Posts Tagged ‘psychiatric bible’

Psychiatry in Crisis! Mental Health Director Rejects Psychiatric “Bible” and Replaces With… Nothing

Saturday, May 4th, 2013

Scientific American
By John Horgan
May 4, 2013

What is mental illness? Schizophrenia? Autism? Bipolar disorder? Depression? Since the 1950s, the profession of psychiatry has attempted to provide definitive answers to these questions in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Often called The Bible of psychiatry, the DSM serves as the ultimate authority for diagnosis, treatment and insurance coverage of mental illness.

Now, in a move sure to rock psychiatry, psychology and other fields that address mental illness, the director of the National Institutes of Mental Health has announced that the federal agency–which provides grants for research on mental illness–will be “re-orienting its research away from DSM categories.” Thomas Insel’s statement comes just weeks before the scheduled publication of the DSM-V, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Insel writes:

“While DSM has been described as a ‘Bible’ for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been ‘reliability’–each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. Indeed, symptom-based diagnosis, once common in other areas of medicine, has been largely replaced in the past half century as we have understood that symptoms alone rarely indicate the best choice of treatment. Patients with mental disorders deserve better.”

Insel said that the NIMH will be replacing the DSM with the “Research Domain Criteria (RDoC),” which define mental disorders based not just on vague symptomology but on more specific genetic, neural and cognitive data. But then, immediately after making this dramatic announcement, Insel added that “we cannot design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive performance because we lack the data.”

Hunh? So the NIMH is replacing the DSM definitions of mental disorders, which virtually everyone agrees are profoundly flawed, with definitions that even he admits don’t exist yet! What more evidence do we need that modern psychiatry is in a profound state of crisis?

Insel’s statement is also an implicit admission that there is no real theoretical basis for drug treatments for mental illness. As I have pointed out previously, drug treatments have surged over the past few decades, while rates of mental illness, far from falling, have risen.

Ironically, some pharmaceutical companies that have enriched themselves by selling psychiatric drugs are now cutting back on further research on mental illness. The “withdrawal” of drug companies from psychiatry, Steven Hyman, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist at Harvard and former NIMH director, wrote last month, “reflects a widely shared view that the underlying science remains immature and that therapeutic development in psychiatry is simply too difficult and too risky.” Funny how this view isn’t incorporated into ads for antidepressants and antipsychotics.

NIMH director Insel doesn’t mention it, but I bet his DSM decision is related to the big new Brain Initiative, to which Obama has pledged $100 million next year. Insel, I suspect, is hoping to form an alliance with neuroscience, which now seems to have more political clout than psychiatry. But as I pointed out in posts here and here on the Brain Initiative, neuroscience still lacks an overarching paradigm; it resembles genetics before the discovery of the double helix.

Since I became a science writer 30 years ago, I have heard countless claims about breakthroughs in our understanding and treatment of mental illness. And yet as the NIMH decision on the DSM indicates, the science of mental illness is still appallingly primitive. Instead of forming fancy new programs and initiatives and alliances, leaders in mental health should perhaps do some humble, honest soul searching before they decide how to proceed. And they should think of what’s best not for their professions or the pharmaceutical industry but for those suffering from mental illness, who deserve better.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2013/05/04/psychiatry-in-crisis-mental-health-director-rejects-psychiatric-bible-and-replaces-with-nothing/

« Return to news items


Share

New Scientist: Psychiatry divided as mental health ‘bible’ denounced

Saturday, May 4th, 2013

Read: Mental Disorders: The Facts Behind the Marketing Campaign

New Scientist
By Andy Coghlan and Sara Reardon
May 3, 2013

The world’s biggest mental health research institute is abandoning the new version of psychiatry’s “bible” – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, questioning its validity and stating that “patients with mental disorders deserve better”. This bombshell comes just weeks before the publication of the fifth revision of the manual, called DSM-5.

On 29 April, Thomas Insel, director of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), advocated a major shift away from categorising diseases such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia according to a person’s symptoms. Instead, Insel wants mental disorders to be diagnosed more objectively using genetics, brain scans that show abnormal patterns of activity and cognitive testing.

This would mean abandoning the manual published by the American Psychiatric Association that has been the mainstay of psychiatric research for 60 years.

The DSM has been embroiled in controversy for a number of years. Critics have said that it has outlasted its usefulness, has turned complaints that are not truly illnesses into medical conditions, and has been unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies looking for new markets for their drugs.

There have also been complaints that widened definitions of several disorder have led to over-diagnosis of conditions such as bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Now, Insel has said in a blog post published by the NIMH that he wants a complete shift to diagnoses based on science not symptoms.

“Unlike our definitions of ischaemic heart disease, lymphoma or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure,” Insel says. “In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain, or the quality of fever.”

Insel says that elsewhere in medicine this type of symptom-based diagnosis been abandoned over the past half-century as scientists have learned that symptoms alone seldom indicate the best choice of treatment.

Read entire article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23487-psychiatry-divided-as-mental-health-bible-denounced.html

« Return to news items


Share

NaturalNews—Five lies psychiatry tells for power and profit

Monday, April 15th, 2013

Natural News -  April 15, 2013 by Mike Bundrant

The field of psychiatry has succeeded in branding some whoppers into the minds of millions, to the tune of billions, with no accountability.

You’d think the Federal Trade Commission would hold psychiatry accountable for blatantly misleading the public, but there is zero accountability.

You’d think people would take a second to think before putting their mental health into the hands of a psychiatrist – someone who has zero training in mental health.

You’d think people would ask for evidence that their poor moods are caused by these mysterious chemical imbalances, but there is zero logic.

Here are the five lies psychiatry tells for power and profit

1. Poor moods are caused by chemical imbalances

These chemical imbalances are profitable for doctors who tell you they have the antidote, the pill that will put your brain back in balance. The problem is, there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance that creates a poor mood. At least there is not one shred of evidence to back this idea.

Put it this way: You lose your job. You feel discouraged. Is the discouragement caused by a chemical imbalance or by your response to this unfortunate event and the perception of an uncertain future? Is the remedy a pill or a new job?

You get into a car wreck. You feel anxious while driving after that. Is the anxiety caused by a chemical imbalance? Is the remedy a pill, or to learn to reconcile the trauma that rests in your mind?

Where is the evidence that chemical imbalances cause poor moods?

2. Psychiatrists are trained in mental health

Mental health is a vast field, filled with models of human relations and subjective experience. In mental health, we create models of thinking and relating in order to improve the prospect of happiness.

Psychiatry is based on the medical model. The assumption is NOT that people need to learn skills, but take pills. There is no mental health in this. Psychiatrists have ZERO training in mental health.

3. Normal feelings are disorders

Psychiatry is succeeding on a large scale in convincing people that there normal human feelings are wrong – disorders. When you feel down, especially for more than two weeks, you must have major depressive disorder. If you child is super active and creative, he must be ADHD.

In fact, I challenge you to find any normal human emotional challenge that is not labeled as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the psychiatric bible.

4. Pills are the solution

If you listen to average people talk these days, you’ll hear it. When poor moods or misbehaved children are discussed, doctors and pills are discussed.

“I’ve been feeling down lately. I wonder if I have some sort of chemical imbalance. I should see if my doctor can give me something for it.”

5. Doctors are the ‘go to’ people for emotional angst

Family doctors and psychiatrists are branding themselves as the “go to” people for mental health concerns. A shocking number of non-psychiatric family doctors prescribe for mental health concerns – 59% of anti-depressants prescribed in the US are prescribed by family doctors, 75% with no formal diagnosis.

Want a pill? Here’s a pill. Make your co-pay on the way out. This is how we treat mental illness today.

Where psychiatry lacks in honesty, it makes up for in marketing. You’ve got to give that to them. They are succeeding in convincing the world that psychiatry is the solution to mental anguish.

I wonder what a psychiatric society would look like? If psychiatry ultimately gets what it wants – total domination over emotional life – what would that look like?

« Return to news items


Share

Disordering Normal—Here comes the new DSM

Friday, March 1st, 2013

Common Ground
By Alan Cassels
March 1, 2013

Towards the end of May, the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), the iconic bible of psychiatry, is coming off the presses after much revision and delay. It’s bound to keep people asking, “Am I normal or do I have a mental illness?”

If you think most diseases are established with objective criteria and rigorous debate, you’d be somewhat wrong. The DSM has a strong track record of taking clusters of symptoms and wrapping labels around them, which lead to the accelerated use of some of the most toxic medications on the planet. How does this happen?

The DSM is owned and operated by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), an organization that many feel is itself owned and operated by the pharmaceutical industry. Seventy percent of the authors of the DSM-V have declared ties to pharmaceutical manufacturers and in some disease categories it’s 100%. This is the bizarre situation we’ve shamelessly come to accept: Big Pharma is allowed to put their own people on the committees to define what is and isn’t illness.

Many people agree that the old DSM-IV has been responsible for widening disease definitions and accelerating the medicalization of many diseases such as autism, ADHD and bipolar disorder. The principle here is that the broader you define a disease, the more people can be defined as having it and the bigger the market for drugs for the condition. The new bible will have more disease labels constructed from personality quirks, mood upheavals, normal bouts with sadness or common signs of aging, inevitably leading to even more prescribing.

A new category of mental illness known as “mild cognitive impairment” is the first time the label of ‘pre-dementia’ will apply to whole populations. Let me ask (most gently) who among us is not ‘pre-demented? In addition to the worries around our aging tendency to forget names, words and where we put the keys, we now have a name for it. As one ad for Alzheimer’s medications asks, “Is it just forgetfulness? Or maybe it’s “Pre-Alzheimer’s?” What better way to get perfectly healthy people to start shuffling down the cattle ramp towards a good jolt of the yet-to-be-launched pre-dementia medicines that the drug industry will soon be zapping us with? There are none yet, but trust me; those drugs are in the pipeline.

Right now, there is no cure or treatment for Alzheimer’s disease and unfortunately the drugs that do exist are next to useless. They are promoted as “slowing the rate of decline,” but there is little evidence to support that claim and they make many patients miserable with vomiting and severe nausea. Alzheimer’s is devastating for families but no one can explain how much anyone would benefit from adding “pre-dementia” to the burgeoning list of categories of mental illness.

How about grieving? According to a recent medical journal article, about 280,000 Canadians die every year and many of us are deeply affected by the death of loved ones. We experience profound grief and, for some, dealing with loss is very difficult. But here’s the hitch: What used to be considered a normal response to loss is now in the gambit of being considered a mental disorder.

Psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances, who led the creation of the DSM-IV and lists its many sins, says the new DSM-V is going to be a disaster on the bereavement issue, adding that changing the definition of what is considered depressed (by including bereavement) “inflates estimates of the current incidence of depression in epidemiological studies” and will automatically ramp up even more demands for medical services and antidepressant medication. Should people who experience severe grief be tossed a pill that will, in effect, eclipse the many social and familial ways we have of dealing with loss? The makers of the new DSM-V think so.

Another new definition in the DSM-V suggests that being worried about disease and searching for information about it on the Internet is now worthy of a mental diagnosis. Last December, Dr. Frances blogged on the Psychology Today website about the DSM-V, stating, “One in six people suffering from cancer, heart and other serious diseases risks being saddled with a psychiatric diagnosis just because they are worried about their illness or spending more time on the internet researching their symptoms than the American Psychiatric Association (APA) thinks good for them.”

Add the word ‘Cyberchondria’ to the list of new mental health diagnoses.

Read full article here:  http://commonground.ca/2013/03/disordering-normal-5-0/

« Return to news items


Share

ABC News: DSM-5 Criticized for Financial Conflicts of Interest—70% of task force members have ties to Pharma

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

ABC News – March 13, 2012
By Katie Moisse

70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies— up from 57 percent for DSM-4

Controversy continues to swell around the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as DSM-5. A new study suggests the 900-page bible of mental health, scheduled for publication in May 2013, is ripe with financial conflicts of interest.

The manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association, details the diagnostic criteria and recommended treatments — many of which are pharmacological — for each and every psychiatric disorder. After the 1994 release of DSM-4, the APA instituted a policy requiring expert advisors to disclose drug industry ties. But the move toward transparency did little to cut down on conflicts, with nearly 70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies — .

“Organizations like the APA have embraced transparency too quickly as the solution,” said Lisa Cosgrove, associate professor of clinical psychology at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and lead author of the study published today in the journal PLoS Medicine. “Our data show that transparency has not changed the dynamic.”

The DSM is developed by an APA-appointed task force and panels consisting of experts in various fields of psychiatry. But many of these experts serve as paid spokespeople or scientific advisors for drug companies, or conduct industry-funded research. Some of most conflicted panels are those for which drugs represent the first line of treatment, with two-thirds of the mood disorders panel, 83 percent of the psychotic disorders panel and 100 percent of the sleep disorders panel disclosing “ties to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the medications used to treat these disorders or to companies that service the pharmaceutical industry,” according to the study.

“We’re not trying to say there’s some Machiavellian plot to bias the psychiatric taxonomy,” said Cosgrove, who is also a research fellow at Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. “But transparency alone cannot mitigate unintentional bias and the appearance of bias, which impact scientific integrity and public trust.”

The DSM-5 has also drawn criticism for introducing new diagnoses that some experts argue lack scientific evidence. Dr. Allen Frances, who chaired the revisions committee for DSM-4, said the new additions would “radically and recklessly” expand the boundaries of psychiatry.

“They’re at the boundary of normality,” said Frances, who is professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University. “And these days, most diagnostic decisions are not made by psychiatrists trained to distinguish between the two. Most are made by primary care doctors who see a patient for about seven minutes and write a prescription.”

Under the new criteria, grief after the loss of a loved one, mild memory loss in the elderly and frequent temper tantrums in kids would constitute psychiatric disorders. An online petition challenging the proposed changes, which would label millions more Americans as mentally ill, has accrued more than 12,000 signatures.

Read the rest of the article here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/dsm-fire-financial-conflicts/story?id=15909673#.T1–WXnBj4s

« Return to news items


Share

Depression? Don’t believe it —Big Pharma has gained an ever greater hold over our mental & emotional lives

Friday, September 9th, 2011

The Brisbane Times, Australia – Spetember 9, 2011
by Lisa Appignanesi

"Over the last 40 years the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - the bible of the psychiatric professions - has spawned more and more diagnostic categories, "inventing" disorders along the way and radically reducing the range of what can be construed as normal or sane. Meanwhile Big Pharma, feeding its appetite for profits and ours for drugs, has gained an ever greater hold over our mental and emotional lives, medicalising normality."

In 2000 the World Health Organisation named depression as the fourth leading contributor to the global burden of disease and predicted that by 2020 it would rise to second place. I suppose WHO didn’t mean it to sound like a target to be aimed for, but we seem to be rising to the challenge in any case.

A new survey from the European College of Psychopharmacology, a meta-analysis of a mass of research, reports that a staggering 164.8 million Europeans – 38.2 per cent of the population – suffer from a mental disorder in any year.

As well as depression, this includes neural disorders such as dementia and Parkinson’s; childhood problems from ADHD to “conduct disorder”; and the leading anxiety disorders – everything from panic attacks to obsessive-compulsive disorder to shyness. The latest figures for Australia, from 2007, indicate that more than one in five people – 3.2 million – had suffered from anxiety, a mood disorder or substance abuse in the preceding 12 months; 2-3 per cent more were estimated to have been affected by other mental illnesses.

Depression and anxiety, they tell us, are disproportionately women’s ailments. Men, it seems, become alcoholics (another illness category) rather than depressives, particularly in eastern Europe.

Such reports are worrying. They may draw attention to a rising toll of human suffering, but they pinpoint the imperialising tendency of the mental health sector. Our ills and unhappiness are squeezed into a package labelled “disorder” and an ever-proliferating assortment of supposedly objective diagnostic categories. A cure is somehow promised, though it rarely seems to come, certainly not for everyone or for ever. In talking to the press or drafting press releases, researchers often extrapolate from their material in order to create good copy.

The notion that women are somehow more prone to mental illness often emerges. According to Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, one of the report’s authors, the reason women suffer nearly twice as much depression and anxiety disorders as men lies in the changing social pattern in which women take on work on top of marriage and children.

So stay home, ladies, and you’ll be as happy as apple pie; though in the 50s when we stayed home to bake it, the doctors gave us Miltown and Valium to help us take pain-free care of hubby and the young ones.

On the subject of women’s greater susceptibility, it’s just as well to remember that women go to doctors far more than men, for all kinds of ills: indeed, women’s greater incidence of mental ills just about equals their greater number of visits to the doctors. If men went to doctors as often as they go to the pub, it’s a fair guess that their unhappiness would be represented as depression or anxiety as well.

One of the many things that became clear to me as I was working on my book on the rise and rise of the mind-doctoring professions over the last 200 years, is that classifications of mental disorder are hardly absolutes. They are far more often constructs that mirror their time’s aspirations and ways of understanding. They may reflect subjective experience, but only insofar as we can prod and organise our inchoate inner lives to fit pre-existing psychiatric tick lists.

Useful tools for statisticians, the classifications are also useful to public health administrators, insurance companies, lobbying bodies, or pharmaceutical companies who need “homogeneous populations” on whom to carry out drug trials. But I remain to be convinced that these proliferating classifications help individuals find relief – except, of course, that momentary relief from giving an expert name to what may feel like an intractable set of problems.

Over the last 40 years the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – the bible of the psychiatric professions – has spawned more and more diagnostic categories, “inventing” disorders along the way and radically reducing the range of what can be construed as normal or sane. Meanwhile Big Pharma, feeding its appetite for profits and ours for drugs, has gained an ever greater hold over our mental and emotional lives, medicalising normality.

The more studies that come along to tell us about the rise in mental illness, the more we fit our problems and unhappiness into a category of mental disorder, developing symptoms to take to the doctor in search of a cure. Humans are suggestible creatures. And doctors like to help: they provide the pills Big Pharma recommends, though many must now know that research has shown placebos can work just as well and with fewer side effects.

If doctors – rather than politicians or teachers or priests or friends and family – are to be the guardians of our wellbeing, then doctors really should be provided with new kinds of “treatments”. Psycho- and group therapy could, of course, be rolled out, and not just of the 10-week variety: anything that builds up the individual’s inner resources and allows emotions to be reflected on can’t be bad.

But doctors could recommend group running for depression, proved to have far better effects than SSRIs. Reading groups, too, offer a definite lift. As for women, more free childcare, after-school clubs and husbands who take days off to go to the doctor with the kids (or sort out that drinking problem) would lift a depressed mood wonderfully. Then there’s poverty, terrible schools … could health systems take those on as well?

« Return to news items


Share

Psychopharmaceutical industry seeks world of dispassionate sheeple

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

Natural News, May 10,2011
by Monica G. Young

People who obediently follow the herd, never markedly sad, angry or excited; children who play quietly and never annoy or talk out of turn – this is the object of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industries. And when anyone steps out of line, the answer is simple: stamp them “abnormal” and give them a pill.

Human sorrow could soon be more easily diagnosed and medicated as a mental disorder. Psychiatrists creating the next edition of the psychiatric bible – the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5, due out in 2013) – are recommending to eliminate the time clause for major depressive disorder. So instead of grieving for two months to qualify, if you mourn the loss of a loved one for only two weeks doctors could label you mentally ill and prescribe a drug.

The first DSM published in 1952 was a 132-page volume listing 128 mental disorders. With nearly 900 pages, the current edition (DSM-IV, published in 1994) lists 357 disorders – an over 300% increase. Since its release, DSM-IV has generated a 256% increase in psychiatric drug sales and billions of dollars in government funding.

Drug companies are notorious for downplaying disabling effects of psychotropic drugs. Additionally, medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker reports that many psychiatric drug users acquire a more severe form of mental illness than they started with. For instance, antidepressant users tend to spiral down into long-term depression – yielding even greater profit for psychiatrists and drugmakers.

Creating drugged and docile youth

Psychiatry’s worst social meltdown concerns our youngest. The threat of ADHD, bipolar, autism and other alleged childhood diseases – which duped teachers, counselors and parents are on constant lookout for – presses children into a “socially acceptable” mold.

Several ADHD websites even boast that medication benefits include: “the child is no longer distinguishable from classmates” – their words!

A Medco Health Solutions Report in 2009 revealed children to be the pharmaceutical industry’s most expanding market. Child prescriptions have increased at four times the rate of the general population.

Every new disorder equals more prescriptions and more profit. With changes planned for DSM-5, toddlers with recurring tantrums could be drugged for “temper dysregulation disorder”, upset six-year-olds could be drugged for “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” and kids with “overly familiar behavior (verbal or physical violation of culturally sanctioned social boundaries)” could be drugged for “Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder.”

Social totalitarians

DSM officials admit that everyone has instances of sadness and anger, and assert that diagnoses depend on the severity and frequency of symptoms.

And who decides when a child or adult has crossed from normality into abnormality? Psychiatrists – a field financially joined at the hip with Big Pharma.

Per the current DSM, social no-nos deserving an abnormal imprint (and likely to lead to a prescription drug) include:

* Heightened self-esteem (“manic episode”)
* Very sensitive to criticism (“avoidant personality disorder”)
* Defying and disobeying authority figures (“oppositional defiant disorder”)
* Behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture (“personality disorder”)

The Soviet Union also used psychiatric labels for social control. People who defied communism were diagnosed as mentally ill, isolated and forcefully medicated.

Ahead of his time, Aldous Huxley anticipated psychiatric totalitarianism in his classic novel, Brave New World: “And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma* to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are.” [*In this fictional novel, soma is a hallucinogenic drug used by those in power to subdue the citizens.]

Sources include:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/heal…

http://communities.washingtontimes….

http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOcJ…

About the author:
Monica G. Young is a human rights investigator and educational writer with a purpose to expose the truth about the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and safeguard human liberty. She encourages non-drug alternative approaches based on healthy lifestyles and human decency. She supports the Citizens Commission on Human Rights and like-minded groups.

« Return to news items


Share

The Guardian: Mental Health Diagnoses Mask the Real Problems—Range of new diagnoses is mythology, not scientific text

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

The Guardian
By Dorothy Rowe
July 29, 2010

A textbook of mental health disorders makes it far too easy for doctors to label patients – and disregard the roots of suffering

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, whose updated fifth edition will include a range of new diagnoses, is a mythology, not a scientific text. It is created by American psychiatrists who meet in groups to consider whether or not a certain diagnosis should be included in the DSM. These groups meet a number of times so that they can say that their agreement about a certain diagnosis is reliable. Thus they could reliably agree that there is a mental disorder called Guardian Readers’ Personality Disorder with the symptoms of a need to read this paper regularly, an overvaluation of the Guardian, and so on. Who knows, it might already be in the most recent version of the DSM.

In their book, Making Us Crazy: DSM – The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders – which won the Mind Book of the Year Award in 1999 – Herb Kutchins and Stuart A Kirk wrote: “DSM is a book of tentatively assembled agreements. Agreements don’t always make sense, nor do they always reflect reality. You can have agreements among experts without validity. Even if you could find four people who agreed that the earth is flat, that the moon is made of green cheese, that smoking cigarettes poses no health risks, or that politicians are never corrupt, such agreements do not establish truth.”

For any statement to be valid there has to be evidence for that statement outside of the statement itself. Thus any textbook of physical disorders will list not just the symptoms of each illness but evidence that exists separate from those symptoms and that is derived from a wide variety of tests. Apart from the disorders listed in the DSM as the result of brain trauma, there are no physical tests for any of the disorders listed in the DSM. No physical cause has been found for any of these mental disorders. The diagnosis you receive from a psychiatrist is no more than the psychiatrist’s opinion of what you have told him. Go to another psychiatrist and you’re likely to get a different diagnosis.

Why do psychiatrists accept such an unscientific document as the DSM? In her book, The Users and Abusers of Psychiatry, my colleague Lucy Johnstone wrote, “To admit the central role of value judgments and cultural norms [in the creation of the DSM] is to give the whole game away. The DSM has to be seen as reliable and valid, or the whole enterprise of medial psychiatry collapses.”

Legal cases and medical insurance require any doctor or psychologist filling in the necessary forms to state a diagnosis. In the UK many psychiatrists, GPs and psychologists now see applying a DSM diagnosis to a patient as a pointless exercise, but feel that it is not in their patient’s interest to refuse to fill in this part of the form. However, there are still far too many doctors and psychologists who are too intellectually lazy to think about patients as individuals, or too fond of the many freebies that the drug companies provide for them. These are the ones who spring to the defence of the DSM.

Read entire article here:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/29/mental-health-diagnostic-manual

« Return to news items


Share

The BBC—new report challenges psychiatry’s billing bible, the DSM—”Mental Health: Are we all sick now?”

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

BBC News
By Philippa Roxby
July 28, 2010

Diagnosing psychiatric illness has always been controversial, mental health experts say. Now some are worried that a new draft of the diagnostic ‘bible’ for mental health medicine could result in almost everyone being diagnosed with a mental condition.

The diagnostic ‘bible’ in question is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.

The US manual is used worldwide as a basis for diagnosis, research and medical education.

Its forthcoming fifth edition – known in the profession as as DSM-5 – is set to contain a range of new diagnoses, including conditions such as “mixed anxiety depression, psychosis risk syndrome and temper dysregulation disorder”, as well as the more mundane binge eating.

The danger, say experts writing in a special issue of the Journal of Mental Health, is that there has not been enough research to back up these changes.

Even the smallest shift in how to define something like depression could have huge implications.

Self-fulfilling

Dr Felicity Callard, senior research fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, says it is crucial to understand what happens when people are over-diagnosed.

“There are very big potential implications on how people, particularly adolescents, respond to being told they have a mental illness. It’s likely there will be harmful consequences,” she said.

She cites the “at risk psychosis syndrome” diagnosis as an example of a label which is given to young people who ‘might’ have psychosis – characterised by abrupt changes in personality. It is a diagnosis of something which could result in a disorder, but only potentially. That can have complicated effects, she says.

“Imagine a young person being told that they are “at risk” of developing a mental illness. How would that affect that individual’s behaviour? Could it lead to increased stigma or even discrimination? And how might it affect the parents and family of that person too?”

Jerome Wakefield of New York University’s Department of Psychiatry writes: “One of the most frightening scenarios is the potential for medicating people – particularly children – who haven’t yet shown any signs of illness in a bid to ‘treat’ them.”

These concerns are shared by a number of clinical experts in the Journal of Mental Health.

Read entire article here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10787342

« Return to news items


Share

The Huffington Post—Life is Not a Mental Disorder

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

The Huffington Post
By Ronald Ricker
July 13, 2010

The Bible (or really any religious text) can be made to say and mean anything the author wishes.

The “Bible” of psychiatry, that fabled and hoary text, the DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders written by the American Psychiatric Association), is no different. Conceived as an instrument to identify and help heal disorders of the mind, it has morphed as to both form and function. Too often, psychiatrists wield the DSM-IV-TR like a blunt instrument, desperate in their drive to assign names to supposed “mental conditions” and thus to be able to assign numbers to these “conditions.” Discover a new widely inclusive “condition,” give it a name and number and you have a winner: One more brick in the wall of sicknesses.

DSM-IV-TR is very large book. We have lots of diagnoses, the number rapidly growing. We need lots of page room. Aside from blank pages, Chapter Heading Pages, and long lists of Contributors, etc., DSM-IV-TR is chuck full of diagnoses, with detailed descriptions and code numbers for each diagnosis. This book is 952 pages long. It weighs 4.8 pounds.

There is an odd situation in DSM-IV-TR. Really odd. In its entirety, all 952 pages, there is no “No Disorder” option. Therefore, everyone is seen by DSM-IV-TR as sick, the only question being from which sickness(es) they suffer. The annual physical checkup many of us get, usually, unless there is something wrong, ends with “everything is fine.” This, apparently, doesn’t exist in mental health.

I have always felt that I was a crummy writer, starting from college and thereafter (including medical school, internship, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychiatric Residency). However, in writing this poorly written piece, while trudging through DSM-IV-TR, I found 315.2 – “Disorder of Written Expression.” It was an AH-HA moment. I may be a crummy writer, but it’s because I have a disease. Criteria, according to DSM-IV-TR, for this disease (315.2) are 3:

  • a) Writing skills below those expected given the person’s chronological age, measured intelligence and age appropriate education;
  • b) The disturbance in criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require the composition of written texts (e.g, writing grammatically correct sentences and organized paragraphs);
  • c) If a sensory deficit is present, the difficulties in writing skills are in excesses of those usually associated with it.

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-ricker/life-is-not-a-mental-diso_b_644606.html

« Return to news items


Share