DSM 5 Reform Movement

[Fan of Reason]

Here is a website detailing the opposition and controversy. I will be the first to say the new DSM is not all bad and has some really good revisions. That said, it has extremely severe problems that must be fixed. It will take an overwhelming opposition to fix it.

http://dsm5-reform.com/

[Leo Alessi]

Nice. You need to come to Midtown book club!!

Sapere aude!

On Sep 14, 2013, at 7:48 AM, Fan of Reason <fanofr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a website detailing the opposition and controversy. I will be the first to say the new DSM is not all bad and has some really good revisions. That said, it has extremely severe problems that must be fixed. It will take an overwhelming opposition to fix it.
>
> http://dsm5-reform.com/
>

> --
> --
> Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
>
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Orson Zedd]

But  but but, I like having autism now!

[Martin F. Atkins]

That is the point. Make more things adnormal so you treat, medicate, and bill for it. Psychology, big pharma and psychiatry just added a few extra billions of to their coffers treating normal people. Does it benefit society, though?

[Martin F. Atkins]

Medicine is asking the same questions: do all these assessments and treatments for sicknesses benefit American society? Or should people with some illnesses just be told to rest, drink more liquids, lose weight, and exercise? That is, is treating the health problem by medical methods discouraging people from living healthier lifestyles that will be better for long term health and are batteries of medical tests identifying illnesses that are treat but should NOT be treated?

[Fan of Reason]

Most in the field of psychology, especially practicing clinicians, overwhelmingly object to DSM 5 and thousands of petitions were ignored. The public should be aware that NO ONE is allowed to APPLY to be a member of the task force. Resumes are discarded. The task force is 100% APPOINTED by a very few people with very special interests. Over 70% of this appointed task force have financial ties to Big Pharma. Big Pharma was only directly involved (the CEO of Glaxo/Smith/Klein) in getting Restless Leg to be named a mental disorder to help get their new drug Rx'd more frequently. However, Big Pharma was indirectly involved in many ways.

 

Practicing clinicians were NOT appointed to the task force. The psychology and counseling community objected to this problem (and to the DSM 5 problems in general) in the thousands and they were ignored. The task force has absolutely 0% interest in how the 5 impacts clinical practice, billing and insurance issues, etc. (this was actually quoted at a conference by a DSM historian). They seem to care a great deal about how it impacts medication prescriptions. With 80% of psychiatric medications being Rx'd by primary care physicians, this makes the loosening of the criteria in 5 even more unsettling. Only 20% of psychotropics are Rx'd by psychiatrists.  From what I have gathered so far, their only objective (i.e., the task force) was to explain behavior in a way that made the case to expand diagnostic criteria. There were several on the task force with the noble objective of capturing the underserved population, which is needed, but the politics and special interests have now led to what will result in at least 20% of the population being diagnosable as opposed to the 2-3% who were diagnosable in the DSM IV.

 

IMO, the DSM 5 problems can largely be attributed to group think, private industry and special interests allowed to run amok, and confirmation biases leading the task force to overwhelmingly ignore research that would have made the 5 a much better manual. 

 

Of course, like everyone else, there is much more to learn and see before drawing any final opinions, but these are my thoughts on the negatives thus far. My opinion is subject to evolve as we all learn more. And, like I said, there is some really good stuff in 5. It is a shame al the bad is so bad that the good is hard to see. 

[Martin F. Atkins]

Good summary, Fan of Reason.

[Fan of Reason]

Thanks, Martin. ;)

[Fan of Reason]

Thanks, la3111. Yes, I need to get around to reading Saving Normal. It is on my list.