Doug Bremner, who works at Emory University, but had to remove the name of his University from his blog "Before You Take That Pill" by order from them, which is bunk has a great post up in that link to his blog on Female Sexual Dysfunction and the new DSM-V, which is attempting to medicalize women's sexuality, the post is a great one.Scandalous sexual research by Master's and Johnson is discussed too. Great, humorous post.
A gem within a gem at that post of Doug's is this link to practicing psychiatrist, Daniel Carlat's blog, where he has the great title "bar room brawl" and the writing of the new DSM-V (diagnostic "tool").
From an editorial written by the chairman of the committee, Dr. Allen Frances:
"The simple truth is that descriptive psychiatric diagnosis does not need and cannot support a paradigm shift. There can be no dramatic improvements in psychiatric diagnosis until we make a fundamental leap in our understanding of what causes mental disorders. The incredible recent advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, and brain imaging that have taught us so much about normal brain functioning are still not relevant to the clinical practicalities of everyday psychiatric diagnosis. The clearest evidence supporting this disappointing fact is that not even one biological test is ready for inclusion in the criteria sets for DSM-5."
Bravo.
Mind Hacks also has a post up about the DSM-V brawl. Don't you just love psychiatry? all that love and trust and good feeling stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
The DSM-V sure appears to be some of the best stand up material to come along for sometime.
If they just weren't going to use this ridiculous crap to destroy peoples lives; I would say they must be laughing all the way to the bank at each potential patients expense.
The Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM), the Shrink's bible, has been around for over 50 years.
Within this manual, there are now possibly nearly 300 mental disorders.
The latest DSM, the DSM IV, was made available in 1994. The next DSM V expects to have its first draft finished by the end of 2010- and speculates the DSM V be published in 2012.
As a thorough dictionary of suspected mental illnesses, many redefined or recognized diagnoses are added to this manual with each edition often.
This is particularly the case if medicinal therapy exists as a treatment option for certain mental illnesses.
On occasion, a mental disorder is deleted from the DSM, such as homosexuality in the early 1970s.
I remain mystified how one or others can simply disregard one historically determined mental flaw, as well as creating a new one, as if one is baking a new kind of cupcake or something.
Its purpose, this manual, is to assist mental health professionals to diagnose and classify mental disorders.
Published and designed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), the DSM is also used, I understand, for seeking mental diagnostic criteria to assure reimbursement.
The DSM is organized partially by the following:
I- Mental disorders
II- mental conditions
III- Physical disorders/syndromes, medical conditions (co-morbidity)
IV- Mental disorder suspected etiology
V- Pediatric assessments
The APA has historically directed the creation of each edition of the DSM, and assigns selected task force members to create this manual. This situation has proven to be controversial.
The next DSM involves 27 people. About 80 percent of these individuals are male, and less than 5 members are not medical doctors.
Most have had relationships with the NIH, and about 25 percent of these task force members have had relationships with the WHO.
Historically, at least a third of task force members have had, or do, have often monetary pharmaceutical industry ties in some way.
Presently, greater than fifty percent of the task members have pharmaceutical industry ties.
This makes sense, as one considers that about one third of the APAs total financing is from the pharmaceutical industry.
The APA required this task force for the next DSM edition to sign non-disclosure agreements- which is rather absurd and pointless.
Lack of transparency equals lack of credibility because of these agreements of the content of the next DSM. It opposes any recovery model necessary regarding such disorders, I believe.
The DSM should be evaluated by another unrelated task force or a peer review of sorts to assure objectivity.
This is particularly of concern presently, as many more are diagnosed with mental dysfunctions presently at a concerning rate- with very young children in particular.
www.dsm5.org
Dan Abshear
"not even one biological test is ready for inclusion"
If there is a test for mental illness it becomes Neurological disease.
"Behavior is not -- and cannot be -- a disease, except in psychiatry. Controlling behavior, with or without a person's consent is not -- and cannot be -- a treatment, except in psychiatry" T.Szasz.
Post a Comment