet the ethical standards of human research within this country? The answer to me is no: it was unethical on intuitive, basic human rights terms. It doesn’t matter than it contravened BPS rules essentially – what matters is that it contravened the way in which any of us should be treated, according to norms, morals and laws. Signing a waiver for a TV programme does not prevent these issues: it only means that what happened was legally permissible. Whatever way you which to approach it, this ‘experiment’ was not morally permissible in my eyes. I can only help the rest of the series doesn’t rely on these depraved ‘experiments’, saccharinised and sanitised by the label ‘entertainment’.

Derren Brown - The Misleader

Note: this is the verbatim copy and paste from a response to Derren Brown's The Game Show, part of The Experiment series. This has been written by a friend (a social psychologist and crowd psychology specialist) and his colleague. It is a beautiful, clear, succinct and enjoyable explanation about all the problems, errors and misguidance in the show. As a psychologist myself I've spent the week explaining to people why this is wrong. Fergus and Mark however, do it so much more beautifully than I ever could.

All from http://crowdpsych.wordpress.com/

Derren Brown’s ‘crowd experiment’: A Response from two social psychologists

Posted on November 4, 2011 by crowdpsych

 

Derren Brown’s ‘crowd experiment’: A Response from two social psychologists

We would like to dispute in the strongest possible terms the theoretical underpinnings and proposed implications from Derren Brown’s ‘crowd experiment’ – The Gameshow – aired on Channel 4 on 28/10/11. Brown’s second instalment in his series of ‘experiments’ was designed to show us how being anonymous in a crowd can, in his words, “turn perfectly nice people into internet bullies, or rioters, or hooligans”. To demonstrate, audience members were led to believe they were participating in a new interactive game show in which the fate of an unwitting member of the public was placed in their hands. The ‘target’ was a young man who was out for a drink with some friends.  Along with various actors, the man’s friends were in on the plan and were in contact with the studio via hidden earpieces.  Throughout the show, the audience were presented with a choice between two scenarios (one positive and one negative) for the man.    The severity of the negative outcomes increased throughout the episode, and ranged from being mistakenly charged for an extra round of drinks, to being kidnapped by a ‘gang of thugs’.  The audience chose the scenario with a negative outcome each time, and for Brown, this was evidence of the moral depravity that inevitably follows anonymity in crowds.

Whilst we welcome Brown’s efforts to popularise social psychology in innovative and engaging ways, this particular episode was premised upon outdated theory that led to misleading and dangerous conclusions.  Before exploring these topics, it is worth briefly noting several methodological problems with the study. These include the fact that it was not actually an experiment (as claimed by the title) since no independent variable was manipulated (there was not a sample making equivalent decisions alone or without masks), the ‘bad’ choice was always presented to the audience second, the audience understood that the consequences of their actions weren’t ‘real’ (akin to an interactive episode of Beadle’s About!), and Brown – who offered the audience the choices – is renowned for his skill in influencing people’s decision-making processes. Whilst we take issue with these methodological confounds, the purpose of this piece is to question the psychological theory upon which the episode was based.

Brown stated during the episode and in a subsequent interview on his website that ‘deindividuation’ within crowds causes people to lose their identities and consequently behave in inevitably anti-social ways. Over thirty years of empirical work from the social identity tradition (for a review see Reicher, Spears, & Haslam, 2010) has discredited these claims. This research has shown that rather than a loss of identity within crowds, there is a shift from personal to social levels of identification. Instead of acting in terms of the norms and behavioural limits of one’s personal identity, within a psychological crowd one therefore acts in coherence with the norms of one’s salient collective identity. These norms will differ depending upon which social identity is salient at any given time e.g. as a resident of a local community, supporter of a sports team, or as a member of an audience at a television recording. Crowd behaviour is therefore rooted in social context, such that individuals may even act more pro-socially in a crowd than they would do alone (see e.g. the non-violent resistance of Indian crowds in the face of colonial British rule, or within-crowd helping during emergencies [see Brown’s own blog on this topic - http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/2009/08/emergencies-inspire-crowd-cooperation-panic]).

In the case of Friday’s ‘experiment’, the audience acted in terms of their collective identity as audience members in at least two ways. First, the very object of being in a game show audience is by definition to be entertained. Each time the audience were faced with a choice, they picked what was clearly the most entertaining option, and the selection that would prolong their involvement in the event. Second, the menacing masks that audience members wore were hardly neutral cues; in fact the very same masks were later worn by the ‘group of thugs’ who attempted the kidnap in the final scene. This is reminiscent of a famous study by Johnson and Downing (1979), who noted that when people were given robes resembling those of the Ku Klux Klan they displayed more anti-social behaviour than control participants. However, when participants were given nurses’ uniforms they displayed significantly less anti-social behaviour than controls. The fact that audience members wearing the ‘thug’ masks chose anti-social options is consistent with the argument that crowd behaviour is rooted in contextual cues, and not inherently anti-social.

It is important to emphasise that we are not arguing that crowds are immune from anti-social behaviour; some of the very worst atrocities in history have been committed by crowds (e.g. religious pogroms, lynchings etc.). The point is that crowd behaviour is neither intrinsically good nor bad, but is dependent upon the norms of the shared social identity of its members.

Why is all this important? Does it really matter to anyone other than social psychologists that outdated theory is portrayed as factual on prime-time television? The point is that an understanding of crowd psychology has important consequences for society. Regarding crowds as anti-social entities acting without identity or reason can legitimate their violent repression by security forces, prevent intragroup helping in emergencies, and facilitate the dismissal of popular protest as irrational by those in positions of power. Poor theory can therefore ultimately lead to both public disorder, and an attack upon our democratic rights as individuals to express our views collectively. It is therefore in all of our interests to gain an accurate understanding of crowd behaviour, rather than rely upon outdated theory that is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Fergus Neville (fgn@st-and.ac.uk)¹ and David Novelli (dln21@sussex.ac.uk)²

¹University of St Andrews

²University of Sussex

Jiz Loans, The Semen Stealer

Below is an article from the loathsome Liz Jones of the horrid Daily Mail. If you can bear it, please take a minute or two to read this article. This is an indirect link, so that the online traffic does not increase on the DM website. We wouldn’t give to give them the idea that we like them!

http://www.freezepage.com/1320310565IDSOTMIJYD 

My problems with this are numerous, and this list is not wholly exhaustive:

1)     Her ideas of feminism. 

“As a feminist, I looked down on mumsy types.”

Liz says she’s a feminist, but seems to entirely misunderstand the concept. The whole idea of feminism is that women are equal to men, and should be treated as such. (There are extreme feminists however, who do say that women should be the favoured sex now given how long the world’s been male-biased, therefore not seeking equality, rather inequality but in the opposite direction). Part of this is obviously the freedom to choose, and that includes choosing to be a mother. Being a feminist is in no way incompatible with motherhood. Imagine the future of our planet if people who thought women were equal to men didn’t procreate?  In addition to this, she also insults the whole female sex – again not something a woman should be doing (more about these insults in point 4).

2)     Stealing Sperm.

A child is a product of two people, not one. If men and women are to be equals, then both should have a choice about parenthood. Any type of lying and underhandedness is wrong in a relationship, but to add this deceit to a life-changing decision that cannot be reneged upon is notthing shor of morally deplorable.

On the other side of my brain however is the fact that if people don’t want to accept a pregnancy then they shouldn’t have sex. If a child is conceived by accident, everyone says you must take responsibility for it – you had sex, so step up to the plate. The morally consistent argument then says that, by having sex, the man is complicit anyway. By doing so, he says he accepts that pregnancy may be an outcome. While this also makes sense, I have to say my moral compass is steal screaming out that this is wrong: that the intent is more important than the outcome (how very Kantian of me, I know). In other words, if you mean to have sex with little/no protection in order to trick someone into pregnancy, this is wrong, regardless of the outcome (pregnant or not). It’s all about the categorical imperative – essentially, don’t do it to others if you don’t want it done to you. In fact,  more accurately, it’s about imagine the world as if that action was universal. So, if you wouldn’t like to be lied to, then don’t do it to others.  This approach to moral philosophy does have it problems (e.g. you have to tell the axe-murder at your door where your friend is when he asks, because you’d want honesty to be a universal moral), but it’s intuitive to me here so I’m sticking to it.

3)     Liz’s “Right” to It

Liz speaks as if she has earned her partner’s sperm. Her exact words are

“I thought it was my right, given that he was living with me and I had bought him many, many M&S ready meals.”

Given my argument above, when something is essentially  wrong, no amount of money, dinners or any other flippant measure will justify the deceit and theft. To make the point so casually is nothing short of disgusting, especially in conjuction with the strong use the term ‘my right’.

4)     Dirtying the Reputation of the Female Sex

While Liz’s actions on their own are deplorable, as an autonomous being she has a right to lead her life and to make her own mistakes. However, she makes sweeping statements that cast aspersion amongst all middle-aged women, which is just beyond despicable:

“Of course, not every woman in my position would resort to extreme measures. But I do believe that any man who moves in with a woman in her late 30s or early 40s should take it as read that she will want to use them to procreate, by fair means or foul, no matter how much she protests otherwise.”

I have no doubt that there are women out there who purposely entrap men. In fact, I know of some family members who have been entrapped by women. However, to say that it should be taken as read a middle-aged women will want your children and is prepared to go about it deceitfully is both inaccurate and digusting. To measure a whole group of people by one own’s yardstick is to have limited vision, perception and in this case, morals.  What’s worse is that genuinely insecure men who read this article may end up fearing their genuine, loving, honest partner because Liz has managed to instill a fear in them. I know most people are rational enough to get beyond this, but the nature of insecurity is that it cannot be easily reasoned out of. It’s not easy for a person with low self-esteem to just say they’re wrong about themselves and remove all doubt. If this sabotages even one relationship, then this article (like Liz Jones herself) is a very very sad thing indeed.

For a variety of reasons and articles, I am predisposed to automatically dislike anything the woman writes. In this case (as in every other so far), it is wholly justified.

Liz Jones – the world’s best argument for spermicidal condoms.

I rest my case!

Distance Before Death

Recently I went to the funeral of my OH’s paternal Grandma. I’d the joy of meeting several times over 5.5years, and loved her. Not only that, but even from before I met her, it was clear just how much she loved her grandchildren, and how loved she was from how often they spoke about her.

Before going to the service at the crematorium however, we went to his Nana (maternal grandmother). Now, OH’s Mum told her hubby off for stalling tactics, so that they wouldn’t have to spend as long at her flat. Also, when going to visit with Tom, he always volunteered to see Grandma, but was told to go and see his Nana. We also went to his Nana’s first, to use having time to see Grandma as an excuse. This is just one example – I’ve seen and experienced it in my own family.

I was never close to my maternal grandparents (and my paternal grandparents died before me and my sisters were even born). They’d had 14 children, and times were tight. Mum often tells tales of washing her hair in fairy liquid, and lots of stories of turning scraps into dinner. After raising so many, neither of my parents were interested in grandchildren. It was nothing personal against any of us – they just reckoned they’d served their sentence as far as child-rearing was concerned.

My Granda was a foul-tempered man. Throwing a wobbly is referred to the in the family as ‘Doing a Davey’. I never ever saw that side to him – he was a quiet man anytime I visited. I never found him endearing though (bearing in mind I was 1^st year when he passed away, so about 11yrs old). When his cancer was confirmed as terminal, Mum wanted me to go and play the flute with him. He was a very musical man, and in that tiny house where they raised their family, the front room was his music room, complete with silver flutes, band flutes, an electric organ and more instruments than I can even remember. She knew he’d love it, but I always wormed out of it. I was scared of him because I knew the harsh father he’d been, and I couldn’t get over that. Despite the fact that I wasn’t close to him, I did cry all day at his funeral. After the service at the house, then the church sermon I was literally wiped out and couldn’t face the grave side. I think rarely of him even now.

My Granny was a bit friendlier. She always gave us 50p when we visited, and often some Roses. I felt more comfortable in her house when Granda was out with the band (he was a flutist in a pipe band, like many of my uncles are now). When Granda died, only 3 kids cared enough to see Granny every week, take her to church and generally get her out of the house. Mum was one of them, so she came for roast dinner every 3^rd Sunday. I liked that: in fact, with Granda gone she seemed more interested. My little sister was the first kid I saw my Granny take an active interest in, so much so she named her Corgi pup after her when her old bitch (Queen) Lizzie passed away. Mostly though she spoke only about her Sunday dinner for a few minutes, then fell asleep reading the paper after dinner. There was no bond there either when she passed away when I was 19 or 20yrs old. While her funeral was sad, I found it much easier. I think the fact that Mum was once of her few carers (grandparents favoured their sons a ridiculous amount, but not a single one cared for her when she got sick – it was her daughters who rallied round to give her palliative care at home), and took comfort that she was peace meant it was easier to deal with, along with my age. It almost feels bad that it was as easy as it was.

However, I do have another ‘grandma’. Not a blood one, but she was actually neighbours with my grandparents for years. She was mother of Mum’s best friend from school.  Mum’s known her all her life, and with Nana’s kids spread the world over bar one, Mum sort of took her on as a grandparent.

Nana was the grandparent I never had. She was loving, friendly, told stories of times so long ago that I couldn’t possibly imagine. She was exactly what I imagined a grandma should be. I always volunteered to look after her cat and plants when she was away and we saw her once a week.

In older age however (in her 80s), she’s changed. She’s always been a woman of strong opinion, but has now lost her tact. It makes her company less enjoyable, and Mum’s less free in her conversations with her. Things are therefore tense. There’s also other reasons I won’t go into, but basically as she further ails and ages, she’s become less likeable, and so people (my family included) are spending less time with her (though still helping lots e.g. doing her garden).

This is what I saw in OH’s Nana – the person becomes less likeable and tolerable, and so family start increasing their distance, or at least keeping in touch but with less enthusiasm and genuine feeling.  I know it happens with other people too.

What I do wonder though, is this a mechanism for coping with death? I do wonder if, albeit unintentionally, what often happens is that the person is more isolated as they’ve become less easy, so making their passing that bit less painful? Does it make sense for human beings to isolate their elders, moving on faster? On some level it probably does. It is of course far from universal however: lots of people are there with their older relatives often and enthusiastically until the end. Still, there are lots that end up doing it out of ‘duty’, rather than out of want.

What scares me though is whether I’ll end up like that. I can't imagine a time that I'll ever love my parents less and not want to see them. I can however definitely forsee it happening with some folk I know and love. What about ourselves though? What if I have kids and they hate seeing me when I’m old?  It’s such a horrible thought, and I wonder how it makes older folk feel when they’re alive, or whether less visits suit them too at that point? From the outside looking in, it does sound like a sad end doesn’t it?  Fingers crossed we all continue to cherish our loved ones all the way until their end, and don’t end up one of those people for whom the communication barrier goes up in old age.