President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to bring five of those who plotted the 9/11 hijackings to Manhattan to stand trial in federal court.  

One of those who will be tried is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and someone believed to have been involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, the 2000 aborted plan to attack Los Angeles International Airport and other atrocities. This decision carries the clear message that the War on Terror should never have been considered a real military action against a foreign entity, but a police action not unlike the War on Drugs or against organized crime.  

It’s a critical difference, and the reframing brings with it potential psychological whiplash in the American people, many of whom will now be left trying to sort out whether they were misled in a dramatic, wholesale fashion by a former President, or by this one.  Either conclusion is anxiety-provoking. The decision to try these men in civilian court also, however, has other, very serious psychological implications for many millions of Americans.  

First, the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks will see those who orchestrated the murders of their loved ones lawyered-up, dressed up, with their own supporters potentially in attendance or demonstrating in the streets.   Their futures will be determined not by the military form of justice that takes into account the way facts are gathered on a battlefield in times of war, but by whether they were read their Miranda rights prior to being arrested and whether they were treated by the standards extended to American citizens who are arrested for armed robbery or rape.  

They will contemplate for months or years the very real possibility that those who destroyed their families will go free on technicalities. Beyond the families of victims, the entire population of Manhattan and the cities immediately surrounding it can be expected to experience symptoms consistent with the reawakening of the terror of September 11.  They will see legions of security forces deployed in their streets.  They may have a vague or more acute sense that the city is again being attacked—or that it will be attacked during the trials.  They may avoid certain areas of the city, or avoid the city entirely—for prolonged periods of time.  They may experience low mood, insomnia, flashbacks or nightmares.  

 Hopefully, the Obama Administration will team up with New York state officials to offer specialized psychological services through schools and churches and synagogues and police departments, in order to stave off some of the inevitable psychological fallout.  These services should be deployed soon and should be available for a significant period of time after the trials have concluded. Beyond Manhattan and its neighboring cities, beyond New York State, the nation as a whole will, of course, be in a prolonged state of hypervigilance (another hallmark of posttraumatic stress), wondering whether terrorists will see Manhattan during the 9/11 trials as the target to end all targets, the ultimate canvas for a bloody monument to Jihad.

Forget anything like normal consumer patterns or tourism during the trials.  People don’t tend to flock to prime targets for dirty bombs. It’s going to be ugly psychologically for Americans, even if the 9/11 defendants are ultimately convicted.  

If they’re found innocent due to violations of their civil rights, something vital in the fabric of the American psyche—the sense that we can protect one another and rely on our government to help us do it—could begin to fray.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement including www.livingthetruth.com. Dr. Ablow can be emailed at info@keithablow.com.

With hip New Yorkers focused on Fashion Week, including the designers setting trends and the models bringing them to life, many experts are warning that the skinny women walking runways are not only at risk for eating disorders themselves, but could cause eating disorders in the young women who admire them in magazines and on television.
 
I disagree—at least with the latter concern.  Certainly, women (and men) who make their livings by marketing their physical presence—and being acutely aware of how others are reacting to them—may be more prone than others to psychological disorders connected with self-esteem and unresolved emotional turmoil deep beneath the surface. This not only includes anorexia and bulimia, but conditions like depression, panic disorder and substance abuse. The same could be said, however, of those who gravitate toward the acting profession or any other career in which success is partly determined by the way the person looks in front of a camera.
 
I do not believe, however, that young women who see thin models in magazines or on television become eating disordered based on those images.  In order for anorexia or bulimia to take root, a woman has to have a pre-existing vulnerability of brain chemistry or a life history of emotional turmoil or both.  Seeing thin models in Vera Wang or Calvin Klein won’t distort the body image of those whose self-perception has not been made fragile, whether by complex psychological dynamics or complexities of neurochemistry.
 
For me, part of the evidence that thin models don’t spread eating disorders is that fashion designers use these women to market to all consumers, not just the ones who are razor thin.  The marketplace is still a pretty smart barometer of the American psyche and that means that, like it or not, women who are size 12 are just as likely as size 2 women to be motivated to buy clothes worn by today’s “Twiggy.”  And America is getting fatter despite our collective ideals of beauty, not slimmer. 
 
If size zero fashion models cause anorexia, why have decades of exposure to them resulted in an epidemic of obesity among young people.
 
I maintain the same position about violence in movies.  No amount of watching violent films can make otherwise healthy people turn into thugs or killers—any more than watching films about heists turns moviegoers into thieves.
 
I believe the same can even be said for advertising of alcohol and cigarettes.  The advertising itself doesn’t create addicts.  The desire to be repeatedly intoxicated by alcohol or nicotine resides in the brain chemistry or life circumstances of the users, not within the text or photographs of what is used to promote their drugs of choice. 
 
There are many powerful and toxic influences that fuel the millions and millions of cases of eating disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders and substance abuse disorders in the United States.  The most significant of those influences, however, are to be found not in the magazines we read or the television programs we watch, but in the disintegrating and traumatic relationships that unfold right in our homes.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement including www.livingthetruth.com. Dr. Ablow can be emailed at info@keithablow.com.

About a month ago, during a routine obstetrical visit with one of my patients, she surprised me by telling me she found out she was having a baby boy. At first, I thought she meant that during an ultrasound, the technician had told her the sex of the child. But she said “No,” that a girlfriend of hers had recommended a new kit she could buy on the Internet — which allegedly is 99.9 percent accurate in determining the sex of the baby, and that for $275, she could test herself at home, and send it off to the company for the results.

At first, I was taken aback because I hadn’t heard of any such kit. But more importantly, I was upset that she did not share this information with me prior to doing the test so that I could advise her on whether or not taking this test was a good idea.

I always have a problem with people worrying too much about the sex of their unborn child. I guess I can understand it to some extent for families who want to plan ahead, who want to know whether or not to paint the room pink or blue, or to think about things like circumcision. But with all the potential problems and challenges women face in creating and carrying a child to term, it’s unfortunate that sometimes people get side-tracked with insignificant details — and it strikes a nerve with me, because it brings up the topic of sex selection.

Today I read a story about six mothers in New York City who are suing Acu-Gen Biolab Inc., makers of the Baby Gender Mentor test, because their test results proved wrong at the birth of their children! I guess they felt the company had committed fraud. I tried to reach the company today to ask them some questions, but no one wanted to speak with me.

Looking at their Web site, I couldn’t gather a lot of information, but I began to understand what the “science” is behind their test kit.

For years, in the medical community, we have known that fetal cells circulate freely in the maternal bloodstream. Many geneticists have looked at the possibility of studying these fetal cells in the maternal circulation for the purpose of testing for genetic disorders like Down syndrome. But none of the data has proven it to be a good alternative for genetic testing. Yet this company has been promoting this technology to patients directly as a “safe, quick and easy way to determine the sex of your baby.”

I don’t know what federal regulation this business has been operating under. It would be nice to see what kind of guidelines they’re using, because the last time I checked, medical laboratories need to be licensed and laboratory tests must be ordered by physicians.

Finally, what are the ethics behind such a business? Are women going to use this alleged test to decide that they might want to terminate a pregnancy because now they know the baby is not the sex they wanted? It sounds like a stretch — but you’d be surprised…

Are mothers who get faulty test results going to think that their babies were switched at birth in the hospital? And what about these women that are suing?

This case is a perfect example of wasted dollars, a perfect example of unsubstantiated medical testing, and a perfect example of the types of businesses that need to be scrutinized in this country if we’re going to see any effective health care reform.

What can we learn from actress Natasha Richardson’s awful skiing accident this week?  Dr. Steven Flanagan, director of Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU Langone Medical Center where I work, rightly characterized Richardson’s sudden loss of consciousness after seeming fine at first as possibly “talk and die syndrome.” He was quoted right here on FoxNews.com as describing the likely buildup of blood in the head that may have overwhelmed her consciousness and caused her to blackout after first seeming to be okay.

What else can we learn? That a person can be alive and thriving one minute and have her life snuffed out the next? Who among us doesn’t know that skiing is a dangerous sport? It has been several years since a blow to my knee convinced me not to take any more chances with my livelihood and health.  Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.

Not knowing the details, I can’t say whether she was taking chances, whether this terrible accident could have been avoided. I can’t say whether she had a hidden aneurysm in her brain that predisposed her to a bleed, or even whether prompt medical intervention, drainage and anti-inflammatory medications and life support can still bring her back. We are all hoping to find out that she is back awake and speaking with visitors tomorrow.

As is usual with celebrities, the media reports so far have been shrouded in mystery and contradiction, ranging from minor injury to looming death. As these are sorted out over the next few days, it is worth reminding readers just how often we learn incorrect facts about medicine from the sudden illnesses of those we admire.

Whatever actually happened to Natasha Richardson, and whatever happens from here, there are a few important conclusions we can already draw. 1. Skiing is a dangerous sport which can injure more than your legs. 2. The brain is a closed compartment with no outlet for blood or swelling until the swelling subsides and the blood is reabsorbed. 3. If the brain itself is not damaged, but only swollen or compressed by blood, then there is still hope for her survival.

The latest reports say that she has been flown from Quebec to New York City, and I can attest to the fact that there are medical centers here with the ability to bring people back from a deep coma.

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and associate professor of medicine at the NYU School of Medicine. He is a FOX News medical contributor and writes a health column for LA Times, where he examines TV and movies for medical accuracy. Dr. Siegel is the author of “False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear“ and “Bird Flu: Everything You Need to Know About the Next Pandemic.”  Read more at www.doctorsiegel.com