I have been sent a wish list. A list that many of us advocates would like to see published and endorsed by an organisation such as the IoP, the RCP or the AED. A list that we could take to treatment providers, when faced with situations such as this and this.
Now I am not advocating that we return to the bad old days of force feeding. The idea of vulnerable women being force fed is a horror deeply embedded in the British psyche and it is not one that we, as a nation, would want to return to. In my mind, it is somehow tied in with this horror. Today, ensuring a patient receives adequate nutrition, in a clinical setting (or Holloway!) is a much kinder, gentler procedure than the funnels and strapping of old.
All this talk of force feeding and NG tubes makes it appear that I am advocating all anorexia nervosa patients should be treated against their will and always have an tube inserted in a hospital setting. Well, in a way I am. Not the tube and clinical setting, unless the patient is unable to eat orally. Why unable to eat? Why not "won't" eat?
"Won't eat" implies some kind of choice. If we believe that a patient "won't" eat, it naturally follows that anorexia nervosa is some kind of choice: that a patient is "choosing" not to eat; that this is a weird mind over matter condition, a responsibility assumption.
If we assume that the patient can't eat, is unable to eat, because anorexia nervosa is a brain disorder (sorry ELT and Katie), a brain arrhythmia, a misfiring of the biological processes, a blip in neurotransmitters, the reasoning for "force feeding" becomes a little more clear. If you throw into the mix the understanding that the majority of anorexia nervosa patients are unable to understand or see how ill they are (anosognosia), perhaps you will begin to see that feeding an anorexia patient, even against their supposed "free will", is not a cruel imposition of society's god complex, but a medical necessity.
For most patients, refeeding via an NG tube in hospital is not the advocated treatment. The NICE guidelines recommend that refeeding is done at home, as this seems to have the best outcomes. The method with the best outcomes of all appears to be this one, Family Based Treatment (the Maudsley Method as manualised by Lock and Le Grange). As a parent/carer, once you understand that the patient is unable to eat, you quickly begin to realise that getting angry and trying to impose your will on that of the patient is a hiding to nothing. The realisation that the patient can't eat means that gentle encouragement and firm insistence, with a lot of love and confidence, is the best way forward. This is not "force feeding". This is a medical protocol.
So, you may then ask, what is the point of refeeding an anorexic patient, if they do not want to eat? If they want to die, why not let them, as some clinicians do (and are happy to write papers for other eating disorder clinicians explaining the logic of all this). The answer to that question is that many psychological symptoms are alleviated on weight restoration. Not all of them and sometimes there are co-morbid conditions to be taken into account but, in general, this statement is true. Once a patient returns to optimum function (a physical state at a level that the brain can begin neuroplasticity and heal the damaged pathways), many of most severe psychological symptoms begin to disappear. Conditions such as anxiety, depression, OCD may still be present but the patient is physically fit enough to be able to cope with them and respond to therapies without returning to restricting food.
You may have noticed I have been hyper-linking all over this blog. So why am I not hyperlinking the link between optimum function and the alleviation of psychological symptoms? I am unable to find any studies on this. It appears that for eating disorders, nobody has bothered to write a paper on the importance of full nutrition for psychological symptoms. Why?
So I return to the list (Thank you, MS).
Is it such a big ask?