Overview of the DSM V
There is a great expectation about the coming appearance of the DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual, the fifth edition of the Bible of Psychiatry. In addition, we can observe a tremendous crisis in the psychiatric field being provoked by its publication.
I quote from “On to DSM-V” by Nassir Ghaemi, MD
http://boards.medscape.com/forums?128@769.K7YLaSaQpaT@.29fca97f!comment=1
(In order to access you must join the blog/website.)
“In recent months, there has been back-and-forth between the heads of DSM-III (Robert Spitzer) and DSM-IV (Allen Frances), on one side, and the leaders of DSM-V (David Kupfer and colleagues), on the other. Frances in particular has been vocal in articles in the Psychiatric Times and the British Journal of Psychiatry.”
Their discussion is centered in the idea that their changes must be done if “strong scientific evidence exists to do so.” Since I do not believe that the strong scientific evidence will ever exist, I wrote them a letter, which went as follows,
“Dear committee writing the ultra brand new DSM V:
I have several suggestions for the DSM V or DSM-FW, (DSM for Fantasy Writers). The following were made after a careful reflection of the role of mental illness and its labels.
“Psychiatrifobia”: name psychiatrists secretly and intimately give to those who are “mentally ill” for not trusting them and for denouncing the fakeness of the “mental illness”.
“Nasocomesonia”: “mental illness” that refers to scratching your nose.
“Sleep Eye-Mucus Extraction Syndrome”: No comment.
“Challenged Facebook Mania”: a “mental illness” deriving from feeling dared by people in the FB wall.
“Attention on the Screen Superavit”: a “mental illness” manifested by too much TV or computer screen attention time.
“Facebooking Hypoactivity”: a “mental illness” manifested by using up hours and hours in the Facebook.
“Twitter Span of Attention Disorder: the handicap of 140 characters to read and write every time even when writing reports or reading books.
“Passive Vouyerism”: a “mental illness” based on enjoying to be seen enjoying things.
“Text Autistic Syndrome”: a “mental illness” consisting on being in a get-together with people who texts other people who are not in the same room.
“Obsessive Armpit Smelling”: No comment.
“Compulsive Ass-scratching Behavior”: No comment.
“Tantrumforia”: a “mental illness” consisting on getting mad as hell for reading the DSM V stupidities.
“Hollowness Labelling Disorder”: a “mental illness” suffered by psychiatrists who are making up the DSM-FW by raising each their right hand to vote for it. (No scientific research necessary). Also called, Hollowmania as the “mental illness” or “compulsion” to create hollow labels for possible mental illnesses.
“Psychotroid”: true believer, fanatic, devout to psychiatry and psychology. Equivalent to Buddhist for the Buddhism and Christian for the Christianity.
We need a dictionary of Hollow Labels and a Scientific Treatise of All Existing Mental Illnesses And Whatever We Think Up Of In The Future.” End of the letter.
The answers were astonishing. Some had recognized that psychiatry is no science at all and others staunchly defended the medical model.
One phrase struck me, “Most of our psychiatric diagnoses ere (sic) not based on scientific findings.”
And one of the panelists said some very revealing things, as you will see in the context of my answer.
“From originally, # 20 and # 35, to answer your question # 36: There are several clues about this.
“The first one is that hated and loathed and practically excommunicated Dr. Thomas Szasz who answered this in a very painstaking and too obvious way. There is no “schizococo” nor anything of the sort. Most of the confusions come from basic and evident definitions. No forensic will be able to find “schizophrenia” or “paranoia” from a corpse, or a “mental imbalance” producing those. He might find organic illnesses like cancer, the flu or syphilis but won’t be able to find any “mental illness”.
“Regarding psychiatric drugs, you need to sit down and watch any American TV channel for an hour. You will find adverse reactions after adverse reactions after adverse reactions announced to the world at large. Amazingly, psychiatry has managed to survive to those. The cycle goes: “patient” A is given psychiatric drug B by psychiatrist C. Then “patient” A apparently gets better. After a while, “patient” A starts having a hard time with adverse reactions from psychiatric drug B, so psychiatrist C changes the prescription from psychiatric drug B to psychiatric drug D. Then “patient” A apparently gets better. After a while, “patient” A starts having a hard time with adverse reactions from psychiatric drug D, so psychiatrist C changes the prescription from psychiatric drug D to psychiatric drugs E and F. Then “patient” A apparently gets better. After a while, “patient” A starts having a hard time with adverse reactions from psychiatric drugs E and F…etc. It would be ad infinitum if the “patients” had terrific and superb toleration but at the end…well, if you have watched TV just for an afternoon, you know what happens. They are hooked for life. You know it and I know it, it does not come as a surprise.
“There is another clue, which is very interesting and it is found in the comment from # 32 who found my “proposal”…”funny” that is “PD: an argumentum ad hominem on the house: Comment #20, funny, but we’re professionals here. Such comments belong more in the ‘women’s weekly’ blog”. Why is it so? Why is such proposal “funny”?
The answer is simple: Because, many people believe whatever psychiatrists say, and you may “punk” almost anyone by creating such absurd labels…I did it, that’s why I know. If anyone invented “organic illnesses” just for the sake of in the context of organic medicine, people would laugh, as it happened with Moliere’s work. That would not happen to physics or sociology, or authentic medicine in a non-serious milieu; it is happening to psychiatry though.
Some people BELIEVED that what was made as a joke, was in fact…a fact; for many of the DSM classifications would be simply hilarious, if no psychiatric drugs with terrible adverse reactions were prescribed for non-existent illnesses. It is very easy to put labels to non-existent illnesses…which, by the way, is what the DSM is all about.
The last clue comes from # 32’s allusion to Thomas Hobbes’ ‘social contract’ theory which give us the size of the crisis, for it is NOT a scientific argument but a political one, and the tremendous fear of having “Anyone with a big mouth” creating a new parallel, alternative version of the DSM.
Then you (# 36) say, “I really find it difficult to believe that some people think it’s all ‘a fake biochemical religion'”; well, some people think of it like that; which means you are in your own little crystal world bubble, and haven’t faced reality. In two words, you have a faith (“difficult to believe” means you believe in psychiatry über al). Your “psychotroids” and colleagues haven’t told you the truth…Calling psychiatry a “fake biochemical religion” is soft compared with the accusations you will find in some of the YouTube channels, which cavalierly so many psychiatrists dismiss.
The only ones that cannot see the crisis psychiatry and psychology are immersed in are most psychiatrists and psychologists (psychoanalysts are long gone before the bio-chemical model), and devout “psychotroids”. It’s quite a pity you are considering just one model and one model only under the terrible critique you are deaf from.”
I am expecting the answer of the latter for I am very surprised by the tremendous crisis that the DSM V is creating to the psychiatric field. This crisis is creating ripples all around psychiatric circles.
