The American Psychiatric Association (APA) will publish the next edition of the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5) in May 2013. Here is their website for the proposed changes where you can give feedback to the taskforce:
http://www.dsm5.org/pages/default.aspx Some proposed changes include the introduction of new disorders, such as hypersexual disorder, absexual disorder and relational disorder; and the change of others, such as the change of schizophrenia disorders to the attenuated psychosis disorder. Many within the psychiatric profession have raised criticism against the project. One main criticism is that all DSM-5 task force members have signed a non-disclosure agreement, meaning that they can conduct the entire process in secret. However, since the criticism, APA has instituted a disclosure policy, giving others the opportunity to challenge the propositions. A second concern is the strong financial ties between the task members and the pharmaceutical companies. This was a problem already with DSM-IV. One study demonstrated that 56 % of the panel responsible for DSM-IV had at least one financial tie with the pharmaceutical industry: http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/DSM%20COI.PDF For DSM-5, it is suggested that 70 % of the taskforce have financial ties, an increase by 14 %. A third concern is that the creation of new categories or lowering of thresholds of existent categories may lead to false epidemics of disorders. Dr Allen Frances, who led the project of revising DSM-IV, believes his project led to false epidemics in childhood disorders such as autism and ADHD. He points to the fact that in 1994, 5 % of all children were diagnosed with ADHD. Today the number has reached 10 %. You can see an interview with Dr Frances here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/mentalillness_02-10.html The British psychological association (BPS) has defied DSM-5, stating that classifying psychological problems as illnesses misses out the social context (such as poverty, trauma, unemployment). They are concerned over the overmedicalisation and the scant biological evidence for the disorders. Further on, they point to the already known problems of DSM, such as the validity, reliability, prognostic value (meaning the point of having a diagnosis for the disorder) and comorbidity (many disorders usually coexist with other disorders). BPS proposes that mental distress should be recognized as being on a spectrum of normal experience and that a classification system should be based on symptoms and not disorders. They seem heavily influenced by Mirowsky and Moncrieff. Mirowsky has demonstrated that psychological symptoms do not map into categories of psychological disorders in population samples. Moncrieff is a researcher who is highly critical to diagnostic labels and medication for psychological disorders. You can read BPS feedback to APA's DSM-5 here: http://apps.bps.org.uk/_publicationfiles/consultation-responses/DSM-5%202011%20-%20BPS%20response.pdf
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis is my class blog for IB Psychology. Here I will publish reflections on psychology, reviews of psychology books, recommended links, lecture notes, and information on psychology topics that are not covered by the syllabus. You are free to add comments or ask me questions. Archives
August 2015
Categories
All
|