Catching octopuses, or, my love-hate relationship with the DSM

When I was in my teens and early 20s, both during the period when I read the DSM like a Bible of self-knowledge and during the anti-psychiatric period where I rejected the DSM altogether, I took it for granted that the diagnostic categories in the DSM reflected actually distinct disorders. I know now that the correspondence is much more complicated.

Here’s a metaphor. A mental disorder is like an octopus. It has eight tentacles, wiggles around, squishes to get through tubes, and changes color. The diagnoses in the DSM are like little cardboard boxes. Now imagine that an octopus is falling through the air (don’t ask me why, it just is) and you’re trying to catch it in a relatively small cardboard box. As it falls, the octopus keeps changing shape and color, and when you finally catch it, three tentacles are sprawled over the edges of the box. Oh well, at least you got most of it, right? I mean, until it crawls out.

That’s basically what psychiatrists are doing when they diagnose: trying to catch an octopus in a box. The actual condition, this complex reality that starts in our brains and is intertwined, whether we like it or not, with our personalities and experiences and interpretations of the world, is too big and shifty and multi-tentacled to fit neatly into a box. Sometimes though, diagnosticians can catch most of it, treat accordingly, and it all makes sense for a while … until the octopus moves. Which it will eventually do, because it’s a living thing.

For those of you who have no idea what the hell I’m talking about, let me be more concrete.  It’s not uncommon for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) to change to bipolar II when hypomania emerges among the recurring depressions; for bipolar II to change to bipolar I when the person has their first full manic episode; or even for bipolar I to change to schizoaffective disorder when hallucinations persist outside of manic and depressed episodes. I’ve personally observed these progressions in my own family. Was the initial diagnosis wrong? Not really; the symptoms changed, the presentation developed.

Furthermore, I know a lot of people (most notably myself!) who have outlying symptoms, symptoms that don’t quite fit the diagnosis that seems most appropriate for them. A good example of this is someone with a bipolar II diagnosis who’s had one full-blown manic episode in 50 years. Does that one episode make her bipolar I? The flavor of her disorder is definitely more depression/hypomania. The people I know who have schizoaffective disorder probably fit their diagnosis the best, but schizoaffective disorder is a controversial diagnosis that some psychiatrists want to get rid of, so that just kind of proves my point.

Lately I’ve come to believe that there’s a multidimensional spectrum of psychotic/affective disorders, similar to the (also very complex and multidimensional) autism spectrum.*** And where you are on the spectrum can shift over time, in more than one direction.

Refreshingly, I am not the only person to think this way. There’s even actual scientific evidence for it. The “Kraepelinian Dichotomy,” which made a hard distinction between mood disorders and schizophrenia, is being called into question. (I’ll post some links below for those who want to dig deeper but are too clinically depressed to google.) Let me just state here that in one study, 45% of patients with psychotic disorders did not fit a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia, but had elements of both. That’s almost half.

Here’s a little graph to illustrate how I kind of envision the spectrum:

mood spectrum (2)

 

The Y axis is mood, ranging through shades of depression, hypomania and mania. The X axis is psychosis, ranging from no psychotic symptoms through fluctuating paranoid delusions to round-the-clock hallucinations with anosognosia. Then there’s the Z axis coming out towards you, a third dimension, for anxiety.

You will notice that I took a shocking liberty and put “negative symptoms” (of schizophrenia) on the mood axis, although schizophrenia is not supposed to have a mood component. Well, I may be wrong, but do a google search and you’ll find articles in medical journals trying to figure out what the difference is between negative symptoms and depression. There must be a difference, because the Kraepelinian Dichotomy says these are totally distinct disorders, right? And then you will find stupid answers being proposed such as that depression is different because depressed people feel “sad” and schizophrenic people don’t.

Sorry to break it to you but I don’t feel sad every time I’m depressed, nor is sadness required for a major depressive episode in the DSM. Often as not, I just feel sort of bored and disgusted with everything (anhedonia), and like I’m moving through molasses (psychomotor retardation). My body aches, my brain feels slow and stuffed with cotton, everything takes more physical and mental effort. My speech slows down and I have flattened affect. These are all considered mood symptoms in my case because I’m diagnosed with a mood disorder. However a schizophrenic person could have the same symptoms, and their anhedonia, psychomotor retardation and flat affect would not be considered mood related. So are they really inherently mood symptoms, or do they only look that way in a certain context? And what about psychosis – if I become psychotic during a depressive episode, does that mean psychosis is a mood symptom?

Anyway. Back to the graph.

Coordinates represent a point in time. A person might cycle between two or more sets of coordinates, or move steadily in one direction across the graph. Over the course of a lifetime, some people will have a dot here or there (an isolated episode of psychosis, for instance, or postpartum depression) while others of us will have a big old winding road-map of places our brains have been.

It’s OK to come up with official names (diagnoses) for the most common patterns on these road-maps, as long as we don’t let them limit and distort our perceptions of them. Diagnostic labels are useful mainly for medical professionals and researchers; understanding the particular dimensions and coordinates of one’s own condition is much more useful and empowering to those of us actually living with it.

 

Further reading:

With his book “Why am I still depressed?”, Dr. Phelps helped me begin to reconceptualize my own recurrent depression as a form of bipolarity. Since I have double depression (probably the reason I don’t experience clear hypomania very often), the chart on this page made a particular impression on me:  http://psycheducation.org/diagnosis/bipolar-diagnosis-spectrum-or-yesno/

I totally geeked out over this article. This is the source for the 45% statistic and the whole thing is just super interesting:  A dimensional approach to the psychosis spectrum between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: The Schizo-Bipolar Scale

This scientific editorial concludes: “Moving to a spectrum concept (be it with categories or dimensions) with recognition of overlapping pathogenetic factors and varying expression (dependent upon both genetic risk and environmental exposure) would allow a confident and clear diagnosis to be offered (perhaps ‘psychosis-spectrum illness’ or ‘ mood–reality disorder’), with a clear explanation that some specific tests and a period of observation will help to clarify the likely course of illness and response to treatment. This would be greatly preferable to the current situation and the inevitable consequences of damage to the therapeutic alliance caused by diagnostic revisions.” If you agree with me that that quote was awesome, and are now meditating on the implications of a term like “mood-reality disorder” (but what is reality??? feeling philosophical now), you’ll enjoy the whole thing: The beginning of the end for the Kraepelinian dichotomy

***Random footnote: I’d like to see a graph with the same concept for the Autism Spectrum, with dimensions including social and sensory components and whatever else autistic people jointly decide is most important.

Advertisements

Traffic tickets: a regressive tax on driving

In case you didn’t know: you don’t have to speed or drive recklessly to get a traffic ticket. I received a ticket last week and I wasn’t even driving the car. My crime? I forgot to put my seat belt on right away.

I was distracted by my 3-year-old having a meltdown in the back seat. A few minutes after my husband pulled out of the parking space, I realized I wasn’t wearing my seat belt and I put it on. But it didn’t matter. In those few minutes, a cop had seen me. It didn’t matter that I’d already fixed my brief mistake. I was given the choice between paying a fine of $82 (plus increases to my car insurance) or going to court. I chose to go to court – taking the risk of court fees being added to a ticket that we already can’t afford.

$82 is a lot of money to us. That’s a month of running water. That’s a week of food.

Every month, do you know what we have left after we pay the rent, the utilities, the car insurance, student loans, our health insurance premium, the monthly payment for Mr. Anarchist’s brief ER visit months ago which we will spend a year paying off even though we’re paying for health insurance? About $200. For a month’s worth of gas, food, hygiene supplies, any medical copayments should we splurge on visits to the doctor’s office. I have asthma and I can’t afford the copayment on my inhalers. We can’t afford Monkey’s clothes and shoes and formula. We’re trying to get Medicaid to cover his diapers. It has nothing to do with irresponsible spending. The math just doesn’t work.

So that’s the financial situation, and the state adds $82 for 3 minutes of not wearing a seat belt.

That’s a tax on driving. And it’s a regressive tax. Somebody making a decent income might not enjoy paying an $82 fine, but they’re not going to go hungry or not fill their medications because of it.

“Least restrictive”? Disabled spaces and reverse inclusion

This post is not about parking spaces (sorry to disappoint). It’s about education, and also adult social life.

Under IDEA, mainstreaming of disabled students in regular education classrooms is seen as the goal of special education. As much as possible, students are to be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment. (The least restrictive is a general education classroom, followed by a mixed or inclusion classroom, followed by a “self-contained” classroom in which all the students are disabled.) Similarly, organizations that work with disabled adults at least pay lip service to the notion of including them in community life as much as possible.

Regardless of practical shortcomings, the goal of inclusion is obviously a HUGE step forward from where we were only decades ago, when disabled people were placed in crappy institutions, often denied an education, and in other ways automatically segregated from mainstream life. And the risk of going back to that is frighteningly real. There is plenty of push-back right now from people who would like to see disabled students out of regular classrooms (for example this Alabama board of education member or our current attorney general); and cuts to Medicaid services like home nursing, which allow disabled people to live at home and in their communities, could potentially force many into institutions.

So before I go further, let’s get one thing straight: Inclusion in one’s nondisabled communities is a human and civil right for disabled people of all ages. PERIOD.

Now that that’s clear … I have some problems with inclusion as it’s currently conceptualized.

First of all, I don’t think the language of “restrictiveness” is a helpful or accurate way of looking at different educational placements. I understand where it came from historically, but I think we can do better. Instead of talking about a classroom of disabled students as a place where they are restricted or restrained, why not speak of it in terms of support and environmental modification?

The preschool Monkey attends is described on the district website as “the most restrictive” option for his age group. That’s because the majority of students who attend have IEPs. In Monkey’s class, there are slightly more kids with IEPs than typical peers. All the students are taught by a special education teacher and aide.

I really have no idea what is “restrictive” about any of this. Class size is smaller than the equivalent Head Start classrooms, meaning it’s quieter and the kids get more one-on-one attention. The school facility is quite nice, with big outdoor and indoor play areas and lots of fun sensory toys. There’s a full-time nurse just down the hall with his medications on hand, and individual and group therapies taking place in the classroom or OT/PT gym. I don’t see any of this as restricting Monkey’s freedom or ability, but the opposite: it’s supporting those things. (He loves it, by the way.) So why don’t we call it “the most supportive environment” or “the most accommodating environment”? Does that not sound negative enough?

I’m not advocating for euphemisms here. I’m just wondering how, for example, self-contained classrooms might look different if we conceptualized them in terms of “most accommodating” instead of “most restrictive”. Providing the necessary amount of accommodation for an individual student – not restricting them in some way – is what a self-contained classroom should be for. It should be for students whose needs can’t be accommodated in regular classrooms. If a student can function and learn with accommodations in a regular classroom, then they should do that. They should learn in “the least accommodating environment”! Hahahaha. (Seriously, though, I went through mainstream public school and “least accommodating environment” is a pretty good way of describing it.)

Recently, I took Monkey to the “sensory-friendly” time at a children’s museum. He enjoyed it and I did as well. There weren’t many people, they did something to the lighting to make it less annoying and there were little soothing “sensory break rooms” you could creep off to. Monkey was able to borrow noise-reducing headphones, which helped with all the white noise from the exhibits and from people walking and talking in echoey hallways. (I seriously considered borrowing a pair myself. Next time.) And all the other families had autistic members or a related disability, so we didn’t get any weird looks or feel out of place at all. It was awesome.

(But maybe I should say “restrictive” instead of “awesome”? I mean, the whole environment was modified to accommodate disabled people and the people there were either disabled or supporting a disabled person, so really … restrictive.)

What I’m trying to get at is that there are often ableist assumptions in the way we talk about inclusion. Aside from the “restrictive” language, a situation can be created where a person thinks “Hurray! I’m almost normal. I get to be with normal people.” I suspect this is especially an issue when the disability is developmental, intellectual or psychiatric, as opposed to a physical disability. If you hang out with developmentally disabled people, you can see this internalized ableism in the way they compare themselves to other, “more disabled” people in their own class or group home or community center. The hierarchy of “less disabled”/”more normal”=better is imported into the disabled community.

But if we’re not allowed to have a disabled community, a positive disabled identity, then we’re stuck with – at best – the almost belonging of being the not-too-disabled person in a room full of typical people. Which is why, while exposure to and interaction with nondisabled peers is important (after all, there are more of them, and they’re always going to be around, and some of them are even pretty cool), I think we should also encourage the formation of disabled groups and spaces, where disabled children can feel a sense of safety, pride, ownership and unequivocal belonging, where they are not the odd ones out. Ideally this would include teens and adults with disabilities, as well as younger children. And then, once this space and this community is established, there is the potential for reverse inclusion: bringing nondisabled/neurotypical peers into the disabled setting.

I’ve been in reverse inclusion settings, where I’ve been in the “normal” minority. I toured a living history museum with a group of students from the local Deaf school. I’ve been to a dance that was for adults with Down Syndrome, cerebral palsy and related disabilities (most fun dance I’ve ever been to) and other similar events. In high school I sometimes would hang out with a friend of mine and her boyfriend who were both intellectually disabled; that was an informal instance of reverse inclusion. Let me tell you: your mindset shifts when you’re the minority; when you’re not the one including them, rather they are including you.

Imagine this: what if parents wanted their typical children to get a spot in their neighborhood school’s autism classroom because it was just so great? “It’s small, the teacher’s wonderfully patient, the students all get individual attention, they have lots of hands-on learning. Oh and you should see all the cool OT equipment! I sure hope Maria gets into the reverse inclusion program!” Wouldn’t that change the way we all think about special education and disability?

I have more thoughts on this subject but I’d better stop for now. I’ll end with a quote from Ian Brown’s beautiful book The Boy in the Moon. Brown’s son, Walker, had CFC with very significant intellectual disability. The first half (roughly) of the book is memoir. The second half is really a philosophical exploration of disability, especially developmental and intellectual disability. In his attempt to understand Walker and to get inside his world, as well as to find the best residential placement for him, Brown went to France to stay in a community for disabled people called L’Arche. He also visited a similar community in Canada. Towards the end of the book, he writes:

“These days, I have a fantasy of my own. In my fantasy, Walker and people like him live in a L’Arche-like community with the help of assistants. It’s a beautiful place, in a beautiful spot, with a view of the sea of the mountains, because for once, in this place, it isn’t just those who can afford them who have access to the best views, but people who might need beauty even more, because they live with so much less. In my fantasy, this village is owned and inhabited by the disabled, on their schedule, at their pace, according to their standards of what is successful […]. In my fantasy, it is the rest of us, the normals, who have to be ‘integrated’ into their society, who have to adapt to their pace and their place.” (271)

I share that fantasy.

My autism is not my son’s autism. Or is it?

When I was in college, I became friends with a fellow student who was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. I started reading about Asperger’s and was struck by how much it sounded like …. me. I’d been searching for years, my whole life really, for some kind of explanation as to why I felt so different from everyone around me, had so much trouble making friends, and was always offending people without understanding what I’d done wrong – and here was the first explanation that really seemed to fit. It also fit with the sensory challenges I’d had all my life, with my intense obsessions, my physical awkwardness and clumsiness, my need for routine, and the various self-soothing behaviors that I now know are forms of “stimming.”

I told my parents and they said “No way.” Then they read some books about Asperger’s, called me back and said, “Never mind, you definitely have it.” They consulted my old psychiatrist, who said something along the lines of “Oh, that explains a lot!” And so I embraced the notion that I was indeed on the spectrum.

Until I got a job working with autistic adults.

These adults were at the other end of the spectrum from me, to the extent that the spectrum has “ends.” (I think of it more as a scatter plot.) All the scariest-sounding behaviors people think of when they think autism, these folks displayed. They needed 24/7 supervision and maximum support. I liked them; I liked working with them. But it put my own challenges in perspective.

And then the DSM V came along and Asperger’s was no more. I continued to think of myself as having some autistic traits, but not really actual autism. I didn’t dare lay claim to the same label that, for my clients, was so encompassing, so disabling. In some ways, I related to them and felt that I understood them. At the same time, there was plenty that I didn’t understand; and my own great privilege in having a husband, a job, and the ability to more or less communicate my thoughts, was very very evident to me.

Then I had a baby. And that baby had all sorts of medical problems and delays. And then my baby grew into a little boy and was diagnosed with autism.

Around that same time, my therapist suggested that I’m also on the spectrum, and I had to confront, again, from a new perspective, just what exactly that means.

Only time will tell the level of support that my son needs long-term, but I know this much: he has challenges that I never had as a child. I was not delayed in speech or self-help skills. I didn’t leave buildings by myself, bolt in front of cars or wander into bodies of water. I was sufficiently aware of my body’s boundaries not to injure myself and others on a regular basis. I didn’t lose skills, become so anxious I’d stop eating or drinking for days, or have insomnia and GI problems that required medical management. On the other hand, my son already at the age of 3 has more language than my adult clients had, and many other skills are incipient or emerging.

Some people, often parents of individuals with severe autism (i.e. those that need maximum support), feel that we need different names for the mild and severe ends of the spectrum. I completely understand where they’re coming from; I feel the same way at times. The problem is all the people, like my son, who are somewhere in between those ends. Not only are they in between the extremes, but they are all over the map in that in-between area. That’s why I think of it more as a scatter plot than a spectrum. And if that’s the case, if there are points all over the map, then where do you draw the dividing line?

I do believe that autism is an umbrella term. There are autisms. Similar behavioral profiles with various etiologies and various degrees of disability. Genetic causes (including some known chromosomal anomalies), environmental causes, combinations of the two. Comorbidity is characteristic of autism, which adds further variation.

Rett Syndrome used to be grouped together with autism spectrum disorders; now it’s understood to be a distinct disorder. That may very well happen with other developmental disabilities that are now grouped under “autism.” But until it does, until we can scientifically sort this stuff out, it seems better that instead of fighting with each other, we use our commonalities as a starting point and try to learn from the huge variety of experiences on what is currently the spectrum.

That goes for both parents and autistic individuals. Autistic adults who need only some minor accommodations to live independently, and who want to dispute that autism is a disability in any but a socially constructed sense, need to pay attention to those who are undeniably disabled by their autism. (None of that “It’s not the autism that’s disabling, it’s the comorbidities.” That’s a cop-out.) And parents of nonverbal autistics need to listen to those at various points on the scatter plot who are able to communicate verbally (not necessarily vocally!), and have their assumptions about their child’s inner life continually challenged. (No, I’m not saying that inside every autistic person is a hidden genius. But there are parts of every person that are unknown to their parents and caregivers. Profoundly disabled people are no exception to that.) Most of us, whether we’re autistic or parents of autistics, are hurting, which makes it hard to be open to others. Even so, let’s try to listen to one another’s experience without discounting it.

It’s OK to make distinctions between severity of symptoms and levels of support needed, as long as we don’t use those distinctions to set up opposing camps. Lines can divide, but they can also connect and become beautifully complex shapes.

The opioid crisis scares me – but not for the reasons you think.

I’m very concerned about the rhetoric I’ve been hearing around the opioid crisis.

People who use opioids for chronic pain have been talking, for a while already, about doctors suddenly cutting their dose, dropping them as patients, or subjecting them to questioning every time they need a prescription refilled, due to the new guidelines and restrictions. As the opioid crisis is proclaimed to be a national emergency, people who live with disabling pain are being stigmatized as addicts and drug-seekers, even by the medical establishment on which they depend.

While there are some valid questions about whether opioids are the best way to treat chronic pain, this is absolutely the worst way to address that issue. Better ways would include improving access to medical marijuana and to therapies like acupuncture and biofeedback that are proven to reduce some types of chronic pain. But even if we were to do those things, there would still be some people who need opioids, and they shouldn’t be shamed for that.

But it’s not just about chronic pain. It’s also about acute pain – particularly acute pain in people with mental disorders and/or histories of psychiatric care. Like me.

When I read or hear things about doctors prescribing “a week’s or month’s worth” of Percocet after a major operation when a few days’ worth “should” have been “enough” – I think of the aftermath of my c-section. I had a particularly nasty type of c-section after a prolonged and painful labor. I was prescribed two weeks’ worth of Percocet, and I took every precious pill. And I needed every one.

I was also on high-dose ibuprofen, but the Percocet was what made the difference between functioning and not functioning. The Percocet meant I could get in and out of bed, with help, without fainting from pain. The Percocet meant I could walk without feeling like my abdomen was starting to tear open. The Percocet meant I could take a shower without ending up in a sobbing huddle on the floor (although I was still close to that at times). And it meant that I could visit my newborn son in the NICU, hold him, and pump milk for him.

 

I did not become addicted to Percocet. But according to articles like this one, I was highly at risk of doing so, because I have a longstanding mood disorder and I had severe postpartum depression after my c-section.

Furthermore, I currently take a benzodiazepine (low dose, PRN) for acute anxiety, and combining opioids with benzodiazepines increases the likelihood of an overdose.

All of which makes me wonder. In the future – as reaction to the opioid crisis intensifies – if I were to have a serious accident, or another major surgery, would I be denied an opioid medication, because of my history of depression? Would I be under-medicated for pain, because of my responsible use of a prescribed anxiety medication?

I am NOT suggesting that it’s not a good idea to label things or to warn patients about the danger of using both drugs at the same time. Awareness is good. Increased availability and quality of mental health treatment would also be good, not just for people who are already addicted, but for those who are at risk of self-medicating with pain medications because their insurance won’t cover a decent psychiatrist.

You know what else would be good? An economy that doesn’t constantly punish people by making them work longer hours for less pay and less benefits while their living expenses steadily increase, only to see their jobs one day disappear.

A caller brought up the economic aspect of the problem on an NPR program I heard last week. Bertha Madras, one of the five members of Trump’s commission on the opioid crisis, responded that the solution to difficult conditions is to work harder (because that worked for her), and that we have to change “a culture that normalizes chemical coping”.

Which, to me, sounds like a call for more stigma. Let’s stigmatize the poor so that they work harder. Let’s stigmatize addiction more. And how do you deliberately stigmatize “chemical coping” without worsening stigma for people who take psychiatric medicines, especially ones with addictive potential?

What I fear is a world in which a postpartum woman can’t hold her newborn because of poorly controlled pain, and is stigmatized as a drug-seeker when she asks for something more effective, because she has a psychiatric history. And I wish someone would talk about that.

‘Atypical’ looks pretty typical

Netflix Instant is basically my cable TV, and they emailed me a trailer for their show that’s being added next week, “Atypical.” It has an autistic main character, which immediately gets my interest because I have an autistic child and I’m working on accepting that I’m autistic (which I’ve sort of known since college but then I was in denial but then my therapist told me for the second time that she thinks I am and then my son got diagnosed, it’s a long story) as well as crazy (which I’ve accepted for years).

So anyway, I watched the trailer. I’m not excited.

Is it just me, or is every single autism story-line on TV exactly the same? Let’s see …

White male? Check.

Needs minimal supports? Check.

Played by non-autistic actor? Check.

Parents having trouble coping? Check.

Show has compulsive need to educate audience about stereotypical traits of autism? Check.

Seriously, folks. IT’S BORING.

Show me a female character who’s autistic. Show me an autistic character from a racial or ethnic minority. Show me an autistic character being raised by a single mom working low wage jobs, or a mom with a history of mental illness (which is statistically common since there’s a genetic link), or for that matter, a mom who’s single and working low wage jobs because she has a history of mental illness. Show me an autistic character who has comorbid conditions – epilepsy, OCD, intellectual disability, Tourette Syndrome, a vision impairment, a hearing impairment, impaired mobility, selective mutism, anything. Show me an autistic character who’s gay or bisexual or asexual or transgender or gender nonconforming. Show me an autistic character who challenges functioning labels. Show me a plot that isn’t all about the character’s social awkwardness.

Somebody needs to do for autism what Margarita with a Straw and Speechless have begun to do, in different ways, for cerebral palsy. It’s not about political correctness; it’s about reflecting reality.

 

Why poor people have iPhones

This post is dedicated to the asshole doctor who said on the radio this morning that Medicaid patients can afford copays because he sees them using iPhones in the waiting room.

Full disclosure: I don’t have an iPhone. I have a cell phone from the Paleolithic era which has never heard of the internet, takes smeary pictures that may or may not be images of human beings, and has absolutely no clue what to do with an emoticon. This is because I love-hate technology. I do have an iPad, sort of. The iPad, which was given to me by a relative, who bought it used, appears to be one of the first iPads ever made. Half the apps don’t work on it. I use it to entertain my autistic son during doctor’s appointments (it has some of his favorite videos downloaded) and to access the internet during his surgeries/hospital stays. It also serves as our family’s camera. My laptop is only a little bit broken; as long as the screen is at a certain angle, it works just fine.

I have, however, worked alongside other poor people who do have iPhones and I think I may be able to offer some explanation to those who are confused by this phenomenon. (Not that I’m the first person to explain it, but whatever. Obviously it needs to be said over and over.)

First of all, some people buy themselves an iPhone while employed and then lose their job and have to apply for Medicaid. The organization that instantly confiscates iPhones from people who’ve just lost their jobs or otherwise encountered hardship has not yet been invented, although I’m sure someone somewhere is working on it.

Other people, like my former coworkers, still have their jobs; their jobs just don’t pay them much of anything. Often, they are single moms (for a variety of extremely legitimate reasons). Sometimes they’re also supporting grandchildren or extended family. They are putting food on the table (possibly with help from SNAP or WIC), they are paying rent (possibly with help from Section 8), they are (mostly) paying the utilities, but paying for medical care is just beyond them. They are stretched to the financial breaking point. At any given time they are likely to have all of $3 in their checking account – if they have a checking account.

So what are these people doing with iPhones?

For many people, an iPhone serves as a cell phone AND a land line AND a computer AND a camera. Phone and internet are basically essential to maintaining a job in our society, and it’s actually cheaper to have an iPhone than to buy all of those things separately. The iPhone might be a gift or a hand-me-down from a relative, they may have bought it used from a friend, or it might be something that they thought about and decided was a good investment for their family. The iPhone might be the thing that helps them stay awake during 12 hour night shifts, or allows them to communicate via FaceTime with their teenage kids when they have 36 hours of back-to-back shifts at different jobs. (Yes, people do that. It’s insane, it’s probably dangerous, but they do, because they’re trying to survive and take care of their families.) And finally, handing that iPhone to their child might be the thing that saves their sanity on days when they feel utterly, utterly exhausted, and yet they still have to drag their children to an appointment with a shit doctor who is judging them from the moment they step into the waiting room.