New 'bible' for psychology, DSM 5

[Da Blob]

There was a short segment on PBS News tonight about this topic, plus a thing in the NY Times, so I thought i would start a thread for FYI or whatever. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (version 5) is now being cobbled together by a nonscientific process of ceding to the demands of special interest groups, lobbyists for drug companies and others who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This manual is the thick volume that is used by all mental health professionals for diagnosis of mental disorders. There is a great deal of behind the scenes politics involved in this process as billions of dollars are at stake for the drug and insurance industries.
Millions of people will have their lives affected by this non-governmental, non regulated process....

“Anything you put in that book, any little change you make, has huge implications not only for psychiatry but for pharmaceutical marketing, research, for the legal system, for who’s considered to be normal or not, for who’s considered disabled,” said Dr. Michael First, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University who edited the fourth edition of the manual but is not involved in the fifth.

Some of the proposed changes may have direct effect on some forum members...(?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/health/10psych.html?em

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

Personally i am going to be looking at the changes in personality disorders

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/PersonalityandPersonalityDisorders.aspx


EDIT: LOL, they should read some of the threads on this forum...
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/LevelsofPersonalityFunctioning.aspx

 

[Beat Mango]

A very interesting book I came across in the library, "Shyness" by Christopher Lane, exposed how the introverted personality came to be represented in the DSM as a personality disorder rather than a personality types.

Some of the changes look welcome though - a reduction from 10 to 5 personality disorders? Which means the schizoid and schizotypal types (commonly discussed here of course) will be put into one generic group - did I read that properly? And are they still proposing that "internet addiction" (lmao) becomes an official DSM entry?

 

[wadlez]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (version 5) is now being cobbled together by a nonscientific process of ceding to the demands of special interest groups, lobbyists for drug companies and others who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo

Thats a massive call, any actual observed evidence which points toward this? Sounds like the usual half baked conspiracy theory talk to me. There process is not 100% scientific because we do not 100% understand how these disorders work yet and there always has to be some subjectivity to it, like whether theres something wrong with someone or if there just living a lifestyle which contradicts what society expects.
This has to be evidence that evil pharmaceutical companys are manipulating the field of psychology to rule the world!

Definately has to be regulated by the goverment, people in goverment never act only in there best interest....
Heres an excercise, anyone here please link me to any situation where the goverment have put a regulation on a product or resource previously unregulated which has actually improved it.

Da blob aren't you supposed to be a therapist of some sort? What field of psychology do you subscribe to for this?

 

[Decaf]

Unfortunately they're getting away from purely research based entries because the DSM is no longer a scientific document. Its a legal one. It has become so important in legislation and court rulings that its been decided that it can no longer be in the hands of psychologists.

I don't see this transition as a purely negative change though. With the realization that it no longer acts as a repository of accepted knowledge I believe we will see the rise of an alternative manual that has the strength of not being needed by lawyers or politicians to accomplish their ends. It also allows for a bit of a restart (which was very much needed since the implementation of the DSM-IV).

Great news? no. Terrible news? not really.

 

[Da Blob]

Thats a massive call, any actual observed evidence which points toward this? Sounds like the usual half baked conspiracy theory talk to me. There process is not 100% scientific because we do not 100% understand how these disorders work yet and there always has to be some subjectivity to it, like whether theres something wrong with someone or if there just living a lifestyle which contradicts what society expects.
This has to be evidence that evil pharmaceutical companys are manipulating the field of psychology to rule the world!

Definately has to be regulated by the goverment, people in goverment never act only in there best interest....
Heres an excercise, anyone here please link me to any situation where the goverment have put a regulation on a product or resource previously unregulated which has actually improved it.

Da blob aren't you supposed to be a therapist of some sort? What field of psychology do you subscribe to for this?

Again my principle objection to this process is that it is a power play on the part of academicians. If asked what scientific evidence supports any give change, the authors might be hard pressed to provide such. A lot of the changes are the result of change in opinion (for one reason or another) and not changes in objective evidence.

I personally, would like to see a standard of 'mental disorders' being proven to exist on the basis of MRI scans or some other objective criteria, rather than this subjective peer-review method.

Examples of effective government regulation? While admittedly scarce, there was a time when Codeine, opium, cocaine and other addictive substances were available as over-the-counter products.

 

[Jennywocky]

Thats a massive call, any actual observed evidence which points toward this? Sounds like the usual half baked conspiracy theory talk to me. There process is not 100% scientific because we do not 100% understand how these disorders work yet and there always has to be some subjectivity to it, like whether theres something wrong with someone or if there just living a lifestyle which contradicts what society expects.

Unfortunately they're getting away from purely research based entries because the DSM is no longer a scientific document. Its a legal one. It has become so important in legislation and court rulings that its been decided that it can no longer be in the hands of psychologists.

I don't see this transition as a purely negative change though. With the realization that it no longer acts as a repository of accepted knowledge I believe we will see the rise of an alternative manual that has the strength of not being needed by lawyers or politicians to accomplish their ends. It also allows for a bit of a restart (which was very much needed since the implementation of the DSM-IV).

Thank you for some informative posts on the matter.

Since I'm involved with various forum groups, it's funny to me to see one person complain about something (for example) being too conservative an edit and another side complaining about it being too liberal.

Balance is good, and unfortunately insurance companies have become involved with the DSM to the degree that sometimes a diagnosis under one item will prevent suitable medical care, while a different one will enable it "off the books." It seems to be an unavoidable evil right now.

 

[wadlez]

Again my principle objection to this process is that it is a power play on the part of academicians. If asked what scientific evidence supports any give change, the authors might be hard pressed to provide such. A lot of the changes are the result of change in opinion (for one reason or another) and not changes in objective evidence.

I personally, would like to see a standard of 'mental disorders' being proven to exist on the basis of MRI scans or some other objective criteria, rather than this subjective peer-review method.

Fair enough

Examples of effective government regulation? While admittedly scarce, there was a time when Codeine, opium, cocaine and other addictive substances were available as over-the-counter products.

I dont want to derail this thread BUT there was a time in america when alcohol was illegal, everyone who wanted to drink still did and the criminal network this funded and created still exists to this day. All of these drugs are readily available right now, making it illegal has done nothing to stop it as I can easily go and purchase any of these drugs.What it has done is fund massive organized crime syndicates, made the drugs unsafe, put huge amounts of people in jail for non-violent drug offenses and is responsible for most of the murders in america.
Have a look at mexico, that country has been destroyed by there "war on drugs". They have a huge army of heavily armed police, the goverment is doing everything it can to stop the drug problem, meanwhile the drug syndicates there are better armed and richer than ever, all have heaps of money and the leader is the 41st most powerfull man in the world (from forbes magazine). Recently he got married to an 18 year old beauty queen (he's 54) and had a massive wedding which had mexican politicians in attendance. The primary drug he makes his money from is WEED!, WEED is causing all this anarchy, claiming thousands of lifes, destroying entire countrys. Why is it illegal? The only fact they can prove about weed: If you smoke weed you might become unmotivated, OFF TO JAIL WITH YOU!.

Opium, codeine, heroin and morphine all come from the same plant: the Opium poppy. Afghanistan has more poppie fields than any other country, 75% of the entire worlds heroin supply comes from afghanistan. This money funds al-Qaeda, who we are currently at war with (its there primary source of funding). We are literally building the army were at war with. The massive terrorist network which we need constant protection against and sacrifice our civil libertys for is funded by illegal drugs.
In summary, the regulation of drugs is directly and indirectly responsible for most of the worlds problems.