Brady under pressure as sex abuse victims talk of cover-up, The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the Courtroom, Not in DSM-5

[childadvocate]

articles
- Brady under pressure as sex abuse victims talk of cover-up
- Fresh claims put pressure on Cardinal Brady
- The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the Courtroom, Not in
DSM-5

Brady under pressure as sex abuse victims talk of cover-
up
By Greg Harkin
Tuesday May 01 2012

CHURCH leaders will come under renewed pressure when a BBC documentary
is screened tonight outlining the widespread cover-up of clerical sex
abuse here.

'This World: The Shame of the Catholic Church' is said to focus on
Cardinal Sean Brady's role in an ecclesiastical investigation that led
to the silencing of two victims of Fr Brendan Smyth.

Victims of paedophile priests in Co Donegal will also tell how the
church failed to deal with complaints which allowed one cleric to
continue to abuse more victims.

The broadcaster has refused to comment on the investigation by
reporter Darragh Mac Intyre but BBC sources say the documentary has
"powerful
testimony" from abuse victims.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/brady-under-pressure-as-sex-abuse-victims-talk-of-coverup-3096117.html


Fresh claims put pressure on Cardinal Brady
By Andy Martin BBC News
1 May 2012

Cardinal Brady became the Catholic Primate of all-Ireland in 1996, but
the appointment that may define his career was made 21 years earlier.

As a Bishop's secretary in 1975, he was tasked with investigating a
complaint of sexual abuse made against a fellow priest, the man who
would later be exposed as Ireland's most prolific paedophile, Fr
Brendan Smyth....

Following two major and damning reports into the handling of clerical
abuse in Ireland, it emerged that Ireland's most senior Catholic
Priest had himself been involved in a process in which sex abuse was
kept from the civil authorities....

However, McIntyre's BBC investigation reveals that the teenage victim,
Brendan Boland, had also told the then Father Brady and his
colleagues, about other children who were being abused by Smyth.

He even furnished the investigating priest and his colleagues with
their names and addresses.

Father Brady interviewed one of those boys, who corroborated each of
Brendan Boland's claims before being sworn to secrecy.

Father Brady however, failed to inform any parent of the children in
the group that they had been abused. Nor were the police told of
Smyth's crimes against them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17853126




The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the Courtroom, Not in DSM-5
Timothy M. Houchin, MD, John Ranseen, PhD, Phillip A. K. Hash, DO,
PhD and Daniel J. Bartnicki, JD
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 40:1:127-131 (January 2012) - the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

The DSM-5 Task Force is presently considering whether to adopt
parental alienation disorder (PAD) as a mental illness. Although
controversy has surrounded PAD since its inception in 1985, pro-PAD
groups and individuals have breathed new life into the push to
establish it as a mental health diagnosis. In this analysis, we argue
that it would be a serious mistake to adopt parental alienation
disorder as a formal mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)....

The Origin of PAS

Richard Gardner, formerly a psychoanalyst and child psychiatrist on
the clinical faculty at Columbia University, introduced the term
parental alienation syndrome in his 1985 debut article on the
subject....he openly supported abolishing child abuse reporting laws
and controversially declared that sexual abuse cases are “turn-ons”
for those involved in the court process, including lawyers and judges.
Despite these unusual claims, Gardner was highly sought as an expert
witness, testifying in over 400 child custody cases before the end of
his career....

Controversial since its inception, PAS has compelled many scholars to
write articles critical of Gardner's theory. Kelly and Johnston have
been noteworthy critics of PAS, writing in their 2001 article, “The
Alienated Child, A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome, ”
that “PAS terminology has led to widespread confusion and
misunderstanding in judicial, legal, and psychological circles” (Ref.
9, p 250). They also highlighted the lack of empirical support for PAS
as a psychiatric diagnosis and the barring of PAS testimony in many
courtrooms....

Criticisms of PAS have not been limited to mental health
professionals, as legal scholars have also been loath to accept the
premise that parental alienation should be formally classified as a
mental illness. For example, in her 2002 article, “Parental Alienation
Syndrome and Alienation: Getting it Wrong in Child Custody Cases,”12
Carol S. Bruch, JD, voiced concern with Gardner's tendency to cite his
own, non-peer-reviewed books and publications on PAS. She noted that
in one typical article, Gardner cited 10 sources: 9 writings of his
own and 1 by Sigmund Freud. She further refuted Gardner's suggestion
that PAS was a generally accepted psychiatric phenomenon by pointing
out that, when the validity of PAS was challenged in court, his
testimony was often excluded.

In our opinion, Gardner's approach of self-publishing books and then
citing himself as an authoritative reference in the scholarly
literature went beyond simple self-aggrandizement; it was frankly
misleading. We agree with Ms. Bruch that the inaccurate portrayal of
PAS as an accepted and credible diagnosis gets it wrong on many
levels. http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/1/127.full

[Greegor]

Is this argument about whether Parental Alienation
is real or whether it should be in the DSM-V?

'Cause there's lots of FAR less plausible stuff
in the DSM and even more that was in the DSM but
bad to be ripped out or toned down.

Almost anybody who ever got divorced, were
raised inside of a divorce, or had a close
friend who went through divorce knows that
"Parental Alienation" is not rare at all.

Whose interests are you serving if you
are against believing in a human behavior
that plays out so very commonly?

What is YOUR opinion that motivated you
to post this story, "childadvocate"?

[childadvocate]

The DSM is a very well researched book. Everything in it is backed by
solid research.

The article about PAD (The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the
Courtroom, Not in DSM-5 ) states:
"In the authors' opinion, there is nothing wrong with using the term
parental alienation to describe one parent's “campaign of
denigration” (see below) against another. However, there is no good
purpose served in deciding to mold an arguably contentious, collateral
process of divorce into a diagnosable mental illness."
http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/1/127.full

[Greegor]

Doctor Professor Sir Roy Meadows SHREDDED the
PEER REVIEWED ground breaking research that he
used to create the Munchausen By Proxy scam.
How did he manage to SHRED such ground breaking
and HISTORICAL research? Such documents are
usually enshrined in the non-circulating part
of a university library!

Even more bizarre is that it was PEER REVIEWED
so didn't the ""PEERS"" each have a copy of it?

He promoted it as existing at levels 50+
times more frequently than it really existed.

Others promoted MBP as existing at levels
thousand of times more frequently than it
actually existed in human populations.
They did this to gain MONEY and POWER.
This overdiagnosis bred an entire culture
of lies and dishonesty by ""authorities""
who didn't even have the education or
credentials they'd supposedly need to
""diagnose"" such a disorder.

The "solid research" you referred to is
clearly a bunch of bologna.

Perhaps you MISSED the way that
MBP CHANGED severely in the DSM?

Could you or anybody please provide a copy
of Dr Professor Sir Roy Meadows MBP research
so that it can be reinvestigated after
he was caught at PERJURY by a British Court?

As for the DSM, surely you do know that
various listings in DSM are more motivated
by politics (and billing codes) of the APA
and about politics of the day than the sort
of thorough (inimpeachable?) research you
pretend?

Homosexuality was once a "disease" in
the DSM but because APA became gay
friendly, that is no longer the case.

Apparently one of the two was not so
well "researched" as you presented.

I would suggest that lots of the DSM
billing codes are about profitablity,
legal liability, politics etc. rather
than being as much about expertise
as you present.

Your eagerness to sing the praises of
DSM despite the MANY controversies
implies to me that you have a political
or financial bias.

In fact, what IS your full and true
agenda, "childadvocate"?

Who exactly are you lobbying for?

CWLA? APA? Some Social Worker's LABOR UNION? What?

Why do you use multiple and secret posting identities?
Why are you an anonymous lobbyist on usenet?
Why are you afraid to identify yourself?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

[...]

The DSM has attracted praise for standardizing psychiatric diagnostic
categories and criteria. It has also attracted controversy and
criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific
system that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists.
There are ongoing issues concerning the validity and reliability of
the diagnostic categories; the reliance on superficial symptoms; the
use of artificial dividing lines between categories and from
'normality'; possible cultural bias; medicalization of human distress
and financial conflicts of interest, including with the practice of
psychiatrists and with the pharmaceutical industry; political
controversies about the inclusion or exclusion of diagnoses from the
manual, in general or in regard to specific issues; and the experience
of those who are most directly affected by the manual by being
diagnosed, including the consumer/survivor movement. The publication
of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights, now makes APA over $5
million a year, historically adding up to over $100 million.

[...]

Validity and reliabilityThe most fundamental scientific criticism of
the DSM concerns the validity and reliability of its diagnoses. This
refers, roughly, to whether the disorders it defines are actually real
conditions in people in the real world, that can be consistently
identified by its criteria. These are long-standing criticisms of the
DSM, originally highlighted by the Rosenhan experiment in the 1970s,
and continuing despite some improved reliability since the
introduction of more specific rule-based criteria for each condition.
[4][32][33][34]

Proponents argue that the inter-rater reliability of DSM diagnoses
(via a specialized Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID)
rather than usual psychiatric assessment) is reasonable, and that
there is good evidence of distinct patterns of mental, behavioral or
neurological dysfunction to which the DSM disorders correspond well.
It is accepted, however, that there is an "enormous" range of
reliability findings in studies,[35] and that validity is unclear
because, given the lack of diagnostic laboratory or neuroimaging
tests, standard clinical interviews are "inherently limited" and only
a ("flawed") "best estimate diagnosis" is possible even with full
assessment of all data over time.[36]

Critics, such as psychiatrist Niall McLaren, argue that the DSM lacks
validity because it has no relation to an agreed scientific model of
mental disorder and therefore the decisions taken about its categories
(or even the question of categories versus dimensions) were not
scientific ones; and that it lacks reliability partly because
different diagnoses share many criteria, and what appear to be
different criteria are often just rewordings of the same idea, meaning
that the decision to allocate one diagnosis or another to a patient is
to some extent a matter of personal prejudice.[37]

[edit] Superficial symptomsBy design, the DSM is primarily concerned
with the signs and symptoms of mental disorders, rather than the
underlying causes. It claims to collect them together based on
statistical or clinical patterns. As such, it has been compared to a
naturalist’s field guide to birds, with similar advantages and
disadvantages.[38] The lack of a causative or explanatory basis,
however, is not specific to the DSM, but rather reflects a general
lack of pathophysiological understanding of psychiatric disorders. As
DSM-III chief architect Robert Spitzer and DSM-IV editor Michael First
outlined in 2005, "little progress has been made toward understanding
the pathophysiological processes and etiology of mental disorders. If
anything, the research has shown the situation is even more complex
than initially imagined, and we believe not enough is known to
structure the classification of psychiatric disorders according to
etiology."[39] However, the DSM is based on an underlying structure
that assumes discrete medical disorders that can be separated from
each other by symptom patterns. Its claim to be "atheoretical" is held
to be unconvincing because it makes sense if and only if all mental
disorder is categorical by nature, which only a biological model of
mental disorder can satisfy. However, the Manual recognizes
psychological causes of mental disorder, for example, PTSD, so that it
negates its only possible justification.[37]

The DSM's focus on superficial symptoms is claimed to be largely a
result of necessity (assuming such a manual is nevertheless produced),
since there is no agreement on a more explanatory classification
system. Reviewers note, however, that this approach is undermining
research, including in genetics, because it results in the grouping of
individuals who have very little in common except superficial criteria
as per DSM or ICD diagnosis.[4]

Despite the lack of consensus on underlying causation, advocates for
specific psychopathological paradigms have nonetheless faulted the
current diagnostic scheme for not incorporating evidence-based models
or findings from other areas of science. A recent example is
evolutionary psychologists' criticism that the DSM does not
differentiate between genuine cognitive malfunctions and those induced
by psychological adaptations, a key distinction within evolutionary
psychology, but one widely challenged within general psychology.[40]
[41][42] Another example is a strong operationalist viewpoint, which
contends that reliance on operational definitions, as purported by the
DSM, necessitates that intuitive concepts such as depression be
replaced by specific measurable concepts before they are
scientifically meaningful. One critic states of psychologists that
"Instead of replacing 'metaphysical' terms such as 'desire' and
'purpose', they used it to legitimize them by giving them operational
definitions...the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas
eventually came to serve as little more than a 'reassurance
fetish' (Koch 1992) for mainstream methodological practice."[43]

[edit] Dividing linesDespite caveats in the introduction to the DSM,
it has long been argued that its system of classification makes
unjustified categorical distinctions between disorders, and uses
arbitrary cut-offs between normal and abnormal. A 2009 psychiatric
review noted that attempts to demonstrate natural boundaries between
related DSM syndromes, or between a common DSM syndrome and normality,
have failed.[4] Some argue that rather than a categorical approach, a
fully dimensional, spectrum or complaint-oriented approach would
better reflect the evidence.[44][45][46][47]

In addition, it is argued that the current approach based on exceeding
a threshold of symptoms does not adequately take into account the
context in which a person is living, and to what extent there is
internal disorder of an individual versus a psychological response to
adverse situations.[48][49] The DSM does include a step ("Axis IV")
for outlining "Psychosocial and environmental factors contributing to
the disorder" once someone is diagnosed with that particular disorder.

Because an individual's degree of impairment is often not correlated
with symptom counts, and can stem from various individual and social
factors, the DSM's standard of distress or disability can often
produce false positives.[50] On the other hand, individuals who do not
meet symptom counts may nevertheless experience comparable distress or
disability in their life.

[edit] Cultural biasSome psychiatrists also argue that current
diagnostic standards rely on an exaggerated interpretation of
neurophysiological findings and so understate the scientific
importance of social-psychological variables.[51] Advocating a more
culturally sensitive approach to psychology, critics such as Carl Bell
and Marcello Maviglia contend that the cultural and ethnic diversity
of individuals is often discounted by researchers and service
providers.[52] In addition, current diagnostic guidelines have been
criticized as having a fundamentally Euro-American outlook. Although
these guidelines have been widely implemented, opponents argue that
even when a diagnostic criteria set is accepted across different
cultures, it does not necessarily indicate that the underlying
constructs have any validity within those cultures; even reliable
application can only demonstrate consistency, not legitimacy.[51]
Cross-cultural psychiatrist Arthur Kleinman contends that the Western
bias is ironically illustrated in the introduction of cultural factors
to the DSM-IV: the fact that disorders or concepts from non-Western or
non-mainstream cultures are described as "culture-bound", whereas
standard psychiatric diagnoses are given no cultural qualification
whatsoever, is to Kleinman revelatory of an underlying assumption that
Western cultural phenomena are universal.[53] Kleinman's negative view
towards the culture-bound syndrome is largely shared by other cross-
cultural critics, common responses included both disappointment over
the large number of documented non-Western mental disorders still left
out, and frustration that even those included were often
misinterpreted or misrepresented.[54] Many mainstream psychiatrists
have also been dissatisfied with these new culture-bound diagnoses,
although not for the same reasons. Robert Spitzer, a lead architect of
the DSM-III, has held the opinion that the addition of cultural
formulations was an attempt to placate cultural critics, and that they
lack any scientific motivation or support. Spitzer also posits that
the new culture-bound diagnoses are rarely used in practice,
maintaining that the standard diagnoses apply regardless of the
culture involved. In general, the mainstream psychiatric opinion
remains that if a diagnostic category is valid, cross-cultural factors
are either irrelevant or are only significant to specific symptom
presentations.[51]

[edit] Medicalization and financial conflicts of interestIt has also
been alleged that the way the categories of the DSM are structured, as
well as the substantial expansion of the number of categories, are
representative of an increasing medicalization of human nature, which
may be attributed to disease mongering by psychiatrists and
pharmaceutical companies, the power and influence of the latter having
grown dramatically in recent decades.[55] Of the authors who selected
and defined the DSM-IV psychiatric disorders, roughly half had had
financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry at one time,
raising the prospect of a direct conflict of interest.[56] In 2005,
then American Psychiatric Association President Steven Sharfstein
released a statement in which he conceded that psychiatrists had
"allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model".
[57]

However, although the number of identified diagnoses has increased by
more than 200% (from 106 in DSM-I to 365 in DSM-IV-TR), psychiatrists
such as Zimmerman and Spitzer argue it almost entirely represents
greater specification of the forms of pathology, thereby allowing
better grouping of more similar patients.[4] William Glasser, however,
refers to the DSM as "phony diagnostic categories", arguing that "it
was developed to help psychiatrists – to help them make money".[58] In
addition, the publishing of the DSM, with tightly guarded copyrights,
has in itself earned over $100 million for the American Psychiatric
Association.[59]

[edit] Political controversiesThere is scientific and political
controversy regarding the continued inclusion of sex-related diagnoses
such as the paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and hypoactive sexual desire
disorder (low sex drive to asexuality). Critics of these and other
controversial diagnoses often cite the DSM's previous inclusion of
homosexuality, and the APA's eventual decision to remove it, as a
precedent for current disputes.[60]

It is still occasionally argued that homosexuality should be
considered a mental disorder. Two psychologists associated with
Christian colleges in the US have argued that it is not conclusive
that homosexuality does not meet the DSM's criteria, based on their
review of some of the research relating to claims of statistical
infrequency, personal distress, maladaptiveness and deviation from
social norms.[61] The consensus, however, in position statements from
the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological
Association and other institutions in many other countries, is that
the research and clinical literature demonstrate that homosexuality is
a normal and positive variation of human sexuality, and that any
social exclusion or difficulties with homosexuality are a problem of
society.[62][63]

Disputes over inclusion or exclusion in the DSM can underscore the
fact that reevaluation of controversial disorders can be viewed as a
political as well as scientific decision. Indeed, Robert Spitzer, a
past editor and leading proponent of scientific impartiality in the
DSM, conceded that a significant reason that certain diagnoses (the
paraphilias) would not, in his opinion, be removed from the DSM is
because "it would be a public relations disaster for psychiatry".[64]

A similar line of criticism has appeared in non-specialist venues. In
1997, Harper's Magazine published an essay, ostensibly a book review
of the DSM-IV, that criticized the lack of hard science and the
proliferation of disorders. The language of the DSM was described as
"simultaneously precise and vague" in order to provide an aura of
scientific objectivity yet not limit psychiatrists in a semantic or
financial sense, and the manual itself compared to "a militia's Web
page, insofar as it constitutes an alternative reality under siege" by
critics.[65]

Other critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system
that enshrines the opinions of a few powerful psychiatrists.[66] One
paper argued that every expert involved in writing the diagnostic
criteria for DSM-IV disorders depression and schizophrenia had
financial ties to drug companies.[67]

[edit] Consumers and survivorsA consumer is a person who accesses
psychiatric services and may been given a diagnosis from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, while a
survivor self-identifies as having survived psychiatric intervention
and the mental health system (which may have involved involuntary
commitment and involuntary treatment). Some are relieved to find that
they have a recognized condition to which they can give a name.
Indeed, many people self-diagnose. Others, however, feel they have
been given a "label" that invites social stigma and discrimination
(i.e. mentalism), or one that they simply do not feel is accurate.
Diagnoses can become internalized and affect an individual's self-
identity, and some psychotherapists find that this can worsen symptoms
and inhibit the healing process.[68] Some in the Psychiatric survivors
movement (more broadly the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement)
actively campaign against their diagnosis, or its assumed
implications, and/or against the DSM system in general. It has been
noted that the DSM often uses definitions and terminology that are
inconsistent with a recovery model, and that can erroneously imply
excess psychopathology (e.g. multiple "comorbid" diagnoses) or
chronicity.[69]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association

Drug company ties

In his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (2010), Robert Whitaker described
the partnership that has developed between the APA and pharmaceutical
companies since the 1980s.[13] APA has come to depend on
pharmaceutical money.[13] The drug companies endowed continuing
education and psychiatric "grand rounds" at hospitals. They funded a
political action committee (PAC) in 1982 to lobby Congress.[13] The
industry helped to pay for the APA's media training workshops.[13] It
was able to turn psychiatrists at top schools into speakers, and
although the doctors felt they were independents, they rehearsed their
speeches and likely would not be invited back if they discussed drug
side effects.[13] "Thought leaders" became the experts quoted in the
media.[13] As Marcia Angell wrote in The New England Journal of
Medicine (2000), "thought leaders" could agree to be listed as an
author of ghostwritten articles,[14] and she cites Thomas Bodenheimer
and David Rothman who describe the extent of the drug industry's
involvement with doctors.[15][16] The New York Times published a
summary about antipsychotic medications in October 2010.[17]

Controversies

Controversies have related to anti-psychiatry and disability rights
campaigners, who regularly protest at American Psychiatric Association
offices or meetings. In 1971, members of the Gay Liberation Front
organization sabotaged an APA conference in San Francisco. In 2003
activists from MindFreedom International staged a 21-day hunger
strike, protesting at a perceived unjustified biomedical focus and
challenging APA to provide evidence of the widespread claim that
mental disorders are due to chemical imbalances in the brain. APA
published a position statement in response[18] and the two
organizations exchanged views on the evidence.

There was controversy when it emerged that US psychologists and
psychiatrists were helping interrogators in Guantanamo and other US
facilities. The American Psychiatric Association released a policy
statement that psychiatrists should not take a direct part in
interrogation of particular prisoners [19] but could "offer general
advice on the possible medical and psychological effects of particular
techniques and conditions of interrogation, and on other areas within
their professional expertise."

After previous controversy over APA's classification of homosexuality
as a mental illness, there is also controversy regarding the remaining
category of "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" which can
include a state of distress about one's sexual orientation, as well as
the diagnosis of "gender identity disorder" or gender dysphoria.[20]

The APA's Standard Diagnostic Manual came under criticism from autism
specialists Tony Attwood and Simon Baron-Cohen for proposing the
elimination of Asperger's syndrome as a disorder and replacing it with
an autism severity scale. Professor Roy Richard Grinker wrote a
controversial editorial for the New York Times expressing support for
the proposal.

The APA president in 2005, Sharfstein, caused controversy when,
although praising the pharmaceutical industry, he argued that American
psychiatry had "allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-
bio-bio model" and accepted "kickbacks and bribes" from pharmaceutical
companies leading to the over-use of medication and neglect of other
approaches.[21] In 2008 APA became a focus of congressional
investigations regarding the way that money from the pharmaceutical
industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that
purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions. The drug
industry accounted in 2006 for about 30 percent of the association’s
$62.5 million in financing, half through drug advertisements in its
journals and meeting exhibits, and the other half sponsoring
fellowships, conferences and industry symposiums at its annual
meeting. APA is considering its response to increasingly intense
scrutiny and questions about conflicts of interest.[22] The APA
president of 2009-2010, Alan Schatzberg, has also come under fire
after it came to light that he was principal investigator on a federal
study into a drug being developed by Corcept Therapeutics, a company
Schatzberg had himself set up and in which he had several millions of
dollars’ worth of stock.[23]

[childadvocate]

Sir Roy Meadow is controversial and his statements have been
questioned.

"Sir Roy has become notorious as a central figure in three high
profile miscarriages of justice. He gave expert evidence in the trials
of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony. All three women
were convicted of killing their children - and all three have
subsequently been exonerated by the Court of Appeal after lengthy
periods in prison."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4432273.stm


Prof Sir Roy Meadow, the paediatrician whose statistical error in the
Sally Clark murder case led to her wrongful conviction, won his appeal
yesterday against a finding by the General Medical Council that he was
guilty of serious professional misconduct....

In 2003, however, three appeal judges thought it very likely that Sir
Roy's statistic "grossly overstates the chance of two sudden deaths
within the same family from unexplained but natural causes".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510798/Sir-Roy-Meadow-the-flawed-witness-wins-GMC-appeal.html


Cutting and pasting Wikipedia is not helpful. Wikipedia is primarily
written by anonymous editors with unknown credentials. It is not fact
checked. Even Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source.


You should read the DSM. If you read the introduction, you will see
the amount of research that is put into its pages and diagnoses. It
has limitations like any book. But it is the best diagnostic manual
out there for describing mental illnesses.


http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/book.aspx?bookid=22
http://www.psychiatry.org/practice/dsm
http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

[Greegor]

The most profound caviat about the DSM is
that it can be horribly misused and abused
by unqualified individuals.

Who are you and what are your qualifications?

[childadvocate]

Any book can be misused. The DSM is very helpful in diagnosing and
treating those that suffer from mental illness.

[Greegor]

On May 12, 12:35 am, childadvocate <smartn...@aol.com> wrote:
> Any book can be misused. The DSM is very helpful in diagnosing and
> treating those that suffer from mental illness.

Without credentials you're just flapping your gums.

It's incredible how you deny issues that
exist even among the qualified people themselves.

What's your TRUE motivation for
acting as a cheerleader on this?

What is your education and field of work, when you do?

Do you know Diana Napolis personally?
How well do you know her?

Do you think her psychiatrists found
the DSM to be very useful?

[childadvocate]

Facts are true regardless of credentials. What are your credentials
and motivation ?

Bringing in side issues is irrelevant. The discussion is about the
DSM.

[Greegor]

You extolled the perfection and authority
of the DSM which is a crock.
APA itself has been forced to acknowledge
various and grievous failings of DSM.

The DSM itself warns against use of DSM
by unqualified people, like you.

Even the APA does not pretend the DSM
is "facts". Your absolutism is exactly
the kind of abuse/misuse they warn against.

It is as if you have turned the DSM
into your "holy writ" or something.

Do you know Diana Napolis personally?

Do you know her?
ARE you Diana Napolis?

How many different nyms do you
use to post these stories?

Do you intend to conceal your ulterior motive?

I'm not concealing my past and my ID.

You are.

[childadvocate]

I never stated the DSM is perfect, nor have I promoted any
"absolutism."
I stated "The DSM is very helpful in diagnosing and treating those

that suffer from mental illness."

You put words in mouth, debating points I never made.

You personalize the argument unnecessarily, adding untruths and
personal attacks.

BTW I am not DN.

[Greegor]

On May 13, 4:17 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 1:26 pm, childadvocate <smartn...@aol.com> wrote:
>

> You extolled the perfection and authority
> of the DSM which is a crock.
> APA itself has been forced to acknowledge
> various and grievous failings of DSM.
>
> The DSM itself warns against use of DSM
> by unqualified people, like you.
>
> Even the APA does not pretend the DSM
> is "facts". Your absolutism is exactly
> the kind of abuse/misuse they warn against.
>
> It is as if you have turned the DSM
> into your "holy writ" or something.
>
> Do you know Diana Napolis personally?
> Do you know her?
> ARE you Diana Napolis?
>
> How many different nyms do you
> use to post these stories?
>
> Do you intend to conceal your ulterior motive?
>
> I'm not concealing my past and my ID.
>
> You are.

On May 13, 1:43 pm, childadvocate <smartn...@aol.com> wrote:
> I never stated the DSM is perfect, nor have I promoted any
> "absolutism."
> I stated "The DSM is very helpful in diagnosing and treating those
> that suffer from mental illness."
> You put words in mouth, debating points I never made.

You said (and I quote, with a LINK) :
--------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/a9ab0bdff4345c4b?hl=en&dmode=source

The DSM is a very well researched book.
Everything in it is backed by solid research.

------------------

You seriously exaggerated it's validity.
APA themselves warn against such BS.

You ad-hommed Wikipedia, actually
and without even citing even one
inaccuracy thereof.

> You personalize the argument unnecessarily,
> adding untruths and personal attacks.

You hide behind anonymity.
You unrealistically glorified the DSM.
The APA itself warns against the way
that you exaggerated it's scientific basis.

You use various nyms to post news stories
but you are evasive about your sentiments,
purpose or ulterior purpose.

It's clear that you have SOME kind of agenda,
and it closely resembles that of Diana Napolis.

> BTW I am not DN.

What is your connection to Diana Napolis?

How exactly did you come to be
involved in this issue?

What kind of education and work
did you train in related to this issue?

How you you explain the nature of your nym "childadvocate"?

Diana Napolis considers herself to be exactly that.
(On her better days.)

So how do you supposedly differ from Diana?

Do you or did you work in any
industry related to this issue?

What is your conflict of interest that
had you exaggerating the validity of DSM?

[Greegor]

I figured that news reporter and childadvocate
were the same person at first glance long ago,
and sure enough, both have the same
Springfield Mass IP address.