http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/shortcomings-of-a-psychiatric-bible.html

Patients and parents concerned about mental illness have every right to be confused. The head of the federal agency that finances mental health research has just declared that the most important diagnostic manual for psychiatric diseases lacks scientific validity and needs to be bolstered by a new classification system based on biology, not just psychiatric opinion. The hitch is that such a biology-based system will not be available for a decade or more.

The DSM V is the most destructive book every written to human relations. The so-called biological disorders are voted in or voted out. If they are biological than why have a vote. That is like a committee examining your biopsy and voting on weather you have a cancerous tumor. The committee has now decided that grief is a mental disorder. At one time they voted being gay as a mental disorder. The human experience is not a mental disorder. We may be distress from the challenge of living but that does not mean you have a mental illness with a biological basis. Instead, ordinary people being hurt by life events. Psychiatry has reduced being human to bio chemical reaction without any evidence. Read the article below and they admit there is no proof for a chemical imbalance. Yet they will give you addictive and dangerous brain drugs that do alter your chemistry.

Do not let anyone diagnosis you or a love one. Most of all do not let anyone give you or a love one psychiatric medication. How engaged and connected is the person making the diagnosis? How happy do they appear and do they like people?

EDITORIAL
Shortcomings of a Psychiatric Bible
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 11, 2013

Patients and parents concerned about mental illness have every right to be confused. The head of the federal agency that finances mental health research has just declared that the most important diagnostic manual for psychiatric diseases lacks scientific validity and needs to be bolstered by a new classification system based on biology, not just psychiatric opinion. The hitch is that such a biology-based system will not be available for a decade or more.
Related in Opinion

Opinion: Why the Fuss Over the D.S.M.-5? (May 12, 2013)
Today’s Editorials

Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, posted his critique of the manual in a “Director’s Blog”on April 29 and expanded on his reasoning in a recent interview with The New York Times. He was critiquing a forthcoming revision of the American Psychiatric Association ’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the first major reissue since 1994. Although there have been controversies over particular changes in diagnostic descriptions, he said, the new revision involves “mostly modest alterations” from its predecessor.

The psychiatric association’s diagnoses are mostly based on a professional consensus about what clusters of symptoms are associated with a disease, like depression, and not on any objective laboratory measure, like blood counts or other biological markers. The mental health institute says scientists have not produced the data needed to design a system based on biomarkers or cognitive measures. To fill the gap, the agency started a program two years ago to finance research in biology, genetics, neuroscience, cognitive science and other disciplines with the ultimate goal of helping scientists define disorders by their causes, rather than their symptoms.

The underlying problem is that research on mental disorders and treatment has stalled in the face of the incredible complexity of the brain. That is why major pharmaceutical companies have scaled back their programs to develop new psychiatric drugs; they cannot find new biological targets to shoot for. And that is why President Obama has started a long-term brain research initiative to develop new tools and techniques to study how billions of brain cells and neural circuits interact; the findings could lead to better ways to diagnose and treat psychiatric illnesses, though probably not for many years.

Meanwhile, the diagnostic manual remains the best tool to guide clinicians on how to diagnose disorders and treat patients. Consensus among mental health professionals will have to suffice until we can augment it with something better.

Comments are closed.